United Kingdom
|
|||||||||||||||||
Introduction and OverviewDespite its early pioneering role as a welfare state, Britain is clearly a social policy laggard with regard to responses to the gender role and other family changes of the latter part of the 20th century. In its earlier move toward economic liberalism in the Thatcher era, and its stress on means-tested rather than universal benefits, it demonstrates its membership in what have been called the Anglo-American "family of nations". (1,2) Following the US. in recent years Britain moved to increase its labor flexibility, deregulate wages, contain social spending, increase privatization, and reduced its unemployment rate almost to the OECD average. The privacy of the family is a traditional and well-established core value in British culture. The assumption continues that government should keep its role limited with regard to families, intervening only in situations of crisis or dysfunction. A recent report on family policy in Britain begins with the not uncommon statement that "Britain does not have and has never had, an explicitly formulated policy with regard to families and children. Over time, however, British governments have adopted a range of measures directly or indirectly targeted at families which have had a significant impact on their standard of living. Mothers and children constitute a major group of welfare beneficiaries."(3) Moreover, there has been no coherent or consistent policy regarding children or families with children; and children's needs have rarely been the predominant factor in decision-making. Many would insist, furthermore, that child policy in Britain has focused on poor children far more than it has on children in general, and on dependent, handicapped and troubled children even more than it has on poor children. Britain's implicit family policy is largely an antipoverty policy, stressing social assistance and means-tested benefits. In the mid-1990s, Britain had the third highest poverty rate among the 19 countries, exceeded only by the U.S. and Russia; and it had the highest rate among those countries in which child poverty rates were higher than poverty rates among the elderly.(4) Its goals have been extended somewhat in recent years, as family issues grew in political importance under the Labor government. Among the major concerns now are: income inequality in Britain which, along with child poverty, has emerged as the highest in the EU; the prevention of juvenile delinquency and youth crime; the promotion of better parenting; and for the first time in Britain, interest in encouraging work by lone mothers and in reducing the caseload of Britain's social assistance program ("Income Support"). In the context of targeting policies on the poor, however, Britain does have a significant child benefit that is more generous for first children than in most other countries and also does well by lone mothers, both working and at-home. Yet its child benefit has not maintained its real value since family allowances were first introduced in Britain after World War II and only its health service remains exemplary where children are concerned. It has only recently added a parental leave to its maternity leave policy, under pressure from the EU, and its policy seems meager and minimalist in comparison with other countries in the EU. Child care services are inadequate with regard to quantity, quality, accessibility, and philosophy, although there are some signs of improvement and greater responsiveness. There is beginning acknowledgement of the need to integrate child care and education. Finally, Britain is beginning to develop a system of family support services, but these, too, are targeted only on high risk, vulnerable children and families. Under the leadership of Tony Blair and New Labor, there are beginning efforts at reducing the assistance caseload (welfare in US terms) and linking work expectations more closely with benefits. However, despite new encouragements and incentives there is no requirement that poor lone mothers claiming assistance go to work, and no time limits on receipt of benefits by lone mothers. There has been a substantial increase in the basic universal child benefit and the higher benefit for first children; but these are still not indexed. The supplementary lone-parent benefit has been eliminated and as a result some argue that single mothers are worse off now than before. There is a proposal for universal and free preschool for all four year olds (Compulsory school begins at age 5 and more than half the 4 year olds already attend school or preschool), and to expand coverage for the 3 year olds. The prior British version of the U.S. EITC (Family Credit) has been superseded by a more generous Working Family Tax Credit (implemented in late 1999, see below). The child benefit levels under social assistance have been raised. And the government has created a new unit to coordinate policies on social exclusion and a new Ministerial Group to assess family policy issues holistically (see below). According to the British national expert member of the European Observatory on Family Matters, Ceridwen Roberts, among the family policy issues causing most political or public concern now are:
