Abstract
Mobile technology presents opportunities within the justice system to support and promote behaviour change and the past decade has seen increased development and use of mobile applications for this purpose. This article aims to contribute to this burgeoning area by presenting the findings of research which scoped the utility of a mobile application (app) intended to support Indigenous people on bail or parole in the Australian Capital Territory. The project sought the views of 12 people with lived experience of the criminal justice system, as well as 23 professional stakeholders who engage with the justice system, to determine the utility of such an app.
Introduction
This article presents the findings of research which scoped the utility of a mobile application (app) intended to support Indigenous people on bail or parole in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). To do this, we sought the views and advice of 12 people with lived experience of the criminal justice system (i.e., the potential end-users of such an app), as well as the views of 23 professional stakeholders across several organisations that engage with the justice system. The project also sought to understand what obstacles people face when on bail or parole and how an app might be used to overcome some of these obstacles. In this article, we first summarise the emergence of ‘digital justice’ and some of the issues associated with ‘justice apps’ (see also Taylor et al., 2023). We then explain the context in which this research was conducted, namely, a focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people involved in the justice system in the ACT.
Digital justice and justice apps
The relative merits of digital technologies to support people in the criminal justice system are fast becoming a burgeoning area of research, with interest from both academics and practitioners working on ways to reduce reincarceration. This area of research is sometimes referred to as ‘digital justice’ (see e.g., Morris and Graham, 2019) and it has been suggested that advances in the use of technology within the criminal justice space will ‘shape the way justice is done and experienced’ (Van De Steene and Knight, 2017: 256). With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of technology to monitor or support people involved in the criminal justice system is being implemented by justice agencies across the globe, especially in the area of remote supervision (see e.g., Herzog-Evans and Sturgeon, 2022; Sturm et al., 2021; Viglione et al., 2020).
Technology may also help facilitate access to justice, generate improvements in efficiency and outcomes, and reduce costs and delay across the criminal justice system (Cashman and Ginnivan, 2019; Sourdin et al., 2020). One type of digital justice that is receiving more attention is the use of mobile apps in a justice context, referred to here as ‘justice apps’. Within this context, Sourdin et al. (2020: 2) developed a taxonomy that describes how this technology may reshape justice systems. First, there are ‘supportive technologies’ that can assist to support, inform and advise people. Second, there are ‘replacement technologies’ that replace functions previously carried out by humans. Finally, there are ‘disruptive technologies’ that provide for very different forms of justice in instances where processes change significantly. Justice apps may fall within any of these three categories, however the majority of such apps have been focused on dispute resolution, or are educational or supportive, by providing free access to legal information. Justice apps focused specifically on offenders are likely to fall into two broad categories, namely, monitoring and reporting technologies, and those with a therapeutic and rehabilitative purpose (see Morris and Graham, 2019). This article is specifically concerned with the latter type of justice app.
There are increasing examples of the use of mobile technology for offender behaviour change in the criminal justice space in Australia and internationally (Cooke et al., 2018; Pattavina and Corbett, 2019; Spohr et al., 2015). A recent review by Taylor et al. (2023) identified 22 studies in which mobile technology was considered as a tool to address a range of problems faced by people involved in the criminal justice system, from promoting compliance with probation conditions, to increasing the rate of court attendance and trust in the police. The review also identified 17 mobile apps that have been developed to support offenders in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe and Canada. One such example is the ‘Changing Lives’ mobile phone app, developed by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (McGreevy, 2017). This app aims to assist offenders to desist from crime and help those struggling with mental health issues or addictions to identify their problems and find support. Importantly, the app is free to download, making it more accessible. It also contains several key functions, including: a journal, which allows users to keep track of their thoughts and how they are feeling; an appointments and calendar section, which enables users to schedule their next probation appointment and receive reminders; a section on probation that brings together information on probation and other court orders, explains what the order means, what is required of the person and the consequences of non-compliance; and mental health and addiction sections, which provide resources and support to people struggling with these issues (McGreevy, 2017).
