Search results

Despite the small size of the sub program, Social Worker Assessed Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipients Income Management is often cited as a preferred approach to this type of initiative, being tightly targeted at a group of people with identified high needs, and demonstrated poor outcomes. Although the program was considered in the two recent major evaluations of income management, specific findings relating to it have tended to be overshadowed by the more general finding of an absence of positive outcomes, and indeed potentially negative effects, from compulsory income management. While the size of the sub program has made evaluation difficult, the two major evaluations of income management have nevertheless made specific findings which suggest that the program has had some positive outcomes for a highly marginal participant group. These findings, along with aspects of the operation of the program, including the role played by social workers, and a proposal to abolish the program, are discussed.

Australia has been experimenting with constraining the ways in which welfare recipients can spend their income support payments, limiting their ability to access cash and purchase some products. The policy objectives include to reduce spending on alcohol, gambling, pornography and tobacco in favour of meeting 'basic' family needs, especially for children, to limit the scope for financial harassment, encourage pro‑social behaviours, and build financial capabilities. In the logic of the programs these outcomes are expected to be manifest at the individual, family and community levels. The policy has primarily impacted on Indigenous Australians as a result of its geographictargeting, although a recent report has recommended a more stringentversion of the program be introduced universally to all welfare recipientsother than the aged. The largest of these experiments is 'New IncomeManagement' in the Northern Territory, which has had more than 35,000participants since its introduction in 2010. This article reports on the keyfindings of the major independent evaluation of New Income Management commissioned by the Australian Government.

This paper specifically addresses the behavioural focus of the income management regime, arguing that through its use of market logic and the reduction of social and political complexity, the regime is a technology of neoliberal governmentality. This paper finds that income management, whether compulsory or voluntary, blanket or Community based, regards the individual as the site of dysfunction, depoliticising and dehumanising broader socio economic historical factors in the process. Further, the focus on behavioural change creates the illusion that the market logic of income management will produce responsible citizens, which in turn obscures the possibility of redressing poverty and inequality.

The introduction of income management – sometimes called welfare quarantining – for subgroups of Australian income security recipients within the Northern Territory, and subsequently a number of other trial sites, has provoked considerable contention. The present study critically examined the arguments and evidence presented in favour of income management with particular reference to the guidelines, methodology and findings of official evaluations conducted by the Commonwealth Government. We identified five key issues that do not seem to be adequately addressed by official evaluations: choice and control, the quality of decision making, consultation with local community members, structural disadvantage and economic cost. We used these concepts to develop a proposed alternative model for assessing the impact of income management on local communities.

The introduction of compulsory income management – sometimes called welfare quarantining – for sub-groups of income security recipients within Australia has provoked considerable contention. This paper examines the specific introduction of the Place-Based trial in the rural Victorian region of Greater Shepparton from July 2012. Utilizing key community development principles, we critically analyse processes of implementation and evaluation, and argue that placebased income management has involved a centralized top-down process. In contrast, we recommend a bottom-up approach which would allow the local community to play a key role in defining the problem, and identifying policy solutions.

This paper focuses on how community workers in Shepparton viewed the impact of the Place Based Income Management (PBIM) trial on the lives of their clients, their clients' families, and the broader community. The paper responds to criticism that there has been a lack of community voices in the development of PBIM or of their inclusion in the formal evaluation framework, raised in Philip Mendes's 2013 study of this trial site. A key policy goal underlying Income Management is that the tool assists low income people to become better money managers. Our study found that Shepparton community workers also used the parlance of 'tool' to describe the programmatic value of the BasicsCard in their interactions with clients. However, the BasicsCard appeared marginal to their discussions. Three clear themes emerged from the interviews: Shepparton's focus on voluntary clients, and ascertaining why participation in the local trial had dropped; that support for IM centred on the voluntary measure and the extra resources available to assist clients; and pragmatically locating the program in the middle of a welfare continuum that stretched from the voluntary Centrepay at one end to the highly coercive and restrictive paternalism of State Trustees at the other.