The New Labor Government has made the eradication of child poverty by 2019 one of its central objectives. |
|||||||||||||||||
Highlights |
|||||||||||||||||
Government AgenciesAccording to a recent report by the British member of the European Family Observatory, the government has confronted the problem of policy fragmentation across multiple agencies by establishing a Ministerial Group on the Family in 1998, chaired at a senior level by the Home Secretary, on which ministers from all relevant Departments sit.(6) This is an effort at addressing family policy issues holistically. This Committee has led to the publication of the first ever consultation document on family policy, "Supporting Families", published in November 1998 and stimulating extensive public interest. The document contains a record of the government's main initiatives for families since taking office and identifies areas for further work. The relevant ministries are the: Department of Social Security, Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment. |
|||||||||||||||||
Demographic and Other Social TrendsUK is among the large European countries, with a population of 59 million in 1997, about the same size as France and Italy but smaller than Germany.(7) Britain is an aging society, with almost 16 percent of its population aged 65 and older while children under 15 account for 19 percent. The British family is following the same pattern as that of the other advanced industrialized countries: smaller families, fewer marriages, more divorces, more cohabitation, declining birthrates, more out-of-wedlock births, later age at first birth, and more working mothers. The British fertility rate in 1996 was 1.7. Marriage and childbearing are increasingly separate with the illegitimacy rate increasing dramatically from 12 percent in 1980 to about 33 percent in 1996 and close to 40 percent by the end of the century. Two-thirds of all extra-marital births are to women under 25 years of age. However, most of these are registered by both parents. Very young children are increasingly likely to be living with cohabiting rather than legally married parents. Although Britain's teen non-marital birth rate is much lower than that of the U.S., it is the highest in the EU, by far. Lone parents constitute almost 20 percent of all families with children. Never-married mothers are the largest and most rapidly growing group constituting 42 percent of all lone mothers in 1997. Ethnic and racial minorities, although still a relatively small proportion of the population, are becoming more significant. In 1997, 67 percent of married mothers were in the labor force but 60 percent of these worked part time.(8) Labor force participation of lone mothers is significantly lower, at 41 percent. (The gap between married and lone mothers is becoming more of an issue now in Britain.) Fifty-five percent of married mothers with children under 5 were in the labor force. |
|||||||||||||||||
Social ProtectionThe full flowering of the British welfare state was left for World War II and the development of the Beveridge Plan. The Plan proposed an integrated, contributory, flat-rate and universal social insurance system covering old age, retirement, disability, unemployment, sickness, and family allowances in addition to a national health service and full employment policies. Although the full proposal was never implemented, a significant part was. It shaped the British welfare state from that time on and left its mark on present British social policy. Britain spends about 27 percent of GDP on social protection, slightly less that the EU average, including about 2.4 percent for family benefits, slightly above the EU average (2.3 percent). Britain has by far the highest rate of social assistance use among the European 15 . A minimum wage (a new policy for Britain) is set at a level similar to the US minimum. Of all British social policies, family (child) benefits have varied the most in British income transfer policies. The value of child benefits have never been as high as when they were first established. The economic situation of children deteriorated especially in the 1980s and 1990s. Family benefits never had the financial, popular, political support given pensions or the National Health Service. Only in the Blair administration has there been a significant effort at announcing a child policy agenda, and even then there has been concern about the declining support for lone mothers. In short, as LSE economist and social policy scholar Howard Glennerster (1997) writes, "Distinctively less generous than the Scandinavian or continental European countries, the UK system of welfare is much more dependent on the market and income tested benefits but keeps its highly developed national minimum safety net and national responsibilities for health and education. It may be called "a hard core welfare state". (9) |
|||||||||||||||||