While there is an increase in the development and use of justice apps, the extent to which these apps have been co-designed in collaboration with potential and actual end-users is unclear. Morris and Knight have highlighted the importance of co-designing technology that promotes desistance, contending that the risk of technology being used in a punitive way may be mitigated by placing ‘service users as close to the centre of their design and implementation as possible’ (2018: 270). One example of such co-design is the justice app Utsikt (meaning view, prospect or outlook), developed and implemented in Sweden, which aims to improve attendance at probation meetings (Kaun and Stiernstedt, 2020). This app was co-designed and tested with 19 people on probation, with several key functions developed as a result. Significantly, the app can be personalised by the probationer, who is able to choose from a number of cognitive exercises to help probationers deal with, or prepare for, stressful situations. Users can also keep track of their mood, with the help of a journal function. Importantly, the developers emphasise that the app primarily aims to prevent recidivism, rather than controlling or supervising clients, and users can choose to opt out of using the app, without it affecting their relationship with the probation services (Kaun and Stiernstedt, 2020).
Indigenous Australians and the criminal justice system
In Australia, Indigenous people are significantly over-represented in the justice system, accounting for 30% of the adult prison population, despite constituting only 3% of the general population. It is beyond the scope of the present article to examine the reasons for this over-representation, including the legacies of colonisation and systemic racism, but it is established that Indigenous people face greater barriers than non-Indigenous people in terms of both obtaining and successfully completing bail (see e.g., Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), 2017; Bartels, 2019) and parole (ALRC, 2017). In its Pathways to Justice – Inquiry Into The Incarceration Rate Of Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Peoples report, the ALRC (2017) identified several reasons why someone may be at increased risk of breaching their bail conditions. These include conditions attached to bail conflicting with an Indigenous person's cultural obligations, for example, by restricting contact with family members, or by enforcing exclusionary zones or curfews, which prevent the individual from attending important cultural events. There are also practical considerations, which may affect an individual's capacity to comply with bail conditions, including access to transport, particularly in regional and remote areas, 1 or language barriers, which can detract from a person's understanding of their conditions (ALRC, 2017).
Similar issues are present for Indigenous people who are trying to obtain parole or are on parole. For example, Indigenous prisoners experience greater barriers in obtaining parole than non-Indigenous prisoners, and are significantly less likely to complete parole. These barriers include lack of access to legal support, low levels of literacy, mental illness, a lack of housing and drug and alcohol abuse (Jones, 2019).
In the March 2022 quarter, when the fieldwork reported in this article was undertaken, 40% of Indigenous adults in prison in the ACT were unsentenced; this was slightly higher than the national Indigenous figure and the total ACT figures, at 39% and 37%, respectively (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2022a). Other ABS data indicated that 15% of Indigenous adults incarcerated in the ACT had an offence against justice (which includes breach of bail or parole) as their most serious offence, compared with 12% of non-Indigenous people (ABS, 2022b). Indigenous prisoners are also more likely to have been incarcerated previously, at 78%, compared with 52% of non-Indigenous people (ABS, 2022b).
Measures that can encourage and support Indigenous detainees to apply for, and successfully complete, bail and/or parole are therefore worthy of consideration and may play a role in breaking the cycle of reoffending. One such measure may be the use of a mobile app, tailored to the specific needs of this cohort.
Methodology
This project emerged from a suggestion by a member of the ACT Indigenous community that an app be developed, to support Indigenous people to comply with the conditions of their bail and parole. The fieldwork involved the use of semi-structured interviews, focus groups and analyses of secondary source material. The research instruments and design of the project were developed in consultation with, and endorsed by, representatives from key Indigenous organisations and the project received ethics approval from Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (Indigenous organisation). The interviews and focus groups were conducted with two stakeholder groups: professional stakeholders and Indigenous people with lived experience of bail and/or parole.
We conducted 3 focus groups with 8 professional stakeholders, with the 15 remaining participants taking part in one-on-one interviews. Professional stakeholders came from a range of organisations with direct experience of the criminal justice system including corrections agencies, police, peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies, behavioural insights agencies and legal representatives.
