# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Breakthrough 


Britain 

Ending the costs of social breakdown 

Volume 1: 

Family 
Breakdown 

Chair: Dr Samantha Callan 

Policy recommendations 
to the Conservative Party 

Social Justice Policy Group 

Chairman, Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP 

July 2007 



Contents 


Executive Summary 
3 

Section 1: Introduction and State of the Nation 13 

Section 2: Causes of family breakdown 22 
and the approach of current policy 

Section 3: Objectives of Policy Recommendations 30 

Section 4: Policy Recommendations 
33 

Sociocultural aspects of family breakdown 

Chapter 1 Coordinated wellbeing and improving mental health 33 
Chapter 2 Rolling out relationship education across the nation 43 
Chapter 3 Supporting families with disabilities 53 

Economic aspects of family breakdown 

Chapter 4 Reforming the welfare system to strengthen the family 62 
Chapter 5 Creating genuine choice for families 74 
in paid work & childcare 
Chapter 6 Supporting and encouraging family cohesion 84 
post-separation 

Political and Legal aspects of family breakdown 

Chapter 7 
Legal issues surrounding marriage and 91 
divorce, cohabitation, parental rights and 
the rights of the extended family 

Chapter 8 
Family-centred policies at the heart of government 93 

Section 5: Conclusions 
105 

Bibliography 
108 

Appendix: Supporting marriage and encouraging couples 110 
to come together: Tax and tax credit options 

2 

Executive Summary 


Introduction and State of the Nation 

The family is where the vast majority of us learn the fundamental skills for life; 
physically, emotionally and socially it is the context from which the rest of life 
flows. However family stability in Britain has been in continuous decline for 
four decades, and adults and children today are increasingly faced with the 
challenges of families which are dysfunctional (often because of mental health 
issues), fractured (through separation or divorce), or fatherless (15% of babies 
are born into homes with no resident dad). This is especially the case in the 
least advantaged sections of society but these trends also profoundly affect 
people across the socioeconomic spectrum. Mental health is the �Cinderella 
service� and the policy-making community has been reluctant to �grasp the nettle� 
of family breakdown by sending clear signals about the benefits of marriage 
and committed relationships, and the merits of supporting and encouraging 
them. 

Despite these demographic changes there has been a lack of serious debate 
concerning their causes, effects and likely remedies. To open that debate, 
Fractured Families looked closely at consequences and causes of these trends: 

Consequences 

z 
Since the early 1970s there has been a decline in marriage, and a marked 
rise in the numbers of lone parent families. 
z 
The ongoing rise in family breakdown affecting young children has been 
driven by the dissolution of cohabiting partnerships. The majority of these 
are less stable than marriage (European data shows that by a child�s fifth 
birthday less than 1 in 12 (8%) married parents have split up compared to 
almost 1 in 2 (43%) cohabiting parents). 
z 
The intergenerational transmission of family breakdown and its associated 
disadvantages is seen in the way children who have been neglected or 
un-nurtured are highly likely to go on to create dysfunctional families subject 
to further breakdown. Similarly there is an overrepresentation in teen 
pregnancy statistics of girls from fatherless and broken homes. 
z 
Crime is strongly correlated with family breakdown - 70% of young offenders 
are from lone parent families and one third of prisoners were in local authority 
care (yet only 0.6% of the nation�s children are in care at any one time). 
z 
Costs of family breakdown to the exchequer are estimated to be well over 
�20bn per annum. 

3 

Breakthrough Britain 

Causes and current/previous governments� policy approaches 

z 
Family structure and family process matter - making a commitment can 
make a significant difference to behaviours and attitudes but our tax system 
makes no recognition of marriage and the importance of interdependence 
between family members. The couple penalty in tax credits disincentivises 
low-income couples from living together and especially from 
making a co-residential arrangement unambiguous by marrying, thus 
implicating the welfare state in the rise of family breakdown. 
z 
Poverty places enormous strain on relationships, as does poor housing and 
the lack of meaningful employment. (Research indicates the relationship 
between levels of lone parenthood in an area and poor job opportunities 
for men.) Supporting adult relationships must be a key concern of family 
policy rather than of peripheral interest as is currently the case. 
z 
In 1998, the government consultation paper Supporting Families proposed a 
range of measures to strengthen marriages and families (such as wider roles 
for registrars in the provision of marriage preparation and information) but 
nine years later, very little government policy is directly preventative of family 
breakdown and lone parent family formation has, over the last quarter 
century, consistently increased by 40,000 families per year 
z 
Research across 18 European countries indicates that one fifth of the 
increase in divorce rates over the last 40 years is due to the combined effect 
of legal reforms over that period 
z 
Funding is focused on teenagers to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour 
and intervention in the early years of a child�s life is couched in similar 
terms. Too few resources are targeted on the early years as part of a 
more positively focused effort to radically improve life chances 

Aims and Objectives of Proposed Policies 

In the light of these findings, policy must aim to build stronger families. State 
support should be provided in a way that encourages family networks to be 
self-supporting and well-rooted in the community and further strengthens the 
many families which are under pressure, but currently working well. 

A body of policies which can fulfil this aim must have the following objectives 
and would: 

Facilitate family stability and minimise family breakdown by encouraging 
healthy family relationships 

z 
High levels of family breakdown across the socioeconomic spectrum indicate 
that many people are struggling to sustain healthy relationships. 
Parents are increasingly asking for some guidance on how best to raise 
their children. A tiny percentage of government money is spent on preventing 
family breakdown compared with its cost to society. Instead funding 
is focused on dealing with the effect of broken lives. 

4 

family breakdown: executive summary 

Build relational competence 

z 
The collapse in marriage and committed relationships in many low-
income communities means that many children and couples have seen no 
role model of permanence or exclusivity. These communities are characterised 
by high expectations (of relationships) and low capacities (to manage 
them well). Domestic violence, crime, poverty and addiction corrode 
these neighbourhoods� social capital. Breaking the cycle of disadvantage is 
essential but requires tackling the high prevalence of psychosocial (including 
mental health) problems 

Focus on the first three years of children�s lives and assist families during other 
periods of vulnerability (which may be prolonged eg. when disability is a factor) 

z 
A lack of nurture in the first 36 months can have lifelong consequences for 
mental health. Parents from dysfunctional families often struggle to provide 
this, perpetuating disadvantage. Fighting for appropriate care, help 
and support for a disabled child or adult can strain family relationships. 
Wide discrepancies in access to disability support services exist between 
and within local authorities. 

Maximise community-level support and minimise dependence on the state 

z 
Extended family relationships are breaking down and the state provides 
little or no support and encouragement for them to flourish eg. by making 
it financially viable for care of children and the elderly to take place within 
the family. Parenting and relationship support could be far more 
grounded in local communities and draw more on voluntary and community 
sector providers. 

Send the message that every family matters, an essential complement to the 
more usual �every child matters� 

z 
The politically �safe� emphasis on the parent-child relationship ignores the 
quality of their parents� relationship, a crucial dimension of child wellbeing. 
High rates of single parenthood mean too many fathers are missing 
out on active engagement in raising the next generation. Early fatherhood 
does not draw disadvantaged young men into dependable and responsible 
adulthood. A lack of purpose continues the cycle of worklessness, addiction 
and crime. Focusing exclusively on poverty and neglecting the couple 
relationship at the heart of the family will never shift these statistics. 

Create a positive policy bias in support of marriage 

z 
The tax system does not recognise the benefits which marriage brings to 
society and the tax credits system disincentivises adults from openly living 
together and encourages fraud. (The Government is paying tax credits and 
benefits to 200,000 more lone parents than live in the UK.) Comparative 
European research indicates that welfare benefits can drive up lone parent 

5 

Breakthrough Britain 

family formation and encourage solo living. Marriage has been downgraded 
in official discourse and increasingly undifferentiated from cohabitation 
despite marked discrepancies in the stability of married and cohabiting 
couples. 

YouGov Polling (Apr-May 2007) 

z 
80%* agreed that it is better for pre-school children to be looked after by 
a parent at home rather than by a childminder or day nursery, whereas 
only 29% of people agreed with the statement that we should be trying to 
encourage mothers to go back to work and contribute to the economy, 
rather than making it easier to stay at home 
z 
Three-quarters* agreed or strongly agreed that public money should be 
spent on community-based centres which parents can visit if they want 
advice or guidance on parenting 
z 
86% agreed that �People needing government-funded social care (e.g. due 
to illness or disability) should have the right to choose from a range of 
providers to find the one that best suits them� 
z 
96%* of people agreed with giving extra support for people to care for elderly 
relatives 
z 
80%* agreed or strongly agreed that extra support for marriage should be 
given in the tax and benefits system 
z 
76% agreed or strongly agreed that money should be available in the form 
of home care allowances, 52% that �child benefits should be �front-loaded�, 
allowing parents to claim more of their child benefits in early childhood 
and less when children are older� and 85% that if parents receive money 
from the state to bring up their children they should be willing to attend 
classes if necessary. 
z 
Over 90%* agreed with the statement �Fathers are currently unfairly treated 
by the courts and not given the same rights, as a matter of course, as 
mothers� Only 22% agreed that fathers have adequate access rights and 
over 90% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement �Fathers should be 
forced to take more responsibility for helping to bring up their children 
after separation or divorce.� 

Proposed policies to meet these objectives 

Our proposals do not promote marriage at the expense of single parents but 
include many measures intended to support people in all types of families, for 
example by better integrating them into the communities of which they are a part. 

