🚨
ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY EVALUATION REPORT FEEDBACK POST: (REPOST)
Ok, here is a brief run down on the major points contained in the AU evaluation. I will leave my opinion to the end, except to say that even as is, this report DOES confirm and validate what we, and a multitude of groups, grassroots, social welfare, aboriginal/non aboriginal orgs, political and community have been saying for years - that the CDC is having little to no positive or constructive impact for the majority and is indeed having seriously deleterious effects (bad impacts).
📍 Please note. We feel that this report is incomplete, that the LNP have not released the *full report* to the public, and further, we feel they have heavily amended this excerpt of the report. Even so, this report 'as is' is still exceptionally damning for the LNP. Had it been released prior to the Dec 2020 vote, there is NO way that this program would have been continued for a month longer than listed end dates, much less a further two years.
----
▶️ Total number of forced card holders that were evaluated: 1,963.
At time of evaluation in the three sites there were 5,716 CDC participants, including 1,355 individuals currently recorded as living ‘out of area’ across the 3 trial sites and only the first three sites where evaluated.
----
THE DATA:
▶️ CDC Benefit:
7% - Number of people who expressed a " positive personal view " about the CDC policy
▶️ Alcohol/Drinking:
The report states:
● 6% - the total number of people who stopped drinking after being put on the card, with the report stating this result could have been for any one of a dozen reasons or policies in place ie: CDC could not be defined as causal.
● 75% of people had not reduced alcohol drunk at all.
● 5% ( max percentage shown) drank more than 4 times a week.
● 46% - Number of people reporting they never consumed alcohol before or during "trials".
● 11% - Total percentage of people who reported drinking ( not to excess) who reported a change or reduction in drinking habits
● 80% of the 11% of people who reported they did drink, drank monthly or less.
To their credit, evaluators have noted in item 5.1.2.1 that the minor reductions in drinking noted could be from other reasons and policy/ policing impacts than CDC. Even so, they ( or department editors) still try to push government line by stating " This means that, notwithstanding the important interpretation caveat about the potential impacts of concurrent policies, at the time of the survey between a third and a half of the total CDC participant population surveyed and who consumed alcohol, have changed the way they do this."
This statement is extremely misleading if not approval seeking, as it fails to take into account non CDC spending and non problem drinkers, and their own quantitative data ( the numbers) clearly show little to no change in drinking behaviors among CDC forced participants overall. Its a word salad, written to appease government in the face of abject policy failure, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
As there is also no data offered that evaluated those who are just 'swapping witch for bitch' meaning what percentage of active problem drinkers that turned to drugs as a replacement for alcohol, what this 'caveat' speaks to, is that those 11% of people who did reduce or change drinking behavior were capable of doing so, and chose to do so, and never had a 'problem' with alcohol or stopping drinking at all.
This report specifically doesn't specify how many of these people were "problem" drinkers or entered some form of treatment. There is NO quantitative data from ANY service or rehab center in this report at all. A HUGE absence.
" There is a large majority of people in this evaluation who report that they do not drink at all, or who drink only moderately. It is important to note that when it comes to the behavioural responses that the CDC aims at regarding alcohol, this large majority of the CDC participants has nothing to do with the behavioural change (of reducing alcohol consumption, especially the misuse of alcohol) the CDC seeks to achieve. The qualitative research highlights the frustration these people feel in being subjected to the same constraints which aim to reduce problematic drinking (see section 5.9 and section 6.3.3). " - evaluation team
Again:
" Depending on the definition and the method of risk assessment used, there were between one in 10 and two in 10 CDC participants who reported the problematic drinking behaviours the CDC aims to influence" - evaluation team.
Yet despite this they go on to say:
Evaluators state that "around a fifth of the CDC population in the three trial sites considered by this evaluation have reported high level problem drinking behaviours that the CDC aims to reduce.41"
So, in one page we go from 1/10th, to 1/5th without any clarification.
--
▶️ Financial benefit:
● 50% total number of people who used to be able to save, reporting they were unable to save money on the card.
● For every ONE person who stated they experienced an improvement there were TWO who with a worse financial outcome.
