Document

May, 2008

Welfare to Work, Centrelink and

Homelessness

The stories of 10 men experiencing

homelessness and unemployment in early 2008

of 36

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

Acknowledgement:

Thank you to the participants who with dignity and honesty entrusted their

stories and experiences.

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

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

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 already experiencing

homelessness to face rejection by employers. This exacerbated mental

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.

““YYoouu hhaavvee ttoo hhaavvee yyoouurr sshheelltteerr,, yyoouurr ssaannccttuuaarryy,, ssoo tthhaatt yyoouu

ccaann ffeeeell bbeetttteerr aabboouutt yyoouurrsseellff aanndd ggoo oouutt aanndd ffiinndd wwoorrkk..””

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

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

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.

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”.

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”.

““tthheeyy ggaavvee uupp oonn mmee aafftteerr pprriissoonn””

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.

““II jjuusstt hhaattee ggooiinngg ttoo CCeennttrreelliinnkk””

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

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

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.

““yyoouu jjuusstt cchhaannggee tthhee aaddddrreessss wwiitthh tthheemm””

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

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

““nnoott ssoo mmuucchh aabboouutt aa jjoobb,, bbuutt rraatthheerr

aabboouutt kkeeeeppiinngg yyoouu iinn ccaasshh””

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.”

of 36

““II lliikkeedd tthhee iiddeeaa tthhaatt pprrooggrraamm wwaass aabboouutt ffiinnddiinngg

eemmppllooyymmeenntt,, nnoott jjuusstt ssiittttiinngg aarroouunndd””

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”.

““CCeennttrreelliinnkk nneevveerr hheellpp yyoouu ––

tthheeyy jjuusstt ttrryy ttoo ttaakkee yyoouu ooffff yyoouurr ppaayymmeennttss””

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

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”.

of 36

““wwaallkkeedd iinn,, tthheeyy aasskkeedd ddoo II hhaavvee aa rreessuummee,, II ggaavvee tthheemm iitt oonn

aa mmeemmoorryy ssttiicckk,, tthheeyy ggaavvee mmee aa ffoorrmm ttoo ssiiggnn,, aa uusseerrnnaammee

aanndd aa ppaasssswwoorrdd,, aanndd ttoolldd mmee ttoo ggoo””

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”.

““ggaavvee mmee mmoorree oonnee oonn oonnee ssuuppppoorrtt --

tthheeyy ggoott mmee iinn ttoo tthhee jjoobb II aamm iinn nnooww””

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

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.

““ttrryy ttoo kkeeeepp iitt qquuiieett””

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.

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

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.

““nnoott ccoonnnneeccttiinngg wwiitthh ppeeooppllee ttoo ggeett wwhheerree tthheeyy nneeeedd ttoo””

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.

““tthheeyy ssaayy iitt iiss aa jjoobb ‘‘ssuuppppoorrtt’’ nneettwwoorrkk,, bbuutt iitt iiss nnoott””

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.

““aa bbiitt bbaacckkwwaarrddss””

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

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.

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 non-

payment period.

““jjuusstt ggiivveenn uupp.. II kknnooww tthheeyy nneevveerr cchheecckk tthheemm.. II tthhiinnkk tthheeyy

ggoo oonn tthhee ffaacctt iitt mmiigghhtt ssccaarree aa ffeeww ppeeooppllee..””

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

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.”

““iiff II ccaarrrriieedd iitt oouutt sseerriioouussllyy,, iitt wwoouulldd hhaavvee aann iimmppaacctt””

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

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.

““iiff oonn tthhee ssttrreeeett II wwiillll ggoo iinn bbeeffoorree tthhee ddaayy ttoo cchheecckk iiff II’’mm

ggooiinngg ttoo bbee ppaaiidd –– tthhiiss iiss ssoommeetthhiinngg II lleeaarrnneedd ffrroomm bbeeiinngg

ssttuuffffeedd aarroouunndd””

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

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

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.

““nnoo iimmppaacctt ffrroomm tthhee eerrrroorr””

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 requirement for people

experiencing homelessness to find employment. 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

of 36

placed job-seeking requirements on people experiencing homelessness, but

not penalties.

““rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss sshhoouulldd nnoott bbee lliinnkkeedd wwiitthh ppaayymmeennttss,,

ssoo yyoouu ccaann ggeett hhoouussiinngg””

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”.

““YYoouu nneeeedd aa rrooooff oovveerr yyoouurr hheeaadd ffiirrsstt””

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.

of 36

““YYoouu hhaavvee ttoo hhaavvee yyoouurr sshheelltteerr,, yyoouurr ssaannccttuuaarryy,, ssoo tthhaatt yyoouu

ccaann ffeeeell bbeetttteerr aabboouutt yyoouurrsseellff aanndd ggoo oouutt aanndd ffiinndd wwoorrkk..””

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. A number of

participants spoke about disability. 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;

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 job-

seeking.

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.

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

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. Newstart payments for Australians

experiencing homelessness should 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 inclusion-

orientated 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.

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. Centrelink should examine methods of increasing

awareness 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

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.

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.

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.

Document

Documents

Transcript of Document