We conducted two focus groups and four interviews with lived experience participants. Some of these interviews were conducted by an Indigenous research officer. Where this was not possible, participants were advised that the interviewers were not Indigenous and were offered the opportunity to reschedule at a time that our Indigenous research officer was available. However, all chose to proceed with a non-Indigenous researcher instead.
Interviews with participants ranged in length from 15 to 90 min, with an average length of 50 min. The focus groups ranged from 30 to 90 min, with an average length of 55 min. One of the focus groups was led by an Indigenous research officer. All interviews and three of the focus groups were recorded and professionally transcribed. One lived experience focus group chose not to be recorded and instead a member of the research team and a representative from ACT Government transcribed the discussion by hand. The notes were then consolidated and sent to the focus group participants, to ensure the notes accurately captured their comments and opinions. All transcripts were analysed thematically, to determine common themes regarding the use of technology in people's daily lives, what supports are available and utilised by people on bail or parole, whether the development of an app to support people on bail or parole is viewed as useful, and, if so, what features on an app would be regarded as useful.
As part of the research design for this project, the research team undertook user research, which had a number of goals:
to better understand how, why and when key stakeholders are currently using digital devices, apps and channels in their day-to-day life to connect with each other and their community; to find out what opportunities and barriers exist to using digital tools, content and channels; and to test initial ideas for potential digital app functionalities with key stakeholders, seek their feedback and input on what would have the greatest positive impact.
Questions relating to the challenges of complying with conditions of bail or parole were also posed to participants. These questions were important, in understanding the barriers and obstacles in day-to-day life that may impact the likelihood of successfully completing bail or parole.
In order to preserve participant confidentiality, responses from participants documented in the analysis section are given designated codes (PS = professional stakeholder/LE = lived experience participant; FG = focus group).
Limitations
Before moving to the findings, there are a few limitations that are worth mentioning. Firstly, we recognise that the sample size for participants, especially those with lived experience (n = 12), is relatively small. If a mobile app is developed in the future, it should be piloted and a larger cohort of app users engaged, to understand how the app is used and how useful it is for those users. More significantly, due to time and budget constraints and the limitations of access, due to COVID restrictions during our data collection, we did not interview people in custody. This was mentioned as important by several professional stakeholders. We recognise that people in the community who have shown at least some ability to meet their parole and/or bail conditions may differ in significant ways from those in custody. Future research should therefore include the perspectives of incarcerated people, whose have been unable to obtain bail and/or parole and/or had such orders cancelled.
As this research was focused on the needs of Indigenous people in the ACT, some of the findings may not be relevant to other cohorts. However, many of the themes identified below will have equal salience to other justice-involved people, both in Australia and internationally. Finally, this research examined the utility of mobile apps for people on bail or parole. The focus on these two orders is due to the scope of the consultancy project which funded this research. We recognise that other forms of community supervision (e.g., probation) may have other dimensions that are different from bail and/or parole and future research should consider these issues.
Findings
As noted above, we spoke to 35 participants (23 professional stakeholders and 12 lived experience participants). Nearly all (34 out of 35) supported the idea of an app to help people comply with their bail and/or parole conditions. Participants also spoke about the use of technology and access to smartphones, key features of a mobile app and challenges related to bail and parole. These responses were thematically analysed and the following section presents the findings from those interviews and focus groups.
It should be noted that, although we sought feedback on the potential for an app to support people on both bail and parole, most of the stakeholders we spoke to commented more on the former. Nevertheless, the observations about the complexity of the lives of justice-involved Indigenous people in the ACT community are likely to be equally apposite, in the context of other types of community-based orders.
Use of technology and access to smartphones
All lived experience participants stated that they use smartphones on a regular basis. The various uses mentioned included making and receiving phone calls, online banking, social media, making appointments, watching videos and using Google. A few participants commented that they relied heavily on their phone to remind them of upcoming appointments, using the calendar function to keep track of these appointments.