To deliver greater family well-being and improve mental health we recommend: 


* Of those expressing an opinion 
6 

family breakdown: executive summary 

z 
Family Services Hubs with an enhanced role for health visitors 
Facilities at the heart of communities to enhance current, community-
based service provision, a greater degree of integration of services to maximise 
efficiency and coordination of professionals and voluntary sector 
providers. Five �hubs� have been established which provide a good model 
for what we are proposing. Such hubs would emphasise support for parents 
in their children�s first three years with an enhanced role for health 
visitors in preventing dysfunction in very young children�s cognitive and 
emotional development. Intensive home-visiting programmes, like the 
Olds Nurse-Family Partnership to be implemented as a matter of priority 
(as much data will have already been gathered from pilots currently taking 
place) 

z 
Enhanced support and training for professionals 
System changes to the child and family workforce (such as direct access to 
mental health professionals for young children, tiered access to family 
services, common inter-agency training and application of a coherent 
model of family support) to enhance effectiveness. 

To roll out relationship education across the nation we recommend: 

z 
A national relationship and parenting education �invitation� scheme for 
couples and parents at key life stages 
Development and national roll-out of nine streams of relationship and 
parenting education programmes, operated locally by the voluntary sector 
through appropriate access points (including Family Services Hubs). 
Universal and targeted services to access vulnerable families would reach 
800,000 families every year once full capacity is reached. Evidence from 
US programmes indicates high take-up: 100,000 completing marriage and 
relationship education programmes in Oklahoma since 2001 with positive 
effects (lower conflict, higher satisfaction, lower divorce risk) and younger, 
lower income respondents more - not less - likely than others to report 
interest in relationship education. 

z 
A new Marriage and Relationships Institute (MRI) 
To act as champion and administrator of a major series of preventative 
initiatives, most notably the �invitation� schemes, and commissioner of a 
major research programme into what makes marriages and families work. 

z 
Relationship education in schools 
PSHE curriculum changes to provide a specific opportunity to learn 
about, explore and discuss the nature of marriage, family and relationships, 
with the voluntary sector strongly encouraged to deliver many of 
these resources. 

To support families with disabilities we recommend: 

7 

Breakthrough Britain 

z 
Creative ways for delivering more respite care 
Financial assistance for paying relatives and trusted friends (albeit at a 
lower rate). One stream of the �invitation� scheme to provide respite breaks 
for families with disabled members, that include relationship and parenting 
support. Again, high levels of user satisfaction are reported in the US, 
where this is part of a state-wide initiative to stabilise family life 

z 
Simplified access to disability support/services through specialised Family 
Services Hubs such as mobile clinics 
These would act as one-stop shops, providing or signposting to services so 
that the disability support system is simpler to navigate and families can 
more easily access the help they need 

z 
Creation of a new compact between local authorities and the disability 
community 
A new relationship between local authorities and the disability community 
that draws on the latter�s experience and the expertise of user-led 
voluntary sector services with councils more accountable for services 
they provide. Direct Payments (individual budgets) more widely available 
and treated as cash in hand, with no strings attached, reflecting the 
shift in emphasis away from what is simplest and cheapest for a local 
authority towards what is most appropriate for an individual�s circumstances. 


In reforming the welfare system to support the family we recommend: 

z 
An increase in Carer�s Allowance and in the level of allowable extra earnings 
with a subsequent taper applied instead of immediate loss of all benefit. 
UK�s Carer�s Allowance is very low compared to other EU countries (last 
year Ireland greatly increased its Carers Allowance to �135 for one person 
being cared for and �200 for two people) 

z 
A reduction in the couple penalty by enhancing the couple element in 
Working Tax Credit such that all couples receive the same ratio of support 
to lone parents as they currently get in Income Support (taking into 
account the additional adult). This would cost �3bn giving 1.8m couples 
with children �32.05 more, on average, per week. At present a couple 
receives the same level of WTC as a lone parent. This measure would 
contribute to stability (marriage is almost always preceded by cohabitation) 
and alleviate poverty (60% of families in poverty are headed by 
couples) 

z 
A transferable tax allowance for all married couples (costing �3.2bn and 
giving �20 a week to those making use of it) 
The further stability (and social benefit) that marriage brings is recognised 
in this additional measure for couples, which makes it easier for one parent 
to stay at home in the early years if they wish, or for one partner to care 
for an elderly relative or volunteer in the community. Cheaper options are 

8 

family breakdown: executive summary 

available such as transferring half the allowance, (costing �1.6bn) which 
would allow the usually non-earning spouse to earn �2.5k before paying 
tax. The wider issue of the incoherence in the tax and benefit system also 
requires attention. The unit of taxation is the individual, with little or no 
allowance for family dependants such as children, non-working spouses or 
elderly relatives whereas the unit of account in the welfare system is the 
family. 

z 
Front-loaded child benefit (and future consideration of home care allowances) 
Making child benefit flexible so that a larger proportion of the child's total 
entitlement would be available during the first three years when parents 
most want to spend time caring for their children and when attachment 
and intensive nurture are most important (recommended by Frank Field 
MP). Linking this where necessary to ameliorative services such as parenting 
support, could vastly improve the life chances of children most 
likely to experience deficits in parental care. 

To create genuine choice for families in the area of paid work and childcare we 
recommend: 

z 
A reduction in the current bias in the tax credit system against informal 
care by allowing the use of childcare tax credit to pay un-registered close 
relatives (albeit at a lower rate) to reflect parents� preferences 

z 
Targeted assistance for parents who currently struggle to nurture their 
children such as by offering therapeutic counselling (especially through 
community-based, voluntary sector providers) for carers and their babies 
within the first two years of the baby�s life rather than steering them 
towards local authority childcare. 

z 
Removal of the bias towards state-provided childcare. Private, voluntary 
and independent nursery providers face closure when local authorities 
establish their own subsidised facilities in areas where childcare needs are 
already adequately met. Partnership models should be more frequently 
adopted with local authorities signposting users towards existing provision. 
To free up Children�s Centres to provide more family support we recommend 
that childcare should be located outside community-based 
Children�s Centres wherever possible. 

z 
Easing of current childcare disadvantages for disabled children. A higher 
rate of childcare tax credit to be available to pay for specialist services and 
higher staff ratio care. Local authorities to take active steps to encourage 
greater provision eg. by providing subsidised training for private, voluntary 
and independent nurseries 

To support and facilitate cohesive families post-separation we recommend: 

9 

Breakthrough Britain 

z 
Judges be specifically encouraged to reinforce the importance of contact 
arrangements 
The Judicial Studies Board to be directed to explicitly encourage judges to 
stress to separating parties the importance of abiding by arrangements, the 
possibility of being held in contempt of court through non-compliance 
etc., thus increasing the likelihood that contact agreements will be honoured. 


z 
No exemptions for child maintenance applied to non-resident parents who 
are full-time students or whose income is less than �7 per week 
Exemptions undermine the principle that every child�s non-resident parent 
should be financially responsible and pay something towards their 
upkeep (despite the CSA�s inefficiency, the awareness of financial responsibility 
which its existence has engendered, is considered to be responsible 
for much of the 15% decrease in divorce rates since 1992). 

z 
Information and services to prevent subsequent breakdown 
A restyled Child Support Agency should signpost people to information 
and services (eg. to Family Services Hubs) which can ensure that their 
future relationships stand a higher chance of success 

z 
Improved access to justice to separating couples 
New fee structures for legal aid are driving many solicitors away from providing 
family law services, restricting future access of low-income people 
to justice. Family Services Hubs which co-locate and coordinate community-
based services would either signpost people towards centres providing 
a range of legal and quasi-legal services or, depending on facility size, 
co-locate these services alongside other family support services (as in 
Australian Family Relationship Centres). 

z 
A review of family law conducted by a dedicated independent commission 
The relationship between the law and family breakdown and legal aspects 
of marriage, divorce, cohabitation, parental rights and the rights of the 
extended family (especially grandparents) are highly complex but require 
consideration. We recommend that this be carried out under the auspices 
of an independent body such as the Centre for Social Justice. We would say 
however that this report expresses grave concern over the negative implications 
of imposing rights and responsibilities on cohabiting couples. 
Notwithstanding individual cases of apparent injustice, many cohabitees 
have voluntarily chosen to reject marriage with the protection it provides. 
The liberal argument that people should not be penalised for this choice 
is flawed. Attaching legal provision would be illiberal (because it imposes 
a contractual obligation not freely entered into) and intrusive and would 
encourage inherently more unstable relationships (but we await the Law 
Commission's forthcoming report). 

