Young people, ICT and participation in welfare

decision-making.Susan Tregeagle

British Sociological Association Youth Study Group Conference ‘Young People, New Technologies and Political Engagement. University of surrey

24-25 July 2007

Where in the World are we discussing?

Research findings 2006/7: Sydney and Canberra

Young Australians as prolific ICT users

• OECD (2003 figures published 2006) 94% of Australian students have access to a home computer cf 79% OECD average

• 100% had access to computers at school

• 70% use computers frequently for word processing (OECD 48%)

• 88% of Australians (16-28 years) own a mobile phone,texting routine

• By 16 years- 3/4 students use video and audio technology on home computers

• Preschools routinely use computers.

Barnardos Australia• Youth programs: Streetwork, adolescent community

placements, residential care, semi independent living, longterm foster, adoption and aftercare.

• Guided practice- LAC, SCARF, AICS- requires a level of consultation and check that young people are listened to

• Managerial focus of electronic delivery: LACES, E-SCARF

• The new opportunities of service user focus for technology and skill shortages.

• Participation challenges

Vodafone Foundation project social participation and engagement

• Breaking isolation: contact, early intervention, monitoring welbeing

• Capacity for emergency help seeking- overdoes, arrest, self-harm, assault

• Maintaining social engagement• Socially situated - theft, mugging,

dealing, cashing-in, debt for calls.

Research on participation of young people in welfare decision making in LAC/SCARF

• Formalised in UN Convention and local legislation in each State -consultation

• Practice routinely criticised by consumer groups- CREATE

• Guided practice systems (LAC,SCARF) have poor compliance on sign off of care plans, poor skills in workforce for communicating

Study findings on participation• Significant individual differences in involvement • Young people in foster care often included and

comfortable with participatory strategies • Slow development of trust• But areas of significant resistance by young people-

evasion, lying, feeling gagged, and low level of ownership in welfare process

• Young people in family support programs proved to be significantly excluded from interactions

• Awareness of wider constraints on communication- dependency issues.

Internet cyber future for youth participation?

• Need to understand the social construction of ICT use BUT potential affordances:

• Websites for access to information and exchange (depression sites are well developed)

• IM with workers?• Social networks- 13%of adults

make relationships on-line• Virtual worlds and social learning• Computer mediated questionnaires

(qualitative computer mediated research)

How could ICT contribute to young people’s participation? Fairclough

• Initiation of communication - hours, space, social barriers (education and literacy), sequencing of communication, value of wit and group membership. Genre and style affect interaction

• Distribution- more private than paper, ownership of what is written, password protection, automatic functions

• Use -attractive, company and entertainment

• Technology can change use: increased self disclosure,

relationship development and increased participation.• self presentation

• focus on feelings,

• anonymity

• time to think

• less focus on appearance

• community of interest

Key Questions on ICT in welfare

• how feasible is Internet/mobiles communication with poor young people?

• how should Internet be used- e-mail, IM, social networking?

• would young people use it?

• what are the dangers?

• impact of e-social work ?

Research on access and attitudes to ICT among service users

• Benchmark and workers use- 2006 Survey of use of ICT of 88 service users in one week (7-18 year olds in fostercare, homeless adolescent programs, substance abusing).

• 2006/7 Qualitative study with 14 (under 21) and 10 young mothers on access to and use of ICT 4 (under 12), 6 (12-17 years), 4 (18-21years) in family support,independent living/aftercare and fostercare.

• Former service users,ethics(confidentiality, withdrawal), three methods- no electronic

take-up, visual booklet, Aboriginal co-researcher.

Feasibility of Mobile use in foster, residential, family support programs

• SAME PROBLEMS as action research project- No credit, loss, theft, can’t afford replacements.

• Social exclusion- especially when combined with low Internet access at home

Feasibility: Internet in general population

• Actual use of Internet and young people: • 74% of young people frequently use Internet cf OECD average of 55%.

• 90% are confident users of Internet

• Range: 95% in year 12, 49% in Years 1-3 (OECD 2006)

Home access to Internet (2002): • 60% of all Australian homes have Internet (2006 Census) • Disadvantaged households with children: 59% with home access to

computers -Half with Internet ie 30% (2002)

• ? service users

Home Internet access of under 21 years olds in welfare services

• Home computer (70% in survey had computers at home but few in interviews) MORE LOST ACCESS THAN WORKING COMPUTERS

• Internet in foster care - 32 of 34, all 4 in interviews

• Internet in struggling households - 2/3 had no computers, broken/pawned/destroyed, no ISP, no modems.

• No interest- 3 in survey, variable use in interviews Interested but no access: educationally and socially disadvantaged.

• SOCIAL JUSTICE CHALLENGE

How The Internet Is Used• Websites: school research, ?jobs/Centrelink• Instant messaging:

extensively used and missed.

• Email: not checked and sense that phone is easier, lessening popularity with spam and problems of effort. Two fostercare exceptions.

• Chatrooms:not much discussed

• Blogging:not recognised except through social networking

sites • Games: more limited, down-load problems

• Social Networking Sites (MySpace)

Attitude towards ICT and workers

• Changes over adolescence/ age

• Interest in information availability

• Communication was not identified as a major issue BUT some objection to pagers, workers not giving mobile access

• Value of face to face

• Timing: getting to know you

• Interest: it’s the norm

Duty of Care• Safety- need to tackle issue

• Distorted communication dynamics – honesty, – flaring – managing imagination

• Supporting workers– when to use- beginning, balancing on and off-line communication,

– providing social cues

– rigidity in work

– privacy

– individual preference.

• BUT SOCIAL JUSTICE professional responsibility and pro active socialisation

Anna is a fifteen year old whose family spent seven months in crisisaccommodation and is now rehoused about an hour from her school.She dislikes the new area because she feels unsafe and because it isso far from her friends. Anna has a mobile phone, which iscurrently broken and she can not afford to replace it. Her motherrents computer they cannot work and they have never been able toafford the Internet. Because of this Anna is unable to participatewith her friends on their daily BeeBo and is unable to use thecomputer for homework or research- to do so is requires a half houron unreliable public transport into an unsafe area..

Moving from here• Mobiles and computer messaging- reminders and

contact, free-calls for emergencies. • Internet will require IT support, hardware, (little

educational support apparently needed)• Tailored websites- for information, interaction,

support, • Worker training and supervision, when to use-

what technologies, avoiding pitfalls, individual difference