Most professional stakeholders observed that people engaged in the justice system had access to smartphones and used them in their everyday lives. This was especially the case among younger people. As one stakeholder commented: Most of the people coming out of custody are in that technology generation anyway. There's not too many guys that are getting out that are in that older age bracket, that haven’t been around technology before. (PS2) I think everyone can use a mobile phone [in] this day, unless you’re older, like the older ones, Elders and so forth, they find it hard, so that obviously they need training. But most people can use mobile phones these days. (PS1)
A different stakeholder reflected: I think the big one is connecting. People use their phones to connect with family and friends, and to play games, that's about it. Or entertainment. So that's what I think people use it most for. (PS6)
Another participant observed that most of their clients have a level of digital literacy, which would make the use of a mobile app accessible: my observation is that the vast majority of clients have the level of literacy necessary to understand basic text…even people who report themselves as struggling with literacy often have huge volumes of text messages back and forth… the text message era has brought in a lot more phonetic type spelling, usually as abbreviations, and therefore the acceptable level of literacy is a bit lower with text messages, because it is all that abbreviation and whatnot. (PS FG2).
These findings accord with research on the media habits of Indigenous people in Australia. A survey conducted by the McNair Ingenuity Research Institute of 400 Indigenous people found that usage of the social media platform Facebook was 20% higher among Indigenous people than the national average (Callinan, 2014). In their study of Aboriginal young people's use of mobile devices and social networking, Edmonds et al. found that they used social media for ‘maintaining connections and for pathways to assist them when facing big decisions’ (2012: 12). More recent research has found that over 90% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people surveyed used social network sites to connect with friends or family across distances (Carlson and Frazer, 2018).
Despite this, a number of challenges to maintaining contact with clients were mentioned. One stakeholder spoke of the difficulties of staying in contact with clients, when they did not have a phone and were relying on writing details down on a piece of article, stating: ‘it feels like half our job is trying to get into contact with clients…this issue is not isolated to people who have been incarcerated. There's a lot that have been on bail, no issue and still keep going through phones and then become uncontactable’ (PS FG2).
Lived experience participants highlighted that access to mobile phones can be an issue, especially for people exiting prison: [W]hen you’re coming out, you don’t have a phone straight-up… The majority of the time, people have to go buy a new phone. (LE FG2)
Several professional stakeholders mentioned the need to factor in data requirements and internet access, when developing an app for people on bail or parole. As one stakeholder commented: People don’t always have access to internet or data. Especially people who are poor, or even in a lower socio-economic kind of category, and may not be able to afford continuous data and stuff like that. (PS6)
These comments on the challenges in accessing data were supported by several lived experience participants, who mentioned that they either have no data or run out of data, posing an issue in using an app: Data, I do run out of data, because I was on, like $2 a day, but I’ve just changed, because I found you can get 30 bucks and 40 gigabytes for $10. So yes, I’ve just been going off that. (LE1) I’ve never got data, never have data. (LE FG2)
Research consistently finds that re-entry into society after exiting prison is a particularly challenging time for many people. Released detainees typically have limited savings and few prospects for stable income (see e.g., Baldry et al., 2018; Doyle et al., 2022). As the above comments suggest, obtaining a mobile phone may be an additional challenge for people leaving prison and this is likely compounded by the limited financial resources that many people experience. This may limit the uptake and therefore impact of an app of this nature. Our findings highlight the need to be realistic about the costs of connectivity. It is also important to ensure that apps of this nature do not exacerbate data poverty issues.