To ensure that family-centred policies are at the heart of local and national 
government we recommend: 

10 

family breakdown: executive summary 

z 
Cabinet-level political representation for the family 
Laming (2003) recommended that a ministerial Children and Families 
Board, chaired by a minister of Cabinet rank be established at the heart of 
government, with ministerial representation from government departments 
concerned with the welfare of children and families. As a first step, 
the current Domestic Affairs Cabinet Committee for Parents and 
Children should be chaired by someone of cabinet rank, its remit extended 
to cover the couple relationship and to consider inter alia the likely 
impact on families of all cabinet-level decisions. 
z 
Reinstatement of the use of �marital status� in government forms and 
statements 
Reinstatement and full public use of the term �marital status� and associated 
terms �husband�, �wife�, �spouse� and �marriage�, sending a clear and 
unambiguous signal about marriage. Marital status also to be reinstated as 
an independent factor in government-sponsored research. 
z 
The compilation of local data on social cohesion 
A new statistical index of family and social cohesion is necessary. The 
Government�s Social Exclusion Unit lists family breakdown as one of eight 
reasons for social exclusion and all seven other reasons are represented in 
indices of social exclusion. Such an index would make individual local 
authorities accountable for addressing family breakdown in their boroughs. 
z 
Robust local government support of relationship and parenting education 
Just as local authorities must have a single commissioner responsible for 
assessing need and co-ordinating delivery of services to parents, a senior 
�champion� should also be similarly responsible for relationship education 
(with the same degree of importance placed on that aspect of their role). 

In using housing to promote security and independence for families we recommend: 


z 
Investigation of the extension or pioneering of right-to-buy, rent-to-own 
and shared equity schemes to create asset-owning families 

Along with support for the most vulnerable in society, the social housing 
sector needs to be reconfigured once again to become a runway for financial 
and personal independence. Creative means should be considered for 
all social housing tenants to be able to build up capital within (and ultimately 
be able to purchase) the property they occupy. 

z 
Reform of the current system of housing benefit 

Simplification of the system (which could move from being arrears-based 
to credit-based), and greater reliance on outreach workers to make new 
methods user-friendly for vulnerable families. 

z 
Introduction of flexibility into secured tenure in social housing 

A proportion of social housing is occupied by tenants who have gained 

11 

Breakthrough Britain 

sufficient financial security to no longer require such assistance or are 
�under-occupying� eg. their families have �flown the nest�. New tenants 
could be moved onto a more flexible tenancy arrangement which takes 
changes in circumstances into account 

z 
A commitment to increasing �supported housing� projects 

Vulnerable families are often unable to manage households. Targeted sup


port which helps them move towards self-sufficiency is an investment that 
repays itself many times over in terms of saved costs for failed 
tenancy eg. hospitalisation, resettlement, addiction treatment 
etc 


Conclusions 

We believe that the tide of family breakdown (dysfunction, 
dissolution and dad-lessness) can be turned. Our policies pay 
particular attention to the needs of our youngest citizens, 
those in the first three years of life where the nurture of their 
parents is of prime importance. We want all children to grow 

into relationally competent and confident adults. As one expert respondent 
told us, �Marriage is the natural consequence of two adults being able to commit 
to each other because their own emotional development is secure and has 
given them the necessary confidence.� We unashamedly support an institution 
that can be so beneficial, but acknowledge that there is much preparatory work 
to be done to improve the relational health of the nation, especially in communities 
subject to multiple disadvantage. 

12 

Section 1 
Introduction 
and State of the Nation 

Introduction 

The Structure of the Report 

In December 2006 we pub-Family breakdown appears to be a pressing concern to the British public. 

lished an interim report, When YouGov asked nearly 5000 adults to name two of the greatest 

Fractured Families, on the problems facing society, 32% of people chose family breakdown (from a 

state of the nation with list of 7 options).and 90% of a smaller random sample (n=793) thought 

regard to family break-that family breakdown was a serious or very serious problem in today's 

down.1 We went into some society (YouGov Survey for SJPG April - May 2007) 

depth to describe the trends 
in family formation, stability 
and breakdown, the consequences of family breakdown and the causes. We 
concluded by indicating likely areas for policy recommendations, saying that 

We believe that from the evidence gathered and presented here one cannot 
but conclude that family breakdown in all its forms is of serious concern 
to society, as well as to the individuals intimately impacted. For this 
reason we believe that we should rigorously explore what family-centred 
policies, rather than child-centred policies might look like. We are concerned 
that current policies, such as those encouraging the highest possible 
labour market participation for mothers (in the interest of alleviating 
child poverty) have not adequately considered the deleterious impact on 
families and relationships�. 


Secondly, it is clear, that we should be emphasising prevention as well 
as cure. We will be looking at how to stabilise current families we well as 
how to re-establish stable family relationships and structures as a part of 
a socially responsible society. Marriage continues to offer the most stable 
and durable framework, but there is not a high level of awareness of these 
benefits. 


Downloadable in full at http://povertydebate.typepad.com/social_justice_policy_gro/files/BB_family_
breakdown.pdf 


13 

Breakthrough Britain 

Childcare outside of nursery 


Thirdly, and in relation to this last point, we want to 
look closely at how we better enable individuals, rather 
than the state, to raise their families and how to align services 
in a way that offers families genuine choice. We have, 
for example, become aware of the huge strain placed on 
relationships in families where there is disability. Not only 
does dealing with the disability produce tension but in large 
measure so too does fighting for care, education and other 
support services. If we are implicating the welfare state in 
the rise of family breakdown, we need to consider workable 

adjustments and indeed complements to it. The notion of the welfare 
society embraces a social responsibility agenda which begins to consider 
how to encourage people to make decisions based on the wider good 
of society, on deferred gratification rather than instant returns. It also 
draws in the wealth of talent and energy in this country�s voluntary sector 
organisations. 

This introductory section will briefly summarise the rationale behind choosing 
the eight areas of policy laid out in the main body of our report. It will do 
so in terms of the problems they are intended to address, given the current 
state of the nation. Section 2 looks at causes of family breakdown and focuses 
specifically on current policy emphases and approaches, highlighting why and 
where continuity or departure from these is appropriate. (The Conservative 
Party asked us to make policy proposals to best prevent family breakdown and 
mitigate its effects. The working group sat as an independent consultative 
body, and three-quarters of its membership, including the chair and deputy 
chair, have no affiliation to a political party. However, despite being politically 
non-aligned, it was necessary to critically assess the current policy context 
when deciding what we would recommend to an incoming government.) 
Section 3 lays out the overarching and more specific objectives for the body of 
policy proposals explicated in some detail in Section 4. We have grouped our 
policy recommendations into three main subjects: Sociocultural, Economic 
and Political/Legal. We conclude in Section 5 with a restatement of the need for 
change, and the broad brushstrokes of our approach. 

The State of the Nation 

What stands out from Fractured Families is the pressures facing most if not all of 
Britain�s families and the inherent fragility and lack of resilience which characterises 
so many of them, especially those in the lowest income groups in our society. 
The body of evidence we drew together on the causes, effects and extent of 
family breakdown overwhelming points towards the need to build stronger families. 
We adopted an inclusive use of the term �family breakdown� which can be 
summed up in three key words: dissolution, dysfunction and �dad-lessness�. Our 

14 

family breakdown: section 1: introduction and state of the nation 

interest is not narrowly restricted to what happens when parents separate or 
divorce because a) abuse, neglect or insufficient nurture, creates a cycle of psychological 
distress in which �damaged� individuals go on to create more dysfunctional 
families and b) solo parenthood (usually solo motherhood) is a growing family 
type in this country and 15% of all babies are born without a resident biological 
father (Kiernan & Smith 2003). Fractured Families also emphasised the complexity 
of the relationships between various factors implicated in and affected by 
family breakdown. We stressed the strength of the correlations between family 
breakdown and crime, educational failure, economic dependency, debt and 
addiction but avoided making simple statements of cause and effect. The systemic 
nature of these social problems, where cause and effect interact, is the very reason 
why any comprehensive treatment of social justice has to thoroughly consider 
the role of family breakdown. 

It cannot just be treated as a result of poverty or mentioned in passing then 

hastily moved on from because of its controversial implications.2 The lack of com


mitment and informality of many contemporary relationships which result in the 
procreation of children �creates 
challenging issues for 

Our polling (YouGov Survey for SJPG April - May 2007) indicated that 

families and public policy� 

75% of people expressing an opinion agreed that family breakdown 

(Mansfield 2005) Easily dis


isn�t just a private matter. Since children brought up by married 

missing the importance of 

parents have a lower chance of getting involved in crime, drugs and 

family structure (whether 

other problems later in life supporting marriage benefits us all. 

couples are married or resolutely 
committed to each 
other or not) in order to 
emphasise instead family process (the quality of relationships) ignores the compelling 
statistical evidence we presented in Fractured Families. We established that 
the durability of a family unit, is intimately bound up with the quality of relationships 
between the adults, as well as with the level of commitment between them. 

