Memorandum submitted by the Child Poverty
Action Group (CPAG) (CS 25)
SUMMARY
CPAG offers broad support to the new child support
scheme proposed in the White Paper Cm 4349.
The current scheme is not working, and we agree
that it is need of radical reform. We agree that it is reform
of the scheme, rather than its abolition, that it is required.
We believe that use of an administrative formula, whilst not without
its problems, still has the most potential to provide a child
support scheme that actually supports children and is fair to
parents.
The failings of the current scheme are many.
But the single most important, overarching failure is the inability
to provide financial support from non-resident parents to so many
of the very poorest children in the country. The inclusion of
a "child support premium" (or a child maintenance disregard)
for parents with care on income support, and a 100 per cent disregard
for those on the new tax credits, will ensure that for the first
time children in the majority of the poorest families get direct
financial benefit from the scheme. That significant contribution
to the fight against child poverty will be the most important
achievement of the new scheme.
Our support for the White Paper is not unqualified.
Child maintenance cannot in itself solve the problem of child
poverty, and should not diminish the importance of adequate public
provision for children. We remain concerned for that minority
of poorer families who could be adversely affected, especially
some of the working parents with care who may get less maintenance,
andin other casessome "second" families
who may find increased assessments hard to meet. We believe the
protection proposed for such families needs strengthening, via
slower phasing in of some decreased assessments, help for second
families on income support and some broadening of the appeal mechanism.
In addition, we are concerned that the drive
to greater simplicity and efficiency in the delivery of the new
scheme (which in broad terms we do support) could result in some
families getting a second class service. In particular, we believe
that the provision of "face-to-face" contact needs strengthening,
that appeal tribunals should be comprised of at least a man and
a woman, and that very punitive measures against parents risk
compromising the welfare of the child.
1. SUPPORT FOR
THE WHITE
PAPER
1.1 CPAG gives broad support to the new
child support scheme proposed in the White Paper Cm 4349. We believe
that the White Paper is founded on a largely accurate diagnosis
of the problems with the current scheme. The measures contained
in the White Paper are directed to providing a simpler, more efficient
scheme that is of actual benefit to the poorest children, and
we support those aims.
1.2 It is generally accepted that the current
scheme is not working. In "CHILDREN FIRST: a new approach
to child support", Cm 3992, the Green Paper that preceded
the present paper, the Government said that 1.8 million children
are not receiving a penny in maintenance from their non-resident
parents.[13]
That single statistic underlines the most fundamental failing
of the scheme: that it is not delivering financial support from
non-resident parents to children. CPAG agree that parents do have
a responsibility to provide such support, according to their means.
1.3 Behind that failure lay three important
dysfunctions which have bedevilled the scheme from the very start:
non-compliance, delay and error. Currently, only about 44 per
cent of non-resident parents pay all the child support that they
have been assessed to pay, and 31 per cent pay nothing at all.[14]
Between January and March 1999, the Child Support Agency managed
to clear just 62 per cent of maintenance applications within 22
weeks.[15]
Once again, the Auditor General has qualified his opinion on the
CSA's accounts, finding that 79 per cent of full maintenance balances
were for the wrong amount. This was partly the result of a "legacy
of error" from the past, but even now the Agency are still
getting only 77 per cent of maintenance assessments correct.[16]
Such problems must be corrected if the system is to succeed. The
extent of the problem clearly shows the need for radical change.
REDUCING COMPLEXITY
BY USING
A SIMPLE
RATE
1.4 Undoubtedly, the extreme complexity
of the current system is a major cause of problems. The White
Paper says that over 100 pieces of information can be required
to make a full assessment, and that CSA staff spend on average
90 per cent of their time making assessments leaving only 10 per
cent of resources for chasing up non-payers. This creates confusion
and frustration for parents, and leaves children without child
support.