Views on privacy
Tracking and access to stored data were noted as being possible concerns for people using a mobile app. Lived experience participants mentioned concerns about privacy when using technology, especially around third parties accessing data and location tracking: Tracking, yes. I don’t like what they have – the GPS tracking, you know? Yes, so they know where you’ve been and so-and-so at what time, yes. (LE FG1) I don’t like my Google GPS sometimes. Especially if I’ve got the police matters…I don’t like my Google location on. (LE1)
Another participant shared that they had distrust about giving out information over the phone: Just don’t trust, like, I don’t do my phone banking stuff and that over the phones or anything like that. (LE2)
The collection of data was also raised as a concern in a focus group: I have a thing with using it, the data, you know, who's collecting it and the footprint that you’re leaving. Who's accessing that footprint? (LE FG2)
Similarly, stakeholders commented on the need to ensure that users of the app know that it is not intended as a supervision tool, with members of a focus group commenting: The clientele will have serious paranoia, so there needs to be that affirmation/reassurance that their info is their own and confidential. (PS FG3)
Conversely, one stakeholder commented that having conditions of bail or parole available in a digital format could increase a sense of privacy and minimise feelings of shame: I think, if anything, having it as a digital format does make it feel more private and they’re not as exposed. Having seen the spectrum of different behaviour change things that are offered, some of them are offered at court, you’re there and everyone can see you and someone's there with a clipboard, and they’re taking down your details – ‘do you want to come to this program?’ You’ve actually got to deal with people. There's already a shame that you’re feeling about it all. (PS4)
This latter perspective was in the minority, however. The fact that many respondents expressed concerns about privacy and data security is hardly surprising, as there have been a growing number of large data breaches in Australia. According to Webber Insurance (2023), which purports to list all data breaches in Australia since 2018, there were 33 such breaches in 2018, compared with 53 in 2021 and 68 in. In addition, the implications of such breaches can extend far beyond the notional situation where ‘someone's there with a clipboard, and they’re taking down your details’. There is therefore good reason for respondents’ concerns and they should be borne in mind in the development and dissemination of apps of this nature.
Core mobile app features
Participants were then asked to reflect on what they considered to be core features of a mobile app designed to support people on bail and/or parole.
Several key features emerged, including the app having the ability to store useful information, key contacts, have a reminder and notification function, an audio function and for the app to be visually appealing. Each of these features are discussed in turn below. What became immediately apparent, however, was the need for simplicity in the design of the app. This key theme was mentioned by all stakeholders and was considered key for at least two reasons: first, because literacy and other challenges may prevent people from being able to read large amounts of text displayed on a small screen; and, second, because displaying too much information at once may overwhelm people, who may then be more inclined to disengage from the app and not use it. As one stakeholder commented: I think the design, and the readability and the ease of use is going to be a big one… if people see something in there, like, it's not immediately intuitive they’ll just close it. (PS6)
Useful information
Keeping in mind the need for simplicity, the importance of the right kind of information being contained and displayed on the app was mentioned by most stakeholders. This included information on the specific conditions of their bail/parole. As one stakeholder explained, ‘People don’t remember the conditions, and they’re so confusing, and so having something that actually explains it in a format that they can go and revisit, it's always sitting there on the app where they can go in’ (PS4).
Having easy access to bail and/or parole conditions via a mobile phone app was supported by several lived experience participants. One participant commented: It would be very helpful, because in court you’re nervous, and you’re not picking up everything sometimes. Because you just want to get out of there, half the time, and it would be so, so helpful to have that, because you could be in a place and think, ‘oh, hang on, am I allowed to be here?’ Or something like that. So, to have that, to look at it and know. (LE3) I was thinking their bail conditions could either be just a tap away, or be on the front page, so that they know – really easy to use, only some information on there, so it's quite an easy app to use, rather than [overwhelming them with lots of information]… so maybe only three different features on it or something and one is seeing your bail and your conditions, and then the other one is when your time is, if they have to go and report, and so forth. And then some numbers, phone numbers for their parole officer and so forth. Something very simple, I think people would use that. (PS1)
Another stakeholder made similar suggestions for the placement of useful information: What's my date? First page. Next page, what's the conditions? For your bail, that's kind of what you need to know. Or where do I need to go, perhaps. (PS3)
When asked whether a function on an app which read out conditions would be useful, one stakeholder commented: Yes. I really do. For people that can’t read, and for people that can’t see well, that would be really helpful. And it's inclusive of people with disability, to do that sort of stuff. Plus, sometimes just having someone read it out to you makes more sense than reading it yourself. (PS6)
