School attendance and welfare

In the US, attempts to make welfare payments conditional on school attendance relate only to eligibility - where payments are reduced or suspended as a punitive measure for not meeting specific obligations. There are no policies in the US or elsewhere that allow governments to withhold welfare entitlements in a separate account and dictate its specific use.

It follows that there is no research that supports this approach as an effective measure to make parents more responsible, or to improve children’s lives.

The only evaluation that is publicly available of a scheme linking welfare payments to school attendance in Indigenous communities in Australia is that of a voluntary trial in Halls Creek in 2006. It found that the school attendance of the children did not improve over the course of the trial, noting three contributing factors: lack of parental insistence that children get to school in the morning, teacher quality, and bullying and teasing.

All parents that the evaluation team spoke to said they wanted their children to go to school, however, many of them felt quite powerless and helpless in enforcing this, particularly those with children over 12 years. The evaluation also found that poor attendance did not necessarily run in families - in one family with five school age children, attendance levels ranged from 14 to 88 per cent.

The evaluation report also noted that other programs at other schools have also had a significant impact, with the key to improvement being to create an education environment that students want to be part of. The main means for doing this was stated to be with high quality teachers and a strong leadership culture within the school.

These findings support the work of Chris Sarra in Queensland, whose research and experience highlights the crucial role of teachers and the school culture in assisting Indigenous children to reach their educational potential. Research also suggests that poor health and nutrition have a powerful impact on whether or not Indigenous children attend school and on their ability to learn and participate in school activities.

The evidence tells us that there are a range of reasons for low school attendance. Lack of parental engagement or support for education undoubtedly plays a significant role in truancy. However it is clearly not sufficient to focus on attempting to force parents to modify their behaviour.

As well as diverting focus from what is known about the contributing factors to poor school attendance - poor health, overcrowded housing, lack of employment prospects, etc - at a fundamental level this approach does not actually encourage responsibility in parents.

In fact it takes away responsibility from Indigenous people for managing finances and decision-making in the interest of families and places it back in the hands of administrators such as government officials and store managers. And it does so in the absence of sufficient strategies to provide information or support to people to enable them to overcome drug or alcohol addiction and to become better parents.

In the case of the blanket application in the Northern Territory, it actually punishes people who may have been spending their welfare payments in the interests of children. It attempts to modify behaviour through negative reinforcement on a group scale.

Bad psychology, never mind bad policy.

Despite all the rhetoric around mutual obligation in Indigenous policy, there has not necessarily been increased accountability on behalf of governments.