1.5 The very poor performance of the CSA,
especially in the early years, has compounded the problems inherent
in the rules. At the very least, the CSA are not capable of delivering
the current system satisfactorily; they will have to do much better
with the new one. However, although the current system's complexity
originated in a well-intentioned desire to accommodate individual
circumstances in a formula, in practice it is clear that the system
itself is too error-prone and unwieldy. CPAG's experience is that
both parents and advisers have great difficulty in understanding
and working with the system. Therefore we agree with the principle
of a simple system of rates combined with special rules for second
families and low income non-resident parents.
1.6 We believe that radical reform of the
system, rather than its complete abolition, is the best route
to follow. The current system originated in dissatisfaction with
the court-based arrangements that preceded it, which were felt
to be arbitrary, slow and ineffective.[17]
CPAG have pointed out that formula-based systems offer the advantage
of consistency, avoidance of discrimination and implications of
blame.[18]
Recently, there has been a trend towards such rule-based systems
in Europe, especially Scandinavia, on the basis that they can
achieve greater consistency, transparency and comprehension. The
results are not yet fully known, but it does seem to be successful
in at least one country, Denmark. In countries with fully or partly
discretionary schemes, like Belgium and the Netherlands, it seems
that the schemes are no more successful, and are worse in terms
of benefit for children.[19]
1.7 CPAG believe that a formula is still
the best way to prioritise child support, provide consistent assessments,
make it accessible to poorer parents, and allow for speedy and
efficient assessment and enforcement. We do however recognise
that the current formula-based system has failed, and that it
is essential that the one proposed in the White Paper succeeds.
TACKLING CHILD
POVERTY
1.8 A crucial factor in delivering success
is that the system helps to prevent and alleviate child poverty.
If it does so, not only will it make a contribution to the fight
against a social evil, but it will win the support of parents
and the wider public, who will understand that the system really
does offer benefit to children. Child poverty tripled between
1968 and 1995-96, so that one third of children were living in
poverty by the latter date. The problem is especially acute in
one-parent families. In such families, 65 per cent of children
are poor. But even among couples, 24 per cent of children are
living in poverty.[20]
1.9 At the root of our support for the White
Paper is that it makes a significant step forward in tackling
child poverty. Partly, this is by providing a simpler, more efficient
system. But mainly it is because of the inclusion of a £10
per week "child support premium" (more accurately, a
maintenance disregard) for parents with care on income support,
and a total disregard of child support for parents on tax credits
(working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit).
CPAG have long argued for a maintenance disregard, and combined
with the total disregard for tax credits the measure will ensure
that the very poorest children actually benefit from the receipt
of child support.
1.10 The amount of the premium is relatively
modest. At a maximum of £10 per week (and many parents with
care will only get the minimum £5 per week, although that
will all be disregarded) it will be a source of support, rather
than a route out of poverty. CPAG would have preferred a slightly
more generous disregard (£15 per week) in order to have a
greater impact on child poverty. We also call now for the premium
to be introduced straight away. It could easily be accommodated
within the current system, and would be a sound investment in
the future of the children concerned.
1.11 The effect on child poverty of such
help will be significant. In February 1999, there were 827,000
parents with care with full maintenance assessments. At the point
of entry into the system, some 65-67 per cent are on income support.
It seems that over time the proportion on income support declines
to about 43 per cent, with a further 21 per cent on what is now
family credit but what will become working families tax credit
from October 1999.[21]
Additionally, of those on family credit, some 5 per cent have
current assessments below the projected new average of £30.50
a week, and so could get a higher assessment. Other parents with
care, including some of those who actually get a lower assessment
on paper should benefit from the increased compliance that the
new system is expected to bring about (the Government have estimated
that compliance will rise to 80 per cent[22]).
1.12 Therefore at the point of entry into
the system, around 70 per cent of parents with care will benefit
from the "child support premium" and new assessment.
Over time that proportion will decline to somewhere between about
48 and 64 per cent as the parents leave income support. The proportion
who are better off overall will be increased by greater compliance.
