1 Introduction

This chapter discusses findings from the Connected Students program, a digital inclusion initiative delivered by Telstra (Australia’s largest telecommunications provider) and evaluated by researchers based at RMIT University. The program specifically aimed to address the affordability barriers to digital inclusion experienced by low-income households in a large regional town in Victoria, Australia. Drawing on findings from the program, this chapter outlines lessons and considerations for future digital inclusion programs.

Digital inclusion is multi-faceted: it requires access to connectivity and devices, the capacity to pay for these connections and devices, and the skills and literacies to effectively use and benefit from these connections and devices (Thomas et al., 2021). There is a rich literature engaged with digital inequalities. While digital divide debates gained ground in the 1990s, it is important to remember that, as Yates et al. (2015) tell us, study “of differences in access to and use of Information and Communication Technologies […] has been undertaken since the 1960s” (p. 1). The point being that these dynamics of inequality are not new, and, indeed, tend to conform to existing lines of deprivation.

Affordability barriers to digital inclusion involve both the costs of internet data, as well as the costs of accessing digital devices (Chen, 2017; Chen & Li, 2021). The role played by affordability in terms of facilitating or restricting experiences of digital inclusion has gained increasing attention, with this focus sharpened in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Campbell & Mithen, 2021; Harvey et al., 2021; Middleton, 2021; Robinson et al., 2020). In the move to online education, and the significant economic impacts resulting in job losses and income reductions, the impact of affordability barriers on low-income households has been heightened. Additionally, where households may have previously turned to public access points (e.g., libraries, or Wi-Fi in public spaces) to negotiate intermittent or non-existent access, with the introduction of restrictions on physical movement, these options were effectively removed (see, e.g., Elliot, 2018; Strover et al., 2020; Thiele, 2016 for discussion of the importance of such public access points).

For low-income households with school-aged children, affordability barriers to digital exclusion can result in what is sometimes called the ‘homework gap’. This gap refers to the difference between those students who can complete schoolwork at home because they have access to the necessary resources (e.g., reliable connectivity, and an available device), and those who are not (Bronzino et al., 2021; Gan & Sun, 2022; Lee, 2020; Popiel & Pickard, 2022). This is not an insignificant problem. According to Middleton (2021), just under one third of Canadian parents with children learning from home reported they would need to access an internet connection outside the home to facilitate their children’s education. In the US in 2018, according to Bronzino et al. (2021), around 12 million young Americans were on the wrong side of the homework gap. In New Zealand, more than 30% of state or social housing residents lack a household internet connection (Elers et al., 2022).

In 2020 in Australia (when the Connected Students program commenced) there were slightly fewer than four million primary and secondary school students (Flack et al., 2020). Of these, around 800,000 (or 20%), were from households that earn under AUD $35,000 per year, and thus fall in the lowest income bracket (ABS, 2019; Drane et al., 2020). These families experience significant impacts from affordability barriers to digital inclusion. Australian low-income families with school-aged children have, on average, half as many desktop, laptop, or tablet computers as middle-income households (Rapid Research Information Forum, 2020; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). In 2020, 68% of all households in the lowest income bracket (earning under $33,800 per annum) would need to spend more than 10% of their household income to acquire a quality and reliable connection (Thomas et al., 2021). For households in the lowest income bracket that include young people or children, this increases to 89% (Thomas et al., 2021).. In comparison, families with school-aged children in other income quintiles only spent 1.09% in the same year (Thomas et al., 2020). These high costs for low-income households are partly driven by reliance on mobile-only access (Ogle & Musolino, 2016). In 2020, 19.9% of the Australian population was classified as mobile-only internet users, with this increasing to 33.5% of low-income families with school-aged children (Thomas et al., 2020).

