If the CDEP scheme is characterised as a 'mutual obligation' institutional framework, the question can then be posed: how well does it operate in practice? Statistical analysis that can be undertaken for the first time, because of the data in the 1996 Census, indicates that it operates quite well. Some key findings from Altman and Gray (2000) are summarised below.
Indications are that the mean income of the CDEP-employed is substantially higher than that of the unemployed or those not in the labour force. For example, CDEP-employed males and females receive a mean income of $186 and $181 per week respectively, compared to $139 and $145 received by unemployed males and females. The income of CDEP-employed people is much lower than the mean income of $298 and $299 received by Indigenous males and females in mainstream employment (Altman & Gray 2000: 8–10).
The notional CDEP wages component only provides for part-time work, most commonly 18 hours a week. Indications from the 1996 Census are that people who are CDEP-employed are frequently able to supplement these hours, with 17 per cent of males and 16 per cent of females working between 25 and 34 hours per week and a significant minority (26 per cent of males and 18 per cent of females) working more than 35 hours per week, or full-time. These additional hours of work can be accrued in a variety of ways: from 'top-up' hours provided by the CDEP organisation, from extra work generated by enterprises, or by combining CDEP employment with part-time mainstream employment (Altman & Gray 2000: 10).
By combining ATSIC administrative data with census data, it is possible to compare CDEP with non-CDEP communities in rural and remote areas.[20] The employment to population ratio, at 50 per cent, is higher in CDEP communities than non-CDEP communities, where it is 38 per cent. This is hardly surprising since recruitment to CDEP entails an immediate change of labour force status. However, in addition, it seems that many of the CDEP-employed are drawn from those groups who otherwise would not be in the labour force. The 'not in the labour force' ratio is 44 per cent at CDEP communities, but 50 per cent in non-CDEP communities. The unemployment rate is remarkably similar in CDEP and non-CDEP communities in rural and remote areas, at 10.5 per cent and 13 per cent respectively (Altman & Gray 2000: 13–14). This indicates that passive welfare exists alongside 'active' welfare in CDEP communities.
These statistics indicate that the CDEP scheme is doing some things right: income is increased, extra hours of work are generated, and labour force status is improved. The obvious proviso is that this is being assisted by allocations of operational and capital support from ATSIC. Two important issues arise. Although people who are CDEP-employed are not welfare dependent, they remain dependent nevertheless on a government program. Indeed many individuals have participated in the scheme for over a decade. The second, related, issue is whether participants are moving though the scheme to mainstream employment.
[20] This discussion of the impact on labour force status uses the standard census rural balance and locality classification rather than the SES jurisdiction used above.