Therefore benefit to poorer children is partially dependent on
behavioural factors, ie increased compliance from non-resident
parents. This will also require a much improved performance from
the Child Support Agency.
1.13 However, any child maintenance scheme
is necessarily limited in its potential for tackling child poverty.
The situation is one in which two households are created where
once there was one, and both parents may be on low or very low
incomes. As noted above, poverty is especially prevalent in lone-parent
families. But it is also important that somewhere between one
quarter and one third of non-resident parents are on income support
or income-based jobseeker's allowance, the basic subsistence benefits.[23]
Many others are on low earned incomes. Additionally, as noted
above, the proposed disregard for income support is relatively
modest.
1.14 CPAG welcome the other steps that the
Government is taking to tackle child povertysuch as introducing
tax credits, and increasing child benefit and income support allowances
for younger children. Recently, emphasis has been placed on a
growth in "worklessness" as a major factor in the rise
in child poverty[24],
whilst other research has emphasised the inadequacy of income
support levels in providing a "low cost but acceptable"
standard of living, and in meeting the needs of disabled children.[25]
The message is clear: child maintenance can help the poorest children,
but care needs to be exercised in order to avoid recycling money
from the quite poor to the very poor, and maintenance cannot substitute
for adequately paid work and public provision in the form of social
security benefits set at adequate levels.
2. CONCERNS AND
ISSUES FOR
THE FUTURE
2.1 A minority of poorer families could
be adversely affected by the scheme proposed in the White Paper.
Whilst it is inevitable that any new scheme creates "winners"
and "losers", the prospect of any poorer families being
disadvantaged must give cause for concern. Moreover, adjustments
could be made which would increase protection for such families
without subverting the working of the scheme.
PARENTS WITH
CARE
2.2 Firstly, some working parents with care
will get lower child maintenance assessments than those they have
under the current scheme. Some of those may suffer a decline in
income. The amount of the average assessment will fall from about
£38 per week now to an estimated £30.50 per week under
the new scheme.[26]
About 90,000 parents with care could get a lower assessment. Of
those, around 50,000 are getting family credit, some of whom will
still gain overall due to the total disregard of child support
in working families tax credit.[27]
They may also be helped by the more generous nature of tax credits,
increases in child benefit and the increased compliance in the
new system.
2.3 However it remains possible that some
will lose out. Those who may be particularly vulnerable are those
who get a lower assessment but who cannot benefit from the complete
disregard of child support in tax credits. Those are the parents
who are already having all of their child support disregarded
from their family credit, because it is already under the level
of the current disregard of £15 per week. Most working parents
with care will get at least £5 a week in child maintenance
under the new scheme; but currently there are 21,000 parents with
care on family credit who have assessments of between £5
and £20 a week.[28]
Protection could be increased by slower phasing in of lower assessments
(eg a decrease of £2.50 per week per year instead of £5)
for parents with care on family credit. That would at least give
poorer parents with care more time to adjust to a lower assessment.
SECOND FAMILIES
2.4 Secondly, a minority of poorer "second"
families could be adversely affected. This is despite the fact
that the average assessment will be lower (and consequently most
non-resident parents will not be worse off). Of the 150,000 non-resident
parents who will have their assessments increased or will lose
their exemption from paying child support, about 68 per cent are
on benefit or have net incomes of less than £200 per week.[29]
Only 22 per cent of non-resident parents have repartnered. But,
with such a significant proportion on low incomes, it is right
to consider the position of the children in such families in the
context of the overall aim of tackling child poverty.
2.5 CPAG welcome the measures in the White
Paper that are indeed aimed at protecting poorer second families.
For many, those are likely to be adequate. But we remain concerned
at the prospects for those who are already in financial difficulty,
or whose circumstances are such that they are left with less disposable
income than in most other families.
2.6 In particular, the decision to remove
exemption from paying child support from second families on income
support means that those families will, as a matter of public
policy, be required to live below the basic subsistence level.
