ThinKynd

What if volunteering could offset HECS debt – and grow stronger communities?

This case study applies game theory and behavioural design to a national volunteer incentive scheme for regional youth. Under the model, young Australians aged 12–18 earn credits toward future education costs (university or trade) by completing supervised community service. The credits are higher when parents volunteer alongside their child – reinforcing family bonds and public contribution.

But participation isn’t automatic. Uptake depends on belief in government follow-through, visible adult support, and the perceived long-term value of the program. That’s where game theory and behavioural framing come in.

The Model

Game Framework: This policy is modelled using three interlocking games:

1. Government vs. Public: A public coordination game based on threshold funding logic (30% participation unlocks national support)
2. Parent vs. Child: A sequential game where parental support increases child participation likelihood
3. Youth Centipede Game: A behavioural model of student commitment over time, shaped by peer influence, pathway options, and identity-building

Perspective 1: Government – The Coordination Game

• Government funds the program only if 30% of youth opt in
• But students won’t opt in unless government signals credibility
• The outcome relies on mutual belief in each other’s commitment

Policy Insight: Credible government signals (e.g. media coverage, pilot success stories, early investment) act as behavioural nudges to build trust.

Perspective 2: Parents – The Sequential Signal

• Parents are the first mover
• Their involvement (especially for younger teens) creates reputational and emotional reinforcement

Policy Insight: Parental modelling increases grit, engagement, and identity alignment. Treating parents as co-participants (not passive supporters) boosts program success.

Perspective 3: Youth – The Centipede of Commitment

• Students encounter decision points each year from 14 to 17
• Early exit is easy, but the longer they stay, the harder it becomes to leave
• Rewards include leadership roles, community visibility, and educational credit

Policy Insight: Identity, not money, sustains long-term participation. Narrative scaffolding and peer networks keep youth involved.

The Numbers

• Target Population: 588,000 regional youth (ABS, 2024)
• Target Participation: 30% = ~176,000
• Volunteering: 6 hrs/week, capped at 10 hrs, supervised
• Credit Rate: $10/hr solo or $16/hr with parent
• Modelled Max: $49,920/child; Avg Claim: ~$30,000
• Cost to Government: Conditional on participation thresholds

Strategic Safeguards

• Cap on maximum HECS offset
• Credits can be donated if unused (moral nudge)
• Trade vs. Uni pathways offer cost balancing
• Early uptake monitored for pilot-phase recalibration

Why It Could Work

• Aligns education affordability with civic participation
• Recruits families, not just individuals
• Uses nudging, trust signalling, and coordination framing
• Models real-world behaviours, not idealised incentives

Learn More

For access to the full strategic modelling, centipede diagrams, and policy mechanics:

This case study is based on Amanda Doecke’s original research for a postgraduate behavioural economics unit. It draws from coordination game theory, Deci & Ryan’s intrinsic motivation, Bandura’s social modelling, and the emerging economics of trust.