Critical Review of Social Impact Projects: FIAP and ADII

This report offers a critical review of two significant social impact projects in Australia: the Financial Inclusion Action Plan (FIAP) and the Australian Digital Inclusion Index (ADII). The report begins by defining social impact and its importance in policy and project evaluation. It then delves into FIAP, examining its goals to improve financial well-being, its challenges with microfinancing, and its limited scale, offering recommendations such as broadening the definition of financial exclusion and focusing on a wider range of financial products. The report also analyzes the Australian Digital Inclusion Index (ADII), highlighting its objectives to improve digital inclusion by assessing access, affordability, and digital ability. The findings reveal issues for vulnerable populations and suggest improvements to the survey methodology. The conclusion summarizes the key findings, emphasizing the need for better project implementation, comprehensive measurements, and evidence-based strategies for future social impact projects. The report underscores the necessity for projects to achieve successful and comprehensive outcomes to bring about positive social change.

Critical Review of Social
Impact Projects

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Social impact of projects refers to the way actions of businesses, organisations and
individuals impact the surrounding community which can be an outcome of a policy, project,
plan, program or activity. Social impact Assessment is used to analyse, monitor and manage the
intended and unforeseen social consequences regarding planned arbitrations i.e. projects. The
two projects undertaken for critical assessment are Financial inclusion action plan (FIAP) in
Australia 2018-19 and Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2017. The aspects that will be
evaluated include determination of social needs of the projects, the segment affected by the
project, impact assessment on lack of policy vision in financial inclusion projects and less digital
inclusion of rural Australians and recommendations for further improvements.
MAIN BODY
Historically, movements and projects have aimed at bringing social changes, including
environmental movements, energy crisis, resource developments, increased importance of
individual well-being, decentralising economic functions, local political involvement etc. Social
scientists and administrators emphasize on the significance of community and rural changes. In
present times, consequence of movements and social impact projects have influenced decision-
making policies, formulation, management and evaluation of alternatives (Branch, 2019). Social
impacts of a policy are becoming more important apart from economic justifications. The social
impact helps in- prediction of a community’s ability to adapt to dynamic conditions,
determination of problems and issues in the proposed policy, assessment of the quality of life,
identification of mitigation opportunities, and compliance with regulations (Carley and Bustelo,
2019).
The financial inclusion action plan was launched by Australian government in partnership with
social and financial institutions like Good Shephard Microfinance and NGOs in the year 2018 for
the improvement of financial well-being of three million people going through financial
hardships. The program aims to address the areas of education, housing, gender pay gap,
unemployment, underemployment, debts through financial resilience for poor people and
indigenous population of the country (Muir and et.al., 2017).
The social impact created includes promotion of savings, collaborations, financial literacy and
skills, financial support to people and staff training, supporting customers, access to financial
3

products and services, economic participation, job opportunities and income equality. However,
microfinancing has not been successfully deployed as in spite of these plans. The major
challenges are sustainability of the program, implementation of program beyond the pilot phases,
reach and scale, appropriate measurement and performance evaluation of whether the action plan
is actually impacting financial exclusion (Gerard and Johnston, 2019). The major argument for
the project is the sustainability of the plan in context to microfinance and dominance of
commercial mindset over well-being. Effective impact on financial exclusion in the areas of non-
market responses, economic independence etc (Stanley and Buckley, 2016). The scale of the
initiative in Australia is not wide enough as it is dependent on self-regulations and market
responses as it is still in innovation and experimental phase. The voluntary initiative may not be
of long-term viability and there seems a requirement of a legislative mandate. Recommendations
include broadening the definition of financial exclusion and reliance on empirical work to
examine to extent and demand for the initiative. Greater focus on the range of products and
services like insurance, bill-payment, remittance and superannuation requirements of poor
people. Support programs to evaluate the reach in the vulnerable segment of the community and
action research for particular population (Gerard 2and Johnston, 2019).
The Australian digital inclusion index is a national measure to develop an index which will
educate, inform and promote public policy, program and commercial responses to improve
digital inclusion in Australia. The objectives of the plan are: understanding social and economic
aspects of digital inclusion, involving discussion and consultation, informing institutional and
government bodies to enhance digital literacy, participation and confidence in people and
measurement and monitoring of strategies effective for improving digital inclusion. ADII
accesses the three indicative components broadly, access, affordability and digital ability. Access
consists of internet access of frequency, strength of access points and places. It also includes
internet technology like mobile phones, computers, fixed broadband, mobile internet and data.
Affordability consists of household income spent on accessing internet and value of expenditure,
i.e. available internet data on expense of per dollar. The digital ability consists of attitudes, basic
skills and activities which include learning, banking, information skills, communication, media,
commerce etc. The data survey includes timeframe, sample sizes, relative expenditure, regional
breakdown, value of expenditure, disability, age, income and gap, employment gap and status,
education, culturally and linguistically diverse migrants, indigenous Australians (Thomas and
4

et.al., 2016). The results of the index showed issues in poor, agricultural workers, rural,
regionally backward people and indigenous people who don’t have enough income to cover
digital costs and the older generation showed lack of digital literacy. Even though the findings of
the index were extensive, the survey had a limited reach and could show a better picture of
digital inclusion in context of beneficiaries, national and local government role, service
providers, retailers of online ad offline products and services, designers and developers, assistive
technology providers, voluntary organisations and social movements, individuals and society
(Marshall and et.al., 2019). The significant challenges in getting online as well as staying online
could have been identified extensively in context to inadequacy of support, culture of disinterest
etc. The methodology used could include mixed research methods for better reflection of the
study such as interviews, case studies, surveys and focus groups. The index should look beyond
the rhetoric of digital literacy and inclusion and aim at providing evaluation of significant
inhibitors and facilitators to progress and evidence-based strategies.
CONCLUSION
From the above essay it could be concluded the social impact projects aim at providing
successful and comprehensive outcomes in order to bring a social change for the betterment. The
assessment of Financial inclusion action plan (FIAP) in Australia 2018-19 and Australian Digital
Inclusion Index 2017 was done to find ineffectiveness and derive recommendations to improve
the social impact of the projects. The key findings for FIAP include unsuccessful deployment of
microfinancing and required improvements in sustainability of the program, implementation of
program beyond the pilot phases and appropriate measurement and performance evaluation of
whether the action plan is actually impacting financial exclusion. ADII showed limitations in
reflection of the digital inclusion in context of beneficiaries, national and local government role,
service providers, retailers of online products and services, designers and developers, assistive
technology providers etc. and can be improved using mixed research methods and evidenced
based studies.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Branch, K., 2019. Guide to social impact assessment: a framework for assessing social change.
Routledge.
Carley, M.J. and Bustelo, E., 2019. Social impact assessment and monitoring: a guide to the
literature. Routledge.
Gerard, K. and Johnston, M., 2019. Explaining microfinance's resilience: the case of
microfinance in Australia. Globalizations. 16(6). pp.876-893.
Marshall, A., and et.al., 2019. Connectivity and digital inclusion in Far North Queensland's
agricultural communities: Policy-focused report.
Muir, K., and et.al., 2017. Exploring financial wellbeing in the Australian context. Centre for
Social Impact & Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney: University of New South Wales.
Stanley, R.L. and Buckley, R.P., 2016. Protecting the west, excluding the rest: The impact of the
AML/CTF regime on financial inclusion in the pacific and potential responses. Melb. J.
Int'l L., 17, p.83.
Thomas, J., and et.al., 2016. Measuring Australia's digital divide: the Australian digital inclusion
index 2016.
6