From the Interpersonal to the Internet: An Australian study into the impact of service digitalisation on government, providers and service users

Social services have traditionally been interpersonal services, provided to vulnerable members of the community to facilitate their thriving (at best), or to help them cope (at the least). In the digital age, more and more... [ view full abstract ]

Social services have traditionally been interpersonal services, provided to vulnerable members of the community to facilitate their thriving (at best), or to help them cope (at the least). In the digital age, more and more social services are shifting from being person-to-person services, to being digital service, with phone or internet technology acting as the intermediary between service provider and end-user. In this paper we consider what this shift is likely to mean for governments, service providers and service users in Australia. Following interviews with Federal government servants, provider groups and providers, we find that social service digitalisation carries with it distinct advantages, as well as risks. In particular, we argue that the advent of digitalisation is likely to enhance efficiency; free up resources that can be directed towards more vulnerable service-users; and easy address common sources of vulnerability such as low vision or an inability to speak the local language. At the same time, digitalisation is likely to be significantly disruptive. For example, it has the potential to completely change the nature of the purchaser-provider relationship by allowing the government to communicate directly with service users, bypassing providers. It is also likely to aggravate pre-existing pockets of extreme vulnerability, with Aboriginal Australians potentially the most disadvantaged due to a lack of infrastructure, mobile devices and digital literacy. Overall, we conclude that while there are likely to be many winners as a result of the shift towards digital social services, there are also likely to be significant losers. Those losers are likely to be those who are already seriously disadvantaged. This means that the transition must be closely monitored to ensure it doesn’t seriously disadvantage members of the community already struggling with disadvantage.