Digital inclusion policies and initiatives designed to reduce digital exclusion among school-aged young people typically take one of two approaches. The first approach is oriented around the provision of digital devices such as laptops or tablets. The second approach is oriented around the provision of connectivity, for instance, through mobile Wi-Fi dongles. Few strategies aim to address affordability of devices and affordability of connection. One exception is the Digital Access Program provided by The Smith Family, an Australian children’s charity supporting disadvantaged children and their families. The Digital Access Program provided a limited number of laptops, internet packages and ongoing tech support to eligible families. The Connected Students program likewise aimed to address both elements of the affordability problem: providing participating households with a laptop (mitigating the costs surrounding device acquisition), and a household internet connection that could support multiple devices at once (mitigating the costs surrounding connectivity).

2 The Connected Students Program

Telstra’s Connected Students program aimed to measure the impacts of removing affordability barriers to digital participation for low-income households. The Connected Students program was conducted in Shepparton, a regional city located 180 km north of Melbourne, and delivered in partnership with a local secondary college. Shepparton was chosen as the program’s site because it is characterised by a unique combination of low-income and low levels of digital inclusion. It has significant culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and Indigenous populations, and high levels of unemployment compared to state and national averages. Working with Greater Shepparton Secondary College (GSSC) to connect with students and their families, the program provided technology kits to low-income households with at least one student at the school between the ages of 15–18. The kits consisted of a laptop, a $G combined modem-router, and an activated SIM providing unlimited broadband on the Telstra network for the duration of the project (Fig. 6.1).

Fig. 6.1
A photograph of a laptop, 4-G combined modern router, and a sim card placed on a table.

The Connected Students kit consisted of a laptop, 4G combined modem router and sim card (not pictured)

Full size image

Our evaluation of the Connected Students program aimed to contribute evidence on the significance of affordability barriers for digital inclusion, and provide qualitative data on the lived experiences of digital exclusion by:

  • Identifying the value of connectivity and individual device access for students and education

  • Identifying the impact of unaffordable connectivity (i.e., access that creates and/or requires financial strain) on digital inclusion

A total of 100 kits were handed out in the program. From these, 183 participants from 45 households engaged in the Connected Students evaluation. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews via video conferencing platforms, face-to-face interviews, surveys with households, surveys with individuals, and videoed technology tours with households (see https://www.digitalinclusionindex.org.au/connected-students-project/for full description of methods).

Data collection began in April 2020 and was ongoing until July 2022. In April 2020, we collected information on access, internet related expenses and skills through household and individual surveys modelled on the Australian Digital Inclusion Index. The first round of interviews in 2020 sought to understand the dynamics of each household, who lived there, their daily routines, how technology factored into their lives, the costs of access and devices and how decisions were made regarding these, and the significance of the Connected Students kit. The second round of interviews occurred in 2021 and were conducted in person at the participants’ home. In addition to tracking the ongoing influence of the Connected Students kit, we used the second household interview to unpack key ideas and findings from the first round of data collection. For example: How do low-income households define concepts such as ‘tech savvy’? How does parental digital inclusion impact adolescent experiences and opportunities? What value does individual device access have for generating digital inclusion outcomes? What value does digital inclusion have for low-income households? We also did technology tours during these in person visits to understand how digital technologies fit within the home, and how the home and digital literacies can intersect and disrupt digital inclusion. A final round of exit interviews was conducted remotely in mid-2022. These participants received a $50 Coles voucher in recognition of the value of their time. Overall, we conducted a total of 41 household interviews by online video, and 24 household interviews and technology tours in person.

Within our sample, four households had at least one member who identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander; thirteen had at least one member who identified as CALD; and fourteen households had at least one member with a long-term disability or health concern. Thirty-six households received one or more government pensions or benefits, including Job Seeker Allowance; Carer Payment; and Disability Support Pension or Disability Pension.

3 Considerations for Future Digital Inclusion Programs

The Connected Students program has highlighted several key learnings that can inform the design and rollout of future digital inclusion programs aimed at addressing affordability barriers.

3.1 Interventions at the Individual Level Impact Digital Inclusion at the Household Level

The Connected Students program was primarily targeted at senior high-school aged children. These participants reported a range of important benefits including an increased ability to participate in schooling, especially during periods of online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. When asked about the impact of the kits, however, families also described a range of benefits for the wider household. These benefits resulted from their ability to better manage and distribute resources across the household – including money, devices, data, availability of time, and material spaces within the home.

