Youthlaw Mobile Research 3youthlaw.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Youthlaw... · 2014. 10. 3. · Youthlaw Mobile — Research 7 We discussed many different interactions and confrontations

Paper Giant Pty. Ltd. 52/36 Drummond St

Carlton VIC, 3053 Australia

+61 414 436 829 [email protected]

www.papergiant.net

Youthlaw Mobile — Research February 2014

Youthlaw Mobile — Research 2


Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5

What we did ..................................................................................................................... 6

Findings ............................................................................................................................ 8

1. The Boundaries of Authority Are Fuzzy ................................................................................. 9

2. Strategies for Dealing with Confrontation ............................................................................. 10

3. Barriers to Seeking Help ........................................................................................................ 13

4. Rights .................................................................................................................................... 15

5. A Model of Experience with Authority ................................................................................... 17

6. Technology Use ..................................................................................................................... 18

Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A: Interview Questions .................................................................................. 22


Executive Summary This report details the findings and outcomes of research conducted by Paper Giant on

behalf of Youthlaw.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 8 participants across Melbourne (5) and

Geelong (3). These interviews focused on uncovering perceptions of, and issues around,

young people’s rights with different authorities.

We found that:

• The boundaries between different authorities and their jurisidictions are not well-

known, and are often confusing.

• Young people are unaware of their rights, and grapple with misinformation when

asserting rights.

• Young people have developed a number of strategies to cope with their lack of power

when dealing with authority, and these strategies are often borne out of

misunderstandings about rights.

• There are several barriers to seeking help when in trouble with authorities, including

pride, perceived cost of legal advice, and lack of access to information.

• Disadvantaged youth and homeless youth have access to mobile phones, and these

phones are usually their primary means of accessing the internet.

Based on these findings, we have developed a number of recommendations around the

types of information that would be valuable to youth, and how to make this information

accessible to them.

We recommend that a responsive mobile website be developed, which contains concise,

easy-to-understand information regarding:

• the distinctions between authorities and their jurisdictions;

• individuals rights in various situations; and

• clear next steps to take after being confronted.

We also recommend that this website be thought of as an education tool for young people

and those that they are most likely to turn to in times of crisis: parents, teachers, and

friends.


Introduction This report provides a high-level analysis of findings from research conducted by Paper

Giant Pty. Ltd. on behalf of Youthlaw.

This research was intended to collect and analyse the experiences of Youthlaw’s target

clientele with regards to their interactions with authorities such as Police Officers, PSOs

and Authorised Officers. The research was also intended to collect information on mobile

technology and internet use when it came to searching for legal assistance and information.

This research and analysis will form the background and basis of design work for the

Youthlaw mobile website, and is also intended to be useful to Youthlaw in assessing and

improving their legal services.


What we did Paper Giant researchers conducted 8 one-on-one interviews with disadvantaged youth in

two locations: Melbourne and Geelong.

Participants

Name Age Sex Location Living Circumstances

Sought Legal Help Before?

Internet Access Mobile Device

N— 20 M Fitzroy North Transitional housing No Phone Nokia N9

C— 20 F Mooney Ponds At home with Parents No

Home, university, phone

iPhone 5s

H— 21 M St Albans Share house (3 people) Yes Cafes, phone Samsung Galaxy S2

T— 18 M Melbourne Homeless Yes Library or Frontyard iPhone 4 (Broken)

A— 22 M Footscray Homeless No Frontyard Nokia E71 (no internet)

As— 16 M Geelong At home with Mum No School Nokia (model not recorded)

J— 17 M Geelong At home with Mum No Home, school, phone iPhone 5

Ja— 16 F Geelong At home with Dad Yes Home, phone iPhone 4s

Interviews

Each interview was semi-structured, and lasted about 40 minutes. They were designed to

invite youth to share their stories and experiences of their interactions with police and other

authorities. We asked open-ended questions of participants in order to explore issues of

their rights in these circumstances. Interviews concluded with discussions around mobile

technologies and their internet usage.


We discussed many different interactions and confrontations with authorities, from ticket

inspections to arrests and court appearances. We discussed how they would go about

seeking help, and how they searched for information that could help them.

Notes were taken during each interview, and the interviews were recorded onto MP3 audio

and anonymised.