Child, Youth and Family Policy RegimesMaternity, Paternity, Parental, and Family LeavesMaternity Leaves are job-protected leaves for working women at the time of pregnancy and following childbirth lasting up to 18 weeks, of which up to 11 weeks can be taken before birth. They are paid at 90 percent of earnings for the first six weeks, and then at a low flat rate and are financed by payroll taxes. For those who do not qualify because they left their jobs or are self-employed, a parallel benefit, the Maternity Allowance is available at the lower benefit level. Parental Leaves have been established recently, as a result of an EU directive. They are unpaid, job-protected leaves which can be taken by either parent, and which can last up to 13 weeks. They can be taken at any time within the first five years of the child's life. |
|||||||||||||||||
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)In Britain (like the U.S.), infant schools stressing education, were established in the early 19th century, expanded rapidly, and then largely disappeared to be replaced later by part-day kindergartens. They provided an "inferior" form of care and education to the children of poor working women and covered 20 percent of three year olds and 40 percent of 4 year olds in 1851 and 43 percent of 2-5 year olds by 1901. They constituted a voluntary but free educational service for all young children from the age of 2 or 3, if parents chose to avail themselves of it. (10) In contrast, middle and upper class children were cared for at-home by "nannies" or their equivalent, supplemented increasingly, beginning in the last quarter of the 19th century, by kindergartens organized on the model of the German, Friederich Froebel (as occurred in the Nordic countries, the U.S., Canada, and several other European countries). The failure to improve the quality of infant schools for children of the working class, or to integrate these programs with the new educational philosophy of the kindergarten, and the inclusion of 5 year olds in primary schools, contributed to the decline in the popularity of nursery education in 20th century England. One other result was the continuity of a pattern of fragmentation between early education as an enrichment program and day care as a "protective" service. It took almost another century for there to be significant increase in coverage and a renewed effort at integrating the two parallel streams. At present, the British ECEC system is fragmented as to auspice and program, diversified regarding philosophy, curriculum, and program focus, very inadequate as to supply and of mixed quality at best. Recently, there has been an administrative shift in auspice in some locations from social welfare to education and funding cuts by the central government to the local authorities. ECEC is divided between education and social welfare with preschool programs under the Department of Education and Local Education Authorities and day care centers or nurseries and child minders under the Department of Health and the Local Authority Social Services Departments. Preschool is still viewed as a program of enrichment, preparing middle class children for school from the age of 2 ˝ or 3 while day care programs serve children in need: poor, deprived, immigrant, neglected, abused and disabled children. Compulsory school begins at age 5 and most four-year-olds are already in school. The Blair administration has announced a goal of full coverage of four-year olds and an expansion of places for the 3s, but there is little discussion regarding the expansion of programs for younger children. There has been some development of a compensatory and integrated early childhood program ("Sure Start") that some compare with the U.S. Headstart -- or Early Headstart --program. Although a significant proportion of the 3-year-olds are in preschool programs, most are part-day and part-week programs. A small group or children who are "at risk" or have problems of various sorts are in social welfare day care. Only a small proportion of the under 3s are in out-of-home care and they are largely in playgroups or cared for by child minders (family day care providers). There is also interest in raising math and English achievement levels for 7 year olds. The Labor Government has also established a new child care tax credit which is described below as part of the Working Family Tax Credit. |
|||||||||||||||||
Family and Child AllowancesChild Benefit (CB) is a universal (non-income-tested), tax free cash benefit provided for each child in a family, including the first. The benefit is available until a child is age 16 (or 19 if at school) is financed out of general revenue, and, since 1992, has been indexed to wages. However, its value, as a percentage of social benefits or average wages has not been maintained since first established at the end of World War II. Since 1991 CB has been paid at a higher rate for the first child, and at the same flat rate for all others. The CB package in the early 1990s, provided to a single mother with two children, was worth about 8 percent of average male wages and 13.4 percent of average female wages. CB for a two-child, two-parent family was worth about 6.5 percent of average male earnings in 1992. It compares well with the other European countries with regard to small families (those with one or two children) but poorly with regard to larger families. In two-parent families, the benefit is paid to the mother, thus becoming (at least in the UK discussion) a kind of "mothers wage". One-Parent Benefit was a universal CB supplement provided for the first child in a single parent family, on the same basis as CB. It was eliminated under the Blair administration. |