Due to their low socio-economic status, families within the program generally grappled with how to distribute their limited financial resources. Prior to receiving the Connected Students kit, parents with multiple school-aged children often told us that they struggled to decide which child/ren they should prioritise purchasing devices for. They also deliberated over how to stretch their finances to retain or maximise their internet access, sometimes prioritising it over other household essentials. As well as relieving the pressure of these decisions by adding another device and a free connection to the household, the Connected Students kit enabled money that would have been spent on devices and/or an internet connection to be redirected to other household necessities. Louise, for example, lived in a rental property with her partner and their two teenage children. They cancelled their regular internet plan when they received the Connected Students kit. Louise explained that they were able to redirect this money to other expenses, particularly food which she noted was a significant cost due to their teenage son: “he eats us out of house and home”. Other households reported that by covering their internet costs, the kit allowed them to pay off other bills, or to engage in some discretionary spending, like going out for a meal as a family.

This reduced pressure on resources had a secondary effect of reducing conflict between family members over device and data usage. Karla reported that her six-person household, which included three teenagers, frequently exceeded their data limit prior to receiving the kit. She described the stress of situations where “somebody’s downloading songs or something and, you know, we’ve got 3% of data left and we’ve still got 25 days to go. And you know how slow it gets when it gets down to the last couple of percent –– that just used to do my head in.” These situations led to disagreements and tension over who had been using the most data and for what activities, however these arguments stopped when the family had the kit’s unlimited connection.

Another household-wide benefit was reduced pressure on family schedules. For example, prior to receiving the kit, some families had been making frequent trips to the public library so that children could use the computers and/or Wi-Fi access to complete their homework. Melanie, who was a sole parent with two children, described the benefits of increased flexibility once they received the Connected Students kit:

That was our weekends: in the library until Ellie finishes her homework… I’m not complaining, public libraries are great and we had a good time. But it was one extra chore that you have to do and now she can do [her homework] in her room […] it reduces the pressure a lot, because going to the public library is a completely different level of pressure. You have to find the time of the day. If I feel sick, I can't go; then Ellie is behind with her homework.

Households also benefited from the ability to use technology throughout the home. For example, the provision of an additional device combined with the improved connectivity enabled some students the option of doing schoolwork on their laptops in quiet spaces of the home, such as their bedroom. For one participating student, Alice, this meant she no longer had to use the family desktop, which was in a noisy, bustling area of the home between the kitchen and living room.

As many of these stories indicate, some of the household-wide benefits of the Program stemmed from the fact that many household members made use of the kit, not just the participating student. The internet connection was of value in this regard. Prior to the kit, some households had no home internet and relied solely on limited mobile data; others had home internet but the plans they could afford were inadequate for their needs, meaning they would often run out of data and must carefully regulate their use. Some families had adequate data, but their existing router was not powerful enough for the signal to reach all areas of the home. With the introduction of the Connected Students internet connection, household members were able to engage in new kinds of online activities. In some cases, this involved shared use of the internet which provided new ways for families to spend time together, such as watching movies via streaming services.

Adults within the home also used the connection, and sometimes the laptop, for a range of purposes including work, study, and accessing government services. One example of this was Noel’s household. Noel was 16 years old and living with both his parents and older brother. His family were paying off the mortgage on their home, but money had been tight since his mum lost her job. Before receiving the Connected Students kit, they relied on mobile phone access and shared one laptop between them, hot-spotting off mum Vanessa’s phone to do so. She described the kit as “absolutely brilliant”. It had allowed Noel to participate in online learning during the COVID-19 school closures, which would have otherwise been largely impossible due to his limited internet and device access and had provided a range of benefits for Vanessa too. Most importantly, she had recently signed up for an online university course to improve her employment prospects and told us how the Connected Students kit had given her confidence studying online:

[Studying online] would have been a lot harder [without the kit] because I would have been using the hotspot off my phone. Whereas having the Connected Students kit…I’m not going to have to worry about the internet connection…I would have a world of trouble getting a laptop to connect to my phone sometimes. So having the Connected Students kit, it’s given me some comfort in knowing I’m going to have a good internet connection to use to do these studies.

