Welfare to Work, Centrelink and Homelessness
The stories of 10 men experiencing homelessness and unemployment in early 2008
May, 2008
About the Authors: Jonathan Campton is the researcher for the Society of St Vincent de Paul National Council of Australia. Jonathan has been involved in the publication of the report released by Vinnies in 2007 named “Don’t Dream, It’s Over” on private rental pressures and various submissions to Senate inquires. jonathanc@svdpnatcl.org.au
Shannon Pickles is the manager of St Vincent de Paul Family Service, ACT. St Vincent de Paul Family Service is a SAAP funded organisation that works with families that are currently or at risk of homelessness. Shannon has a background working in the community mental health and homelessness sector for the past 5 years. shannon.pickles@stvincanb.com.au
Acknowledgement: Thank you to the participants who with dignity and honesty entrusted their stories and experiences.
Page 2 of 36
Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................5 Methodology ....................................................................................................7 Results and Discussion.................................................................................. 10 The participants.......................................................................................... 10 Age ......................................................................................................... 10 Duration on Social Security..................................................................... 10 Locality.................................................................................................... 10 Trust ....................................................................................................... 10 Relationship with Centrelink ....................................................................... 11 Relationship ............................................................................................ 11 Relationship prior to experience of homelessness.................................. 11 Relationship and notification of experience of homelessness................. 12 Centrelink helping jobseekers experiencing homelessness ....................... 13 Experiences ............................................................................................ 13 Positives ................................................................................................. 13 Negatives................................................................................................ 14 Relationship with PAGES ........................................................................... 15 Relationship ............................................................................................ 16 Relationship prior to experience of homelessness.................................. 17 Relationship and notification of experience of homelessness................. 18 PAGES helping jobseekers experiencing homelessness ........................... 19 Experiences ............................................................................................ 19 Positives ................................................................................................. 19 Negatives................................................................................................ 20 Participation Requirements and Participation Failures ............................... 21 Participation Requirements / Activity Test............................................... 21 Impact of Participation Requirements ..................................................... 22 Participation Failures .............................................................................. 24 Page 3 of 36
Impact of Participation Failures............................................................... 26 Participation................................................................................................ 27 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 31 Welfare-to-work reforms ............................................................................. 31 The implementation of Welfare to Work Reforms - Centrelink.................... 33 The implementation of Welfare to Work Reforms - PAGES ....................... 35
Page 4 of 36
Introduction The implementation of the welfare to work policy through Centrelink and Providers of Australian Government Employment Services (PAGES) on people experiencing homelessness has been left untold.
This research
examines the impact on ten men experiencing homelessness and unemployment in the Australian Capital Territory. It reveals systemic failures that have resulted in the further exclusion of vulnerable Australians. All participants spoke of a genuine desire to work, but a need to also find housing.
Participants had differing views on whether people experiencing
homelessness should be required to find work, but all participants wanted penalties removed so that people could operate outside a culture of fear. Participants spoke of negative relationships with Centrelink. Centrelink was seen by most participants as not interested in homelessness and only existing to enforce non-payment periods.
This belief was substantiated by the
experience of participants who had advised Centrelink they were experiencing homelessness, only to receive no support and in some cases a reduction in income.
Participants who had experienced a non-payment period were
paranoid about repeating the penalty whilst experiencing homelessness. Participants feared Centrelink not paying during a period of homelessness. When asked about participation requirements, participants were left explaining minimum obligations to get paid, as opposed to genuine efforts to find employment. The culture of fear disempowered participants and prevented them from seeking explanation from Centrelink or PAGES about the setting of participation requirements. While activity requirements may have been initially motivating, requirements quickly
became
depressing,
forcing
a
person
homelessness to face rejection by employers.
already
experiencing
This exacerbated mental Page 5 of 36
health issues and diverted a participant’s attention from job seeking.
Some
participants resorted to treating participation requirements as a game to avoid further stress. Instead of being an activity of engagement, participation activities became an activity to further embed participants’ exclusion from society. Participants’ complex issues were ignored as they completed diaries and attended two minute interviews. Such activities diverted their attention from activities to improve their housing and health. Participants seek inclusion by the Federal Government recognising their various activities as equal with established participation requirements. Participants highlighted the primary need for housing to improve their wellbeing. Participants only sought the practical basics to obtain employment; a shower to feel clean, an address for resumes and place to house work-gear or clothes for an interview.
“You have to have your shelter, your sanctuary, so that you can feel better about yourself and go out and find work.”
Page 6 of 36
Methodology The research process adopted a grounded theory approach to examine social exchanges between people experiencing homelessness and Centrelink and/or Providers of Government Employment Services (PAGES).
The
researchers entered the research having the research question already established and little else1. The rationale for the research was to present a paper at the National Conference of Homelessness Australia on the impact of welfare-to-work reforms on people experiencing homelessness. The researchers decided that the research participants could be best located at a crisis accommodation refuge or transitional housing. Preliminary contact with crisis accommodation refuges in the Australian Capital Territory confirmed that to locate people on Newstart with participation requirements the research was best focused on men, as women in refuges did not generally have participation requirements (as a result of motherhood or disabilities).