A relatively small minority of cohabitations may be as committed as the 
majority of marriages but an analysis of Millennium Cohort Study showed 
substantial differences in family stability between married and unmarried couples 
in the early years of parenthood, even after discounting socio-economic 
factors such as age, income, education and race. A government which wants to 
prevent family breakdown cannot ignore these statistical differences any 
longer, but must do all it can to deal honestly with this issue. Marriage is good 
for society. Among other benefits, it stabilises relationships, places fatherhood 
on a far more secure footing and promotes the formation of more extensive 
and reliable kinship networks. Nowhere in our recommendations do we suggest 
that people should be coerced into marrying or staying together if profoundly 
unhappy. However, research indicates that although aspirations are 

As other recent offerings on the subject of social justice (such as Pearce & Paxton 2005) seem to have 
done. 


15 

Breakthrough Britain 

The importance of the under-
threes 


high for marriage,3 and married couples prize their relationships, there is a per


vasive sense that society does not place a high enough value on or recognise the 
benefits of marriage (Sutton et al 2003). That lack of awareness is something 
that can be partially affected by policy (Burstein 2007), as can the amount of 
public money available to support adult relationships. 

Dysfunctional families and breaking the cycle � 
the importance of the under 3s 

This consultation process has made us very keenly aware of the marked prevalence 
of psychosocial problems in the UK today throughout all income groups, 
although they increase significantly with disadvantage. If the psychological and 

social needs of adults are not met, this can have very serious 
implications for their ability to form durable, mutually supportive 
relationships and to provide their children with love, 
attention and boundaries. Psychosocial problems which often 
stem from an adult�s own infancy, influence and cause relationship 
difficulties which can, in turn, exacerbate them. 

We considered the findings of research carried out by the 
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Cater & Coleman 2006) of 
planned teenage pregnancy in areas of high poverty to be particularly 
poignant. This study showed that for many young mothers, 
choosing to become pregnant was perceived to �correct� their 

deprived childhoods and alter their lives for the better. Girls in the study reported 
�desperately wanting a baby� from as young as 9. Their perceived lack of educational 
and career opportunities made the decision to start a family very young appear 
rational to them and many of the young people in the study felt their own lives had 
been improved by having a baby. However if many babies are being conceived by 
young parents partly to fill the emotional voids in their own history, some will be 
able to be very loving parents but others will struggle to meet their children�s needs 
for nurture. Ironically, this research indicates that those least well prepared for parenthood 
by their own lost childhoods could be those most likely to start a family 
early and repeat a negative intergenerational cycle. 

As a group we were particularly struck by the importance of the very early years 
in a child�s life. Research and the testimony of various organisations indicated how 
susceptible the infant (0-3 year old) brain is to its environment � for good or ill. 

The emotional brain4 is largely created in the first 18 months of life, its auditory 
map is formed even earlier, by 12 months and synapse formation in the visual cortex 
peaks at 3 months and has finished by age 2. What happens in the early years, 
in terms of the quality of attachment to a primary carer, and the level of stimula


3 
When MORI asked 805 adults which lifestyle they would most prefer the sample showed overwhelmingly 
that they would choose marriage over cohabitation (only 4% chose being unmarried 
with a partner and children, while 68% chose being married and with children) (MORI 1999). 

4 
See Hosking and Walsh 2005. 

16 

family breakdown: section 1: introduction and state of the nation 

tion, nurture and empathy an 
infant receives, �permanently 

�I had a really, really bad childhood - I was in care and 
moulds the individual�s 

my parents aren�t very good parents so I just thought a 
capacity to enter into all later 

baby would give me that stability and also give me 
emotional relationships� 

something that would love me unconditionally - never 
(Schore 2000). 

thought it would leave me and - �cos it�d be mine The 
problem (which our 


nobody could take it away � I was the only kid at the age 
policy recommendations of 9, planning to have a baby . . .�

need to address) is that the 

intergenerational preva�
It was very confusing because my mum and dad split 

lence of profound psyup 
when I was three-and-a-half, so I had the heartbreak 

chosocial problems augurs 
from there and that screwed me up a bit - and that�s how I 

very badly for a significant 
became with J [father of baby] - �cos I was so screwed up, I 

minority of infants, whose 
didn�t know where I was going, really.� 

parents are unable to pro


vide the responsiveness and Respondents in JRF study 

empathy which will engender 
the same behaviour in 
their children. The results of this lack become apparent in the violent, aggressive 
and otherwise dysfunctional behaviour of older children. They will then 
grow up to become parents who find it very hard to a) raise their own children 
any differently and b) take advantage of services (such as parenting classes) 
intended to remedy problems like antisocial behaviour. Without dealing with 
the root causes of psychosocial problems in general and mental health difficulties 
in particular, interventions to help parents relate both to their children 
(and to each other) will be severely hampered in their effectiveness. The policy 
recommendations we make in our sub-section on coordinated wellbeing 
are intended to break the stalemate on this situation, focusing resources at a 
time when life chances could be radically altered. 

Relationship education and support to prevent 
breakdown 

Increasing geographical mobility has meant that fewer people now live close 
enough to extended family to access traditional sources of immediate wisdom 
and support. Voluntary sector providers described to us how many parents and 
partners experience a sense of psychological isolation, all too aware of the 
shortcomings in their relational skills, but unaware of how improvements 
might be made to prevent future family breakdown. Further anecdotal evidence 
we received suggested that most people struggle with the concept of 
seeking advice on how to manage relationships at home, considering it is only 
for those with problems. 75% of all relationship support involves the treatment 
of problems, such as counselling through providers like Relate, rather than 
their prevention. 

17 

Breakthrough Britain 

Particular difficulties facing disabled families 

Disability is far more prevalent and far-reaching than many people realise and particularly 
affects the lower-income population. A quarter of all children living in 
poverty have a disabled parent, and over half of all families with disabled children 
live in or at the margins of poverty.5 Disability prevents significant sections of the 

population from working and engaging as fully as they might in society. Although 
the need to promote early intervention is critical for families, it can be avoided by 
local authorities as the longer they are not involved, the fewer costs they incur. 

Families with dependent and disabled children face particular social exclusion 
challenges and relationships within them are subject to enormous strain 
and are therefore more susceptible to breakdown. Evidence collected also suggests 
a correlation between relationship difficulties and the stress encountered 
in securing the extra care and support required to deal with the disability. 

Role of the tax and benefits system in exacerbating 
family breakdown 

Fractured Families described how, for the most disadvantaged 20% of society, 

with whom this report is primarily concerned, the current tax and benefits system 
discourages openly �living 
together as husband and 
wife� and this is surely 
affecting partnership formation.
6 Currently there is 
something of a �marriage 
gap� in British society. Better 
educated, financially secure 
people are disproportionately 
more likely to get married 
and have their children 
within a stable committed 
relationship (usually marriage) 
than less educated, 
poorer people (Ermisch & 
Murphy 2005). We took evidence 
from many people 
working with people 

entrenched in the most persistent poverty who particularly noted the levels 
and effects of fatherlessness within this population, where it is so easy for a single 
mother to get support, concern and benefits. 

5 Fractured Families p105. 
6 pp89-92. 

One social worker from inner city Glasgow told us that 
�it is almost deviant to be in a two parent 
relationship yet this is not about a lack of resources, 
it�s about an attitude strongly influenced by the fact 
that the current welfare system rewards solo living. 
Single mothers may be able to cope financially and 
emotionally with state support in the early years of 
their children�s lives but in the adolescent years of 
these children�s lives, the lack of a dad and a good male 
role model becomes most pronounced. The mother 
might bring in a father-substitute but this is almost 
always nothing other than second best.� In a career spanning 27 years, none of the children in local authority 
care she worked with had come from a married couple family 
18 

family breakdown: section 1: introduction and state of the nation 

Research backs up their assessment that social services and health visitors did 
not appear to have the will to engage with young fathers, and aspirations of young 
men to be better fathers than they have had themselves are certainly not encouraged 
(Speak et al 1997). The near collapse of marriage in such communities has 
almost completely eroded its function as a meaningful and beneficial life script 
(Hymowitz 2006), especially for men. Early fatherhood does not draw disadvantaged 
young men into dependable and responsible adulthood. A lack of purpose 
continues the cycle of worklessness, addiction and crime. Instead there appears 
to be an easy dependency on the state which people will not willingly give up. This 
is an environment where young women routinely express the attitude that �everyone 
else is a single parent anyway, so what�s the big deal if I become one.� However, 
as the boxed quote from one social worker indicates, the gap left by an absent 
father yawns more, not less, widely with time. 

Lack of choice in childcare 

Getting lone parents and other benefit-dependent adults into work is the best 
route out of poverty, therefore a key part of the strategy to end child poverty. 
However, where children are involved, work is problematised by the need for 
�high-quality affordable childcare�. This phrase is an oxymoron for most parents, 
working or otherwise, without significant government subsidies. The current 
cost of living (eg. the high tax burden on families and high housing and 
childcare costs) make it very difficult either for one parent to stay at home or 
for to parents to manage child-rearing responsibilities where both work. 