|||||||||||||||||
Child and Family Tax BenefitsThe filing unit for income taxes is the individual, with husbands and wives being taxed independently. The Working Family Tax Credit is a refundable tax credit for families in which at least one parent works at least 16 hours a week or more. It is designed to "make work pay" for families by providing a wage (or earnings) supplement and by reducing the poverty trap and the lack of affordable childcare. It is modeled after the US Earned Income Tax Credit. It guarantees working families a minimum income above and beyond the level of the minimum wage; and as a tax credit is expected to reduce the stigma associated with claiming welfare. It is paid to the main wage-earner and where men are in that position, they can choose to make their wives the payees. It is expected that about half of the beneficiaries will be women. It also includes a provision for a new child care tax credit to provide help for working families with moderate incomes. This credit meets up to 70 percent of child care costs (in centers or family day care providers) up to a maximum of about $160 for a family with one child and $240 a week for those with two or more -- far more generous that the U.S. Dependent Care Tax Credit. It is expected to benefit about 1.5 million working families with children, a very significant number, and will be administered by the tax department. There is also a recently established child tax credit. |
|||||||||||||||||
Child SupportChild support is the payment of financial support for a child by the non-custodial parent. Britain was late among the major industrialized countries in enacting policies designed to strengthen child support provisions. A recent report stresses the importance of child support and of the debates and proposed reform. . "The original motivation for reform in both the UK and the US came from the growing number of lone parents and their increasing reliance on welfare payments…In the UK, widespread discontent with the way in which earlier reforms in 1993 have worked has renewed pressure for further change."(11) One of the main concerns was the low proportion of welfare recipients who were receiving child support (30 percent) and the low level of support paid by those who paid any. The 1993 legislation established the Child Support Agency (CSA), required that those receiving welfare payments use the Agency for the collection of support, and permitted others to do so if they wished. The vast majority of the CSA caseload consists of those claiming benefits. Substantial amendments to the original legislation were introduced in 1995, following "a huge public outcry about the effects of the Act, partly from lone parents and their organizations, but mainly from non-resident parents affected by the policy." (12) The report stresses four objectives of the proposed reform:
A major change in the proposed reform is the use of a formula when setting the support award (15 percent of income for the support of one child, 20 percent for two, and 25 percent for three or more), and capping the maximum amount of the net income of the non-custodial parent that can be awarded. It is also expected that the CSA will now be able to spend more on ensuring enforcement rather than calculating liabilities. A 10 -L weekly disregard will be introduced as well, creating an incentive for those on Income Support (welfare) to try to obtain it |
|||||||||||||||||
Other Child Conditioned Income TransfersChildren are entitled to receive certain standard income transfers, including: dependents' benefits for the children of old age pensioners; dependent's benefits for the children of a disabled worker; special benefits for a disabled child; Survivor's benefits for the guardian of a minor child. Of particular importance, however, is the Income Support benefit, a cash, means-tested benefit designed to support low-income individuals (both elderly and young) and families when earnings are absent or social insurance benefits are low. Its roots are in British Poor Law and it was first established as a national public assistance scheme in 1948. It is available regardless of marital or family status to low-income individuals aged 18 or older (or 16 if pregnant or if they have a child). It offers a national, uniform minimum income worth almost half an average female wage which makes it especially important for lone-mother families. The Blair administration is currently attempting to encourage poor lone mothers with children aged 5 and older to take jobs rather than claim welfare, but it is not requiring they do this. |
|||||||||||||||||