The interviews took place at the Youthlaw offices in King St, Melbourne, and at VCAL in

Geelong. A legal representative from Youthlaw was present at all interviews, and each

participant received a $40 voucher as an incentive for their participation.

An outline of the questions that we asked is included in Appendix A.

Analysis

Key themes, quotes and circumstances were extracted from interview notes and recordings.

Themes were clustered, generalised, and analysed in order to understand the insights from

the research. These insights are presented in this report.


Findings

“The first interaction with police here, I sort-of felt quite wronged by

them, I felt quite invaded” T—, 18

Our findings are divided into six main areas:

1. The Boundaries Of Authority Are Fuzzy

Interview participants were confused about the powers held by different authorities: Police,

PSOs, Authorised Officers and Security Guards;

2. Strategies For Dealing With Confrontation

Participants had various strategies that they deployed to deal with confrontational

situations, some more effective than others.

3. Barriers To Seeking Help

There are several barriers to seeking help when in trouble with authorities, including pride,

perceived cost of legal advice, and lack of access to information.

4. Rights

Participants generally wanted to know more about their rights, and both information and

misinformation regarding rights was a major factor in the ways that participants responded

to authority.

5. A Model Of Experience With Authority

Based on our analysis, we have developed a model of experience with authority, which we

believe will be a useful tool for thinking about the best way to offer useful information to

young people in times of crisis.

6. Technology Use

Disadvantaged youth and homeless youth have access to mobile phones, and these phones

are usually their primary means of accessing the internet.


1. The Boundaries of Authority Are Fuzzy

“[PSOs] just wanna know your name, date of birth, so they can go ask

the police if you are really in trouble or whatever” A—, 22

Participants had a dim view of authorities: they believed that they often overstepped their

bounds, would lie and manipulate in order to get their way, and would intentionally target

young and homeless people.

As a general rule, participants were not aware of the differences between the powers of

Police Officers, PSOs (“met cops”), Authorised Officers (“ticket inspectors”), and security

guards, although they did understand some differences in the scale of power. They knew

that police “could do what they liked”, whereas security guards couldn’t. Between these

extremes, definitions and distinctions were fuzzy. Participants were generally confused

about what information they were obliged to provide to authorities, what powers authorities

had to question or detain them, and in what circumstances these powers applied.

“Are they allowed to surround you outside of ticket barriers? ‘Cause

that’s happened to me before…” H—, 20

Participants were unsure about where particular authorities were allowed to exercise

powers, although they did seem to understand that Police Officers could exercise their

authority everywhere. What constituted ‘public property’ or ‘public transport property’ was a

common source of confusion.

Participants were aware of crossing into different legal spaces, and knew that locations

mattered, but they didn’t have a clear understanding of those exact boundaries, and the

changes that occurred between them.


2. Strategies for Dealing with Confrontation

Each participant had developed their own strategies for dealing with confrontations with

authorities, however there were some common strategies that we identified.

Those common behaviours are: head down, talking back, and fight and flight.

Head down

“When I said ‘I’m homeless’, they finally dropped the case a little bit,

finally reasoned with me” A—, 22

One strategy we identified we call the head down strategy. In this strategy, participants

would attempt to reason with authorities by explaining their situation, and would avoid

confrontation wherever possible, preferring to ‘cop it sweet’ when given fines or arrested.

This appeared to be a learned strategy where over time, participants would move from

being more confrontational to taking the path of least resistance in order to remove

themselves from the situation as quickly as possible, dealing with the consequences later.

This strategy sometimes led to a ‘head in the sand’ approach to dealing with a situation,

especially regarding the non-payment of fines. Several participants did not know how many

unpaid fines they had, and assumed that because they had no assets they didn’t have to pay

and there was nothing the authorities could do. In some cases, participants would attempt

to give a false name or address to avoid fines, although this would backfire if the participant

was already known to the authorities.

Talking back

“I turned around and said, one: you haven’t asked my name, two: you

haven’t said I’m under arrest, three: I haven’t given consent [for you to

search me] … so they were just like, ‘OK then… here’s your cigarette

fine, what’s your name, what’s your date of birth, where do you live?’”

T—, 18

The talking back strategy is one where participants attempted to assert their rights (as they

understood them) in confrontations with authorities. This strategy was interesting in that,

even in cases where the participants were legally entitled to assert their rights, it would


often lead to conflict escalation. This was an inconsistent strategy: sometimes asserting

rights would cause police or other authorities to back-off. In other cases it caused an

escalation or argument, leading to further police involvement or larger fines.