It
is recognised that the issues faced by men experiencing homelessness are different to the issues faced by women experiencing homelessness.
By
focusing on men the research was not confused with the differing complex needs of each gender. Even in the adult male population it was found a significant number were not on Newstart with job seeking requirements. At a crisis accommodation refuge used in the research, during the months of March and April 2008 18 of the 66 guests were on the Disability Support Pension and further four guests were either on the Aged Pension or had no entitlement to social security due to nationality.
Most guests stayed between 7 to 10 nights at the crisis
accommodation refuge.
1
Neuman, W.L., Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3rd ed.
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997), Page 334
Page 7 of 36
To establish the research design the researchers interviewed a group of adult males at a refuge about their experience with welfare-to-work reforms. Questions were open ended and asked to the group. Discussion was often created between the men, responses were recorded and themes analysed to assist in developing an interview format for data collection. Themes included impact on health, culture of fear and the ‘game’ with Centrelink. As the researchers moved from the paradigm of grounded theory to the empirical world it become clear that the research question would require the inclusion of Centrelink into the research design, although some consideration was given to excluding Centrelink. An interview format with 30 questions was created (Appendix A). Consideration was given to ethical constraints and a consent form prepared for participants (Appendix B). The researchers entered the field again to collect data using interviews with participants.
The participants were located in the ACT at a crisis
accommodation refuge and transitional accommodation service managed by the Society of St Vincent de Paul and a transitional accommodation service managed by Centacare during March and April 2008.
Participants were
selected on the basis that they were male, experiencing homelessness and had been on Newstart (18 years old – 64 years old) with job seeking requirements for a period since July 2006. Participants did not need to be on Newstart with job seeking requirements at the time of the interview. Participation was voluntary. Consent was required before an interview could commence. All participants were asked if they had any difficulty reading or writing before signing the consent form. Each interview was conducted with one researcher asking the questions and recording the answers, while the other researcher would ask any probing questions or give explanation. Interviews were expected to take 15 minutes, but on average took around 30 minutes. Some of this extra time was to build Page 8 of 36
the required level of trust with the participants.
Interviews were generally
conducted around dinner time as participants had returned from daily activities and would be prepared to volunteer the necessary time. It was initially planned to conduct 20 interviews so as to identify differences between participants in crisis accommodation refuges and transitional accommodation services, however it become time consuming and costly to obtain the interviews and the research design was altered to reduce the number of interviews to 10 and remove any analysis between crisis accommodation refuges and transitional accommodation services. The theory was built from collected data. Data was textually analysed by both researchers in a joint session to assign significance and produce results. The interpretative process was endlessly creative and interpretive, being both artful and political2. The results were recorded and reviewed.
2
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research, pg 15.
Page 9 of 36
Results and Discussion The participants Participants were selected on the basis stated in the methodology.
Age The participants ranged in age from 18 to 54 years old. Half the participants were aged between 18 and 29 years old and the other half between 30 and 54.
Duration on Social Security The participants reported receiving Centrelink payments from “seven days” to “most of my life’ being a period of around 28 years.
Locality While there were no questions with respect to location, from other answers it was clear that many of the participants had job-seeking experiences in other areas of Australia beyond the Australian Capital Territory.
Trust Participants did not know the interviewers/researchers prior to the interview. While both interviewers were employees of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, there was no existing relationship with any participant. Participants demonstrated a level of caution in volunteering to be a participant and in sharing responses.
All participants sought explanation as to the
background of the interviewers and the purpose of the research. Participants often sought to establish that the interviewers were not part of Centrelink. Verbal confirmation was often required that we would not identify participants by name. At least on two occasions a business card was produced to confirm a researcher’s identity. Conversely, a participant shared that he was happy to participate because he would do anything to help “St Vincents”. Page 10 of 36
One person volunteered to partake in the interview, but refused to sign the consent statement. This person was not interviewed and did not become a participant, but the experience demonstrates the practical difficulty in obtaining the level of trust required to obtain an informed consent.
Relationship with Centrelink Relationship The participants were asked to describe their present relationship with Centrelink on the scale of ‘extremely poor’, ‘poor’, ‘average’, ‘good’ to ‘extremely good’. Participants’ responses ranged from ‘average’ to ‘extremely good’ with the majority of answers being ‘average’ or ‘good’. Participants gave other comments such as “really helpful when I walked in”, “[particular] office gave me lots of trouble”, “they gave up on me after prison” and “they do nothing more than they have to do”.
“they gave up on me after prison” The rating of participants’ relationships with Centrelink appeared exaggerated in a positive manner compared to reasons provided and later answers. For example one participant said his relationship with Centrelink was ‘good’, but later answered “I just hate going to Centrelink”. The ratings were inconsistent also with the earlier group discussion used to design the research.
It is
possible that participants were confronted with this question too early in the interview before trust was established with the interviewers.
“I just hate going to Centrelink” Relationship prior to experience of homelessness Participants were asked about any change in the participant’s relationship with Centrelink since experiencing homelessness.