In our view, that is not an acceptable outcome. Even income support
level is insufficient for children,[30]
although we recognise that recent increases in benefits for children
have narrowed the gap. In 1998, an independent report (the Acheson
report) stated that, "the bulk of the empirical evidence
comes from research demonstrating that people living on low incomes,
including those whose income consists entirely of state benefits,
have insufficient money to buy items and services necessary for
good health".[31]
This is in addition to the deleterious long-term effects on economic
learning, behaviour and aspirations that children in income support
families, like those in one-parent families, may undergo.[32]
2.7 Other second families on low incomes
but with high levels of debt, higher than average housing costs
or high travel to work costs will not have such factors taken
into account under the new scheme. The potential problem can be
illustrated as follows (using October 1999 benefit rates). A second
family comprised of a couple with one child aged under 11 where
the non-resident parent has net earnings of £150 a week will
be entitled to £50.20 a week in working families tax credit.
Combined with the earnings, the assessable income for child support
purposes would be £200.20, with child benefit (ignored for
the assessment) bringing their weekly income to £214.60 a
week. The child support assessment under the White Paper proposals
would be £26 a week, leaving them with £188.60 a week
to live on. Assuming average mortgage costs of £51.50 a week[33],
they are left with an income after housing costs and child support
of £137.50 a week. That is just £18.05 a week above
the basic income support level, after housing costs, for the family.
Higher than average housing costs, travel to work costs or essential
debt repayments could easily bring them well below that level.
SHORT AND
LONGER TERM
STRATEGIES
2.8 In response to the Green Paper, CPAG
argued for a protected income stage, similar to but not necessarily
the same as that in the current system, in order to provide some
flexibility in the formula, at least for second families. The
idea of a protected income stage has been rejected as reintroducing
an unacceptable level of complexity into the formula. We accept
that there is a legitimate concern that such a stage could lead
to a recurrence of the problems of delay and error that are so
troublesome in the current scheme. For example, the Chief Child
Support Officer notes that the calculation of housing costs has
been especially problematic. Elsewhere in Europe (the Netherlands
and Germany), it seems that making the rules more complex has
resulted in systems that are more difficult to understand and
administer, and more susceptible to error and non-compliance.[34]
2.9 We acknowledge that simpler forms of
protection could work. Second families on income support could
have a child support premium paid as part of their benefit which
would allow a deduction for child support that would not push
them further into poverty. For other second families on low earned
incomes, we believe that housing, job-retention and minimising
debt are fundamental to family life. Disregarding some income
in the calculation of housing benefit and tax credits for such
families (ie where there is a second family and a child support
assessment) would help them to continue to meet housing costs
without complicating or reducing the child support assessment.
2.10 For debt liability and job-retention,
the appeal mechanism in the child support scheme could, in addition
to that proposed, allow for adjustment where the non-resident
parent has a legal liability to pay debts incurred in the first
family, or where travel to work costs have been incurred or increased
in order to facilitate contact with the child. This would preserve
the policy intention in the White Paper only to lower liability
for "clear child-centred reasons".[35]
2.11 Having a slightly wider appeals provision
need not lead to more delay. The Social Security Act 1998 (already
in force for child support) provides for striking out of appeals
considered frivolous or vexatious, and failure to respond to directions.
The "regular payment condition" described in the White
Paper[36]
will mean that at least the minimum amount of child support will
be paid whilst the appeal is pending.
2.12 In the longer term, increases in benefit
levels for children, particularly of universal benefits, will
help to protect all families from poverty: that is why
we consider the increase in child benefit was such a progressive
decision by the Government. Ultimately, we believe that that an
essential component of the package of measures to protect families
from poverty is the concept of a minimum income standard. This
will provide an estimate of what income a family needs to live
on, and therefore function as a benchmark for social security
and child support policy.