"CDC participants’ ability to save money deteriorated with about 50 per cent of those who used to be able to save money, reporting that they could not do so anymore." - evaluation team
● Table 5-10: three out of four CDC participants reported they are in a similar financial position to the one they were 12 months prior to card roll outs. Of the remaining 1/4, two thirds reported financial situation to be worse, and one third a change for the better.
● Little to no real world financial impact data has been recorded here. By that I mean that there is NO indue data on declines of the card at all, and no data on the impact of IBAN/TT fees and charges, limitations on shopping etc on people on cards or costs on services either. All the the truly tragic impacts - unable to bury kids, attend funerals or but medical supplies have seemingly been ignored completely or has been removed. There is no data or feed back from Banks or small business either.
▶️ Child welfare:
● +80% - when combined, responses of worse + same, the result is over 80% (See Table 5-17)
Noting the absurd absence of school data, child health data, any clinical data at all in the report.
On child welfare and family well-being - the quantitative ( numbers) data highlights the negative issues while the qualitative data ( opinions) which included stakeholder perceptions was more positive.
▶️ Gambling:
● 21% of people across all trial sites reported problems gambling
Yet-
● 14% - the total number of people who said they gambled before CDC - of that number 80% reported gambling less than once per month.
● 76% - total combined reporting " no change" to Gambling in CDC trial sites.
● AGGRESSIVE POLICING IMPACT: "Furthermore, it was noted by some respondents that the local police had become more active in breaking up card games which were held in parklands and moving these people on. Occurring concurrently with the CDC, this intervention was strongly felt to be impacting upon the occurrence of public gambling. " - evaluation team
▶️ Safety:
● One notable result: Goldfields: 50% feel less safe at night, while 31-35% feel less safe during the day.
● 1387 people reported a reduced sense of safety in their home at night compared to 1968 people who reported their safety was unchanged when polling their sense of safety at the time of interview.
▶️ Crime:
● Domestic Violence increased in all sites, even after they changed the definition of DV.
● Assault and Robbery increased in all sites
● Fraud and black market increased in all sites
● AGAIN crime data supplied does not state if perpetrators or victims were on the card or a centrelink payment so is again quite meaningless except in general terms of outcomes and general increases in crime as shown above.
▶️ Employment:
● 5.10.22: 80% of unemployed people on the CDC cited disability, illness or caring responsibilities for not having a job.
● 8.3.1: A main overall finding of the evaluation on the employment front has been that to date and across the first three trial sites, the CDC has had little impact on employment outcomes."
▶️ STIGMA:
● 97% - Combined number of people reporting discrimination, embarrassment and unfairness being on the card. ( 4 out of 5 people)
● 5.9.1 Key findings : "Overall, 75, 73 and 75 per cent ( across the 3 sites respectively) of CDC participants reported that they felt discriminated against, embarrassed about being on the Card or that being on the Card was not fair, respectively.
● IMPORTANTLY ---- The qualitative evidence corroborated the quantitative findings. They both highlighted the large proportion of CDC participants who felt embarrassed, stigmatised and unfairly targeted by the policy.
"Both methodologies also pointed towards such feelings being widespread among all demographic groups making up the CDC population" - evaluation team
▶️ OTHER KEY POINTS:
● Page 161 covers the examples of stigma and shame being experienced - and how it's impacting children :- it is heartbreaking.
● 8.3.1: "The evaluation found some evidence that aspects of the CDC a have been improving but found no systemic evidence either that the CDC is improving outcomes as it matures or that the CDC participants are getting more used it to or that they dislike it less after they have been on it for longer".
● 5.2.3: "Despite the restrictions imposed by the Card, many CDC participants with an addiction were described as still managing to find the funds to support their habit. "
● 8.2.5: Over 50% People on CDC reporting that their control over their lives and autonomy had reduced.
● 5.12: The well known problems with transient populations getting trapped on the card when they visit card zones and return home where there's no infrastructure or support is noted here. At least they've picked that up and highlighted the problem. This shows the cultural rights of Aboriginal people are being impeded due to length of stay in card zones, and confirms our report that centrelink staff have been putting people who DON'T live in card roll out zones on the card illegally/ contrary to legislated rollout locations.