The design of the question
lead to confusion as some participants did not understand as a date their Page 11 of 36
experience of homelessness. Participants were often prompted to consider when they first come to a refuge, but this differed with their own perceptions. This confusion reinforced the complexity of participants’ experiences of primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness. Further difficulty arose as the transition from housing to homelessness did not necessary occur during a relationship with Centrelink.
For at least one
participant a relationship with Centrelink only developed after experiencing homelessness. For participants that had a relationship with Centrelink prior to experiencing homelessness, they reported the relationship remained the same.
The
apparent neutrality in relationship regardless of housing status must be viewed with recognition that some of the participants had not notified Centrelink that they were living in crisis or transitional accommodation.
It
must also be considered that at least one participant said later that Centrelink and PAGES discriminate against people experiencing homelessness.
Relationship and notification of experience of homelessness Most participants had notified Centrelink that they were living in crisis accommodation, but some answers indicated that a number of these participants may have only informed Centrelink of their exact address and decided not to disclose their experience of homelessness.
Generally
participants sought to demonstrate their awareness of the requirement to notify Centrelink of any change of address. The responses of participants demonstrated how easily an address can conceal an experience of homelessness. All participants who had informed Centrelink that they were living at crisis accommodation reported that there was no change in requirements and in two insistences Centrelink had “taken money off� as rental assistance was reduced. While participants understood the need to equitably deliver social
Page 12 of 36
security, in particular rental assistance, it still left a negative impression that Centrelink was only interested in reducing their payments. In one insistence the reduction of rental assistance was an error as the person remained paying the same board to a refuge. All participants who had not informed Centrelink that they were living at crisis accommodation reported that it was because of a belief that Centrelink was not interested in capturing such information and it would not change the service delivery. In the words of one of the participants that had not informed Centrelink “it is irrelevant, I feel” and in the words of another “you just change the address with them”. A participant expressed that he would disclose that he lived in a share house.
This participant’s answer demonstrated the
complexity of Centrelink attempting to identify clients who seek to install some level of dignity to their experience of homelessness.
“you just change the address with them”
Centrelink helping jobseekers experiencing homelessness Experiences Most participants understood the difference between Centrelink and a Provider of Australian Government Employment Services (PAGES), however some participants either misunderstood the question or were confused about the reach of Centrelink. An example of this would include one participant’s response that a positive about Centrelink was the job seeker account to pay for tools and clothes.
A probing question confirmed that this activity was
indeed conducted by the participant’s PAGES.
Positives Most participants answered that there were no positive aspects of Centrelink helping them as jobseekers. One participant responded that Centrelink is “not
Page 13 of 36
so much about a job, but rather about keeping you in cash”. Most participants understood the role of helping jobseekers was solely that of PAGES
“not so much about a job, but rather about keeping you in cash” Of the remaining participants the only positives were the touchscreens and services provided by PAGES. A participant that identified the touchscreens as a positive interestingly stated as a negative that there is “no one to help you with touchscreens”.
Negatives The participants could all provide negative aspects of Centrelink helping them as jobseekers. Answers were immediate, multiple and often supported by explanation. The most common immediate response was that Centrelink did “nothing”. Otherwise responses varied from systemic failures in the structures of Centrelink to dissatisfaction with coal face Centrelink officers. An example of the systemic failures in the structures of Centrelink was the experience of one participant who gave up the Disability Support Pension because he wanted a job, but lost the support he needed. Another participant indicated how a Centrelink officer indicated that the participant might be eligible for a disability support program aimed at finding employment. His disability was drug addiction.
The process was protracted for unknown
reasons (not necessarily related to Centrelink) and at the time of the interview the participant had been requested by Centrelink to obtain a medical certificate to certify his disability. He was no longer using drugs and now feared that he would not be able to obtain certification for his addiction. He did not want to enter PSP because he believed that it was not employment focused and in his words, he “liked the idea that [this disability support] program was about finding employment, not just sitting around.”
Page 14 of 36
“I liked the idea that program was about finding employment, not just sitting around” Dissatisfaction with front desk Centrelink officers was expressed by nearly half the participants. One participant shared that “a lot of people in Centrelink don’t care and can’t give a stuff if you get a job or not and then there are those who feel they are paying you out of their own pocket”. A number of participants made particular mention of a fixed assumption by some Centrelink officers that the participant would not find employment. Another participant shared some Centrelink officers “never help you - they just try to take you off your payments”.
“Centrelink never help you – they just try to take you off your payments” Some participants were forgiving of Centrelink about negative aspects. One participant explained that Centrelink was very busy and he understood that he could not always receive the assistance he required. A couple of participants answered that there were no negative aspects of Centrelink. A participant stated that the “system actually works ok”. The same participant also felt that it was irrelevant to Centrelink that he was experiencing homelessness. The other participant said that if he had any problems he would ask and sit outside with a Centrelink worker and have a smoke while resolving the difficulty.
Relationship with PAGES The participants had varied experiences of PAGES.