Reminders and notifications
The ability for an app to send the user reminders of upcoming appointments was seen as a key feature. Lived experience participants were unanimous in their belief that appointment reminders would be useful: Awesome, yes… Because I went to court in May, and it's not until August, and that's a lot of time, and I haven’t got a good memory, so yes, a reminder would be perfect. (LE1) [It] would be very beneficial to have for someone going to court. It just takes off that pressure, I suppose…having something like that would ease a bit more of the anxiety, I guess, of trying to remember all these appointments. (LE3) Having a little sort of thing that reminds them of the dates in their court or something like that, a little calendar, that's really helpful, because you would be surprised how often people just forget their court dates. (PS6)
Notifications were also mentioned as being an important feature and, in particular, the ability of an app to be able to send useful prompts or alerts. For example, one stakeholder suggested: Something really great that you can do is help a user identify their danger times, when they’re more likely to breach, and then have in-built reminders in the app that remind them when their danger time is up. (PS7) Yes, on pay day. Because that's when we slip up, when we get money in our pocket. (LE FG1)
Key contacts
Having a list of trusted, key contacts was also regarded as an important feature. This list could include numbers for family and friends, support workers, lawyers, parole and bail officers. As one stakeholder explained: just having those couple of ones that you can put in, because, for example, their bail condition or parole condition might be that they have to go see a psychologist…And then, if they can put that psychologist's number and address or something like that, they have the ability to put it in, so that it's easily accessible in that one app. (PS6)
Keeping track of appointments was a key challenge raised by lived experience participants. For example, when asked about whether remembering certain dates for appointments was challenging, one person commented: Yes. That can be very confusing. Because, we’ve got a lot of appointments, and doctor's appointments, appointments [at an Indigenous community organisation], with our Job Network, so we’re pretty busy and we do forget our appointments and that from time to time. (LE3) People forget who their solicitor is so much [of the time]. If there's somewhere where they could put their solicitor's number in, that would be good… Because a lot of them will go with Legal Aid and [the Aboriginal Legal Service] and they get passed around a lot and they can forget. (PS6)
Structural challenges associated with complying with conditions
While feedback from participants suggests overwhelming support for the development of a mobile app to help people on bail or parole, it also became clear from the interviews that there are several structural challenges to successful compliance, some of which cannot be solved by the use of a mobile app. These challenges included a lack of suitable housing and access to transport. Other challenges which may be mitigated to an extent by the use of an app include a lack of structure in day-to-day life and challenges related to understanding bail or parole conditions.
A lack of suitable housing, or a safe place to return to after release, were cited by several stakeholders as contributing to the challenge of complying with bail or parole conditions. One stakeholder commented that ‘housing is a big one, that people find hard for their conditions, if they have housing and so forth’ (PS1).
Another stakeholder who works closely with Indigenous people in the criminal justice system commented: Sometimes [a condition] is breached because people just don’t have enough homes to go to. Often, when they first come to court, there's an interim solution, and they can house them for a week or two, and then, after leaving the toilet seat up too many times, they might get kicked out. And we often find that seems to be another reason why they come back [into prison]. (PS FG2) You could probably talk about this all day, but the reporting one is a big one, especially if it's every day. We can help them remind them to report, but if they’re reporting seven days a week, that's at least $5 minimum, it's probably even more, for a bus into town, and otherwise you’ve got to walk. For our clients, $35 a week to report is a lot. (PS FG1)
People may also be reliant on friends and family to bring them to appointments, as one participant explained: A lot of these people are coming in to court, like, for traffic violations is a big one. And they either don’t have a licence or aren’t allowed to currently drive, so they’re relying on family or friends to take them, who sometimes can’t be the more reliable people either. (PS6)
Several stakeholders spoke about how many people on bail or parole experienced high degrees of disorganisation in their lives, which can impact on their ability to comply with conditions: I often would have people call me up and go, ‘oh, I forgot I had court. I’ll be there in two hours, I’m just going to get the bus’. And I’m, like, ‘well, your court date's now, you can’t be here in two hours.’ (PS6)
Another stakeholder spoke at length about the various compounding factors that all contribute to the high degrees of disorganisation: Where people's lives are messy, perhaps disorganised, they’ve got a history of drug misuse, but even just in a general sense, don’t live with a structured pattern, it becomes just very difficult to build in compliance with bail, to recall when you’re required to attend court, or perhaps when you’re required to attend a police station… And often success is determined more by whether or not there are other people around the person, or support networks, that can remind and even assist with transport to, for example, get to court. And so, we have situations where [there] are people essentially in breach of a bail condition for not appearing, not because of any kind of wilfulness or contempt, but it's just too difficult to manage the various aspects of life. And it's perhaps hard for those who don’t experience that to appreciate. (PS8)