● 5.11.1: are the key stakeholder findings - it shows that CDC increased their funding and therefore enriched them all by way of paid employment, created a captive market of people forced onto the CDC which then justifies the stakeholder's existence and all that money they received, and as a result of the frustrations experienced by those very CDC captives - the stakeholders felt their staff safety was at risk 🤔 this is like a tik tok moment - it's quite literally insane.
● Mental health impacts for stakeholders and forced trial participants related to CDC-induced aggression - so basically it's being acknowledged that the CDC has caused mental health problems leading to aggression - and the stakeholders are whining about the consequences. VERY Little MH data in this report at all which is NOT ok given that MH decline is one of the largest reported impacts.
▶️ Notes:
● The report clearly shows worsening outcomes for non indigenous respondents and a majority of indigenous respondents with a spattering of improvement seen in predominantly people identifying as aboriginal who could have taken up full IM under Basics Cards anyway. No wonder they kept Hinkler out of this evaluation!
Given these findings show that what little improvements that can be found have been reported from aboriginal participants, and decreases in quality of life from non aboriginal populations, these findings are going to have huge implications for the Hinkler trial zone given the different racial makeup of participants there.
These outcomes essentially reflect the racial divide of the card and rather than lift everyone - some Indigenous participants have had minor "improvements" while non-indigenous participants have been dragged down. What did Morrison say - "we don't believe in lifting some at the expense of others?" - that lie can be put to bed as they most certainly are doing just that.
-
▶️ Oped:
This AU report is extremely limited, at times contradictory, and while a clear explanation of methodologies is given, many of the caveats are irrelevant, and those that are critically relevant are not emphasised as being such or are needlessly word salad.
Conceding that AU had to design a evaluation tool as they went, it is 'sufficient' yet some major issues have been left unexamined ie: mortality, card declines, hospitalisations etc.
Under legislation the key question that Adelaide University was required by law to answer in their conclusion was essentially - "Is the program fit for purpose and expansion? Yet this question is not even answered at all and this is either a MAJOR oversight by this team OR this information and conclusions have been removed by the department in its 'editing process'.
HINKLER trial site is not included in this evaluation, despite again, their inclusion being part of the legislated *requirement* for evaluation prior to any expansion.
📍 Please note again. We do feel that this report is incomplete, that the LNP have not released the *full report* to the public and further, we feel they have heavily amended this excerpt of the report.
Given decades of research behind me, and given the cost ( $2.5 million) and the time given ( 2018-2021) I'm disappointed and not impressed. I feel for the team tasked with this nightmare job, but I can't allow that emotion to whitewash the evidence and the lack of evidence and the lack of qualified commentary on the efficacy of the policy.
This is another heavily 'caveated' ramble of attempted program justifying mostly qualitative data, with some weak quantitative data thrown in, most of which ultimately serves no overall function but to highlight what is already known data.
Every question I wanted answered is not answered here and with data from both government and Indue not even included...well..it is what it is.
I do concede that AU did give primacy of focus to the legislated objectives as written, a good thing, however almost every caveat, if not the premise of the entire report avoided comparison of data to those objectives.
Overall, AU was still relying solely on an unqualified (LNP) ASSUMPTION that people on centrelink are 'problem' drinkers and child neglecting payment wasting drug taking individuals.
No challenge is made to that assumption in this report such as political motivations for the card etc, and its conclusions are fretful, fearful and unclear, potentially demonstrating the mindset of the team involved and fear of potential repercussions.
At least one of few graphs shows a definitive collective reality that the greater majority of people both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal, benefiting or not benefiting, DO want OFF the CDC in the three sites examined. That slip of a data point matters as it shows that benefiting or not, people still want off.
Sadly, irresponsibly, not one set of impacts reported to Senate including death, injury, loss or any other detailed CDC impact statement has been included in this report, not one service group data set appears, not even hospital or clinic data and NO Indue decline data etc..nothing.
A big reminder to all that this evaluation report does not include a single mention or statistic from Hinkler trial site - Hinkler zone is the largest group of people on cards now.
In Ceduna, less than 800 people are on cards, East Kim less than 2500, and in Goldfields less than 3000, in Hinkler numbers are well over 6000 people.
- Amanda.
NCDCA policy analyst and research grunt.
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2804327709805118&id=1668608406710393