The British Social Attitudes Survey 23rd Report (2007) concludes that more 
than eight out of 10 women and men working full time would like to spend 
more time with their family, up from under three-quarters in 1989. The survey 
finds that full and part-time employees, men and women alike, particularly 
struggle in combining their job with family responsibilities. Although working 
hours have fallen slightly for men, an increase in hours worked by women 
means that, overall, the hours being worked in two-earner households have 
risen. At the same time, the pressures of work appear to be increasing, with 
both men and women expected to work harder. 

Many of the organisations and individuals who gave evidence to the 
Commission noted this �time bind� (which affects families across the socioeconomic 
spectrum7) but considered that the current government places far greater 
emphasis on the value of paid work outside the home and far less on the value of 
care provided by at-home parents.Yet a recent EOC survey of 1,200 fathers (whose 
children were aged between three and 15 months) found that almost eight in ten 
working dads said they would like to stay at home and look after their baby.8 

7 La Valle et al 2002 emphasise how many low-income families adopt shift-parenting strategies to 

manage dual-earner work and childcare, decreasing significantly the amount of time couples can 

spend together. 

8 Reported in the Independent, 16 June 2005 �80% of dads would rather stay at home and raise children�. 

19 

Breakthrough Britain 

The Family Breakdown Working 
Group invited many organisations 
to give evidence for the Fractured 
Families report. 


Difficulties of post-separation parenting 

The number of divorces in the UK doubled between 1960 and 1969 and doubled 
again between 1969 and 1972, following the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. In 
2005 the figure stood at 141,750 for England & Wales.9 Current estimates suggest 
that 28% of all children will experience parental divorce by the time they 
are aged 16. As Fractured Families made clear however, of even greater concern 
is the markedly more unstable nature of cohabitation and the growing tendency 
for parents not to live together at all. The Millenium Cohort Study indicates 

that 32% of couples who were either �cohabiting� or �closely 
involved� but not living at the same address, split up before 
their child�s third birthday compared to less than 6% of married 
couples (Benson 2006). Over 80% of children live exclusively 
or mainly with their mother and whilst only one in 10 
parents use the law to sort out contact arrangements, the overwhelming 
majority of applicants for contact with children 
post-separation (between 75% and 86%) are fathers. 

The parent with care is often unhappy with the level and 
reliability of maintenance payments from the non-resident 
parent, whilst the latter often wishes to take issue with the 

level and reliability of contact with the child(ren). Sometimes the non-resident 
parent is expected to pay a high level of maintenance but is allowed 
what they deem to be insufficient contact with the child(ren). Alternatively 
the level of maintenance might take no notice of the not insignificant costs 
whilst child(ren) are living with them. We took evidence from many fathers 
and fathers� organisations (and key organisations campaigning against 
domestic violence) who highlighted what they considered to be significant 
deficiencies in current law and provision. 

Political and legal issues concerning the family 

Our interim report described how political discussion about family breakdown 
is highly charged. The current government�s approach will be described more 
fully in the next chapter but it is sufficient to say here that the last forty years 
have seen sweeping demographic changes which have profoundly affected the 
whole of our society, yet there is no significant debate concerning the causes, 
effects and likely remedies of family breakdown. Its treatment by social policy 
is especially problematic. This is acknowledged by commentators saying 
�Family research and policy work reflect a range of political, moral and academic 
positions and as such are often hotly contested. Thus the potential to 
debate and develop evidence-informed policies could be difficult� (McKie & 
Cunningham-Burley 2005). 

9 ONS 

20 

family breakdown: section 1: introduction and state of the nation 

Fractured Families suggested that in this area, perhaps more 
than in any other, politicians, policy-makers and academics 
inter alia, are aware of their own frailty.10 Personal difficulties 
in sustaining committed relationships or close proximity to 
family breakdown in the lives of family, friends and colleagues, 
have, we feel, clouded policy considerations for too long. A 
robust and ongoing debate on the roots and remedies of family 
breakdown has to take place and be driven by the evidence, 
not personal experience. 

Finally, over the period of the policy group�s deliberations, 
the Law Commission was grappling with the challenges of whether or not to 
recommend changes in the law to alleviate financial hardship suffered by 
cohabitants, or their children, on the termination of their relationship by separation 
or death. We also received submissions from individuals and organisations 
who considered that the current divorce laws are contributing to the high 
rate of divorce in the UK. As a result the working group considered whether or 
not there were problems with the current laws governing intimate relationships. 


Policy recommendations to address all of the above, and other related issues, 
will be outlined after brief treatment is given to the cause of family breakdown 
and the current policy context. 

The couple relationship is at the 
heart of the issue of fractured 
families 


10 p9. 

21 

Section 2 
Causes of family breakdown 
and the approach 
of current policy 

Introduction 

The last section briefly described various facets of the problems of family 
breakdown which have been either been presented as evidence to the working 
group or described in the policy and academic literature. In terms of the roots 
of these problems, Fractured Families carefully described many of the individual, 
couple and family factors as well as social network and environmental factors, 
life events, and social policies and trends. Many of these will be touched 
upon again in this section although the role of current (and recent) social policy 
will receive particular attention when looking at the three main subject 
areas in turn: the sociocultural, economic and political/legal. 

Sociocultural aspects of family breakdown 

Insufficient Services to tackle our growing mental health problems 

The high and complex prevalence of psychosocial (including mental health) 

problems in the population has already been described. Policy in some areas 
has moved in the right 
direction with, for example, 
aspects of the Children�s 

�We need a focus on the early years but we don�t want 

Fund and Extended 

to write off the current generation � 

Schools, but many submis-

Geethika Jayatilaka, Deputy Chief Executive, 4Children 

sions contended that too 
few resources are targeted at 
intervention in the early 
years. We cannot ignore current problems but targeting significant resources 
on young people in order to reduce anti-social behaviour is far less effective 
(and efficient in financial terms) than tackling latent problems in the under 3s. 

The current approach to early years intervention also appears to be focused 
on crime reduction, rather than on profoundly improving life chances. 

22 

family breakdown: section 2: causes of family breakdown and the approach of current policy 

Lord Laming�s 2003 report stated that child protection cannot be separated 
from policies to improve the next generation�s lives as a whole. Implicit in this 
is the need for interagency cooperation which goes beyond the realm of child 
protection. However although the need to cooperate is widely recognised and 
valued, in practice only the police and social workers are doing any significant 
amount of �hands on� joint work. 

Submissions reported a failure to select appropriate staff for caring roles and 
to train them to properly understand such roles. Managers and supervisors are 
not routinely selected for their interpersonal skills, and those working in emotionally 
demanding jobs, such as social work, reported a lack of understanding 
and empathy. The funding of professionals eg. health visitors is being eroded 
by budget cuts. Many working in statutory services dealing with families and 
children feel overwhelmed by bureaucracy, which undermines the vocational 
nature of these caring professions. 

The lack of relationship support 

In 1998, the government consultation paper Supporting Families (Home Ofiice 
1998) proposed a range of sensible measures to strengthen marriages and families. 
These included wider roles for registrars in the provision of marriage preparation 
and information; development of the Surestart scheme to support parents 
in low income communities and formation of the National Family and Parenting 
Institute (NFPI, now renamed FPI). In addition, the government expanded provision 
of parenting programmes, through a DfES parenting fund (currently 
around �13m annually) and commissioned a wide-ranging review of programme 
effectiveness in improving parent-child and child outcomes (Moran et al 2004). 

However, nine years later, very little government policy is directly preventative 
of family breakdown and the rise in lone parent family formation has barely 
abated (see graph). Very few civil registrars signpost couples towards local 
marriage preparation courses. Some who have been approached by local 
providers even appear reluctant. At best, registrar provision of information 
about local courses and their potential benefits is limited and patchy. The 

Surestart initiative has developed into a universal 
programme of Children�s Centres and 
although the Government might argue that Figure 1.2.1: Households with dependent children 
this high profile initiative is a preventative 100% scheme, 
neither Surestart nor Children�s 80% Centres 
include or propose any direct interven60% 
tion 
aimed at reducing family breakdown 
between parents. The Government�s focus is 40% almost 
entirely on remedial counselling and 20% parenting 
education and support is aimed at 
0% those 
with marked problems rather than at 1971 1981 1991 
mainstream families who could benefit from Source: ONS & Estimates 
learning practical skills. 

2001 


Lone parent 
Cohabiting 
Married 

23 

Breakthrough Britain 

This Government started modestly well in terms of its programme of relationship 
support. Following recommendations in the 1999 Hart Report, the 
Lord Chancellor�s Marriage and Relationship Support fund distributed �5m 
annually to family support charities (see Hart 1999). In 2002, the Lord 
Chancellor�s AGMARS group highlighted and reinforced the need for a greater 
emphasis on preventative relationship education accessible at key life stages. 
The aims of both Hart and AGMARS were well supported by a solid evidence 
base. However government interest appears to have waned markedly with the 
marriage and relationship component of the �17m DfES Children and Young 
People Fund now under �4m per year, little of which can reasonably be 
described as funding preventative work. In addition, for example, Relate�s 
funding has declined in consecutive years. 