Another stakeholder spoke about the challenges of maintaining structure, once an individual is released from custody: In my experience, I find that when they’re released from custody, they don’t have any structure. It's all about structure and that. Because when they come from the correctional structure there, they get fed at a certain time, they get told to wash, they get told to do everything. But when they’re released, they just go back to that lifestyle, where it's disorganised, erratic. (PS2)
Conditions of bail or parole may be complex and difficult to understand and this is likely to be exacerbated if a person has additional challenges with literacy and/or numeracy. One stakeholder considered these challenges: Even if we think of it from a lawyer's perspective, from the other side of the bar table. If you hear from the bench, a judicial officer stating that these will be the conditions of bail, you struggle to keep track of that, writing it down, even to keep pace with writing it down. And so, if we take from that and we imagine what it's like when you’re not writing it down and just hearing it, it's very difficult to imagine that anyone, let alone someone who is stressed in that situation will recall from that point the specifics. And so we are then also relying very much, I think we have to accept, on literacy, and a paper, a piece of paper. And I think that there's a lot of assumptions around the way people read, engage, levels of literacy, and levels of organisation, so that those conditions are accessible and built into the person's routine. (PS8)
There are often several conditions attached to bail and/or parole and, depending on how many matters the individual has presented for, some of these conditions may be contradictory, increasing the likelihood that conditions will be breached. This challenge was explained by a stakeholder, who works closely with people on bail: Sometimes, when they’ve got really strict conditions, they could have 10 conditions, and I can’t even understand this, how are they meant to [comply], properly. Or, if they’ve got conflicting conditions. It happens all the time. When they’re on three lots of different bail conditions, one says this, one says that, and another says this. And then they’ve got three different [apprehended violence orders] that say three different things, that can be very, very confusing. (PS FG1)
The same stakeholder spoke about their experiences witnessing people attempting to understand their conditions: I had a young fella yesterday who had reading and writing issues. He could sort of understand basic things, but he was unrepresented and they handed him fact sheets from the police and an [apprehended violence order] and he just looked at me and said I don’t know what that says… So has obviously limited reading ability, but looked at all that information and just went, ‘no, that's too hard, I don’t know what that says’. (PS FG1)
When asked whether an app would be useful for people with literacy barriers, another stakeholder responded: Yes, I think it's highly likely to be successful, and particularly if you think of literacy really broadly, and going back to the point of literacy in terms of organising life around appointments and so forth. One thing that's pretty clear, from participants, is that they all use phones, or by and large they’re all using phones. (PS8)
Commenting on literacy being a big challenge for clients, one stakeholder commented, in relation to the design of an app to help support people on bail or parole: I think that if you had an option where it could be read out, so voice-to-text, or the opposite way, so if someone's saying ‘I need my bail conditions’, if they could be read out on the phone. (PS1)
The importance of clear communication in a mobile app was echoed by another stakeholder: I think the language that you use when you’re asking questions needs to be really, really, really simple, and not these big jumbled words that everyone uses. Because they’re just look at it and go, no, I’m not even going to bother. (PS2)
It is clearly not possible for an app or any other piece of technology to address broader structural issues, such as lack of housing, transport and/or. Individually and collectively, these are likely to be barriers to successful completion of community-based orders. However, the comments in this section illustrate the potential for technology to play a role in reducing these barriers. The most obvious example is the wider use of assistive technology for people who struggle with literacy. In this context, it is relevant to note a recent report by the World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund, which stated: Assistive products can enhance performance in all key functional domains … they may be digital and come in the form of software and apps that support communication, time management, monitoring, etc. …Access to assistive technology is a human right, and a precondition for equal opportunities and participation…[but the majority of people who would benefit from it do not have sufficient access (2022: ix)
Discussion and conclusion
Nearly all participants in this research (34 out of 35) supported the idea of an app to help people comply with their bail and/or parole conditions. Only one lived experience participant stated that they would not use an app, because they did not think they would need it. Based on our findings, any app developed in this context should involve the following core features:
text message reminders and push notifications, to remind participants of important dates related to their bail or parole conditions; text message reminders and a calendar feature, to improve the rate of attendance at key appointments; links to plain English resources and information relating to court processes, preferably presented visually; and links to appropriate support services for people involved in the criminal justice system.
