‘Fragile families’

Presentation made by Helen Wilkinson, Director, Genderquake Limited to QMW Seminars, 29 January 2003

What Are Key Issues Which Policy Must Address - For Lone Parent mothers, non-resident fathers in the context of family policy and the work-life agenda

‘Fragile families’ • In general, healthy families are those in which the father and mother are actively involved in the nurturing of their children; • Lone parenthood in which the father is non resident re by definition ‘fragile families’ – vulnerable to child poverty, low income and low employability; • Policies to address the needs of lone parent mothers are critical for strengthening fragile families;

Fragile families ctd… • More needs to be done to facilitate and maintain the connection between the non resident father and their children, and provide child support in the widest sense; • Adult relationships may no longer be for life but parenthood is - children require the love and nurturance from both parents regardless of whether or not the connection between the two adults is frayed

Core proposition • If we are to succeed in achieving the outcomes of Government objectives in relation to lone parenthood we have to systematically tackle and address policies for non-resident fathers; • This is a particular issue for low income groups; • Policies such as they exist are not joined up;

Government strategies • New Deal for Lone Parents supports registered childcare costs for part-time working for one year and New Deal for Lone Parent advisors help lone parents to look for a job, get training and find suitable childcare. • Jobcentre Plus ensures that jobseekers with children and their personal advisors have better access to information on childcare provision in their area, from April 2003 there will be a dedicated Childcare Partnership Manager in every Jobcentre Plus district.

Key policy interventions for lone parents • Work as a route out of child poverty - New Deal for Lone parents – getting lone parents back into work; • Work-Life balance – as route to balancing work and parenting – new initiatives, new rights for better work-life balance – e.g. flexible working, extended maternity leave etc etc; • Child care solutions - developing and delivering reliable high quality affordable childcare and focussing the NCS to deliver child care solutions for lone parents;

Non-resident fatherhood - strengthening the ties that bind • Government needs to develop strategies for promoting the involvement of non resident fathers in the lives of their children and linking this to agenda for lone parent mothers; • USA is an interesting model of practice and innovation;

Lone Parents – policy challenges • eradicating child poverty by 2020 and halving it by 2010; and • getting 70 per cent of lone parents into paid employment by 2010; • Policies for non resident fatherhood a missing link and needs joining up to this agenda;

Child care gap and lone parents • Childcare is a commonly reported barriers to work among non-working lone parents; • 52% of non-working lone parents on Income Support in the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) Survey 2000/2001 mention the lack of suitable childcare as a barrier to work; • nearly one half of non-working lone parents with children under five have concerns about the cost and availability of childcare; and • lone parents who say they expect to look for work sometime in the future also recognise the childcare barrier, with 28 per cent having concerns about costs and 19 per cent reporting that no childcare is available.

Lone parents’ concerns • nearly one half of non-working lone parents with children under five have concerns about the cost and availability of childcare; and • lone parents who say they expect to look for work sometime in the future also recognise the childcare barrier, with 28 per cent having concerns about costs and 19 per cent reporting that no childcare is available.

Child care condundrum • Many lone parents have only one income to to pay for childcare and no option other than to use informal, unregistered childcare that consequently excludes them from receiving any Government contribution towards their childcare costs.

Problems with child care tax credit • Impact of CCT is limited – particularly for lone parents; • Typical cost of childcare services for a child under two of £120 a week means that despite a childcare tax contribution towards the cost of childcare, the lone parent is still left with a share of the cost that is simply unaffordable (they get on average just less than £60);

Problems with CCT ctd.. • Restriction of CCT to registered formal childcare is problematic, particularly for lone parents of whom a significant proportion (42%) only use informal childcare, not eligible for CCT; • Lone parents express a strong preference for informal care as they want someone to care for their child who can give them the quality of care comparable to their own and whom they can trust; • Only 15 per cent of lone parents exclusively use formal child care

Government strategy re child care & lone parents • Development of Children’s Centres targetted investment in the 20 per cent most disadvantaged wards. Will go some way to addressing the childcare needs of lone parents who live in those wards but the market is being left to deliver childcare in the remaining 80 per cent of neighbourhoods; • Evidence presented at a recent Education Select Committee suggested that extending this programme to the 30 per cent most disadvantaged wards would extend access to 70 per cent of disadvantaged children.

