Currently I’m in New York attending the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations.
It’s been an incredibly educational week, I’ve had rich learning experiences across the board as I’ve listened and discussed the issue of gender-based violence with my colleagues around the world.
There is a common theme in all of our discussions; community attitudes, housing and access to social protections without shame.
There’s no doubt that Australia has some world-leading policies and if the execution of these policies were tweaked and applied through a different lens in how they are administered, we would be best practice.
The Escaping Violence Payment is one policy that collectively should be examined. It is intended as a one-time payment to assist people leaving violence. This payment currently consists of a cash payment of $1500AUD and voucher payments of $3500AUD. There has been much discussion about these payments and how they have been administered through senate estimates and external evaluation.
Between July and September 2023 over 50,000 Australians applied for the Escaping Violence Payment, and more than 50 per cent of applicants were rejected. I can assure you that these 50 per cent of applicants were also living in violence.
We are quite backwards culturally in how we approach social payments in Australia. There still shame and stigma attached when asking for help. And on the flip-side, the administering of payments often comes from a framework of disbelief and distrust. If we don’t have rigorous qualifiers and robust interview process the payment offices will be flooded with grifters wanting to abuse the system, right?
Empirically, that couldn’t be more wrong and out of touch with the needs of victim survivors when fleeing violence. Social protection is not a handout or charitable act – it is a right.
In many cases the Escaping Violence Payment may be the first social service engagement victim survivors have. If that first meeting and reception to the disclosure is badly handled, we know it might take another 12 months for people to reach out again, if ever.
NWSA participated in the evaluation of the Escaping Violence Payment and it was clear from our member testimony that when the payment was administered in the spirit of the policy design – it worked.
When the payment administration came with infantilising, punitive measures like shopping lists, and vouchers from preferred (read cheap) suppliers imposed by the organisation NOT the policy framework – it did not work.
It was clear these measures were steeped in implicit bias about people leaving violence. Members said they were ashamed, embarrassed and felt angry at the lack of trust an autonomy.
And that’s just the payments that made it through.
With gender-based violence at epidemic levels in Australia, these rejection rates are simply not good enough.
I had the pleasure of connecting with social impact leader Sydney Piggot who has spent time evaluating cash transfer programs across the world, that use a feminist payment framework, low barrier opt-in, and a specific gender lens in the program design. This work has been published by Toronto University Press “Cash Transfers for a more inclusive society”.
What she and her research team have found is that the broader benefits of direct cash transfers far outweigh the risk of potential fraud. Sydney and her team found that the financial autonomy of low barrier programs, participants sense of worth grew exponentially alongside their confidence to participate in their communities. This then accelerated their ability to return to the workforce and achieve financial independence.
YWCA Canada administers the National Emergency Survivors Support Fund. This program works in a similar manner to the Escaping Violence Payment payment; a one-time emergency payment to ensure clients can leave immediate crisis to safety.
There is a key difference when a client comes in to access this payment? They believe them. The payment criteria is trust. And the payment is given within a 48-72 hour period.
What the evaluation of this program has found it that victim survivors are far more likely to engage in a wrap around, trauma-informed service if they are respected and most critically believed from the point of disclosure.
A feminist payment framework demands trust, empathy and dignity first, as opposed to a deficit approach of fear, distrust and scarcity mentality.
I sat with my Australian colleagues, and we all looked at each other eyes wide. Imagine if we start by believing and don’t further stigmatise, victim shame people asking for help to stay safe. How many more people could we help?
I hope readers examine their immediate response to this different approach to social protections and reflect. Is this really a revolutionary act? What are we risking by believing people? We saw this scarcity and distrust around the government domestic and family violence leave – there was a genuine belief from some quarters that people would view that as an “opportunity for an extra ten days off”
To be clear – no one wants to take that leave, and have those extremely difficult conversations with human resources.
A recent Australian inquiry showed the catastrophic outcomes when we dehumanise and threaten people from cohorts that require a level of state support.
Leaving violence isn’t a crime – it’s a courageous choice that should be supported. Asking for help should not come with further exposure to power and control. Having this structural change can only help as we work through the community attitudes of distrust and disbelief.