Through these kinds of uses by adults within the home, the kit supported education, skill development, and income generation for the household. Access to the internet was also often shared with visitors to the home, and in some cases, the laptop was shared with friends and family outside of the home.

These wider benefits for the household became evident due to the analysis approach used in the Connected Students evaluation, which was characterised by two key features. The first was that analysis included the whole household, rather than just the participating student or one parent. We interviewed and surveyed as many members of the household as possible and asked questions about the impacts of the kit across the household rather than just on the individual student. This approach illustrated the wider household benefits which may be overlooked in evaluations that consist solely of individual surveys or interviews with or about an individual participant. Secondly, our analysis included detailed qualitative data collection. Households were interviewed up to three times over two years, and these interviews were conducted in the home whenever possible to incorporate a technology tour. These interviews revealed much more nuanced impacts than were captured in the surveys which detailed only types of devices. Overall, this approach demonstrates the need for research that considers the contextual, fluid dynamics of family life to better inform strategies of intervention and identify potential impacts beyond the individual.

What stands out is the way in which interventions such as the Connected Students program have exponential impact. They impact the individual, which impacts the broader household, and that then impacts how household members are participating in or influencing the broader community, etc. Evaluations that go beyond the individual can help to identify these broader benefits, especially when qualitative methods are used within those evaluations to help unpack the nuances of these impacts.

3.2 Devices Are Critical to Digital Inclusion

Digital inclusion initiatives that only provide internet connections will be of limited use for people who lack devices. Prior to the Connected Students program, many of the students did not have adequate access to devices appropriate for schooling. Some, as noted previously, were having to travel to libraries to use computers. Others were trying to make do with whatever devices they had at home. For some students, this meant attempting to do homework via their older model smartphones. One such student was Rose, who was 17 years old, and living with her mum Valarie in a house they rented from a private landlord. She had a part-time job at a cafe and earned extra money babysitting. Rose explained how, prior to receiving the Connected Students kit, she was relying on her mobile phone to complete her schoolwork, submit her schoolwork to teachers, and attend online meetings. She reflected, “having the laptop was like a big lifesaver”.

In other households, children were sharing one computer with many other family members. Tihani lived with her husband and nine children, four of whom were high school aged students. She explained that before the kit, the household had been sharing one laptop:

Clara’s [connected students] laptop is really helpful for her homework. Because it was only my laptop they were using [before], and there’s too many of them. It’s really helpful for her to just give her space to do her own thing on her own laptop. So I’m really happy about that.

Parents often identified the cost of devices as a major challenge, especially those with multiple school-aged children. Had the Connected Students kit not included laptops, many of the students would not have been able to make meaningful use of the internet connection provided within the kit.

When providing devices, there are a range of considerations around the type, capacity, and longevity of those devices. The Connected Students program provided school-recommended laptops. However, some students reported technical issues with their devices, highlighting the need to consider the durability and capacity of devices alongside the type of device. Some students also found that the laptops didn’t extend to uses, like senior media subjects, further illustrating the need to consider device capabilities. As noted above, Rose described the laptop as a “lifesaver” as it meant she no longer had to complete schoolwork on her smartphone. However, in later interviews, she noted that the laptop became progressively slower and by the end of the first year was taking 15 minutes to turn on. She attempted to reformat the laptop, but this was unsuccessful. Additionally, the laptop wasn’t equipped with a graphics card capable of running the advanced software needed to complete assessments in her Media Studies class. As a result, she used funds she had been saving for university to purchase a new laptop so she could complete her studies.

