The Digital Non-Divide: Homelessness Experience and Sexual Orientation Are Not Associated with Technology Engagement Among Adolescents

Background: The proliferation of technology among youth creates exciting opportunities for social workers who intend to serve young clients. While rates are high among youth in general, it is unclear if rates of technology engagement are different for homeless, sexual or gender minority youth that are more frequently the target of social work interventions due to higher reported rates of suicide, sex risk, substance use and other negative outcomes. This study investigates rates of reported daily internet use, smartphone ownership, and heavy texting (i.e. sending 300+ messages daily) among students reporting homelessness experiences, gender minority students, and sexual minority students.

Methods: In 2013, high school students in a large urban school district were sampled using a two-step probability random sampling process to participate in the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey which included a supplemental questionnaire. 2000 students were randomly selected, of which 1691 completed the survey (84%). Data were collected through anonymous self-report using machine-readable forms. Students reported on their internet use frequency, smartphone ownership, text message-sending rates, homeless experience (12 month) gender identity and sexual orientation. Data collection was approved by the school district IRB. Analyses included descriptive statistics for each variable and logistic regressions for the technology engagement outcome variables with both aggregated and disaggregated homelessness, gender, and sexual minority variables.

Results: In our probability sample of high school students, 15% reported at least one night of homelessness in the previous 12 months, 6.7% were gender minority, 12.1% were sexual minority, 68.6% reported accessing the internet daily, 69.5% reported owning a smartphone, and 17.9% reported sending 300+ text messages daily. Logistic regressions found little differences in technology engagement when considering homelessness experience, gender, and sexual orientation. Relative to cisgender students, transgender students had lower odds of daily internet use (OR=0.57 95% CI=0.37-0.88) controlling all other variables. Disaggregating gender identities showed that relative to cisgender girls, cisgender boys had lower odds of smartphone ownership (OR=0.66, 95% CI=0.52-0.85) and heavy texting (OR=0.69, 95% CI=0.51-0.92), transgender girls had lower odds of daily internet use (OR=0.40, 95% CI=0.20-0.80), transgender boys had lower odds of heavy texting (OR=0.29, 95% CI=0.09-0.97), and transgender-identified non-binary students had lower odds of smartphone ownership (OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.06-0.81) controlling for homelessness and sexual orientation.

Discussion: This study has important implications for reaching marginalized populations with information and interventions online. Among the youth who reported any homelessness in the prior year, there were no significant differences in technology engagement. Similarly, there were no differences for the sexual minority youth in terms of technology engagement. There were mixed results of technology engagement by gender identity, where relative to cisgender girls, cisgender boys, transgender girls, boys, and non-binary were less likely reported lower rates of use on some by not all the technology outcomes. Social workers interested in engaging with gender minorities may have to tailor and target their messaging to account for these differences. Overall, these results indicate the lack of a “digital divide” between students who experienced homelessness and those did not, or between sexual minority and majority students.