This document summarizes the history and current state of child support policy in the UK. It discusses the origins of the policy in 1991 and major reforms in 2008 and 2012. While the original goal was to increase payments and enforcement, the system faced challenges. The 2012 reforms aimed to reduce conflict and encourage private agreements through relationship support services. However, challenges remain around supporting collaborative parenting and the effectiveness of the new operational model. Internationally, countries differ in their policy aims and levels of support provided to parents.

1. Child Support Policy UK
Christine Skinner
ESRC Seminar ‘First Principles: Comparative Legal Frameworks and Public Attitudes’
27 March 2014,The Nuffield Foundation, London

2. Introduction
 Policy Origin 1991
 2008 Act Radical Reform
 2012 Act Conservative Coalition
 Relationship support services
 Remaining Challenges
 How we compare internationally
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

3. Policy Drivers
1990’s Lone parents a concern
 Numbers rising fast BUT state expenditure
rising even faster
 £1.4b (1981) - £4.3b (1990)
 Employment rate fell < 40% was 51% 1978
 Only 23% rec benefits got child support 1989
(50% 1979)
 Social problem & social threat
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

4. Policy Drivers
 Demographic Change
 Poor Operations (Courts and liable relatives)
 Mrs Thatcher & Cross Party Support
CSA implemented 1993:
 Effect ALL ‘non-resident parents’
 Retrospective – overturn all previous
agreements
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

5. Original Policy Aims 1993
 More men pay & pay more
 Efficient, consistent, Administrative solution CSA
 Formula
 Strong enforcement
 Fiscal goals –
 £530m benefit savings target
 More lone parents to work
 Change ‘culture’ of non-compliance
 No explicit child well-being aim
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

6. 1993-2008
 CSA near collapse – admin chaos
 Low rates compliance
 Many new Acts
 2008 Act return obligation to parents
 CSA Toxic brand – CMEC
 New CMO service
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

7. The Department of Social Policy and Social Work
 4 new principles:
Reduce Child poverty
Promote Private agreements
Cost effective & professional
Simple & transparent
 CMEC took over CSA 2008
 Aim single system by 2013-14
 2010 all CM paid kept by all parents with care
 Decoupling of CM from public social security
2008 Act

8.  BUT… argue no improvement since 2008
 50% children no arrangement1
 Only 1 in 5 parents private arrangement 2
 38% lone parents got CM (8% rise since 1991)
 CSA increases parental conflict
 CSA default option
 Costly to run 1,2,3.
Conservative Coalition elected
2010
The

9.  Green Paper 2011 – change of tone
 Parents’ have range of issues
 Separation complex and difficult time
 Framed within a broader CWB perspective
 Some New Legislation:
 More holistic: new ‘relationship support’
services.
 New ‘model’ of child support service
Conservative Coalition
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

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

11. Nudges - family based agreements
If need CMS fees proposed in 2014:
 Application Fee: £20 (originally £100)
 Collection Charge:
 Receiver 4% deducted from CM (originally 7%).
 Payer charged additional 20% on top of CM
 Enforcement Charges:
 £50-£300 depending on action needed
Implement fees late 2014 only IF:
 New scheme proven to be working well
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

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

13. How Compare Internationally?
 Decoupling of CM from Social Security
System
 All private CM income ignored in social
assistance
 Comparison of 5 countries (Skinner et al 2013 –
EJSS special issue)
 Policy Aims
 Advice and support services
 Outcomes using vignettes
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

14. Policy aims 5 countries
 Identify aims of CM policy not easy:
 Often implicit
 Overlap with family law provisions and care
 Overlap with social security systems …
Difficult know where CM policy begins and
ends for example child poverty reduction an
aim for both systems.
 Common encourage private financial
responsibility
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

15. Advice and Support Services
 Finland and Iceland – municipalities offer
counselling/mediation
 US-Wisconsin county courts offer mediation
 UK- Statutory CM Options information
 NL - Court based
 Limited evidence: no info aims, access and
take-up, effectiveness, charging or
experiences of using them.
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

16. How much do CM schemes set?
 Compare official amounts set (not same as amount
paid).
 Purchasing power parties US dollars
 Main purpose understand how works
 Vignette one: Ms Mary and Mr Paul, low income,
one child 3 months born into lone parent.
 3 scenarios of employment.
 Vignette two: Mr and Mrs Forest, middle income,
two children aged 6 and 9, divorced.
 3 scenarios: employment, new child, shared care
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

17. Ms Mary, Lone Parent – 3
scenarios
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Both Unemployed Mr Paul Employed FT Ms Mary Employed PT
$PPP
Weekly Child Maintenance in $ Purchasing Power Parities
Vignette One Ms Mary and Mr Paul
Unmarried couple one child aged 3 months
UK
US
Iceland *
Finland *
Netherlands

19. Challenges: UK policy
Policy future perhaps less focus on
operations:
 Effectiveness relationship support services
 Supporting ‘collaborative parenting’
 How help parents negotiate agreements.
 Fees and effectiveness in encouraging PA
 See my paper tomorrow…
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

20. Challenges comparative research
 Results 5 country analysis shows need know how
amounts set.
 But more important understand:
 Who pays and how paid - payer can shift in
guaranteed schemes at different income levels
 How much paid and received - bound up in complex
interaction with social security schemes
 Hope you take up this challenge 2015 seminars 4 and 5
Poverty and CM: Interaction with Social Assistance
Schemes and Problems of Measurement
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

21. References
1. DWP Cm 8130 (2011) Government’s response to the consultation on Strengthening
families, promoting parental responsibility: the future of child maintenance’, London:
The Stationary Office.
2. DWP (July 2012) Supporting Separated Families: Securing Children’s Future.
3. CMEC (2011) Website ‘Remit’ http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/about/remit.html:
accessed 8.8.2011.
4. Skinner, C., Hakovirta, M. and Davidson J. 'A Comparative Analysis of Child
Maintenance Schemes in Five Countries' in 'Special Issue: Child Maintenance
Schemes In Five Countries', European Journal of Social Security, Vol. 14, No. 4,
2012, 330-348.
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work

22. Institutional Operations
 July 2012 CMEC abolished taken over by DWP
 CSA1 & CSA2 still going (no single system by 2013-14)
 New ‘Statutory Child Maintenance Service’ (CMS):
 ‘new-new’ service (plus CSA1 and CSA2 cases)
 Open all new cases Dec 2013
 Aim fully operational 2014
 All CSA close 2014-17
 All parents through the gateway
The Department of Social Policy and Social Work