Examining the Consequences of Welfare Conditionality: A Case Study of Compulsory Income Management in the Regional Community of Ceduna, Australia

Abstract

Welfare conditionality, whereby eligibility for income support payments is linked to prescribed forms of behaviour or values, is intended to encourage responsible behaviour in marginalised populations. However in practice, it may have consequences that worsen rather than improve their life chances. One of the most invasive forms of conditional welfare is income management (IM), involving the quarantining of up to 90 per cent of income that cannot be spent on excluded items in order to reduce substance abuse and gambling and enhance financial management and parenting capacity. This qualitative study examines the views of IM participants and community stakeholders in the regional community of Ceduna, Australia. Its findings are presented – pertaining to practical experiences of IM, the impact of IM on participant wellbeing, and community divisions around IM – and the study discusses whether or not it has advanced key program objectives. It is concluded that the negative effects of IM exceed any perceived benefits.

Understanding Covid-19 emergency social security measures as a from of basic income: Lessons from Australia

“…Other forms of conditionality continued during the pandemic, including compulsory income management, where some recipients of social security compulsorily have portions of their social security quarantined onto an issued 'debit card' to reduce their ability to withdraw cash and restrict purchases of alcohol. 6 Compulsory income management has been shown to have negative impacts on people's financial and emotional wellbeing (Roche et al, 2021).…”

“… 3. Specifically, the suspension of mutual obligations was initially in place from 23 March to 27 April, and was extended and reimplemented at various points throughout 2020 depending on state-based restrictions, with a gradual reintroduction commencing from 9 June 2020 ( Ruston & Cash, 2020 ). The Supplement was reduced by $300 to a rate of $250 per fortnight from 25 September to 31 December 2020 (Department of Social Services, 2021), and ceased on 31 March 2021.…”

Administrative burden and the Cashless Debit Card: Stripping time, autonomy, and dignity from social security recipients

“…In recent years, when formulating social security policy, policymakers have increasingly opted for weighty welfare conditionality – choosing to impose heavy burdens on people needing government income support (Bielefeld, 2018a; Dwyer, 2019; Roche et al., 2021). Although poverty and inequality are grounded in structural causes (Stiglitz, 2013, p. 287; Seron, 2016, p. 17), weighty welfare conditionality operates on the premise that poverty reflects an individual failure and poor decision‐making capabilities.…”

Paternalistic Welfare or Co-designed Partnerships with Local Communities? Analysis of Community Group Submissions to Six Australian Parliamentary Inquiries into the Cashless Debit Card from 2015–2020

“…Continuing political and ideological contention has surrounded the CDC since its introduction, broadly reflecting individual versus structural interpretations of disadvantage (O'Keeffe & Papadopoulos, 2022) within and beyond the programme locations. There are widely varied views on the extent to which the CDC has achieved its core objectives and whether the official government evaluations have been effective in measuring outcomes (Hunt, 2020); the degree to which the social costs pertaining to shame and stigma outweigh stated benefits such as reduced substance abuse (Roche et al, 2021); if the major funding commitments of the CDC are justified or if money would be better spent on more holistic and less punitive social service programmes; whether the disproportionate impact on Indigenous Australians and their communities constitutes racial discrimination (Bielefeld, 2021;Klein, 2020); and finally if the measures have been introduced via a genuine partnership with local community leaders and organisations or alternatively involve a centralised paternalistic process imposed on communities, including particularly CDC participants (Mendes, 2018(Mendes, , 2019.…”