SERVICE DELIVERY
2.13 There is a very clear need for the
new system to work more quickly and more efficiently than the
current one. CPAG support the drive towards a simpler and faster
working scheme. This will be vital not only in increasing the
public acceptance of the scheme, but in increasing compliance
from non-resident parents and securing delivery of child support
to parents with care. As noted above, that is essential if the
new scheme is to succeed.
2.14 In that context, the White Paper's
announcement that, "improved technology and, more importantly,
better trained and motivated staff will mean that most enquiries
are dealt with effectively at the first point of contact"
is welcome. Also welcome, in general terms, is the commitment
to use telephone working where appropriate in order to maintain
contact with parents, and provide a "face-to-face" service
in other cases.[37]
2.15 That ideal service will however be
very hard for the CSA to achieve. At the moment, "customer"
perceptions of the CSA are poor, with dissatisfaction at the lack
of feedback, difficulties with telephone contact and damage to
family relationships.[38]
We note that the Agency has improved its service, for example
by extending opening hours of the Client Help Lines and the National
Enquiry Line, and actually answering more calls. However, answering
just 81 percent of the calls to the Client Help Line still cannot
be considered a satisfactory performance.[39]
2.16 Additionally, there are signs of poor
morale amongst Agency staff. That is not consistent with the desire
to produce a good service to parents. In 1998-99, there was a
significant increase in staff turnover, with low pay being the
main reason for leaving, and a loss of experienced staff which,
by the Agency's own admission, "has undoubtedly restricted
our ability to deliver good service."[40]
That trend must be reversed if the new scheme is to succeed.
2.17 For many parents, particularly some
of those living in poverty or with a disability, telephone working
will not be appropriate. Some 23 per cent of the poorest households
in the country do not possess a telephone.[41]
Some parents may be restricted to taking incoming calls only.
Parents with a sensory impairment may not regard the telephone
an appropriate medium. The latest research show that there are
an estimated 8,582,200 adults with disabilities in Great Britain
(20 per cent of the adult population) with hearing and seeing
disabilities among the most common, and that total income is lower
in households including a disabled person than in all households.[42]
2.18 However, neither the White Paper nor
the CSA's Annual Report or Business Plan makes any reference to
services for parents with disabilities. There is no mention of
working with minicoms or typetalk to facilitate telephone working
for parents with hearing impairments, or of checks on the accessibility
of CSA premises for face-to-face work. It would seem that just
600 CSA staff are being trained for face-to-face service delivery.
Given the large number of claimants for whom telephone contact
may be unsuitable, this seems to us to be an inadequate number.
The commitment to provide a suitable service for parents with
disabilities should be clearer and more detailed.
APPEALS
2.19 Under the Social Security Act 1998
and regulations made under it, the unified appeal tribunals that
since 1 June 1999 consider child support appeals consist usually
of just one legally qualified member, with two members sitting
only where the appeal involves difficult financial issues. The
White Paper does not propose to alter that. This is in the face
of responses to a Green Paper on reform on decision making and
appeals in social security (Cm 3328). Generally, the respondents
considered three-person tribunals superior to decision making
by a single person, as the lay "wing-members" contributed
common sense and detachment, and ensured decisions resulted from
reflection and debate.[43]
2.20 CPAG believes that all tribunals should
consist of three members. If there are to be less than three members,
child support tribunals should consist of at least a male and
a female member, as they frequently have to deal with issues like
the effects of domestic violence, or whether a parent has a lifestyle
inconsistent with their declared income. Indeed, the White Paper
proposes that in claims to vary the assessment, the "expertise
and independent judgement" of a tribunal will be applied
only where there are "very complex issues" to be considered.[44]
Our view is that such decisions are best decided by more than
one person.
SANCTIONS
2.21 The White Paper proposes a range of
sanctions against parents, in addition to those which exist in
the current scheme. The new powers would include fines and a late
payment penalty of up to 25 per cent of the maintenance due. There
is also a commitment to consider other punitive measures, including
removal of driving licences, removal of passports and seizure
of assets for non-payment.
