 |
|||||
|
Foundations 4
Reuben Ford and Jane Millar draw on a large body of research funded by the JRF and others, and on the conclusions of a policy seminar to provide a guide for policy-makers to the debates surrounding policy toward lone parents. The reality for lone-parents
Policy issues
The rise in lone parenthood has been one of the most striking demographic and social trends of the last 25 to 30 years. The growing social acceptance of a separation of sex, marriage and parenthood has created a situation in which lone parenthood is increasingly coming to be seen as another stage in the family life cycle, rather than as an aberration from 'normal' family patterns. Not just in the UK, but throughout the western industrialised countries, much more diverse patterns of family structure are developing with more complex ties of family love, support, exchange, duty and obligation.
Lone parenthood is the most visible face of these new family patterns. And, in the eyes of some, it is also the most problematic. The 'problem' of lone parenthood has been defined in various ways:
These competing definitions of the problem of lone parenthood have made it very difficult to take policy forward. However, a better understanding of the lives and circumstances of lone parents can clarify the implications of particular policy options. The number of lone parents The number of lone parents grew from just over a half a million at the beginning of the 1970s to nearly 1 million by the beginning of the 1980s, largely driven by a rise in divorce. There was a moderate rise during the 1980s, followed by a marked rise during the 1990s to the latest provisional estimate of 1.7 million in 1995. The number of children in these families has risen to about 3 million. Part of the reason is demographic - the generation of 'baby-boomers' born in the early 1960s has now entered the modal ages of lone parents. This contribution to the numbers of lone parents is temporary and, in the absence of other influences, the number of lone parents may decline in the next decade. There are two main routes of entry into lone parenthood: relationship breakdown and the birth of a child outside marriage. There are also two main routes out: re-partnership and children growing up. All lone parents ultimately cease to be lone parents as their children grow up but re-partnership is becoming less popular and so exit rates from lone parenthood are falling. Thus not only are there more people becoming lone parents but those who do are staying lone parents for longer.
The difference between solo and separated lone parents There are important differences between two groups of lone parents: separated women who become lone mothers as a consequence of relationship breakdown and solo mothers who have never lived with a partner. Women who are poor become solo mothers Single women who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds, who live in social housing, who are black, or who live in areas of high local unemployment are more likely to become solo mothers than others. Their economic prospects are already poor and so are those of the men living in the same areas. Solo motherhood is rarely the result of a planned pregnancy but, having become pregnant, the women do not necessarily see this as a 'problem' requiring a 'solution'. If they could they might have chosen a different timing and maybe a different relationship but motherhood is for them, as it is for most women in our society, a desirable and valued goal. Separated mothers become poor Women who are pregnant at marriage or who marry/cohabit at a young age are most at risk of becoming separated lone mothers. But separated lone motherhood is less linked to prior social disadvantage than solo lone motherhood. Instead, these women and children may experience a sudden decline in their incomes and living standards following separation and find themselves experiencing high levels of economic stress. Their former partners, by contrast, are typically able to maintain their incomes and living standards. Negative and positive aspects of lone parenthood A mixed picture emerges when examining the quality of life of lone parents and their children. On the one hand, negative aspects include:
On the other hand there are many positive aspects to life as a lone parent:
Those with very young children, those with ill-health problems (for themselves or their children), and those who have recently become lone parents are particularly vulnerable, both economically and emotionally. Access to a job, to decent housing, and to childcare all contribute to a better quality of life. A job provides an income and social contacts, decent housing provides a very important feeling of security, access to childcare helps parents feel more in control of their lives and opens up other choices to them. Greater visibility on the national policy agenda From the late 1960s, lone mothers became increasingly visible on the national policy agenda. They gained access to public housing and to some social security benefits although they were not generally helped with childcare. Throughout the 1980s, housing became increasingly costly as rents were pushed up to market levels, there were very high rates of unemployment and very often only low-paying, part-time jobs available. Thus the proportion of lone mothers in employment fell and the proportion dependent solely on Income Support rose. Policy goals for the future A key policy issue revolves around whether lone parents should be encouraged and helped to take paid employment or to stay at home as full-time carers for their children. This depends partly on what society perceives to be 'good motherhood' (see Box 3) and partly on views about the extent to and way in which the state should intervene in labour markets. With respect to the latter, cross-national studies suggest there is no single model resulting in greater employment among lone parents, but that childcare provision is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition. More generally higher employment occurs when all parents are supported to be both parents and paid workers (see Box 4).