The participants’
responses were often far more passionate about PAGES than Centrelink. The participants’ experiences were deeply personal and often focussed about personal relationships with offices or workers. Nearly all participants had an
Page 15 of 36
active relationship with a PAGES and most had experienced previous relationships with at least one other PAGES.
One participant had not
established connection with his PAGES.
Relationship The participants were asked to describe their present relationship with their PAGES on the same scale of ‘extremely poor’, ‘poor’, ‘average’, ‘good’ to ‘extremely good’ that had been previously used to describe their relationship with Centrelink.
Participants’ responses ranged from ‘extremely poor’ to
‘good’. The range of responses on the relationship with PAGES was one response interval lower at each end than the range of responses on the relationship with Centrelink.
Generally participants had a less significant
relationship with their PAGES than they had with Centrelink.
While
participants were not bothered if Centrelink wasn’t doing anything to help them as job seekers, the same could not be said about PAGES. Unfortunately, greater expectations lead to greater disappointments. A couple of participants refused to classify there relationship on the basis that they did not consider they even had a relationship with their PAGES, with a participant saying his experience was of being told on his first visit that he could go because “we are not going to talk to you for eight weeks” and the other saying his relationship was “non-existent”.
This experience was
shared by others who had classified relationship with their PAGES as ‘extremely poor’ or ‘poor’.
One participant new to the experience of
unemployment stated that his relationship with his PAGES had been a five minute interview which he summarised as “walked in, they asked do I have a resume, I gave them it on a memory stick, they gave me a form to sign, a username and a password, and told me to go”.
Page 16 of 36
“walked in, they asked do I have a resume, I gave them it on a memory stick, they gave me a form to sign, a username and a password, and told me to go” While the participants ranked their relationships with PAGES lower than their relationships with Centrelink, it may be that participants still positively exaggerated their relationship with PAGES. For example one participant who described his relationship with his PAGES as ‘good’ immediately commented that he had “never had a good worker”, his present worker “just presumes I am unsuitable” for employment and that the basis of his classification of the relationship was that they “never harass me”. However, a more balanced response was given by a few participants who had experienced greater lengths of unemployment and multiple PAGES. They recognised that the relationship varied “worker to worker and provider to provider”. Perhaps the most positive response was from a participant who said the PAGES “gave me more one on one support – they got me in to the job I am in now”.
“gave me more one on one support they got me in to the job I am in now” Relationship prior to experience of homelessness The participants’ relationships with PAGES did not reportedly change as a result of the participants’ experience of homelessness. Similar to the question with respect to Centrelink, the design of the question lead to confusion as some participants did not have a clean date of transition from housed to experiencing homelessness, nor did this transition necessary occur with an existing relationship with PAGES.
Again for one participant, homelessness
Page 17 of 36
and unemployment was a combined event with a relationship with PAGES only developed after experiencing homelessness. For participants that had a relationship with PAGES prior to experiencing homelessness, they reported the relationship remained the same. Again the apparent neutrality in relationship regardless of housing status must be considered with recognition that some of the participants had not notified PAGES that they were living in crisis or transitional accommodation.
Relationship and notification of experience of homelessness Participants were asked had they told PAGES that they were living at crisis accommodation. For some participants this question was irrelevant as they considered it impossible to discuss their housing status to their PAGES when they did not consider that they had a relationship. Where relationships did exist, participants stated two reasons for not informing PAGES of housing status, either the participant had not got around to notification, perhaps based in a belief that the information was irrelevant to PAGES or the participant sought to “try to keep it quiet” as it would lessen job prospects.
“try to keep it quiet” Where participants had notified PAGES of their experience of homelessness there was varied responses from “I don’t think it made any difference” to the engagement of a counsellor was “really awesome”. Unlike the experience of the participants notifying Centrelink of their housing situation, there were no negative outcomes after notifying PAGES. This must be considered with the experience of the participant that did not notify PAGES as being known as experiencing homelessness might reduce his job prospects.
Page 18 of 36
PAGES helping jobseekers experiencing homelessness Experiences Most participants understood the extent of PAGES activities and could provide both positive and negative experiences.
Positives While most participants answered that there were no positive aspects of Centrelink helping them as jobseekers, only half of these participants answered that there were no positive aspects of PAGES helping them as jobseekers. Generally it was accepted that PAGES helped participants as jobseekers. Generally participants where able to immediately provide one or more positive aspects of PAGES helping them as jobseekers. It was a common thread in answers that participants judged PAGES on the basis of finding work. Participants that had enjoyed employment as a result of PAGES viewed positively and spoke favourably of the one-on-one support. Other answers included SMS notification, training and staff. As one participant described, he was “lucky on worker�. Participants made mention of the job seeker account. Participants viewed favourably PAGES that accessed the job seeker account for participants w. Participants spoke of PAGES using funds from the job seeker account for purposes like work clothes and transport.
While some participants had
received training, none recognise that this was an expense from the job seeker account.
It was commented by a participant that the difficulty of
keeping your possession together when experiencing homelessness means that you are often lose work gear. In his case, he required steel capped boots to work on construction sites. He had the certificates, but without the safety equipment could not access employment. He was particularly praiseworthy of his PAGES that accessed the job seeker account to purchase him steel
Page 19 of 36
capped boots.
