Post by Banker on Aug 11, 2011 18:19:25 GMT 7
Removing Centrelink’s Road Blocks
By Maree O’Halloran, President, National Welfare Rights Network*
Over the last few years Centrelink staff and management have, without extra resources, implemented a number of initiatives to identify people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. These initiatives include the vulnerability indicator on files, widespread staff training, outreach at homelessness hubs and establishing Community Engagement Officers as specialist staff in the area.
Furthermore, the 2011 Federal Budget, developed in an atmosphere of tight fiscal restraint, did include funding for 20 new Community Engagement Officers and 13 extra social workers to help people experiencing personal crises. These additional positions, along with additional funding for the “Local Connections to Work Program” in 25 sites and increased funding for people with very complex needs in 44 sites were hard won and important achievements by the Minister for Human Services, Tania Plibersek.
However, simultaneously the Federal Government has established road blocks in the social security system for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The harsher regime of financial penalties introduced on 1 July 2011 and the potential for vulnerable social security recipients in certain designated places to be the subject of compulsory income management may be counterproductive to reducing homelessness. Increased financial penalties, for example, can lead to eviction and homelessness. In addition, people may be reluctant to disclose vulnerabilities to Centrelink staff, including social workers, if the flagging of such may precipitate compulsory income management for the vulnerable person.
In the six months to December 2010, 2,541 people with a Centrelink vulnerability indicator had a “no show no pay” penalty – which is just one of the types of financial penalties that can apply. Of these, 310 were applied where the person was homeless or at risk of homelessness. Just in that six month period, the number of penalties handed out was double the amount that had applied in the whole of the previous year. There were also some eight week non payment periods applied to people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness. No one knows how many people lost their accommodation as a result of these penalties. Changes that the Minister for Employment Participation, Kate Ellis, believes will better “protect” vulnerable job seekers do not start until July 2012.
The Government has announced a series of “placed-based” welfare reform initiatives, with a significant amount of extra funding for programs that are intended to be driven by local needs. If correctly implemented, these new services and supports could make a real difference in addressing extreme disadvantage and social exclusion. However, at the heart of some of these new initiatives is an extension of income management. For example, those who are behind in their public housing rent for more than four weeks may be targeted for income management. We know that around 2000 people each year are evicted from public housing – but what we do not know is the numbers evicted for rental arrears, as opposed to eviction due to other causes, such as disruptive behaviour. We also know that “homelessness” may trigger a classification by a Centrelink social worker for compulsory income management; however, there is no evidence that income management will address the issues that led to homelessness in the first place.
It is important to distinguish between the role of Centrelink as a service delivery agency to reducing homelessness and the role of Government to ensure that all its policies are underpinned by a commitment to the strategy.
Within Centrelink itself, greater internal resources need to be provided to ensure that people exiting out of state care including prisons, hospitals and rehabilitation have income support and appropriate referrals for accommodation. Centrelink also needs to apply more resources and coordinate its treatment of people the subject of family and domestic violence.
At the same time, the Federal Government needs to ensure that across all agencies its legislation and policies are conducive to the goal of reducing homelessness. One important measure that the Government should introduce as a matter of urgency is to double the rate of crisis payment currently available with the option of a further increase for people in extreme circumstances. This increase would be beneficial for people exiting out of state care, for people the subject of domestic violence and for other people in crisis.
This edition of Parity will ensure that a greater focus is placed on Centrelink services and Government policy to help remove any road blocks to reducing homelessness in our community.
*The National Welfare Rights Network is comprised of 14 Community Legal Centres across Australia which specialise in Social Security law and Centrelink practice.
www.chp.org.au/parity/articles/results.chtml?filename_num=00441
By Maree O’Halloran, President, National Welfare Rights Network*
Over the last few years Centrelink staff and management have, without extra resources, implemented a number of initiatives to identify people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. These initiatives include the vulnerability indicator on files, widespread staff training, outreach at homelessness hubs and establishing Community Engagement Officers as specialist staff in the area.
Furthermore, the 2011 Federal Budget, developed in an atmosphere of tight fiscal restraint, did include funding for 20 new Community Engagement Officers and 13 extra social workers to help people experiencing personal crises. These additional positions, along with additional funding for the “Local Connections to Work Program” in 25 sites and increased funding for people with very complex needs in 44 sites were hard won and important achievements by the Minister for Human Services, Tania Plibersek.
However, simultaneously the Federal Government has established road blocks in the social security system for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The harsher regime of financial penalties introduced on 1 July 2011 and the potential for vulnerable social security recipients in certain designated places to be the subject of compulsory income management may be counterproductive to reducing homelessness. Increased financial penalties, for example, can lead to eviction and homelessness. In addition, people may be reluctant to disclose vulnerabilities to Centrelink staff, including social workers, if the flagging of such may precipitate compulsory income management for the vulnerable person.
In the six months to December 2010, 2,541 people with a Centrelink vulnerability indicator had a “no show no pay” penalty – which is just one of the types of financial penalties that can apply. Of these, 310 were applied where the person was homeless or at risk of homelessness. Just in that six month period, the number of penalties handed out was double the amount that had applied in the whole of the previous year. There were also some eight week non payment periods applied to people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness. No one knows how many people lost their accommodation as a result of these penalties. Changes that the Minister for Employment Participation, Kate Ellis, believes will better “protect” vulnerable job seekers do not start until July 2012.
The Government has announced a series of “placed-based” welfare reform initiatives, with a significant amount of extra funding for programs that are intended to be driven by local needs. If correctly implemented, these new services and supports could make a real difference in addressing extreme disadvantage and social exclusion. However, at the heart of some of these new initiatives is an extension of income management. For example, those who are behind in their public housing rent for more than four weeks may be targeted for income management. We know that around 2000 people each year are evicted from public housing – but what we do not know is the numbers evicted for rental arrears, as opposed to eviction due to other causes, such as disruptive behaviour. We also know that “homelessness” may trigger a classification by a Centrelink social worker for compulsory income management; however, there is no evidence that income management will address the issues that led to homelessness in the first place.
It is important to distinguish between the role of Centrelink as a service delivery agency to reducing homelessness and the role of Government to ensure that all its policies are underpinned by a commitment to the strategy.
Within Centrelink itself, greater internal resources need to be provided to ensure that people exiting out of state care including prisons, hospitals and rehabilitation have income support and appropriate referrals for accommodation. Centrelink also needs to apply more resources and coordinate its treatment of people the subject of family and domestic violence.
At the same time, the Federal Government needs to ensure that across all agencies its legislation and policies are conducive to the goal of reducing homelessness. One important measure that the Government should introduce as a matter of urgency is to double the rate of crisis payment currently available with the option of a further increase for people in extreme circumstances. This increase would be beneficial for people exiting out of state care, for people the subject of domestic violence and for other people in crisis.
This edition of Parity will ensure that a greater focus is placed on Centrelink services and Government policy to help remove any road blocks to reducing homelessness in our community.
*The National Welfare Rights Network is comprised of 14 Community Legal Centres across Australia which specialise in Social Security law and Centrelink practice.
www.chp.org.au/parity/articles/results.chtml?filename_num=00441