However, there should be recognition that the potential of the app to impact on bail and parole compliance may be modest. In particular, professional stakeholders raised several structural challenges including lack of suitable housing and access to transport that cannot be addressed by the use of a mobile app, but which may affect a person's ability to successfully comply with their bail and/or parole conditions. While beyond the scope of this article, it is essential that future research into the utility of technology to support positive behaviour change for people involved in the criminal justice system consider these structural barriers and the potential for technology to assist in addressing them.
Privacy and security concerns were raised by the majority of participants interviewed. Particular concern centred on whether such an app would be able to track the user's location. Kao and Liebovitz (2017) have also highlighted privacy and security concerns; because of the rapid increase of apps, the amount of personal data that is collected and stored (including, often, quite sensitive data) is also increasing dramatically. Often, app developers fail to provide explicit privacy policies and users pay little attention to the apps’ information security and privacy policies. Since this research was conducted, there have been a number of high-profile data breaches, including a data breach of telecommunication provider Optus, leading to the personal information of 9.8 million customers being compromised (Kost, 2022). It is possible that, if our data collection have been conducted after these breaches had occurred, there may have been even more concern from participants regarding privacy and security.
Generally speaking, digital literacy among the cohort interviewed was relatively high. This suggests that there is potential for high uptake of the proposed app, although this needs to be offset against the concerns raised about the cost of data and who would have access to the data. In addition, while an increasing proportion of people, at least in the developed world, have access to the internet and the use of mobile technology, people in prison often do not have access to such technology. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that, upon release from prison, these individuals will have the necessary levels of digital literacy to take advantage of mobile apps designed to support them. Future research should examine ways in which prisons can adequately upskill people in prison to keep up-to-date with emerging technologies (Van De Steen and Knight, 2017), so that they might also be able to take advantage of technological opportunities to support them, as they transition to life back in the community.
Some research shows that sociodemographic factors, such as age and education, are significant variables for predicting whether a person will adopt a mobile device. Overall, younger individuals with more education are more likely to use apps related to health (Carroll et al., 2017). This information should also be borne in mind, in considering the likely use and utility of apps in the justice space, although previous research examining the uptake of social media specifically within Indigenous communities has found high levels of usage.
User attrition of mobile apps may also present challenges. Currently, there is scant knowledge in relation to engagement and retention rates among users of mobile apps, designed as part of interventions in the justice space (Ross et al., 2022). While more research is required, attrition may be mitigated, in instances in which digital technology is co-produced with the end users. It is therefore important to ensure that the development of justice apps for use by Indigenous people involved in the justice system is informed by those with lived experience, to maximise the benefits that such technology may bring.
Technology that can support people to successfully complete their bail and/or parole is worthy of consideration and may play a role in breaking the cycle of reoffending and incarceration. Our findings contribute to the nascent literature on justice apps (for a recent review, see Taylor et al., 2023). They also suggest that an app designed in consultation with Indigenous people may have a role to play in reducing the over-representation of Indigenous people in the Australian justice system. However, it is crucial to ensure that any such technology is developed with a comprehensive understanding of the context in which it would be used and the limitations and challenges of such technology in bringing about behaviour change.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the ACT Government.
