Research Library
Evaluation of MoneyMob Talkabout
On this page
- Description of the programme
- The study
- What are the outcomes?
- Key findings
- Points to consider
- Full report
Description of the programme
Indigenous communities in Australia are facing growing levels of deprivation. With low incomes and high living expenses, many people do not have enough money for essentials like food and regular bills. Broader factors such as ‘humbugging’ (asking or demanding to share money), limited internet access, limited access to financial products (e.g. bank accounts, insurances, etc) and cultural beliefs in relation to money and wealth add further pressures and stress to management of an individual’s money. For some the concept of money and financial knowledge is still unfamiliar.
Delivered on the privately-owned aboriginal reserve known as APY (Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara) Lands in South Australia, MoneyMob Talkabout is a two-way programme to help remote indigenous communities positively manage their money. Through the programme, a team spends time learning about how money is viewed and used in indigenous communities. They then use their learning to shape how they share knowledge and information about money through a series of culturally appropriate learning experiences. These activities range from teaching people to recognise different Australian coins to sorting out money and debt issues.
The programme is aimed at 12 small communities in the APY Lands, with a geographical spread over 103,000 square kilometres and a total population of 2,692 people. All age groups are invited to take part in activities and the services are delivered within a local community setting.
In 2014, 758 clients across all adult age groups used MoneyMob. The majority (83%) of clients came from five communities. Only 14% of MoneyMob clients were on either full or part time wage.
The study
This report is the last in a series of evaluation report (previous reports published between 2012 and 2014) which seek to:
- Monitor processes of MoneyMob services.
- Examine the outcomes of MoneyMob services by assessing the effects and effectiveness of services delivered.
- Build a body of knowledge about the social, economic and cultural factors relating to money in the APY Lands.
In this final evaluation report, the focus is on community-level changes in financial capability: for those who have attended MoneyMob services as well as the wider community of APY Land. Residents were surveyed using paper-based or face-to-face (with the help of a translator) approaches.
In November 2013, 77 people from four communities (Indulkana, Amata, Pukatja and Mimili) took part in the baseline ‘Community Money Survey’, while a total of 84-people from three communities (Amata, Pukatja and Mimili) took part in the follow up survey (October and November 2014). Of the 84-people surveyed at follow-up, only eight of them had also completed the baseline survey.
Interviews were also conducted with community leaders/elders and service providers in these three communities.
What are the outcomes?
- Money Management
- Choosing products
- Making provisions for the future
- Being informed
Key findings
Interviews highlighted that the key issues about money in the communities included:
- Income sources and levels
- High cost of living
- Humbugging
- Indebtedness, credit and book-up
- Banking and money management
- Financial scams
Some of these issues are echoed in the key findings of the survey.
- Between 2013 and 2014, there was a 32% increase in those who kept track of their bank balances (53%% in 2013 vs. 85% in 2014), with those who had accessed MoneyMob services knowing their bank balances more often than those who hadn’t accessed the services (62% vs. 33%);
- The Majority of participants at both baseline and follow-up reported often being broke before payday (82% in 2013 and 77% in 2014). While there were decreases in those reporting they always missed out on essential items (30% in 2013 and 13% in 2014) there was in an increase in those reporting ‘sometimes’ (35% in 2013 and 62% in 2014);
- There was a decrease in the percentage of people reporting they borrow money they cannot pay back (49% vs. 17%).
- Overall, people are not proactively seeking out information about bank accounts, with 77% (2013) and 63% (2014) reporting they did not know about different types of bank accounts;
- Most participants worry about what they buy because ‘everything costs a lot of money’ (79% in 2013 and 73% in 2014) and ‘because there are only a few things to buy in the shop’ (79% in 2013 and 75% in 2014).
- About half of survey participants said they were saving money (50% in 2013 and 47% in 2014), with those who had been to see MoneyMob slightly more likely to report having saved money in the previous six months than those who had not (56% vs. 43%in 2013 and 38% vs. 30% in 2014). Furthermore, in 2014, more people said they could access saving in case of an emergency (40% vs. 18%);
- MoneyMob clients were more likely to have savings, legal will, superannuations and insurances compared with non-clients;
- Overall there was limited financial capacity for future planning.
- There was an increase in the number of people surveyed who sought advice from MoneyMob between the 2013 and 2014 surveys (49% and 71% respectively).
The evaluation indicates that financial capability is being built in to APY communities, but also highlights the time and effort required to deliver services in remote APY areas.
Points to consider
- For a number of questions, the authors indicate that changes in responses may be because questions had been ‘tweaked’. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether some of the changes had been due to a positive impact of the service or simply due to changes in the wording of the questions. In addition, no in-depth analysis of the surveys has been completed, and data is only presented as percentages at both survey points.
- This evaluation focuses on a small sub-group of indigenous people in Australia. A number of the financial issues addressed as part of this programme and evaluation are wrapped in cultural sub-contexts and are unlikely to be widely applicable, e.g. the notion of family money vs. individual wealth or inaccessibility of goods.