This small expenditure allowed him to immediately obtain
casual employment.
He noted that not all PAGES would access the job
seeker account for him. This was a frustration shared by other participants and is noted below.
Negatives Participants just as eagerly revealed negative aspects of PAGES. Participants considered that PAGES job referrals were pushing them into “any old job”. PAGES were “fuzzy people who expect you to do things that you are not capable of doing.” One example was given of a participant receiving a job that the participant really wanted, however the job was some distance from his residence and there was not public transport other than taxis. The participant commuted by taxi until such time that he could no longer afford it.
The
participant expressed great disappointed, mixed with anger, that his PAGES could not assist him greater and the loss of his employment was predestined. Another participant said that PAGES were “not connecting with people to get where they need to”. This criticism illustrated the underlying concern that PAGES did not relate sufficiently with a client to establish the needs of the client. This was particularly relevant in a population of people experiencing often complex needs, none so urgent as stable housing.
“not connecting with people to get where they need to”
A participant shared his frustration stating “they say it is a job ‘support’ network, but it is not”. The participant shared that the he felt the objectives of an employment service was “inconsistent with business”. This was a common theme in answers.
Participants spoke of being numbers to PAGES and
suspect that PAGES was making commissions or financial benefit on each employment outcome regardless of any personal consequences on the client.
“they say it is a job ‘support’ network, but it is not” Page 20 of 36
Another participant shared “I want to change industries, but I need to look decent for job interviews”.
His loss of employment coincided with his
experience of homelessness, and he sought to make significant changes in his life, including his employment. However, he could not change industries without access to suitable clothing for interviews. He knew of the jobseeker accounts, which he saw as a positive, but was bemused by the fact that his PAGES told him he could not access it. Another participant described this same predicament as “a bit backwards”. A more condemning comment was that PAGES were “abusing their money” in not paying out to help equip people.
“a bit backwards” One participant stated that PAGES staff would discriminate against people experiencing homelessness.
A probing question could not establish a
concrete example, but he shared you “get it all the time”.
Participation Requirements and Participation Failures Participation Requirements / Activity Test There was generally poor recognition of participation requirements. All ten participants recognised that they had to apply for a certain number of jobs per fortnight. The number varied from zero applications for a participant that was post release to 12 applications a fortnight. Most participants with active job application requirements had to apply for either 4 or 10 jobs per fortnight. No participant could identify methodology employed by the setting of participation level. As discussed earlier the lack of transparency lead to frustration. It was one component of a culture of fear where participants felt unable to work collaboratively with PAGES or Centrelink. A few participants recognised the diary as a participation requirement. One participant recognised attending all interviews with Centrelink and Provider of Australian Government Employment Services (PAGES) as a participation Page 21 of 36
requirement.
Another participant recognised searching the jobseeker
computers as a form of demonstrating you are actively looking for work. All participants were focused on what they had to do to ensure payment. Few, if any, participants showed any focus on the broader job seeking requirements. No participants recognised the requirement to attend all job interviews, not leave a job or training course, attend approved training course or accept suitable work offers.
Participants were left explaining minimum
obligations to get paid, as opposed to genuine efforts to find employment. After the initial question on job seeking requirements, participants where asked if they had any other obligations.
Most participants, having only
identified one or two activity requirements did not recognise any further requirements including mutual obligation.
A participant recognised the
requirement to keep Centrelink informed about income received each fortnight and another participant recognised training courses.
Participants were
prompted about mutual obligation requirements and one participant indicated he had been involved in work for the dole and another indicated that he understood that he could do volunteer work to reduce the number of jobs applications required each fortnight.
Impact of Participation Requirements Participation
requirements
had
significant
impacts
on
participants’
employment, health and housing. Finding employment Some participants stated that participation requirements had a coercive impact on finding employment as requirements acted as a “kick up the arse” or “encourages you to find work, you are not going to find a job watching TV, sitting in the yard or doing a crossword puzzle.” However, these participants were quick to recognise that the motivating effect was only short term.
Page 22 of 36
Most participants said that participation requirements made no difference or were not helping the person find employment. One participant shared I have “Depress.” This was one of the most direct references to the culture of fear generated by the threat of participation failures leading to an 8 week nonpayment period.
“just given up. I know they never check them. I think they go on the fact it might scare a few people.” A few participants shared that newspapers, touchscreens and phonebooks were used by jobseekers to fill in job application details each fortnight with no actual application having been made.
The completion of forms recording
participation by jobseekers was reported by some participants as a game between jobseekers and Centrelink officers. A participant shared a belief that Centrelink officers knew clients filled in fake job applications on reporting forms, but that Centrelink officers turn a blind eye as it is easier for all if payments continue and in some cases Centrelink officers just took the view that the person needed the payment. He described the pattern of behaviour in a manner that made the Centrelink officer benevolent and an advocate for justice seeking to work within the constraints of the social security system to ensure payments reached people in need.
He supported his story by
indicating that a Centrelink officer had advised him about his pattern of not ‘applying’ for jobs in the newspaper. Next fortnight’s ‘applications’ were found on the touchscreens and the newspaper. No further issue was raised by the Centrelink officer.