Employment Recent analysis of lone parents suggests a division in terms of readiness for paid work: three in ten already work near full-time hours, three in ten are ready to work, three in ten will work one day and one in ten will never work. Family Credit Half of lone parents in work claim Family Credit - the means-tested benefit payable to low-income working families - and this benefit has been central to recent policy. It has two main goals: to encourage paid work by providing a financial incentive, and to keep low-paid working families out of poverty. Family Credit has had some success on both counts. It does provide a financial incentive to work. It has a relatively simple structure and there is little stigma attached to claming. Lone parents with experience of both benefits prefer Family Credit to Income Support. Family Credit is largely taken up by those who need it, lifts them out of the worst effects of poverty and provides a guaranteed basic income for six months, before eligibility is re-assessed. It works even after controlling for other key markers of labour market disadvantage, such as housing tenure, prior marital status, experience of benefits, education/training, maintenance and family health. However, there are limitations to Family Credit. First, it only helps one in six lone parents to work. Most remain on Income Support. Second, Family Credit cannot in itself help lone parents improve their labour market position and overcome the many barriers to work which lone parents face. Beyond Family Credit The barriers to work for lone parents are formidable. They include the attitudes of employers; the organisation of work; scarcity of jobs; lack of transport; lack of skills; current hardships and the constraints that they impose; lack of access to childcare, both formal and informal; lack of confidence and work experience; low pay and insecure jobs; concern about meeting housing costs; and the complexity of the benefit system, particularly in respect of moving from out-of-work to in-work benefits alongside changes in maintenance payments. Any policy intended to increase employment rates must begin to address this complex mix of factors. Many lone mothers have a low skill base which is reflected in their low hourly wage. As such they are prone to unemployment. Keeping them in work may require continuous support and lone mothers are very likely to be long-term recipients of Family Credit. But, among such long-term recipients, there is emerging evidence that receipt of Family Credit is associated with lower wages. The principal determinants of lone mothers' wage rates are human capital and family constraints. In 1991, weekly and hourly wages tended to be lower for those on Family Credit with other potential influences on wages held constant. By 1995, among the same people, those on Family Credit received about one-third less in wages than those working without Family Credit. Wages rose less quickly when combined with Family Credit. Taking jobs at pay levels which entitle them to Family Credit may be making it difficult for lone mothers to improve their wages, meaning that the state is paying wage supplements for longer than might otherwise have been the case. Lone mothers are nonetheless better off than when claiming Income Support, and require less support from the tax-payer. Lone mothers who improve their skills through additional training or education do see improvements in their hourly wage rates. Supporting children The financial consequences of parental separation are unequivocally worse for women and children than they are for men. Under the courts-based system, child support payments were irregular, infrequent, low and largely confined to the children of divorcing parents. The Child Support Act This was intended to overcome the disadvantages inherent in the court-based system. However, in the years since the Child Support Agency began to operate, there has been no increase in the proportion of lone parents receiving child support, about one in three, and the policy itself has created some new difficulties and problems:
Beyond the Child Support Act Most importantly there are limits to what any Child Support Agency could ever achieve. Marital breakdown occurs disproportionately among less well-off parents whose wages pre-split, let alone post-split, may not be adequate to support a family. Even those who do have reasonable incomes cannot usually support two households at an adequate level at the same time. The Child Support Agency cannot increase the resources available to these families.
Future policy directions Reviewing the research suggests that a number of underlying principles would be appropriate to policy development (see box above) and that policy could be taken forward in the following specific areas: Improve education, training and job opportunities for young people. These discourage early parenthood - for both young women and young men. Review the adequacy of Income Support levels for families. This should include consideration of the age-related benefits for children. There is no case for abolishing one-parent benefit or the lone-parent premium on Income Support. Increase the availability of quality childcare to enable lone parents' transition to work. High quality care may be needed to compensate some children for a poor home environment. Demonstration projects should be used to help overcome the concerns of some lone mothers about childcare quality. Help lone parents become work-ready sooner. This is more likely if non-working lone parents on Income Support are not so poor and demoralised, and if they are already using childcare services. A compulsion to take up immediate paid work would be inappropriate because not all lone parents are in a position to work and the labour market could not absorb them all. The recently announced 'New Deal' for lone parents holds the potential to improve lone mothers' knowledge of the benefit system and of their own labour market potential. Help lone parents improve their long-term employment prospects. Access to education and training to improve their human capital is significant in achieving this. Lifetime learning and higher education are important routes to higher incomes. Yet lone parents are the worst-off among undergraduates, making most use of hardship funds and loans and being more likely to drop out of courses due to cost. Show employers that lone parents are worthwhile employees and that flexible employment patterns that suit the needs of these workers can also benefit employers. Consider the dangers of the 'any job is better than none' approach. Taking low-paid jobs and topping up wages with Family Credit means that lone parents are better off than when out of work but may find themselves in a low-pay, low-skill, job market while the state supports them with wage subsidies. A statutory minimum wage may help prevent this. Strenuous efforts to promote gender equality and equal pay would also help. Minimise the complexity of in-work benefits. Housing Benefit is a particular source of problems and there needs to be a general review of alternative ways to deliver support for housing costs. Minimise the use of temporary housing. Such housing requires lone parents to be frequently mobile which can damage the development of the strong social networks that lone-parent families need. Being in the private sector it is also often more costly. Review the Child Support Agency and consider: removing the requirement to co-operate; introducing a small disregard of child support payments in Income Support; and guaranteeing child support for Family Credit claimants as it already is for Income Support payments. Further information This Foundations is based on the Findings from relevant JRF projects and these can also be viewed on this site. The policy seminar papers will be published in January 1998, by the Policy Studies Institute. For further information contact:
Dr Reuben Ford
Professor Jane Millar
Fax: 01225 826382 |