Yet family breakdown costs the taxpayer �20-24 billion each year.11 
Government spending on the prevention of family breakdown equates to less 
than 0.02% � one 5000th � of what is spent on the consequences. As one service 
provider whose funding had been cut told us �When the room is flooded, it 
surely makes sense to invest some effort in turning off the tap.� The emphasis 
of this government (which is consistent with that of the previous administration) 
indicates a pervasive view that mainstream family breakdown is somewhat 
inevitable. 

Disability 

Benefits and facilities available to people with disabilities and parents with 
dependent, disabled children are not easily identified, and access points are 
almost always in a bewildering variety of locations. Respite care is perceived by 
service providers in the sector to be the best protective factor against carer 
�burn-out� but is not universally provided because of costs and scarcity of supply. 
The cheaper solution of using (and paying) close relatives and trusted 
friends is not a permitted alternative to state-provided short breaks.The 
Direct Payment system has been shown to assist many families but it is similarly 
at the discretion of local authorities, heavily controlled by them and not 
always implemented when it would be appropriate but there are insufficient 
funds. Bottlenecks exist in the system, such as the need to access local authority 
services through a social worker. 

The costs of caring for a disabled child can be significantly greater than for 
an able-bodied child, making it harder to make ends meet without both parents 
working. However childcare is much harder to find, much more expensive 
and places are not expanding at a significant rate. All of these additional stressors 
place significant strain on the relationships within families coping with 
disability. Innovative and effective policy strategies have been developed to 
help alleviate many of these disadvantages and, in many cases, requirements 

11 Fractured Families pp67-68. 

24 

family breakdown: section 2: causes of family breakdown and the approach of current policy 

have been placed on local authorities to implement them. However it is this 
implementation at the local authority level which tends to be problematic 
whether due to a lack of resources or to the need to prioritise areas which have 
a higher salience, such as child protection. 

Economic aspects of family breakdown 

Disincentives to form committed relationships in the benefits system 

Any consideration of the economics of family breakdown has to begin with a 
recognition of the significant challenges to family life which people on low and 
severely low incomes face on a daily basis. In Fractured Families we quoted 
respected scholar, Theodora Ooms, who stated 

�Low-income families, especially those who reside in poverty neighbour


hoods, are daily exposed to a variety of experiences that place extraordi


nary stress on the couple and family relationships. In addi


tion to the constant stress of making ends meet financially, 

and of working in unstable, low paying jobs, they have the 

frustrations of living in sub-standard housing in poorly serv


iced neighbourhoods, without adequate transportation, and 

they and their children are continually in fear of crime and 

violence. Members of their immediate or extended families 

may be struggling with depression, alcoholism or drug abuse, 

HIV/AIDS, or may be in and out of jail or some combina


tion of those problems. Domestic violence is more prevalent 

in low-income households. Service providers who work with 

these couples note how often these accumulated stresses spill over into 

home, and anger and frustration too often poison their relationships 

between parents and children.� (Ooms 2002) 

However, over the lifetime of this working group we have been concerned by 
the extent to which it appears that the current benefits system incentivises 
lone parenthood and acts as a driver towards family breakdown. It is currently 
the case that the tax system is based on individual assessment, but the benefits/
tax credit system is based on joint or family assessment. This combination 
acts against interdependence between couples and encourages solo living. 
Basing both of these systems on the same assessment criteria needs to be investigated 
as a long term task for future deliberation by those with the appropriate 
expertise. 

Fractured Families laid bare the established benefits of stable, committed and 
healthy adult relationships for children, adults and the wider society. However, 
rather than it being supported, couples who marry are penalised by the current 
tax credits system. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that, taken as a 
whole, these welfare benefits penalise the vast majority of intact couples because 

Mental health impacts 
relationships 


25 

Breakthrough Britain 

they get more money from the Government if they separate, than if they live 

openly together.12 Towards the lower end of the income scale, where families may 

be struggling to make ends meet, there is an incentive to act fraudulently by pretending 
to be a lone parent when cohabitation is actually taking place, and a definite 
disincentive to marry and make a co-residential arrangement unambiguous. 
(The IFS estimate that the Government is paying tax credits and benefits to 
200,000 more lone parents than live in the UK). Comparative European research 
indicates that welfare benefits can drive up lone parent family formation and 
encourage solo living (Gonzalez 2006). This discourages fathers from living with 
their children and reduces the incentive to try to make a relationship work, when 
it may be only temporarily undergoing some strain. 

Trends in work and childcare which potentially weaken family ties 

The knowledge that �the quality of childcare has lifelong consequences for 
mental health,� (Sunderland 2006) is not taken into sufficient consideration 
when defining policies to support and nurture the population. Economic priorities 
such as the drive to encourage single parents to work at ever earlier 
stages of children�s lives take precedence over the knowledge that the first three 
years of a child�s life are crucial for healthy neurological development and 
therefore psychological stability. As the later report from the Economic 
Dependency working group makes clear, there have to be clear exit routes out 
of welfare dependency, which are obviously bound up with the economic self-
sufficiency that comes from working (Economic dependency and worklessness 
paper, section 2.4.2: Work Expectations). However, we are also concerned with 
the more pervasive current bias against family and other types of informal care 
and towards state-provided childcare. 

Close relatives, such as grandparents, are legally able to look after children but 
not to receive childcare tax credit. The Government appears to be nurturing a 
dependence on state-sector childcare provision which appears to be at odds with 
women�s preference for informal care (and recent reports suggest low take-up of 
existing places despite the fact that the birthrate has risen to its highest level since 
1992, with 1.79 children per woman13). 

It is also undermining the economic viability of private, voluntary and independent 
childcare provision. Representatives of these nurseries described the 
pressures on them generated by a large increase in state provision of childcare 
places often introduced without a rigorous audit of local demand. Recent 
reports indicate that supply may greatly exceed that demand. State provision is 
subsidized so existing local nurseries, obliged to charge full costs for childcare, 
are placed at such a disadvantage that their rolls often fall below sustainable 
limits and they are forced to close. 

12 IFS (2006), �Government paying tax credits and benefits to 200,000 more lone parents than live in 
the UK�, Press Release 12 March. 
13 Times, April 30, 2007, �Nurseries feel pinch as mothers stay home�. 

26 

family breakdown: section 2: causes of family breakdown and the approach of current policy 

Additional stress on post-separation families due to current service deficiencies 

The financial and legal consequences of our high rates of family breakdown 
make it untenable for the state to neglect to perform the preventative role we 
advocate throughout this report. However, issues arising out of separation cannot 
be neglected either, partly because they contribute to the breakdown of 
subsequent family units. The CSA is almost universally criticised but recent UK 
research finds strong evidence that the large child support liabilities, arising 
from the 1992 rules, significantly reduced the risk of separation (Walker & 
Zhu 2006). Indeed, the results are big enough to explain all of the approximately 
15% fall in divorce rate for parents with dependent children that has 
occurred since 1992. However the researchers believe this effect would have 
been much larger if the CSA had been more effective at achieving payment 
compliance from non-resident parents, usually fathers and, despite its best 
efforts, many children still do not receive maintenance payments from nonresident 
parents. 

The restyled CSA, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission 
will still focus most attention on the transfer of cash between parents. 
Although the recent review by David Henshaw suggested that the C-MEC was 
uniquely placed to provide separating parents with information eg about benefits, 
nowhere in the related White Paper was there explicit reference to the 
need to signpost parents towards services which might help them to avoid the 
breakdown of subsequent partnering relationships. Similarly, qualitative 
research indicates that many people who have initiated family breakdown 
would have found it helpful to have been warned about the harsh realities of 
post-separation/divorce family life (Walker 2001, Walker et al 2004). 

Enforcement of child support is still not sufficiently robust and there is still 
not an explicitly stated principle that everyone who is a parent of a child will 
be unable to walk away from those responsibilities without paying ongoing 
costs. The White Paper allows for certain exemptions (of students and those on 
very low incomes indeed) but these are questionable on the grounds that they 
send the signal that some parents will not be held liable. 

Separated partners are often struggling to come to amicable arrangements 
for the care of children and the division of assets but there is insufficient support 
to help people navigate the legal maze and they are often forced to seek 
help in a fragmented system, offering services that are not coordinated. This 
can lead to considerable additional stress and cost to the state. The present system 
for dealing with conflict resolution is unnecessarily over-reliant on the 
court service and the legal profession and new approaches are needed to implement 
alternative dispute resolution services, such as conciliation and mediation. 
This is especially important in the light of forthcoming changes to the 
legal aid system which could greatly reduce the availability of legal services for 
low income people. 