The way some participants described it, it was almost a
game played between Centrelink and clients to obtain payment each fortnight. Health Most participants recognised that participation requirements had a negative impact on their health.
One participant indicated that participation
requirements had a positive impact on his health. This participant had no
Page 23 of 36
actual requirements to apply for jobs for three months and found this window had a positive impact on his health as he had no “pressure or force”. A couple of participants indicated that it can be motivating, but that it was “time-consuming” and depressive in receiving multiple rejections.
These
responses have been classified as a positive and a negative impact to avoid any bias. Most participants described the participation requirements as having a negative impact on their health with a participant saying that he had suffered depression for years and that he just creates job applications on Centrelink forms because the rejections detrimentally affect his mental health. Another participant attempted to dismiss this question by saying “if I carried it out seriously, it would have an impact.”
“if I carried it out seriously, it would have an impact” Housing Most participants said that participation requirements had no impact on their housing. Some participants recognised that without payment there was no housing, so it was a primary importance to complete requirements to search for housing. This was understood as a neutral impact and made more as a catch 22 statement. A few participants did recognise a negative impact and suggested it would be beneficial to be given “breathing space” to resolve personal issues and attempt to find housing first.
The same participants
shared that an exit from the experience of homelessness by way of housing would enable greater compliance with job seeking requirements.
Participation Failures Participants generally did not recognise PAGES as being able to make participation reports, but easily recognised that Centrelink had reduced or stopped their payment as a result of incidents relating to PAGES. It was difficult to obtain any accurate details of the number of incidents because Page 24 of 36
participants experienced a high frequency of non-payments. Many explained the participation failures were at Centrelink, rather than PAGES. The most common participation failure was a failure to attend an interview. Participants were first aware of payments being suspended when the money was not in the bank.
At least one participant had received a letter of
notification after the event. No participant had received prior notification of a pending suspension of payment, although most participants received regular mail and telephone contact from Centrelink officers. At least one participant spoke of SMS contact. A participant shared that “if on the street I will go in before the day to check if I’m going to be paid – this is something I learned from being stuffed around”.
Clearly the impact of non-payment is
compounded by the experience of homelessness.
“if on the street I will go in before the day to check if I’m going to be paid – this is something I learned from being stuffed around” Most participants indicated that their payments were restored quickly by Centrelink. One participant did not consider his payments had been stopped as Centrelink would always restore them immediately.
This process was
considered to be a “same day process” that took between 20 minutes to 3 hours depending on the Centrelink officer. However, a participant noted that it might take a couple of days to get to Centrelink and another participant noted that the profound impact if the Centrelink office was shutdown over Christmas or Easter. Participants were often forgiving and understanding towards Centrelink officers.
There was expectation that Centrelink “stuffs it up” and that
consequential non-payment periods were ok as the “error” would always be fixed up by Centrelink. Participants all had there own ideas about getting
Page 25 of 36
Centrelink to correct the errors.
A participant noted he would always
approach Centrelink first thing in the morning to restore payments as hopefully he would gain greater assistance restoring payment if the front desk Centrelink officers had not subjected to abuse by other customers. It was uncommon for a participant to seek a formal review or appeal a decision with respect to non-payment periods. A participant was required to attend a Centrelink Counsellor about his conduct with Centrelink and PAGES before payments were restored.
He attended the 30 minute counselling
session to get his payment restored, but he did not consider that the session sufficiently addressed issues concerning his relationship with Centrelink and PAGES as the session only focused on his behaviour. While most participants had experienced the effect of non-payment on a short term (less than a week), only two participants felt the sustained impact of an eight week non-payment period. The first participant experienced it for the full eight weeks indirectly when his former partner, who he was living with at the time, was breached for eight weeks. The second participant experienced it for five weeks before entering prison.
Impact of Participation Failures Most participants had experienced both participation failures leading to temporary suspension of payment and a couple of participants experienced participation failures leading to 8week non-payment periods. The impact of participation failures resulting in temporary suspension of payment was far less significant than the impact of participation requirements. Participants reengaged quickly after payments were stopped by Centrelink. Payments were restored within hours enabling the participant to resume normal activities. As a participants reported there was “no impact from the error�.
This explanation illustrated how some participants understood
participation failures not as serious breaches of a participation requirement or
Page 26 of 36
activity test, but rather as a simple ‘error’ that would be corrected upon visiting Centrelink. While this caused some inconvenience or at worst “strain”, in that a participant “can’t do what you need to do”, this inconvenienced was normally forgotten upon the ‘error’ being corrected.
“no impact from the error” The participant that experienced eight weeks non-payment for the full 8 weeks indirectly when his former partner who he was living with at the time was breached did not forget the effect of non-payment. The impact was severe and lasting. His former partner’s parents had to pay bills to support him, his partner and their children. His efforts in appealing to local politicians clearly took a personal toll as the complete powerlessness of the appeal process disenfranchised him from participation in society.