Child care challenge for Lone Parents Key headlines from recent NCS review process: • Concerted action is needed to encourage informal child careers to train and qualify as registered childminders; • Need to consider whether some form of benefit can be extended to lone parents and informal carers through reform/modification of child care tax credit; • Policy priorities and investment beyond geographic confines to reach lone parents in affluent areas;

Fatherhood as a public good • Research evidence – chronicles benefits of active, nurturant fatherhood for children and a growing literature on the psychological,emotional and physical benefits for fathers; • Scope for more research in this area, especially vis a vis non-resident fathers

Trends in fatherhood • New Dad? - research evidence shows that fathers today are more involved with the care and nurturance of their children (custodial fathers are a rapidly rising demographic group). • Disconnected Dad? - research evidence also shows growing minority of children are growing up in fatherless households

The cycle from connection to disconnection • The research suggests that many non-resident fathers have a positive connection with their child at the beginning. Over time, this connection becomes more tenuous (there are also significant differences between divorced and never married fathers)

Generational shifts in non-resident fatherhood • Over the last three decades, unprecedented trends to father absence - precipitated by divorce epidemic • A new generation of non-resident fathers are coming to light - more and more make up the ‘never marrieds’, and often the connection between the two adults is tenuous

Low income non-resident fathers • Special barriers factor them out of equation in society’s eyes (and thus their own) - society’s definition of ‘responsible father’ frequently specifies economic provision • Low income non resident fathers frequently want to pay but cannot pay - the system forces them underground and over time, they lose contact

Contradictory trends? • Trends in fatherlessness need some qualification - evidence of the rise of single parent households does not in itself prove fatherlessness - qualitative research amongst a new generation of never married, low income households points to the phenomenon of the ‘underground father’

Time for a new paradigm? • The deficit model of fatherhood has held sway for too long • We need a new set of expectations for today’s fathers - changing public and political cultures (e.g. public awareness campaigns to shift political consciousness and shifts in public policy to encourage and facilitate involved fatherhood (e.g. custody reform, facilitating team parenting, welfare reform)

Key Conclusions • Fatherhood moving to the top of agenda - its future not yet secured • The message about child well-being and about the key to promoting healthy families need to be made more explicit and integrated into outcome indicators • Communities need to be involved and heard - no one size fits all • Fatherhood cannot be seen in isolation - the best policies are those which recognise the interrelationship between welfare to work and family preservation issues

US Political context • An unprecedented level of community mobilisation around the issue • Foundations have played a strategic role in putting the issue on to the agenda • Federal interest in the issue risen since mid 90s and accelerating - Administration support and legislative interest in Congress

Political context • State activity rising - NGA sub-committee, states setting up taskforces, commissions, policy initiatives • Key charismatic individuals - Governors, community activists, state bureaucrats etc have been central • The importance of women’s voices as well as men’s

The downside • The funding base for many fatherhood initiatives is still tenuous (all too often dependent on other drivers such as welfare reform which has different goals) • Few of the innovative states have factored in outcome indicators and ways of evaluating the effectiveness of their programs with fatherhood in mind - thisleaves them vulnerable in the long term

The downside • The interests of fatherhood activists are sometimes in tension or do not always coincide with state/federal policy goals (eg. child support, welfare reform) • Demand for technical based assistance is beginning to outstrip supply - the fatherhood field still needs active development • The case for fatherhood per se needs to be articulated by community based activists and mainstreamed into the mindset of state and federal policy makers for programs to be secured, let alone flourish

The downside • Foundations’ frequently change policy direction once they have raised issues - this leaves fatherhood programs vulnerable • Key charismatic individuals have been critical at all levels - federal and state but especially within foundations and community based organisations - without their energy the potency of the issue could wane

State upsum • Diversity is key - no one size fits all • Different political context in each states frames the issues • But also, common themes - federal welfare to work and child support are key drivers - not least in releasing new funding streams • Child well-being is jostling to make itself on to the agenda of policy makers - but it is finance that is driving most states

Policy Implications for UK • Focus on engendering healthy parenting • Need to prioritise low income fragile families • Need new fatherhood paradigm - away from deficit model • Shared parenting should become the norm - custody reform, access & visitation, mediation services to never married as well as married

Key findings from US • Concept of fatherlessness needs qualification • Process of disconnection is complex with significant differences between divorced parents and never marrieds • Low income non-resident fathers face specific barriers - economic barriers to involvement – on a par with barriers lone parent mother face; • Clear, measurable, tangible benefits of involved fatherhood - for child, father and mother – and therefore strategies for tackling non resident fatherhood have the potential to also improve the lives of lone parent mothers;

Policy Implications • Child support reform – benefits lone parent mums and reduces child poverty • Welfare to work – if to succeed in above, need to develop strategies for enhancing economic potential of low skilled low income fathers; • Means securing funding base for fatherhood programs in their own right • Prevention is the cure • Holistic government • Build child well-being and father involvement into key program evaluations

Lessons for Britain? • Direct link to current debates about welfare reform - in terms of welfare to work, and child support • Ideally, this should be linked to a more all encompassing campaign to promote responsible fatherhood as a whole reaching all fathers and all income groups • Policies to promote responsible fatherhood should be primarily justified in terms of child well-being • Policies for non-resident fatherhood also need to be linked to lone parent policies

Joining up policies for fragile families • Arg for promoting greater contact between non-resident father and the child increasingly based not just on well-being of the child and father but also indirectly the mother (in reduced stress, enhancing family income, sharing the parenting load, etc) and thus tackling and achieving potential policy outcomes vis a vis lone parents

For more information on any aspect of this presentation contact: helen@genderquake.com.Please also visit: www.genderquake.com

‘Fragile families’