2.22 CPAG acknowledge that there is a serious
problem with compliance in the current system. The starting point
must be that parents should pay the assessed maintenance. But
we believe that the new system should be given a chance to work,
and parents a chance to work with it, before a more punitive approach
is adopted. The current rules already provide for deductions from
earnings orders, liability orders, distress and county court action
and ultimately imprisonment for non-payment. One of the major
problems has been that the CSA have not been able to make proper
use of such powers, for example because of the time-consuming
complexity of the assessment rules.
2.23 With a much simpler system, enforcement
action should be speedier and more effective; indeed, that is
part of the rationale for simplifying the system. It may therefore
be premature to increase sanctions against parents before the
new simplicity has been given a chance to work. Very punitive
measures, such as confiscation of driving licences and imprisonment,
could well have an adverse longer-term effect on child support
and family life. For example, loss of a driving licence could
easily prejudice contact arrangements, lead to loss of a job and
therefore the very income on which the assessment is based. This
is even more obviously the case with imprisonment. We therefore
remain opposed to such measures.
"GOOD CAUSE"
2.24 CPAG were pleased that the White Paper
proposed to retain the current definition of "good cause"
for when a parent on income support is permitted not to apply
for child support. Along with many other organisations, we believe
the current definition is not itself the source of problems, and
is vital in protecting the welfare of children and parents.
2.25 Indeed, we note that Closer Working,
in which Benefits Agency staff visit parents with care making
a new claim for income support and complete maintenance application
forms, has made a dramatic difference to co-operation rates. Now,
over 75 per cent of parents with care on income support co-operate
with the CSA, and there has been a 15 per cent reduction in those
refusing to complete the form.[45]
This is a complete reversal of the situation described in the
Green Paper, where it was stated that, "over 70 per cent
of lone mothers seek to avoid making a child support application."[46]
To the extent there was ever a serious problem with co-operationand
there has never been any empirical evidence to indicate that was
because of the good cause provisionthis has now been reduced
substantially.
"OPTING-OUT"
2.26 We were disappointed, therefore, at
the decision to make, "the maintenance process flow directly
from a benefit claim, unless the parent with care specifically
opts out."[47]
The result will be that parents with care who fear harm or undue
distress to themselves or their children will be obliged to consider
that and speak to the benefit authorities about it at virtually
the same time as benefit is claimed. Although we share the concern
in the White Paper that parents with care may come under pressure
not to co-operate, the facts now seem to show that that is not
a widespread problem.
2.27 Moreover, we are concerned that the
change could be prejudicial to the best interest of parents and
children. Parents who fear harm or undue distress may need time
to consider the issue of child maintenance in that context, and
seek advice about that, even though they may need benefit right
away. That is best facilitated by keeping the benefit and child
support applications separate. A recent report by the British
Medical Association pointed out that the reason many women find
it difficult to leave the perpetrator of domestic violence in
the first place often relates to a sense of personal blame, fear,
isolation or depression, and that some women in ethnic minority
groups are further disadvantaged by a lack of contact with support
services.[48]
That being the case, it may well be very difficult for some parents
to claim "good cause" at the same time as they claim
benefit.
2.28 We also remain opposed to the imposition
of a benefit penalty for non co-operation. Such penalties inevitably
punish children by further reducing the income of an already poor
family. Research indicates that a significant proportion of parents
with care have genuine concerns about the effect of applications
to the CSA on family relations.[49]
Such issues form the largest single category in the contacts CPAG
receive from advisers and parents on child support. For example,
one report concerned two women from ethnic minority groups who
preferred to accept benefit penalties rather than apply to the
CSA and, as they feared, prejudice the chances of reconciliations
with their ex-partners. Another letter from a parent with care
underlined the distress caused by imposition of a benefit penalty
where the parent feared a CSA application would result in disruption
of contact arrangements: "They have now cut our income support
and we are trying to live on £59.86 income support per week.
We cannot do this, and I have not in my life felt quite so desperate
and in need of help as I do now . . .". We regard it as unfair
to penalise families in such circumstances.