Within the Connected Students program, the technical problems that people encountered were often exacerbated by a lack of suitable support available through the school together with the individual students’ limited knowledge about how to troubleshoot issues or maintain the functionality of devices and systems over time. For example, among those who experienced a decline in laptop functionality, some of these issues may have been avoided if the devices had been more actively maintained (e.g. managing data storage capacities). Similarly, a few participants reported problems with their internet connections, however it appeared that at least some of these were due to issues that could be resolved through simple actions like restarting the device or repositioning the router to an area of the home with less obstruction.

These kinds of issues highlight two important observations: firstly, that sometimes the technologies provided as part of digital inclusion initiatives will fail, and secondly, that digital inclusion requires more than access to connectivity and devices. The ability to use and maintain devices – often talked about in terms of ‘digital literacies’ – is also crucial. This latter point has been well-established in literature on digital inclusion which widely recognises that for digital inclusion to be experienced, access alone is not enough. And, as technologies increasingly advance in complexity, the skills required to draw benefit from digital access and use are an ever-moving target.

These observations show that beyond providing adequate devices, digital inclusion policies and programs should also consider providing wrap-around support for when devices fail, or technical problems arise that participants can not address. This wrap-around support could include guidance around maintaining devices, clear directions for accessing technical support, services for repairing broken devices, and/or training or advice around troubleshooting problems. One of the difficulties is that providing such support is resource intensive for the provider. Yet these considerations are critical for ensuring digital inclusion interventions have sufficient longevity in terms of environmental sustainability, maximising returns on investment, and benefits to recipients.

3.3 Access to an Affordable and Quality Internet Service Is Critical to Digital Inclusion

Digital inclusion initiatives can sometimes assume that people who lack internet access do not yet understand or value its benefits. In contrast to this, Connected Students households described in interviews how much they valued internet connectivity before they participated in the program. They were aware of its benefits and were often working hard to maximise whatever connectivity they could afford. While the costs of doing so could be challenging for families to meet, they often prioritised internet connectivity in their spending, in some cases prioritising it over other essentials such as groceries. One household that worked hard to maintain their internet access was Jade’s family. Jade was 18 years old and lived in a rented household with her parents and two siblings. One sibling, her younger sister, has global development delays and was cared for by her mum. Her 9-year-old cousin also stayed with the family regularly, and the family occasionally provided respite foster care. Despite the financial pressures they experienced, Jade’s mum Gina was adamant about the importance of having internet access in the household.

You think ‘Oh my god, you know, why is this [internet] so expensive?’ But it’s just a necessity these days isn’t it? You have to have it. The kids have to have it for school so obviously you pay your rent and your heat, but internet access is factored in those living expenses […] I don’t think it’s something that you can say ‘Oh I’m sorry, you’re not having it.’

For Gina, the internet connection was non-negotiable despite the pressure it put on the family’s budget. In removing these connection costs, the Connected Students kit reduced pressures on participating households’ budgets and led to the range of benefits that have already been outlined above.

A related observation is that the quality of the connection is also important. Introducing a quality connection through the Connected Students kit provided more than just financial benefits by improving how household members could access and use the internet. For example, among the households that had a home Wi-Fi connection prior to receiving the kit, several described having ‘black spots’ throughout their homes where the Wi-Fi would not function. These black spots were often in bedrooms, which were located away from communal living areas where the router was typically located. In some instances, this issue could have been resolved through the purchase of Wi-Fi range extenders, however none of the households within the study had chosen to do this. This indicates not only the financial challenge of purchasing supplementary devices, but also the influence of digital literacies on troubleshooting connectivity problems. With the more powerful router provided by the Connected Students kit, connectivity extended further throughout the home, giving household members greater agency and flexibility. Like many participants, for student Opal and her sister, the Connected Students kit allowed them to use the internet in their bedrooms for the first time. Opal told us that this made it easier for them to complete schoolwork as they could work “without interruptions”. Their mum, Sophie, agreed, adding that it had also given each of them “their own space” and had meant there were “less arguments” between them. Similar benefits were reported among households that had previously relied on patchy mobile connectivity which restricted their internet use to specific areas of the home. These examples highlight the need for inclusion policies and initiatives to take into account issues around the quality of connections, including hardware specifications, such as the strength of routers.