Because of the recent
nature of his separation and consequent experience with homelessness, it was not possible to obtain the full impact of the eight week non-payment period on his relationship and on the consequential experience of homelessness.
However it was clear that he held fear and paranoia about
the possibility of experiencing a non-payment period in the future.
Participation Participants
provided
their
attitudes
to
the
experiencing homelessness to find employment.
requirement
for
people
All participants considered
their response carefully and sought to provide reasons.
The answers
demonstrated profound levels of awareness on a complex issue and all the diversity of a wider population. Some participants answered that people experiencing homelessness should be required to seek a job, but should not experience penalties. Explanations included that “requirements should not be linked with payments, so you can get housing” and there should be. These participants sought a response that
Page 27 of 36
placed job-seeking requirements on people experiencing homelessness, but not penalties.
“requirements should not be linked with payments, so you can get housing” Others participants answered that people experiencing homelessness should not be required to seek a job. Reasons included “You need a roof over your head first” before you can hold down a job. This was supported by other participants that stated it was a “waste of time” to be forced to turn up to interviews if you can’t shower each day. The need for extra support was recognised with a participant saying people experiencing homelessness should not be required to seek a job because “that is what PSP is for”.
“You need a roof over your head first” A third set of participants would not answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether people experiencing homelessness should be required to seek a job, instead preferring to create an answer ‘yes and no’. This set of insightful answers was based on the understanding that it “depends on ‘where’ they are at”. This was not a locational criteria, rather a social criteria of wellbeing. A participant shared that the search for housing should be seen as a participation activity. He suggested that this should be recognised as the totality of job seeking requirements until a jobseeker has found transitional housing. At this stage a jobseeker can attempt to find some work as they have an address and a shower, however they should not have the same job-seeking requirements as person in stable housing. In his words “You have to have your shelter, your sanctuary, so that you can feel better about yourself and go out and find work.”
Another participant suggested that requirements should be set by
social workers not Centrelink.
Page 28 of 36
“You have to have your shelter, your sanctuary, so that you can feel better about yourself and go out and find work.” The consistent theme was that all participants wanted a stable house before requirements to find work could be linked with any penalty. Participants were also suggested services or support that would help in finding work. The main response was not PSP, access to jobseeker accounts or training programs, it was simply housing. Participants needed housing so that they had a “sanctuary” to improve their wellbeing, a shower to feel clean, an address for resumes and place to house work gear or clothes for an interview. As one participant shared, he needed the release of “waking up and not worrying about where you are going to be next week. After housing, participants focused on existing services like PSP, access to jobseeker accounts or training programs. PSP was spoken of favourably by past participants. Participants sought the expansion of jobseeker accounts with clearly defined guidelines and eligibility criteria so that jobseekers can negotiate for necessary payments with PAGES. Another focus was on disability support and job seeking. participants spoke about disability.
A number of
Silo structures between Newstart and
DSP, left jobseekers with disabilities unable to access support services. DSP was seen as an abandonment of job seeking.
Participants wanted the
expansion of disability support programs within Newstart to be expanded to focus on their special needs with greater case management. More creative responses included: 1. housing; 2. the establishment of transport concessions and allowances for job seeking purposes beyond that of allowed by jobseeker accounts;
Page 29 of 36
3. a brokerage for work gear for manual trades; 4. the expansion of SMS contact with provision of mobiles; 5. the creation of a job network program focused on people experiencing homelessness; 6. skill programs and apprenticeships; 7. job matching services; and 8. the recognition of ‘house-seeking’ as a participation activity of jobseeking. Participation could not be discussed without giving recognition to the genuine efforts of participants to find housing and employment. Participants genuinely sought to end their experience of homelessness and understood employment as an exit.
Participants were often embarrassed about experiencing
unemployment and shared deeply personal aspirations to find employment. A participant spoke of another resident of his crisis accommodation refuge who had just obtained work packing shelves at a local shop. He wished he could have this opportunity. Participants never displayed unrealistic expectations, but simply a desire to work a job that they could maintain into the future, a job which they could travel to, a job which they were adequately trained for, and a job which they had the required equipment.
Page 30 of 36
Conclusion Welfare-to-work reforms Welfare-to-work reforms impacted in a number of ways on participants’ experience of homelessness. Most notably the trepidation of losing income during an experience of homelessness created a culture of fear that lead participants to complete activity requirements with little focus on job seeking. The extent of the culture of fear was demonstrated by the finding that most participants experienced greater negative impacts on their health, job seeking and housing by complying with participation requirements, than as a result of participation failures. The culture of fear impacted negatively on the participants’ relationship with Centrelink and PAGES. Participants shared they ‘hated’ attending Centrelink offices and that getting a good experience at PAGES was ‘luck’. Participants’ experienced disempowerment and were unable to form a collaborative relationship with Centrelink and PAGES. The concept of participation in welfare to work lost its meaning to participants. Participants were left explaining minimum participation requirements to avoid losing social security payments, as opposed to genuine efforts to enter employment.
Instead of being an activity of engagement, it became an
activity to further embed their exclusion from society. Activity requirements failed to acknowledge the complexity of participants’ experiences of homelessness.