13 Cm 3992, p 1. Back
14
Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics, February
1999 (Government Statistical Service), p 3. Back
15
Child Support Agency Statistical Information, January 1999-March
1999. Back
16
Child Support Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1998-99 (Stationery
Office), pp 89, 90, 95. Back
17
Children come first: The Government's proposals on the maintenance
of children, Cm 1264. Back
18
Alison Garnham and Emma Knights, Putting the Treasury first;
the truth about child support, (CPAG, 1994), ch 5. Back
19
Anne Corden, Making child maintenance regimes work, (Family
Policy Studies Centre, 1999), chs 5 and 6. Back
20
Paul Gregg, Susan Harkness and Stephen Machin, Child development
and family income (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1999) ch 2. Back
21
CSA Quarterly Statistics passim; CSA Quarterly Statistics
February 1999, p 29, Table 3.1 and Appendix C. Back
22
House of Commons Hansard, 4 November 1998, column 607. Back
23
In February 1999, there was no methodology for accurately assessing
the benefit status of non-resident parents: CSA Quarterly Statistics,
p 29 and Appendix C. The proporation used here are based on information
in that appendix and in the main statistic. Back
24
Gregg, Harkness and Machin, op. cit. Back
25
Hermione Parker (ed), Low Cost but Acceptable: a minimum income
standard for the UK-families with young children (The Policy
Press and Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, 1998); Barbara Dobson and Sue
Middleton, Paying to care: the cost of childhood disability
(Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1998). Back
26
Cm 4349, p 13. Back
27
House of Commons Hansard, 4 November 1998, column 606. Back
28
CSA Quarterly Statistics, Table 3.2 Back
29
Based on figures in House of Commons Hansard, 22 July 1998, column
595, and CSA Quarterly Summary of Statistics, Table 3.6. Back
30
In 1998, income support rates provided only 70 per cent of what
was actually spend on children in families on that benefit, and
were between 20 and 50 per cent short of parents' perceptions
of minimum income needs for disabled children: Sue Middleton,
Kark Ashworth and Ian Braithwaite, Small fortunes: spending
on children, childhood poverty and parental sacrifice, (Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 1998), ch.5; Paying to care, op cit. Back
31
Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health Report (Stationery
Office, 1998), p 35. Back
32
Jules Shropshire and Sue Middleton, Small expectations: learning
to be poor? (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1999). Back
33
Net average household expenditure on housing (excluding fuel
and power): Family spending: a report on the 1997-98 Family
Expenditure Survey, (Stationery Office, 1998), Table 3.1. Back
34
Annual Report of the Chief Child Support Officer, 1997-98, pp
10-14; Making child maintenance regimes work, op cit, ch
6. Back
35
Cm 4349, p 40. Back
36
Cm 4349, p 41. Back
37
Cm 4349, pp 26-27. Back
38
S Hutton, J Carlisle and A Corden, Customer Views on Service
Delivery in the Child Support Agency, (DSS, 1998). Back
39
CSA Annual Report 1998-99, pp 14-15. Back
40
Ibid, p 23. Back
41
Family spending, op cit, Table 9.4. Back
42
E Grundy, D Ahlburg, M Ali, E Breeze and A Sloggett, Disability
in Great Britain: results from the 1996-97 disability follow-up
to the family resources survey (DSS, 1999). Back
43
Roy Sainsbury, Consultation on improving decision making and
appeals in social security: analysis of responses (DSS, 1997). Back
44
Cm 4349, p 42 Back
45
CSA Annual Report, 1998-99, p 17. Back
46
Cm 3992, p 12. Back
47
Back
48
Domestic violence: a health care issue? (British Medical
Association, 1998). Back
49
Karen Clarke, Gary Craig and Caroline Glendinning, Small change:
the impact of the Child Support Act on lone mothers and children,
(Family Policy Studies Centre, 1996); Customer Views on
Service Delivery, op cit. Back
|