The Equality Rights Alliance recently released a report on 180 women’s experiences of income management in the Northern Territory. According to the report three quarters of the women surveyed said having their income managed did not make them ‘feel safer’.
But more important than such silly and subjective questions are data that shows the tangible effects of income management.
Policy should not be decided merely on the basis of people’s opinions, but on evidence of its efficacy. However, determining the effectiveness of income management is difficult when you only have the findings of biased research to go on.
On one hand are people like Eva Cox and the authors of the “Women’s Experience of Income Management in the Northern Territory” peddling an anti-income management line. On the other hand are government evaluations and reports with findings tailored to support their policies.
The conclusions drawn from these two biased sources are that some people on income management say it helps them budget their finances, while others say they find it stigmatising and restrictive.
To properly evaluate income management we need to look beyond people’s perspectives of it and explore whether or not it is meeting its objectives.
The problem hindering this process is that it is not clear whether income management is intended to help or punish people.
The intention behind income management in the Northern Territory was to restrict the amount of money available for ‘grog’ and increase the amount of money spent on essential items like food and clothing. It was part of an agenda to help ‘normalise’ remote Indigenous communities.
The income management schemes in Western Australia and Queensland are more nuanced approaches that use income management to ‘punish’ individuals who come to the attention of authorities for a range of reasons including child abuse and their children's truanting.
Their approach is preferable to blanket measures, which tar the responsible and the irresponsible with the same brush, but measuring its effectiveness is harder.
If income management is to help people budget their finances better then this is relatively easy to prove: bills are paid on time, and more money is spent on clothing and food. It is more difficult to prove that being on income management stopped a parent from abusing their child.
Greater clarity on the objectives of income management would make measuring whether it is meetings its aims easier. It may also prevent researchers asking ridiculous questions like ‘do you feel safer because you have your income managed?’
Sara Hudson is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.