Misinformation was a major issue in the use of this strategy as well. When participants

misunderstood their rights it could quickly lead to problems. In one example, a participant

recalled a time where a PSO asked for their details. They refused to give their name to the

PSO and insisted that they wait until police arrive. When the police did arrive, they were

ultimately given a larger fine for refusing to provide identification.

Flight and fight

“They surrounded him, took him off the train and waited for police to

come, and he tried to run, and then he got chased, and thrown on the

ground” H—, 20

The most extreme and dangerous strategy that we observed was the flight and fight strategy.

This is a situation where participants ran from authorities, and if caught would resort to

violence, such as pulling out a weapon or fighting back. This strategy usually led to arrest,

and sometimes injury and damaged property (such as, in one case, a broken phone). The

reason for this response was usually fear: fear that they would face serious charges or go to

jail if caught.

A major reason for this strategy seemed to be a conflation of public transport infringements

and more serious criminal offences. Ultimately, this response was provoked by a

misunderstanding of their own rights and responsibilities in these situations.

These three strategies fit onto a continuum where at one end the participant accepts the

situation without argument, and at the other end violence occurs:


Ultimately, all participants wanted to avoid trouble with authorities, and move the situation

towards the ‘less trouble’ end. It was not always clear how well a particular strategy would

work to move the situation along this continuum as this depended on the situation and the

attitude of each participant, although the flight and fight strategy always seemed make the

situation worse.


3. Barriers to Seeking Help

Once participants were beyond the point of confrontation and had been issued with a fine,

detained, or arrested, there were several main barriers that we identified to seeking and

getting help with their problem.

Pride

The first of these was pride. Most participants took pride in being able to pay their fines

themselves (if they could), and took pride in knowing the “right way to deal with the cops”

or to get around any difficult situations that they were in without the help of adults. There

was a certain ‘street smarts’ attitude that we observed in most participants. This pride

seemed to be a way of asserting independence, from both authorities and society.

Do I even need a Lawyer?

When participants were in trouble, they tended to turn first to parents (if parents were

available), and then to other trusted sources such as teachers or friends for help. No

participants suggested that they would seek out a lawyer or legal aid as a first option, and

most didn’t even consider legal help as an option until prompted. This was an issue in

some cases, where parents gave inaccurate information such as ‘you have to tell police the

truth’ instead of suggesting that they remain silent until a lawyer was present.

There were several reasons that we identified for not seeking legal help:

1. Perception of cost

2. Not aware that their issue was a legal matter

3. Wouldn’t know how to contact a lawyer

1. Perception of Cost

“I worried about what if it’s gonna be expensive, how much it’s gonna

cost, what if I can’t pay for it, what if they can’t like, be there if I can’t

afford it?” Ja—, 16

Participants assumed that lawyers were expensive, and worried that they couldn’t afford a

lawyer even if one was available to help them. No participants seemed aware that they were

entitled to legal aid (where applicable) or free legal help from Youthlaw.


Those participants that had heard of Youthlaw had been referred through services such as

Frontyard after coming in for an unrelated issue such as housing.

2. Not aware that their issue was a legal matter

Most participants didn’t consider the experiences that we discussed with them were issues

that a lawyer could help with, especially those regarding public transport or other fines.

3. Wouldn’t know how to contact a lawyer

“I don’t know, I wouldn’t even assume I have anywhere to go, I’d just

say what I needed to say […], I guess they’d just cuff me up or

something?” A—, 22

In the absence of help from parents (who, in the cases where they were available, tended to

organise legal representation), no participants knew how to go about contacting a lawyer.

Even if a police officer informed them that they were entitled to legal representation, they

tended to ignore this and assume it was too difficult, and tended to go along with what

police told them, proceeding without any legal assistance until legal aid was provided at

court.

Internet Resources

“I’ve never heard of Youthlaw. Do they even have a website?” A—, 22

Few participants said that they looked up legal resources on the internet or used the

internet to search for legal assistance. When asked where they might seek legal info online,

participants suggested Google as the first option, but didn’t know of any particular websites

or resources that could help them.