27 

Breakthrough Britain 

Political and Legal aspects of family breakdown 

Legal issues surrounding marriage, divorce and cohabitation 

In addition to the legal issues just mentioned, the Commission received a lot of 

evidence regarding changes to the law surrounding adult intimate relationships. 
In particular there were requests for legal reforms to 
make divorce harder in order to combat its continuing high 
rates in the UK. After our interim report, Fractured Families, 
was published, we received submissions from learned and 
well-regarded figures pointing out that nowhere had we called 
for divorce reform. In the relevant section of our proposals we 
discuss this issue further. 


At the inception of the Commission we were also asked to 
consider the legal position of cohabitants and their children 
who form a large percentage of families in the UK today. This 
family form must therefore be given proportional recognition 
within the formation of an integrated set of policies to prevent and mitigate 
the effects of family breakdown (not least because of its significant instability). 
Cohabitation raises several important, complex and wide ranging issues 
regarding the potential effects of the equalisation of statutory rights with married 
couples and civil partners, such as the further devaluation of the institution 
of marriage, the loss of the right to choose not to enter into a legally binding 
relationship, changes in the distribution of assets etc. 

The political status quo and its effectiveness at preventing family breakdown 

Our interim report talked at some length about the evolution, since 1997, from 
a marriage-centred family policy towards a child-centred policy,14 and the 
rather evasive use of language which characterises public discussion on the 
family. Official discourse (and government forms) increasingly avoids using 
terms specifically associated with marriage, such as �married�, �marital status�, 
�husband� or �wife� and instead prefers supposedly neutral terms such as �couple� 
or �partner�. However this ignores not only the differences in outcomes 
between marriage and cohabitation but also the enduring aspirations of adults 
and young people to marry mentioned earlier. 

Relationships between adults have to be included as a key concern of family 
policy rather than of peripheral interest as is currently the case. This should 
not push concerns about children�s welfare off the agenda, but children�s welfare 
is tightly bound up with the quality of their parents� relationships and they 
are, often, the most vulnerable when families break down. As Penny Mansfield 
says, �Whilst there is ample evidence that the quality of parental relationships 
is a critical social factor for children, politicians, policy makers and practitioners 
are wary of adult relationships. Current policy mainly addresses families as 

14 pp92-95. 

28 

family breakdown: section 2: causes of family breakdown and the approach of current policy 

individuals, ignoring the defining feature of adult life, for good and ill, interdependence� 
(Mansfield 2004). Child-centred policies which do not adequately 
recognise this, will not best serve the children they purport 
to serve, the wider family, or society itself. It was for this reason 
that we aimed to construct truly family-centred policies 
which aimed to deliver greater stability and more robust relationships. 


However, in so doing, we have been very concerned to avoid 
current policy�s tendency to ignore the dictum that �a sound 
polity has to be built around respect for the autonomy and privacy 
of the private realm� (Dench 2003). In order to build 
stronger families, which will be less prone to dissolution, dysfunction 
and dad-lessness, in many ways we need to give 
responsibility back to the families rather than impose �good practice� from the 
centre. We also want to acknowledge from the outset that many families and 
parents do a good job, and that our proposals aim to build on their work, not 
to supplant it. We are certainly not recommending greater state intervention in 
the family, and would argue the need to �roll back� that frontier. 

Conclusion 

Before further outlining the 
objectives of our policies, 

�This government has been characterised by a 

we would like to restate the 

reluctance to pronounce on the superiority of any 

defining position of 

form of personal relationships�.. However, at times 

Fractured Families, which is 

this reluctance to adjudicate between different types of 

that some family types, on 

relationship has threatened to collapse and the result 

average, result in better out-

has been dissent in government and incoherence in 

comes for children and 

policy�

adults than others. We reject 

Durham 2001 

the comfortable mantra that 
policy can or should be 
wholly morally neutral on 
the grounds that this is unworkable in practice. In Fractured Families, (p21) we 
quoted Geoff Mulgan who said �we need to rescue back from the right the 
insight that politics and policy are fundamentally moral activities and that they 
are most likely to succeed when they both resonate with and help to shape the 
moral metaphors through which the public see the world.�The policy-making 
community (which includes politicians, policy-makers and academics) has 
been markedly reluctant to grasp the nettle of family breakdown by being clear 
about the benefits of marriage and committed relationships, and the merits of 
supporting and encouraging them. Having made that charge, it was therefore 
incumbent on us to avoid the same error. 

Separation is a reality of our 
times. 


29 

Section 3 
Objectives of Policy 
Recommendations 

Protecting families during times 
of vulnerability 


According to Professor Brenda Almond, �the threat to human 
communities and their continuity represented by the decline 
and fragmentation of the family poses the greatest long-term 
challenge facing Western countries.� (Almond 2006:21) As 
such, and as we have already stated, our headline policy aim is 
to build stronger families. Any state support should be provided 
in a way that encourages family networks to be self-supporting 
and well-rooted in the community and further 
strengthens the many families which are under pressure, but 
currently working well. Underneath this overarching theme sit 
the following objectives: 

Better facilitate family stability and minimise family breakdown 
by encouraging healthy family relationships 

z 
Our high levels of family breakdown across the socioeconomic spectrum 
indicate that many people are struggling to sustain healthy relationships. 
Pressures associated with poverty and with the �time famine� in which 
many relationships are played out, exacerbate but do not exclusively cause 
these relational problems. 

z 
Increasing numbers of parents are uncertain as to how best to raise their 
children, where the limits of their authority lie and how to set and maintain 
boundaries in a social context that seems to be constantly shifting. 

z 
A tiny percentage of government money is spent on the prevention of family 
breakdown in comparison with the cost it incurs on society and with 
remedial provision 

z 
Service provision is geared towards helping people to pick up the pieces of 
their lives post-separation, rather than doing all that is possible to prevent 
breakdown from happening in the first place 

z 
The new-styled Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission continues 
to emphasise cash transfers between parents and is missing valuable opportunities 
to access people who are most likely to have serial partnerships and 
in many cases, more children, whose support may also become a issue. 

30 

family breakdown: section 3: objectives of policy recommendations 

Build relational competence 

z 
Many low-income communities have seen a collapse in marriage and committed 
relationships to the extent that many couples today (disproportionately 
more than in mainstream society) have no role model of permanence 
or exclusivity. 
z 
These communities are characterised by high expectations and low capacities15 
� people want their partners to meet all their emotional needs but 
they struggle themselves to manage relationships and offer unconditional 
love, especially when it is not something they have experienced. Moreover, 
domestic violence, crime, poverty and addiction corrode the social capital 
of these neighbourhoods. 
z 
Prisoners are especially disadvantaged in this area and yet a respected longitudinal 
study (Laub and Sampson 2003) of juvenile delinquents showed 
that re-offending rates were far lower among young men who formed 
committed, lasting relationships upon completing their sentences. 
z 
Breaking the cycle of disadvantage is essential when it is considered that 
25% of young offenders are already fathers and 45% of prisoners lose contact 
with their families whilst on the inside 
z 
We cannot do that without making tackling the high prevalence of psychosocial 
(and mental health) problems 

Focus on the first three years of children�s lives and assist families during other 
periods of vulnerability (which may be prolonged eg. when disability is a factor) 

z 
The nurture received by a child in the first 36 months can have lifelong 
consequences for mental health. Parents from dysfunctional families often 
struggle to provide this, perpetuating disadvantage. 

z 
Family relationships suffer because of the strain placed upon them fighting 
for appropriate care, help and support for a member (or multiple 
members) of a family with a disability 

z 
Wide discrepancies in access to disability support services exist between 
and within local authorities. 

z 
Unequal access to services, perpetuates and further entrenches existing 
social exclusion 

Maximise community-level support and minimise dependence on the state 

z 
Extended family relationships are breaking down and the state provides 
little or no support and encouragement for them to flourish 

z 
For example, childcare arrangements are biased away from informal care 
from close relatives and towards formal state provision. Family carers are 
undervalued in our society and receive a disproportionately low level of 
financial support given the many hours of work that they do 

See papers from the Fragile Families Study at http://crcw.princeton.edu/fragilefamilies/index.htm 

31 

Breakthrough Britain 

z 
Parenting and relationship support could be far more grounded in local 
communities, with voluntary and community sector providers making a 
much greater contribution than they do at present, thus shifting away the 
current bias towards professional service provision where appropriate 

Send the message that every family matters, an essential complement to the 
more usual slogan that �every child matters� 

z 
The politically �safe� emphasis on the parent-child relationship is ignoring 
a crucial dimension of child well-being, as identified by the recent 
UNICEF (2005) report. British children score lowest in terms of the quality 
of family relationships due to the high proportion of single parent and 
step families. 

z 
Usually headed by mothers, these family forms are concentrated in financially 
disadvantaged communities so children are subject to multiple disadvantage. 
Although routes into lone parenthood vary greatly, such mothers 
are often less established in their own identities, less educated, poorer 
and, most importantly, are struggling to fill the shoes of absent fathers. 

z 
Too many fathers are missing out on an essential facet of adulthood, the 
need to be actively engaged in raising the next generation 

z 
Focusing exclusively on poverty and neglecting the couple relationship at 
the heart of the family will never shift these statistics. 

