Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T05:34:15.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Targeting single mothers? Dynamics of contracting Australian employment services and activation policies at the street level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2018

MICHELLE BRADY
MICHELLE BRADY*
Affiliation:
School of Social Science, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Michie Building, St Lucia, The University of QueenslandQLD 4072, Australia email: michelle.brady@uq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Activation reforms targeted at single parents simultaneously construct them as a legitimate target for activation policy and subject them to new obligations to engage in paid work or education/training. The social policy literature has established that the work of ‘making-up’ target groups occurs at the street level as well as in government legislation. The street level has become even more significant in recent years as there has been a shift towards establishing quasi-markets for the delivery of welfare-to-work programmes and organising these around the principles of performance pay and process flexibility. However, what is largely missing from the existing literature is an analysis of how contract conditions, together with individuals' activation obligations, shape how they are targeted at the street level. Drawing on a study conducted over eight years with agencies in Australia's quasi-market for employment services, this paper argues that the changes to the contracts for governing this market changed how Australian single mothers were targeted by employment services. Over time there was a shift away from making-up single-parent clients as a distinct, vulnerable target group and a shift towards viewing them in terms of risk categories described within the agencies’ contracts.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 827 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altreiter, C. and Leibetseder, B. (2015), ‘Constructing inequality: deserving and undeserving clients in Austrian social assistance offices’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 1, 127–145Google Scholar
Australian Government (2005), ‘2005–06 Budget Paper No. 2: Budget Measures 2005–06’, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/bp2/html/index.htm [accessed 06.09.2017]Google Scholar
Bennett, H. (2017), ‘Re-examining British welfare-to-work contracting using a transaction cost perspective’, Journal of Social Policy, 46, 1, 129–148Google Scholar
Blaxland, M. (2013), ‘Street-level interpellation: how government addresses mothers claiming income support’, Journal of Social Policy, 42, 4, 783–797Google Scholar
Brady, M. A. (2011a), Governing single mothers through personalized planning programs. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.Google Scholar
Brady, M. (2011b). Researching governmentalities through ethnography: the case of Australian welfare reforms and programs for single parents. Critical Policy Studies, 5 (3), 264–282.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (1997), ‘Inside the welfare contract: discretion and accountability in state welfare administration’, Social Service Review 71, 1, 1–33Google Scholar
Brodkin, E.Z. (2013), ‘Street-level organisations and the welfare state’, in Brodkin, E.Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-level Organisations and Workfare Politics, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 17–34Google Scholar
Carter, E. and Whitworth, A. (2015), ‘Creaming and parking in quasi-marketised welfare-to-work schemes: designed out of or designed into the UK Work Programme?’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 2, 277–296Google Scholar
Cowling, S. and Mitchell, W.F. (2003), ‘False promise or false premise? Evaluating the job network’, Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 6, 2, 207–226Google Scholar
Considine, M., Lewis, J.M. and O'Sullivan, S. (2011), ‘Quasi-markets and service delivery flexibility following a decade of employment assistance reform in Australia’, Journal of Social Policy, 40, 4, 811–833Google Scholar
Department of Social Security. (1998), New ambitions for our country: A new contract for welfare. UK: London: House of Commons, Cm 3805Google Scholar
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) (2002), ‘Submission to the Independent Review of the Job Network’, Canberra: DEEWR, http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/job-network/submissions/43/sub043.pdf [accessed 06.09.2017]Google Scholar
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2007), ‘Active Participation Model: Evaluation: July 2003 - June 2006’, Evaluation and Program Performance Branch Research and Evaluation Group, Canberra: DEEWR, https://docs.employment.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/active_participation_model_evaluation_final_report.pdf [accessed 06.09.2017]Google Scholar
