Compulsory income management: Combatting or compounding the underlying causes of homelessness?

Abstract

Compulsory Income Management (CIM) is a form of conditional welfare that involves the mandatory quarantining of a portion of welfare recipients’ social security payments. Quarantined funds are accessible via a government‐issued debit card, with restrictions surrounding where and on what funds can be spent. Official justifications of CIM have framed these policies as attempts to combat substance abuse and gambling problems, and to thus secure better outcomes for welfare recipients and their families. Central to this narrative has been the argument that welfare quarantining will ensure more money is spent on ‘essentials’, including accommodation. No existing studies, however, have specifically interrogated the impacts of CIM on housing security. This article responds to this gap in the literature by reviewing existing research concerning CIM's impacts and locating this research within broader debates regarding the causes of homelessness and the efficacy of individualised policy interventions. In doing so, it highlights CIM's potential to exacerbate housing insecurity not only through technical issues such as rental transfer failures, but also by contributing to underlying stressors such as economic disadvantage; relationship difficulties, poor health and addiction; and social stigma. The article concludes that – far from addressing the structural causes of homelessness – CIM has enflamed them.

Conditionality in the context of housing‐led homelessness policy: Comparing Australia’s Housing First agenda to Scotland’s “rights‐based” approach

“…While recent changes to income support payments in Australia have drawn attention to the impact of welfare conditionality on people experiencing (or at risk of) homelessness (see Peterie et al ; Pawson et al ), conditionality is not a new experience for people who are homeless, as it has long been a feature of homelessness service systems. Conditional approaches to homelessness support are often likened to a “staircase” (Sahlin ): people enter the system through drop‐in facilities and crisis accommodation services that have low barriers to access, and then progress “up” through transitional housing to settled housing by adhering to a range of behavioural conditions that ostensibly prove their “housing readiness”.…”

Introduction to the special issue on welfare conditionality in Australia

“…This Special Issue aims to provide empirical scrutiny into welfare reform and conditionality in Australia. The papers by Lisa Fowkes, Eve Vincent and colleagues, Elizabeth Watt and Cameo Dalley have their origins in a 2018 Macquarie University workshop dedicated to the topic of Welfare Reform in Indigenous Australia, 2007–2017, whereas the papers by Peterie et al (), Grainne McKeever and Tamara Walsh, and Andrew Clarke and colleagues were first developed through a 2018 symposium hosted by The University of Queensland on the nexus between conditional welfare and homelessness.…”

Introduction to the Special Issue on Big Data and Social Policy in Australia

“…All of these topics have been the focus of research published in the AJSI in recent years (e.g. Adams et al, 2020; Chesters, 2018; Christensen et al, 2021; Huang et al, 2016; Jarvis et al, 2018; Marks & Phillips, 2020; McDonald et al, 2019; O'Halloran et al, 2020; Perry et al, 2019; Peterie et al, 2020; Wilson et al, 2021; Zhou et al, 2019).…”