1 / 31

UK Child Support Policy: 3 Operational Phases

UK Child Support Policy: 3 Operational Phases. Dr Christine Skinner. International Conference Commemorating the Enactment of the Child Support Enforcement Act in the Republic of Korea. Seoul Korea, 10 July 2014. Introduction. 3 phases of operational approach:

kolton
Télécharger la présentation

UK Child Support Policy: 3 Operational Phases

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UK Child Support Policy: 3 Operational Phases Dr Christine Skinner International Conference Commemorating the Enactment of the Child Support Enforcement Act in the Republic of Korea. Seoul Korea, 10 July 2014.

  2. Introduction 3 phases of operational approach: Phase 1 - Policy Origin, CSA 1993 Phase 2 - Simplification 2000 Phase 3 - Private Agreements 2008/12 Conclusion and remaining challenges The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  3. PHASE 1:Policy Drivers 1990’s Lone parents a concern More LP’s and more costs: • £1.4b (1981) - £4.3b (1990) • Their employment fell < 40% was 51% 1978 • Only 23% got child support 1989 (50% 1979) Social problem The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  4. PHASE 1:Policy Drivers DUAL SYSTEM: • Courts & “liable relative procedures” in social security law and administration. • Ineffective – inefficient – inconsistent Moral panics lone parents & ‘absent’ fathers The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  5. New Child Support Agency CSA implemented 1993: Effect ALL ‘non-resident parents’ Retrospective – overturn all previous agreements The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  6. Policy Aims 1993 Make more men pay & pay more money Efficient, consistent, CSA Formula Strong enforcement Fiscal goals – • £530m benefit savings target • More lone parents to work Change ‘culture’ of non-compliance The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  7. 1993 - Competing Interests The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  8. 1993 – Protests • Formula too complex • Retrospective implementation • Poorly promoted – ‘Wrong Dads’ • Errors +++ • No account of 2nd families • 2 Emergency enquiries – 6 and 12 months The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  9. 1995 Act • 22 recommendations • 6 changes to formula • New discretion – depart from formula • Account of father expenses and 2nd families • Account of cheating/ hide income details The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  10. 1995 -1997 CSA near collapse: 40% assessments wrong 100 bits info - chaos Not met aims: • Only 1/3 lone parents got CS • Ave amounts low • New problem … £1.2billion arrears The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  11. Phase 2: New Labour 2000 Act Emergency debate CSA ‘brought unnecessary hardship and suffering to thousands of fellow citizens and this was unacceptable for a public body’ Blair - based ‘sound principles’ Need simpler % formula Stronger enforcement New aim tackle child poverty Parents on benefits keep £10 - if paid. The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  12. Phase 2: Problem 2000 scheme delayed to 2003 (IT) 2 different caseloads: • CSA1- Old scheme largest cases • CSA2 - 2000 % formula Collected £4.5 billion Arrears £3 billion Costs £3 billion Cost 70p to collect £1 The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  13. 2006 - CSA Collapse • CSA - ‘failing’ .. in crisis.. need wind up • Bad marketing • Complexity • Admin chaos CSA 1 and CSA 2 • Individualised justice failed • Need independent review - a fresh start The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  14. PHASE 3: 2008 Act U-TURN: ALL parents make private agreements New agency CMEC – new Gross income formula Rebrand as ‘child maintenance’ New Child Maintenance options The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  15. PHASE 3: 2008 Act • 4 new principles: • Reduce child poverty • Promote private agreements • Cost effective & professional • Simple & transparent • Operational Aims: • single system 2013-14 • Parents keep all £ in 2010 The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  16. 2008 - Competing Interests The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  17. Conservative Coalition elected 2010 BUT… argue no improvement since 2008 Act • Only 1 in 5 private arrangement • 50% children no arrangement • 38% LP got CM (8% rise since 1991) • CSA increases parental conflict • CSA default option • Costly to run