DEEWR (2009), ‘Evaluation Strategy for Job Services Australia 2009 - 2012’, Canberra: DEEWR, https://www.employment.gov.au/job-services-australia-2009-2012-evaluation-strategy [accessed 06.09.2017]Google Scholar
DEEWR (2012), ‘Employment Services Deed 2012–2015’, Canberra: DEEWR, https://docs.jobs.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/esd4_ss_-_clean_-_gdv_8_-_accessible_version.pdf [accessed 06.09.2017]Google Scholar
Dubois, V. (2010), The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
Finn, D. (2011), Job Services Australia: Design and Implementation Lessons for the British Context, Research Report No. 752, Sheffield: Department for Work and PensionsGoogle Scholar
Forsey, M., (2010), Ethnography as participant listening. Ethnography, 11 (4), pp. 558–572.Google Scholar
Grahame, T. and Marston, G. (2012), ‘Welfare-to-work policies and the experience of employed single mothers on income support in Australia: Where are the benefits?’, Australian Social Work, 65,1, 73–86Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1986), ‘Making up people’, in (Ed) Biagiolo, Mario The Science Studies Reader, New York, New York: Routledge, pp. 161–171Google Scholar
Haux, T. (2012), ‘Activating lone parents: An evidence-based policy appraisal of welfare-to-work reform in Britain’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 1, 1–14Google Scholar
Henman, P. (2004), ‘Targeted! Population segmentation, electronic surveillance and governing the unemployed in Australia’, International Sociology, 19, 2, 173–191Google Scholar
Henman, P. and Dean, M. (2010), ‘E-government and the production of standardized individuality’, in Higgins, V. and Larner, W. (eds.), Calculating the Social Standards and the Reconfiguration of Governing, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 77–93Google Scholar
Ingram, H. and Schneider, A.L. (2015), ‘Making distinctions: the social construction of target populations’, in Fischer, F., Torgerson, D., Durnová, A. and Orsini, M. (eds.), Handbook of Critical Policy Studies, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 259–273Google Scholar
Jordon, J.D. (2017), Evidence from the ‘Frontline’? An Ethnographic Problematisation of Welfare-to-Work Administrator Opinions. Work, Employment and Society, p. 0950017017741238.Google Scholar
Korteweg, A.C. (2003), ‘Welfare reform and the subject of the working mother: “Get a job, a better job, then a career”’, Theory and Society, 32, 4, 445–480Google Scholar
Korteweg, A.C. (2006), ‘The construction of gendered citizenship at the welfare office: an ethnographic comparison of welfare-to-work workshops in the United States and the Netherlands’, Social Politics, 13, 3, 313–340Google Scholar
Lewis, J.E. (1997), ‘Lone mothers: The British case’, in Lewis, J. (ed.), Lone Mothers in European Welfare Regimes: Shifting Policy Logics, London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 50–75Google Scholar
Lippert, R. and Brady, M. (2016), ‘Governmentalities, the ethnographic imaginary and beyond’, in Brady, M. and Lippert, R. K. (eds.), Governing Practices: Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and the Ethnographic Imaginary, University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
McArthur, M., Thomson, L. and Winkworth, G. (2013), ‘Jumping through hoops: the cost of compliance on sole parents’, Child & Family Social Work, 18, 2, 159–167Google Scholar
McDonald, C. and Marston, G. (2008), ‘Re-visiting the quasi-market in employment services: Australia's job network’, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 30, 2, 101–117Google Scholar
Raffass, T. (2017), ‘Demanding activation’, Journal of Social Policy, 46, 2, 349–365Google Scholar
Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (1993), ‘Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy’, American Political Science Review, 87, 2, 334–347Google Scholar
Senate (2009), ‘DEEWR tender process to award employment services contracts: Report from the Senate, Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee’ Canberra: The Senate, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_Employment_and_Workplace_Relations/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/employment_services/report/index [accessed 06.09.2017]Google Scholar
Struyven, L. and Steurs, G. (2005), ‘Design and redesign of a quasi-market for the reintegration of jobseekers: empirical evidence from Australia and the Netherlands’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 3, 211–229Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2007), A review of developments in the Job Network, Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services, CanberraGoogle Scholar
Whitworth, A. (2016), ‘Neoliberal paternalism and paradoxical subjects: confusion and contradiction in UK activation policy’, Critical Social Policy, 36, 3, 412–431Google Scholar