Australia has been experimenting with constraining the ways in which welfare recipients can spend their income support payments, limiting their ability to access cash and purchase some products. The policy objectives include to reduce spending on alcohol, gambling, pornography and tobacco in favour of meeting 'basic' family needs, especially for children, to limit the scope for financial harassment, encourage pro‐social behaviours, and build financial capabilities. In the logic of the programs these outcomes are expected to be manifest at the individual, family and community levels. The policy has primarily impacted on Indigenous Australians as a result of its geographic targeting, although a recent report has recommended a more stringent version of the program be introduced universally to all welfare recipients other than the aged. The largest of these experiments is 'New Income Management' in the Northern Territory, which has had more than 35,000 participants since its introduction in 2010. This article reports on the key findings of the major independent evaluation of New Income Management commissioned by the Australian Government.

Income management programs ‐ which restrict how some recipients of government transfers can spend these funds ‐ have operated in Australia since 2007. The nature of the programs implemented varies, especially in regard to the combination of voluntary and compulsory elements, and there are also differences in scope and targeting. A number of evaluations and other studies of these programs have been undertaken. These vary in rigour, methodology, and the set of programs considered. This has led to an apparent diversity of findings, which has been exaggerated by selective use in public debate. The largest and most in depth evaluation has been that of 'New Income Management' in the Northern Territory. This found that the program had not achieved its objectives and appears to have created dependence. The relative outcomes of the studies are considered.

Many governments have intensified conditions on social security payments, implementing new paternalist and neoliberal policy ideals that individualise responsibility for overcoming poverty. This article explores how such policy ideals can operate with a racialised impact in the context of income management, a type of welfare conditionality in Australia that delivers cashless welfare transfers. Income management originally applied only to Indigenous welfare recipients, but has since been expanded. The government's rationale for the scheme is to limit access to alcohol and other drugs, and promote 'socially responsible behaviour'. However, empirical evidence indicates that income management in the Northern Territory has not been successful in achieving the government's policy objectives. Income management is built upon a policy narrative of addiction – those subject to it are portrayed as addicted to welfare payments and to alcohol. This article critiques these depictions and outlines a range of pragmatic, political and ethical concerns about income management.

Australian policy has been motivated by paternalism towards Indigenous peoples for the better part of Australia's colonial history. Contemporary forms of income management that disproportionately affect Indigenous peoples extend a paternalistic approach. The paternalism embedded within the income management discourse draws heavily upon the framework of 'new paternalism', which increases government supervision of those who receive welfare payments. However, in recent years, another form of paternalism has also been growing in popularity with Western governments – 'nudge paternalism' – which may have future implications for policy-making in the welfare context in Australia. This article comprises three parts. The first part explores specific problems that can arise with paternalistic policy-making directed towards Indigenous peoples, including nudge paternalism. The second part considers how income management departs from the principles of nudge paternalism, and the impact that income management has on Indigenous peoples. The final part explores some alternative suggestions for policy initiatives to address disadvantage experienced by Indigenous welfare recipients, particularly those living in the Northern Territory.

Australian policy has been motivated by paternalism towards Indigenous peoples for the better part of Australia's colonial history. Contemporary forms of income management that disproportionately affect Indigenous peoples extend a paternalistic approach. The paternalism embedded within the income management discourse draws heavily upon the framework of 'new paternalism', which increases government supervision of those who receive welfare payments. However, in recent years, another form of paternalism has also been growing in popularity with Western governments – 'nudge paternalism' – which may have future implications for policy-making in the welfare context in Australia. This article comprises three parts. The first part explores specific problems that can arise with paternalistic policy-making directed towards Indigenous peoples, including nudge paternalism. The second part considers how income management departs from the principles of nudge paternalism, and the impact that income management has on Indigenous peoples. The final part explores some alternative suggestions for policy initiatives to address disadvantage experienced by Indigenous welfare recipients, particularly those living in the Northern Territory.