  18. Phase 3: New 2012 Act 2011 – change tone • Parents’ range of issues • Separation complex and difficult • Child-well-being perspective 2012 Act: Holistic: new ‘relationship support’ services. New ‘model’ of child support service The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  19. Phase 3: New Model 2012 Primary aim 3rd & voluntary sector work with parents ‘collaborative culture’ The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  20. New Model 2012 New Statutory Child Maintenance Service (CMS) • CSA1 & CSA2 still going • CMS a ‘new-new service’ • Fully operational in 2014 • All CSA cases closed 2014-17 The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  21. Fees for CMS Application Fee:£20 Collection Charge: • Receiver 4% deducted from CM • Payer 20% charge on top of CM Enforcement Charges: • £50-£300 depending on action Implement fees late 2014 if CMS working The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  22. Relationship Support Services 2012 -£20m (£14m Innovation Fund) Innovation Fund: test new projects help parents collaborate. Web App Telephone networks Training agencies ‘collaborative parenting’ The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  23. Sum- Up 3 key phases: Phase 1: Make men pay and enforcement Phase 2: Simplification and enforcement Phase 3: U-Turn private agreements & CWB: ‘If we can help to ensure that both parents play a role in the upbringing of their children, taking joint responsibility, then we can alleviate the often debilitating after-effects of coping with parental relationship breakdown, including anxiety and depression, increased aggression, hostility and anti-social behaviour.11’ (DWP 2012:10) The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  24. Sum up problems Formulae: • too complex • no magic ingredient for success Policy aims - conflicted • Reduce state costs • Tackle child poverty • Enforce moral responsibility • Promote private responsibility The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  25. Sum up problems Implementation: • too rapid, not piloted • operational systems not tested • staff poorly prepared • When policy introduced first time, public misled re purpose CSA • too many reforms • CSA administrative overload • CSA lost legitimacy The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  26. How balance competing interests? Third & Voluntary Sector The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  27. Conclusion – new challenges Future challenges less on operations Relationship support services Supporting ‘collaborative parenting’ Can we make happy families….? What about child poverty? The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  28. APPENDIX The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  29. Problems

  30. UK broader policy context Non-compliance CM now recognised problem of: • poverty • Poor parental relationships But private agreements trapped in social inequalities • Poverty • Unequal pay • Gendered patterns of caring and earning Worry power imbalance in private agreements The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

  31. References Bradshaw, J., *Stimson, C., Skinner, C. and Williams, J., Absent Fathers?, London: Routledge, pp. 232, 1999. Bradshaw, J. and Skinner, C. Child Support: the British fiasco, Focus, 21, No. 1, 2000, 80-86. Skinner, C., Bradshaw, J. and Davidson, J., Child Support Policy: an international perspective, Research Report No. 405, Department of Work and Pensions, Leeds: Corporate Document Services, pp. 211, 2007. I. Curry-Sumner and C. Skinner, (Eds) (2009) Persistent Problems, Finding Solutions: Child Maintenance in The Netherlands and the UK. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers pp 168, 2009. Skinner, C., Hakovirta, M. and Davidson J.(Eds) 'Special Issue: Child Maintenance Schemes In Five Countries', European Journal of Social Security, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2012, 222-348. Skinner C. And Main G. 'The Contribution of Child Maintenance Payments to The Income Packages of Lone Mothers' in Journal of Poverty and Social Exclusion Vol. 21, No 1. 2013, 47-60. Skinner, C. ‘Child Maintenance Reforms: Understanding fathers' expressive agency and the power of reciprocity’ in International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family,  27(2), 2013, 242-265. Skinner, C. Meyer, D. Cooke, K. Fletcher, M. Cost Recovery, Social Assistance and Child Maintenance Obligations: UK, US, Australia, and New Zealand Compared Paper (Forthcoming) Social Policy Association conference, Sheffield ,UK 15th of July 2014. The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

More Related