When considering the type of connection provided within inclusion initiatives, it may also be worth noting whether connections have the capacity to be portable. This suggestion emerges from the finding that some students set up and used their router in locations outside the home. This was an unanticipated finding, as the routers were not primarily designed to be portable, particularly when compared to devices like dongles that are explicitly intended to be mobile. While not intended to be mobile, the 4G combined modem router provided in the program could be moved relatively easily as they operated via a SIM card rather than through a connection to a modem. For a few students, this was a valuable feature. For example, one student explained that they would bring the router to their family business during work hours, so they could complete homework while also being onsite to help with the business. This portability was also valued by students who lived between two households, or were in precarious housing, as they were able to consistently access quality and reliable connection in their living environments. This raises the possibility that in some situations, it may be preferable to provide similarly portable connections, rather than fixed connections. That said, the provision of fully mobile connections, like dongles, in future interventions should be considered carefully as the fact they can’t be used across multiple devices would preclude many of the broader household benefits outlined above.

Overall, these findings demonstrate that, beyond affordability, a quality and reliable connection is critical for ensuring digital inclusion and everyday participation. In this way, digital inclusion – and the quality and reliable connections that underpin it – can increasingly be considered in terms of welfare: a basic need that should be available to all. Approaching digital connectivity in this way has the potential to change the focus of interventions in this space, perhaps moving away from time- and context-bound initiatives, and towards an understanding that the capacity for connectivity everywhere and everywhen is critical.

4 Conclusion

Findings from the Connected Students program underscore the need for holistic and integrated digital inclusion interventions. It is not only a question of quality connection, but of quality connection plus adequate devices. Interventions that emphasise one without addressing the other will fail to fully achieve their intended aims.

Furthermore, it is not only about the digital inclusion of an individual, but the network effect of enhanced connection and device accessibility within, and beyond, the household. Interventions like the Connected Students program have exponential impact – they impact an individual and create flow-on effects within the home, and in doing so impact how members of the home are able to connect with and engage in the broader community. This highlights valuable opportunities to support individuals, households, and communities in participating more fully in digital contexts. Such interventions can foster greater agency for people across these multiple levels, supporting them to access and achieve the myriad benefits afforded by digital devices and connectivity. For low-income households, this is especially important in supporting their future earning potential and ensuring access to essential services and support organisations which are already available, and which are increasingly dependent upon online systems and portals (such as myGov, Centrelink, and Medicare). For low-income households living in rural and regional areas, this is even more crucial, as they may not live within reasonable proximity to bricks and mortar centres offering such services and assistance.

Relatedly, the Connected Students program has emphasised the value of research and interventions that focus not only on individuals, but the broader household. By employing qualitative methods over a substantial period, this study was able to more fully capture the larger scale of benefits enabled by the program. Longitudinal engagement with households allowed us to better explore and record the value of this digital inclusion intervention for students and households over time and gain more nuanced insights on how such programs can be rolled out at larger scale in future. The value of an appropriate device plus quality internet connection over time became increasingly evident in terms of participating students’ education engagement and outcomes, with some students reflecting in the final phase of interviews that this intervention was instrumental in their commitment to completing their high school education.

This more holistic and qualitative approach also helped underscore that people in low-income households are already aware of the vital role of connection within their homes, and parents are doing their best to obtain this for their children despite affordability barriers. The pervasiveness of smartphones and the increasing digitalisation of everyday life means that digital inclusion is less about whether people have the internet, and more about how they can access it, and the quality and reliability of their connection. This only became more pronounced throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, as education, employment, health, shopping, banking and many other domains of life were forced to transition online.

Finally, it is also important to acknowledge that having quality devices and connection are only one part – albeit an important one – of the broader picture of digital inclusion. Wrap around support is required to ensure that people can optimise and maintain the functionality of their connectivity, whether that be in terms of device speed or capability, connection speed and data needs, and, perhaps most significantly, the skills and digital literacies to make meaningful use of digital technologies as they continue to evolve.