As a general rule, those that had attempted to find out legal information or rights from

official online sources said they found the language confusing. They stated that they

couldn’t understand what they were reading, or how to interpret the laws in question.

Most participants did, however, express a desire to be able to find legal resources and

information online. Very few actually acted upon this.


4. Rights

“Honestly, [I’d like] to know my rights, to be shown and expressed my

rights, and actually know […] what can actually happen in that

situation, because when I’m in it I just sort of go with the flow” J—, 17

While participants generally expressed a wish to know more about their rights, few had any

knowledge about their rights in situations where they were being questioned, detained or

arrested. It is worth noting that only one participant brought up the issue of rights

independently. In all other interviews, rights were only discussed when prompted by the

interviewer. As a general rule, the younger the participant was, the less attention they paid

to the issue of rights.

“I’d want to know where I legally stand in that situation. I’d want to

know how to remove myself from that situation.” T—, 18

The most discussed rights were those around public transport ticketing and fines, and those

regarding property searches. Issues around feeling targeted by police, intimidation, and

how to make a complaint without being ignored were also raised by several participants.

“I’ve learned a few things through word of mouth, but also a lot of

bullshit” T—, 18

Most information about rights that participants had came from either friends or family, or

from personal experience in dealing with authorities. The ‘right to remain silent’ tended to

be known (because participants had heard police say this to them), though it didn’t tend to

be exercised. Some participants were aware that the information that they had regarding

their rights was not entirely accurate.

“I’d actually want ‘section a, paragraph b’, like those kind of laws, not

just word of mouth” H—, 20

Some participants stated a desire for specific information that they could quote to

authorities (these tended to be the participants who took a ‘talking back’ approach to

confrontation). Others simply wanted to know what their rights were in order to best handle

themselves in a difficult situation and not get into more trouble.


“I’d just like to know what I don’t have to answer, what I do…” Ja—,

16

In most cases, it would have been useful for a participant to know their rights and the

powers of authorities well before they were in a situation of conflict, as they believed that this

knowledge could have helped them respond appropriately and avoid escalation.


5. A Model of Experience with Authority

Based on our research and analysis, we believe that the diagram below provides a general

overview of the range of experiences with authority and the types of information that

participants would have found useful at various points during these experiences.

We believe that this model can provide a useful starting point for a discussion of the kinds

of information that Youthlaw should provide via a mobile-accessible service.

It will also be a useful tool for design when it comes to developing such as service.


6. Technology Use

Participants, regardless of economic circumstance, relied on their phones for social contact,

information, and internet access.

We were surprised to discover that even low income and homeless participants had recent-

model smartphones that could access the internet, and would save money to spend

preferentially on a good quality mobile devices.

Internet access seemed to be intermittent and spread across mobile devices and

desktop/laptop computers, although in most cases a participant’s phone was their primary

method of accessing the internet.

Diverse Phones

Participants showed us a wide range of phone models and styles. iPhones, Android phones

(Samsung) and Nokia phones (Windows and Meego). The phones ranged in age from very

recent models to several years old, but only one phone we saw had no internet access at all.

Some participants had a number of broken phones that they had immediate plans to

replace/fix.

Low App Use

We found a generally low use of apps amongst participants. Part of this could be attributed

to the phone diversity: those with Nokia phones did not have easy access to apps.

Participants tended to use the Facebook app on their phones, and some played games.

We found that apps didn’t tend to be a common way for participants to access information.

Prepaid Credit

Nearly all participants used prepaid credit for their phones, and in many cases this credit

didn’t last them the time between Centrelink payments or other sources of income. Many

participants were unable to access the internet on their phones or contact friends and

family for up to 50% of the time, and would rely on other free internet access such as that

provided by public libraries or Frontyard.


Recommendations The original brief for this project suggested an app could be used in situations of conflict

with authorities, at the time that a confrontation occurred. Based on our research outlined

above, we no longer believe this is the best strategy. Instead we recommend a responsive

website, designed for mobile phones.

We recommend that this website is empowering but not provocative, that it has clear, non-

legalese information on steps to take in different situations, that it has easy means of contacting

Youthlaw for further help. We also recommend that it is designed as an education tool as

much as a tool for helping young people.

A Responsive Website, Designed for Mobile Phones

We propose a mobile responsive website. This will ensure the accessibility of information

across the broad range of circumstances and technologies we observed in the research.