Child and Adolescent HealthBritain emphasizes child health policies in the context of its overall National Health Services and provides an exemplary home health visiting service that is targeted on young children and their families (along with the elderly and the handicapped). Child Health services in England and Wales are delivered largely through the National Health Service (NHS) which has responsibility for general practitioners, community health, and hospital services -- and the Department of Social Security where income transfers for children and their families play a critical role in supporting child health. NHS services are universal, available to the whole population regardless of income, and delivered for the most part to all children below the age of 16 (or 19 if in full time school). Since its inception, the NHS has improved the quantity and quality of child health services significantly. Child health care has remained divided between community care and hospital care, and between prevention and treatment. Children gain access to the health care system when they are born, through automatic notification of their birth to the local health visitor (HV) who is responsible for the geographic area where the family lives. HVs are registered nurses with additional public health training and are the key individuals in health care for very young children, providing health education and preventive care, visiting new mothers and babies at home usually within 10 days of the birth, and then at frequent intervals during their early years. It has recently begun to target its longer term services on higher risk family situations. In addition, responding to cultural diversity is becoming more important as well as working with ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse families with very young children. Health visiting has been and continues to be at the heart of the British child health service. |
|||||||||||||||||
Housing BenefitsHousing benefit is a means-tested, non-taxable benefit (both income and asset-tested), which provides help with paying the rent for private or public housing for people with low incomes. A Council Tax Benefit is a means-tested benefit which provides help towards the tax raised by local government. For those receiving social assistance (Income Support, or welfare) housing benefit is the full amount of the rent and council Tax Benefit is the full amount of the tax. For those not receiving assistance, the housing benefit is a portion of the rent linked to the individual's income. |
|||||||||||||||||
School-Aged Children: Policies and Programs
|
|||||||||||||||||
YouthYoung people under age 25 or a young lone parent aged less that 18 may qualify for certain benefits more easily than a couple. They receive a priority for housing benefits, are entitled to free health care, and can qualify for welfare payments from the age of 18, or 16 if pregnant or if they have a child; these policies are viewed by some as creating a work disincentive and an incentive to teens to get pregnant. There is strong interest in reducing teen pregnancy and the government has announced a goal of halving the rate by 2010. |
|||||||||||||||||
Reconciliation of Work and Family LifeThere is interest in reducing school exclusion and drop-out rates among 16-18 year olds from low-income families, who are not in education, employment, or training, and improving participation and achievement in learning. Two new initiatives (ConneXions and Educational Maintenance Allowances) have been established to achieve this by providing financial assistance and other services to these youths. |
|||||||||||||||||
ReferencesBradbury, Bruce and Markus Jantti, Child Poverty Across Industrialized Nations. Florence, Italy: Unicef, 1999. Bradshaw, Jonathan et al. Policy and the Employment of Lone Parents in Twenty Countries. York, Eng: University of York, 1996. .Bradshaw, Jonathan et al. Support for Children: A Comparison of Fifteen Countries. London, Eng.: HMSO, 1993. Family Policy Studies Centre, London, Eng. Family Briefing Papers. Kamerman, Sheila. "Early Childhood Education and Care: An Overview of Developments in the OECD Countries", Paris, France: OECD, 1998. (A briefer version was printed in the International Journal Of Educational Research, Vol. 33,2000). Piachaud, David and Holly Sutherland. How Effective is the British Government's Attempt to Reduce Child Poverty?. London, Eng.: London School of Economics, CASE Paper 38, March, 2000. Ringen, Stein.et al "Family Change and Family Policies: Great Britain", in Sheila B. Kamerman and Alfred J. Kahn, eds. Family Change and Family Policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 1997. |
|||||||||||||||||
Notes
|
|||||||||||||||||
ContactsWashington Embassy
Ministry
European Union Family Observatory National Representative
|
|||||||||||||||||
Maternity, Paternity,Parental, and Family Leaves |
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) |
Family and Child Allowances |
Child and Family Tax Benefits |
Child Support |
Other Child Conditioned Income Transfers |
School-Aged Children: Policies and Programs |
Housing Benefits |
Child and Adolescent Health |
Youth |
Reconciliation of Work and Family Life |
|||||||