While activity requirements may have been initially
motivating, they quickly became depressing, requiring a person already experiencing homelessness to face continued rejection by employers. This exacerbated mental health issues and diverted a person attention from job seeking. To include Australians experiencing homelessness in the National Productivity Agenda the Government should focus on inclusion rather than participation. Given Government statistics show only a small decrease in the
Page 31 of 36
proportion of people ‘unemployed – and looking for work’ from entering a SAAP service to leaving (42.9% to 36.5%) 3, the Government must examine the support it provides to people experiencing homelessness. The government should consider activities like house-seeking as equal with established participation requirements. experiencing
homelessness
should
Newstart payments for Australians not
be
linked
with
participation
requirements in a punitive manner. Australians experiencing homelessness should not fear Centrelink or PAGES as a result of Government policy. Australians experiencing homelessness should have their often complex issues recognised and assisted by Government policy that provides assistance and motivation, without penalties.
Recommendations 1. The Federal Government redefine participation to reflect a broader range of inclusion-orientated activities for Australians experiencing unemployment and homelessness. 2. The Federal Government recognise house-seeking as an inclusionorientated activity 3. The Federal Government continue its current path of removing punitive measures so that Australians experiencing unemployment and homelessness do not have to operate in a culture of fear when dealing with Centrelink and PAGES.
3
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2007. Homeless People in SAAP: SAAP National
Data Collection Annual Report 2005-06 Australia. SAAP NDCA report Series 11,Table 8.2.
Page 32 of 36
The implementation of Welfare to Work Reforms - Centrelink Centrelink has come under considerable criticism for its implementation of welfare to work reforms by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Centrelink has sort to address many of the criticisms of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The
experiences
of
Australians
experiencing
unemployment
and
homelessness are far harder to capture than the many complaints received by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Australians experiencing unemployment and homelessness live in a culture of fear that Centrelink aims to stop their meagre income support and further exacerbate their predicament. Participants sought greater understanding of the process and a collaborative response to their experience of homelessness and unemployment. awareness
Centrelink should examine methods of increasing
of welfare to work reforms to Australians experiencing
unemployment and homelessness. Participants perceived that Centrelink was unable to help people experiencing homelessness and as a result, Centrelink was not interested in finding out if a person was experiencing homelessness. Centrelink should examine ways to correct the perception that it is not interested the experience of homelessness. Centrelink should ensure that its systems are able to recognise people at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness and acknowledge that the provision of an answer to fulfil a requirement may disguise the crisis of homelessness. There is of course significant ethical and safety issues with identifying
people
experiencing
homelessness.
An
experience
of
homelessness may be the result of family breakdown or domestic violence. Such a situation demands that identifying victims must be done with dignity, respect and confidentiality. Participants only experienced negative consequences of advising Centrelink of their experience of homelessness.
Participants were not offered any Page 33 of 36
support services, but rather had rental assistance reduced. Centrelink should review its services to examine what support can be provided to customers experiencing unemployment and homelessness. Participants often reported missing mail from Centrelink as a result of changing address. Participants appreciated other efforts at communication such as telephone, SMS and lengthier discussion at Centrelink offices.
Recommendations 4. Centrelink examine methods of increasing awareness of welfare to work reforms to Australians experiencing unemployment and homelessness. 5. Centrelink explore methods of forming a collaborative response with people experiencing homelessness to provide assistance in the dual experience of unemployment and homelessness. 6. Centrelink improve systems to identify people experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness. 7. Centrelink ameliorate any loss or penalty in advising Centrelink of experience of homelessness through services and support (including income support). 8. Centrelink
examine other modes of communication with people
experiencing homelessness.
Page 34 of 36
The implementation of Welfare to Work Reforms - PAGES Participants sought greater understanding of PAGES and a collaborative response to finding solutions to both housing and employment. Participants were deeply critical of PAGES, placing far greater expectations on PAGES than Centrelink. Participants wanted to work collaboratively with PAGES to obtain employment and were often deeply disappointed if PAGES did not seek to have a relationship with them or ‘gave up’ on them. PAGES was understood to have failed a participant, not solely when PAGES was unable to find employment for a participant, but when it failed to work collaboratively with a participant to address issues surrounding the experience of homelessness in an effort to find employment in a job. PAGES were highly criticised for churning participants out in less than five minutes on a first interview.
Participants all wanted employment and had little expectations,
other than a position they were skilled to do, in a location they could travel to and to be provided any necessary work equipment. PAGES operation of job seeker accounts should be reviewed. Participants obtained valuable experiences of employment as a result of provision of work equipment and transport from job seeker accounts. However, other PAGES would not access job seeker accounts in the same situation. PAGES and participants need a set of guidelines on the use of job seeker accounts.
Recommendations
9. PAGES examine methods of increasing awareness of programs, including job seeker accounts, to help Australians experiencing unemployment and homelessness.
Page 35 of 36
10. PAGES review methods of forming a collaborative response with people experiencing homelessness to provide assistance in ending the experience of homelessness and unemployment, in particular the adoption of more collaborative first interviews.
Page 36 of 36