A mobile responsive website is a website that is designed to work on a range of screen sizes,

so that it both looks good and functions well across mobile and desktop browsers. This will

mean that the website is generally accessible across a range of mobile devices.

A responsive website rather than a separate mobile website also means that a single website

can be maintained to serve the needs of both mobile and desktop users.

The website should provide:

• clear information regarding individual rights;

• clear descriptions of the different powers of police, PSOs and other authorities;

• plain language steps to take if and when you are in a situation of confrontation with

authority; and

• clear steps to take after a confrontation, including how to seek legal advice, and how

to make a complaint.

The website should be ‘low-bandwidth’

Because of the issues we identified with a lack of phone credit and intermitted access, we

suggest that the website be targeted as a low-bandwidth site to both load quickly on a 3G


phone connection and use as little data as possible. This means minimal use of images, and

simple text based web-pages for information rather than downloadable PDFs.

Empowering but not Provocative

It is important to inform young people of their rights to empower them in situations where

they are confronted with authority. We must also be careful, however, not to push people to

be overly confrontational in expressing their rights in ways that may exacerbate a situation.

Ideally we would like the information provided to de-escalate the situation as much as

possible.

We think that this can be achieved by offering clear information in an accessible manner,

along with clear steps to take for if situations do get out of hand. If young people were

empowered by knowing their rights regarding legal representation or making complaints

(for example), they may be less likely to argue with authority or attempt to flee, and instead

be safe in the knowledge that they can access legal representation and assert their rights at a

later stage.

Clear Steps for Different Situations

Many participants expressed a need for a clear outline of their rights in specific situations

(such as being questioned by Authorised Officers), and clear steps to take before, during

and after confrontations.

The website needs to be easily navigable and searchable so that users can find the

information they need easily and with minimal frustration.

Non-Legalese

Due to the issues raised regarding the difficultly of finding and understanding legal

information online, we suggest that content be provided in simple, plain language, with

links to the relevant laws available for those interested in more detailed information.

Clear Contact Info

The website should provide a clear and easy way to contact Youthlaw and other legal aid

providers for additional advice, along with links to other services that may be useful to

Youthlaw’s clientele.


An Education Tool

We recommend thinking of the website as an educational resource for young people in

times of crisis, but also for the people that they are most likely turn to in the time of an

emergency: parents, teachers, and friends.

Misinformation is easily spread through word of mouth, and if a parent or teacher has easy

access to accurate legal information, we may help mitigate this problem.


Appendix A: Interview Questions The questions below are intended as prompts to start a conversation about interactions between participants

and Youthlaw. The interviews we conduct with participants will be semi-structured, which means that we

use the questions below as prompts rather than a strict script. We do this so that we can be sure to cover the

most relevant themes for the project.

Introduction

• Introduce self and PaperGiant.

• Introduce others in the room.

• We’re doing research for Youthlaw to help improve the services they provide. To do that,

we’re interested in hearing about your experiences with authorities. We’ll be asking you to

talk about some of those experiences today.

• Whatever you say will be confidential. [lawyer] will explain a bit about that.

• Sign consent form.

• Any questions?

Questions

No Question Purpose Time Est.

1 Do you mind telling us a bit about yourself?

Warm-up

Find out about the participant:

Age, living circumstances,

education

5 mins

2 Tell us about a time where you’ve had

interactions with the police, PSOs or ticket

inspectors.

What information did you want to know in

that moment? Did you get it? How/Why

not?

Have you ever thought about your rights in

that situation? Do you feel like you know

them? If not, why not?

Identify scenarios

Identify barriers to access

Identify opportunities for a

mobile intervention

20 mins

3 If you got into trouble with authorities

tomorrow, where would you go to for help

Available alternatives to

existing legal services

10 mins


or information? Why? How?

Would you use legal services? Why? Why

not?

Web, person or phone, etc?

Discussion of existing contact

channels

Testing awareness of channels

Preference for channels

4 How do you access the internet?

When? Where?

Do you have a mobile phone? What kind?

General technology use

Proficiency, experience and

access

5 mins

Documents

Youthlaw Mobile Research 3youthlaw.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Youthlaw... · 2014. 10. 3. · Youthlaw Mobile — Research 7 We discussed many different interactions and confrontations