Researchers say there is “little consensus” the cashless debit card is fulfilling its intended aims of reducing drug and alcohol abuse in one of the trial sites, according to unpublished findings of an evaluation commissioned by the federal government.
Guardian Australia can reveal the University of Adelaide team also found “only a minority” of those interviewed in the Western Australia’s Goldfields who back the card actually want it to continue in its current form, with most preferring a more “targeted” approach.
It comes as the government faces internal dissent over a bill to make the controversial welfare policy permanent at four trial sites – East Kimberley and the Goldfields in WA, Ceduna in South Australia, and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland. The bill would also expand the card into the Northern Territory.
While ministers have insisted they are confident the card has a “positive impact on participants and the broader community”, the government has refused to release the University of Adelaide’s $2m final evaluation of the scheme.
But in their draft evaluation of the Goldfields site, which remains confidential but has been seen by Guardian Australia, the researchers say “little consensus was found as to whether the CDC was fulfilling its intended aims and having a positive impact on levels of alcohol and drug misuse”.
The Goldfields findings are expected to feed into the as-yet-unpublished final evaluation report, which will also appraise the East Kimberley and Ceduna trials.
That final report will also include quantitive research and a review of administrative data in each of the sites. Critics have previously complained about a focus on perceptions-based qualitative research rather than “hard data”.
Some Goldfields respondents, especially in the smaller communities, said alcohol and drug use had declined, but others “felt there had been no observable change”.
The conclusions are drawn from in-depth interviews with scheme participants and other local stakeholders, including community leaders and social service providers.
In interviews, Goldfields locals were more positive about a reduction in gambling, with some noting seeing fewer public card games, and others also reported improvements in spending patterns on essential items, school attendance and child welfare.
However, there were also concerns “criminal activity had increased” since the card was introduced and a belief it was linked to “the occurrence of financial abuse, fraud and exploitation”, particularly of older people.
They also described a “lack of clear outcomes” on employment, as well as financial planning and management, despite the government lauding the card as a “financial literacy tool” for people on welfare.
Many respondents complained of “perceived stigma, shame and embarrassment” and also found the lack of cash “problematic”.
The draft report said several “challenging” practical problems included trying to make purchases outside the trial site or online, while “card workarounds” that allowed people to bypass the restrictions were “commonly noted”.
The scheme, which has cost the government $80m since 2015-16, quarantines 80% of a person’s welfare payments on to a debit card that cannot be used to buy alcohol or gaming products or withdraw cash.
Backbench Liberal MP Bridget Archer last week blasted her own government’s policy in a speech in parliament, and appeared to summarise the unreleased final report as finding the card’s benefits were “limited in nature and scope”.
Archer said there was “just not enough evidence” to justify the “associated harm” the program caused.
Although the government has insisted the decision to make the trials permanent is a response to community leaders asking for “certainty”, the draft Goldfields evaluation paints a more complicated picture.
It said while slightly more locals favoured the card continuing in some form, “only a minority wanted to maintain it in its current form as they felt that the trial was successfully meeting its aims”.
In fact, the majority of supporters of the scheme, especially stakeholders, wanted it to continue in an adapted form where the card was “targeted” at people with established issues with alcohol, drugs, gambling, money management or caring for their children.
This would demand an overhaul of the policy, which currently imposes the card on all people on the eligible welfare payments for each site. Few people have been granted “exits” under the program.
In addition, about a third of respondents, overwhelmingly cardholders, told the researchers they wanted the Goldfields trial scrapped altogether.
Interviews conducted by the University of Adelaide team suggested the card was “not working particularly well” for people with disabilities, those with limited literacy or IT skills, older people and Indigenous people in remote communities.
Compared with a 2019 baseline report, the draft evaluation of the Goldfields did note people’s attitudes towards the card had generally improved over time. Nearly half of participants in the Goldfields area are Indigenous.
The Department of Social Services briefly summarised the findings of the final evaluation of the Ceduna, Goldfields and Kimberley sites in a submission to a Senate inquiry examining the card.
The final evaluation was said to have found “consistent and clear evidence that alcohol consumption has reduced since the introduction of the CDC”, as well as “short-term evidence” the card was “helping to reduce gambling” and improve financial management.
The office of the social services minister, Anne Ruston, was yet to respond to a request for comment about the Goldfields findings or when the final evaluation would be released.
The government needs to pass legislation in the final sitting week of the year or the trials will expire.