The Digital Divide in Family Support

ACWA08suetreg@barnardos.org.au

Anna at fifteen

• Family homeless over a year• Re-housed hour+ from school• Can’t afford mobile calls/phone broken• Rented computer is unusable• Can’t IM friends - feels excluded • Difficulties with homework• Feels unsafe to use public library

Barnardos’ interest in ICT

• Need to improve participation in family support services particularly with children and young people

• Case management system (SCARF) could be basis of software which may be potential useful to service users

• Social justice issues for disadvantaged children• Experience with mobile phones

Vodafone Foundation project with homeless young people

• Itinerant lifestyle made contact, early intervention and monitoring of welfare was difficult

• Access to mobiles and free calls to workers enabled: – Emergency assistance- overdose, self harm, arrest,

assault,– Reminders- appointments– Better engagement- birthdays, events

• Importance of understanding social circumstances -theft and muggings, dealing, cashing, debt.

Could we use this the Internet more ?

• Websites for access to information and exchange (depression sites, medical sites)

• IM/ Email with workers• Social networks- 13%of adults

make relationships on-line• Virtual worlds and social learning

How feasible are these ideas?

Access of families to the Internet• Actual use of Internet and young people:

In 2003 98% used computers (OECD, 2006) 90% of 15 year olds competently used Internet, (95% in year 12, 49% in Years 1-3).

• 2001 study of disadvantaged families with children: 59% children had computer at home (compared to 74% in general population of

families with children) 32% (cf. 48%) had access to Internet at home (McLaren &Zappala)

• BUT what of agency service users ?

Research on access and attitudes to ICT among family support service users

2006/7 Qualitative study – 30 in 25 families 4 (under 12) 3 (12-17 years) 5 (18-21years) in after care support 18 parents.

6 programs in Canberra and Sydney including outer areasAssessed the mix of technologies that were currently

used or which were interest to service users

Families use of mobile phones

Mobile use25 used pre-paid phonesOnly one not interested

4- lost, stolen Wide usage but problems of

running out of credit...my worker would call me and I wouldn’t be able to call her

back

Home Access to Internet

• Home internet functional (6 of 30)• Previously had Internet- 11

Broken, fires, pawned, couldn’t afford payments– no IT Support– cost of service providers-no ISP– no modems in donated machines

• Usually interested- 2 older participants exceptions

• Interested but no access (11): educational (loosing skills) and social exclusion.

How The Internet Is Used• Websites: school research, rarely for Jobs/bills/ Centrelink

• Instant messaging: extensively used and missed where access was poor.

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

• Chatrooms: unclear

• Blogging: generally unknown, literacy an issue

• On-line Games: more limited, download problems

• Social Networking Sites: heavy use, age specific

Innovative use by families

• Keeping in touch- geographic separation in disrupted families

• Overcoming violence- access to children by violent partners

• Small business ventures

Attitude towards ICT and workers• Interested- it’s the norm• There are existing communication barriers- not

identified by all BUT some objection to pagers, workers frequently did not allow mobile access

• Face to face communication needs to be maintained

• Timing important- getting to know you, use within relationship

• Interest in information• Maintaining skills

How could Internet contribute to work with families

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

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

• Use -attractive, company and entertainment

• Increased self disclosure, relationship development, increased participation: self presentation, focus on feelings, anonymity, time to think, less focus

on appearance

Impact on communication is unclear

Duty of Care

• Safety- Internet vulnerability Education on safe use of the Net- can we afford not

to do this?• Distorted communication- changed dynamics,

honesty• Balancing on and off-line communication,

privacy and individual preference.

We need to ask the questions

– Are we adding to disadvantage by not engaging with the Internet?

– Are workers ICT practices affecting communication? – Are we missing an opportunity? Maintaining contact

and communication is central to our work.– How can we provide technical and educational support?– Will it happen to us anyway?