Create a positive policy bias in support of marriage 

z 
Marriage has been downgraded in official discourse. Neither the terminology 
that is currently used nor the way that statistics are increasingly being 
collected, differentiate between different types of couples, despite the 
marked discrepancies in the stability of married and cohabiting couples 

z 
Individual assessment in the tax system tilts it against marriage and interdependency 
and the tax credits system disincentivises adults from openly 
living together because of the premiums it pays to lone parents 
(with the result that 60% of children in poverty are in couple 
families) 

This report includes measures intended to prevent family 
breakdown and those involving intervention to alleviate the 
effects of it (whether this applies to personal psychosocial 
problems or relationship/family difficulties.) However, it is 
most helpful to see such measures as a continuum at both the 
individual and family level, anticipating or identifying difficulties 
early, providing appropriate support to tackle problems as 
early as possible and then more specialist support, where problems are severe 

or the family unit has broken down. 

Supporting marriage. 


32 

Section 4 
Policy Recommendations 

Sociocultural aspects of family breakdown 

Chapter 1 
Coordinated well-being and improving mental health 

1.0 Introduction 
The importance of family well-being 

Britain currently has high levels of child and adult psychological problems16 and the 

recent UNICEF report found the well-being of children in the UK to be the lowest 
of the affluent countries in the world (UNICEF 2007). One in ten children have a 
diagnosable mental health or conduct disorder (Collishaw et al 2004, Meltzer et al 
2000). Just as worryingly, bullying 
and self-harm, both 
recognised measures of children�s 
lack of ability to cope 
with distress and psychological 
pain, are on the increase. 
These trends are accompanied 
by high levels of child 
abuse and neglect, youth violence 
and anti-social behaviour, 
violent crime and sexual 
offences as Fractured Families 

indicated.17 

16 
For example we are considered to be a high-antidepressant use country and consume a high level of 
anxiolytic and hypnotic medication, in comparison with the rest of Europe. 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2001/monitoring/fp_monitoring_2001_frep_06_en.pdf 
accessed 18th May 07. 

17 
See sections C3 and D2 . 

The YouGov poll carried out for this Policy Group (Apr-May 2007) 
indicated that the public understands the link between mental health 
problems and other social ills: 
More than two thirds of those expressing an opinion agreed with the 
statement �a large proportion of people who commit crimes are 
actually suffering from mental health problems. If we did more to 
address mental health we would end up cutting crime in the long run� 
and 77% of those expressing an opinion agreed or strongly agreed 
that there should be alternatives to the criminal justice system for 
people with mental health problems who commit crime 
33 

Breakthrough Britain 

As many as one in three GP visits are for symptoms of depression and prescriptions 
for SSRIs (antidepressants) rose by 10% last year from 14.7m to 
16.2m. This is in spite of NICE guidelines that antidepressants should not be 
used as first-line therapy for mild to moderate depression, and that patients 
should instead be initially offered guided self-help and psychological therapies. 
The chair of the Royal College of GPs said that GPs do not over-readily prescribe 
but �the real story is the lack of access to services such as talking therapies 
and the long waiting lists for these.�18 

Our ability to address the increasingly complex psychological needs of families 
and children is undermined by the lack of cohesive training for professionals 
in our public services, including social workers. Lord Laming stated 
that child protection cannot be separated from policies to improve the next 
generation�s lives as a whole, implicit in which is the need for inter-agency 
cooperation (Laming 2003). Although the need to cooperate to formulate 
strategies is widely recognised and valued, in practice this is not occurring in 
as informed a way as it should. It has been suggested that �only the police and 
social workers are doing any significant amounts of �hands on� joint work, indicating 
an overemphasis on child protection as opposed to family support,� 
(Birchall & Hallett, 1995). 

The first three years 

The experience of children and particularly the quality of parenting in the first 

three years are now known to be important determinants of neurological 
development of children 
(Swain et al, 2007, Feldman, 
2007) and to have lifelong 
consequences for mental 
health (Sunderland 2006). 
Early optimal care-giving 
relationships promote emotional 
well-being, social 
competence, cognitive functioning 
and resilience in the 

face of adversity (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997). Parents are �the architects of the 
way experience influences the unfolding of genetically pre-programmed but 
experience-dependant brain development.� (Goldsmith et al, 1997) 

There is some evidence that long periods of childcare outside the family 
before a child is three can be associated with behavioural and emotional difficulties 
(see Chapter 5), and more consideration needs to be given to this 
when setting policies which will impact the level of support and nurture 
young children receive. Many groups we consulted (such as What about the 

After a 10 year immersion in thousands of scientific papers in 
neurobiology, psychology and infant development, Dr Alan Schore 
(Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA) 
concluded that the child�s first relationship, [usually] the one with the 
mother, acts as a template [and]�.permanently moulds the individual�s 
capacity to enter into all later emotional relationships 
34 
18 BBC Health, 15/5/07. 


family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

According to the Children�s Commissioner for England, Sir Al Aynsley 
Green (Queens Award Lecture, Loughborough University, 23rd May 
2007) these are the dimensions of nurture 
..Love and care 
..Physical contact, warmth & comfort 
..Security and stability 
..Good nutrition 
..Safeguarding and protection from harm 
..Play, exploration, encouragement, managed risk 
..Moral boundaries, expectation and purpose in life 
..Education 
Children?) expressed the view that economic priorities such as the drive to 
encourage single parents to work at ever earlier stages of children�s lives 
appear to have taken precedence, and access to the high quality childcare 
facilities which can offset many of the disadvantages of group care, is still 
limited. 

Current Policy 

We welcome the Children�s Fund and Extended Schools, but we consider 
that insufficient resources 
are targeted at the early 
years. Moreover, where 
prevention has been 
emphasised it has tended 
to be concerned with 
health and education targets 
rather than on those 
concerned with psychological 
well-being. Arguably 
too much emphasis has 
been placed on punitive 
responses to anti-social 
behaviour (although we 
welcome measures proposed 
in the 2006 Respect Action Plan to support parents, such as the 
establishment of the National Academy of Parenting Practitioners). 

Policies to support families should aim to: 

z 
Build on what is already being done by way of effective intervention in our 
communities; 
z 
Pilot effectively in real world contexts before wide scale dissemination; 
z 
Begin interventions in pregnancy or even earlier and continue thereafter; 
z 
Be proactive and universal in order to promote the well-being of all, while 
identifying those with problems; 
z 
Selectively target those with problems and provide evidence-based proactive 
interventions adequate to meet the needs; 
z 
React immediately and appropriately to prevent recurrence of identified 
problems. 

In this chapter on well-being, we emphasise the need for better access to services, 
very early interventions, better integrated services, appropriate training 
and supervision of professionals, and sufficient funding to meet these objectives. 
We recommend the following: 

35 

Breakthrough Britain 

1.1 Promotion of the concept of the Family Services Hub 
The concept of the Family Services Hub underpins many of the recommendations 
throughout this report. Family Services Hubs of various kinds would facilitate 
the proposals on well-

Of those expressing an opinion, three quarters of those polled 
(YouGov Survey for SJPG April-May 2007) agreed or strongly agreed 
that public money should be spent on community-based centres 
which parents can visit if they want advice or guidance on parenting 
being in this chapter, as well 
as providing central access 
points to our proposed 
schemes for strengthening 
families in Chapter 2, providing 
a one-stop shop for 
information and services for disabled families in Chapter 3, and supporting families 
post-separation in Chapter 6. Taken together, we are suggesting a significant 
enhancement of current, community-based service provision as well as a greater 
degree of integration of services to maximise efficiency and coordination of professionals 
in the interests of the nation�s families. What we are recommending is 
that in each neighbourhood19 there be a hub or �nerve centre� of services. All of 

the services which we consider necessary need not be located within a single 
building or site in a neighbourhood, but there should be an access point to which 
people can go in order to be signposted onto the correct provider. 

In highlighting that every family matters � as well as every child � we wish to 
see a significant improvement in the range, quality and accessibility of services to 
every family. Rather than prescribe exactly how Family Services Hubs should be 
set up, we propose that each local authority be required by law to provide or facilitate 
the full complement of community-based services which we have outlined 
in these chapters, but are given a high degree of autonomy in how they deliver 
them. Working closely with bodies like their Local Partnership Board, they will 
enable access to an enhanced range of services, home visiting programmes and 
mutual signposting, through whatever facilities are already working well. (An 
example of good practice in this area can be found in Nottingham where the local 
authority is working in conjunction with the local strategic partnership (headed 
by Labour MP, Graham Allen) to develop an integrated package of early interventions 
and programmes for children at every stage to make them ready for school, 
work and to become parents themselves.) 

Making the most of existing facilities 

These existing facilities include (but are not limited to) existing GP surgeries, 
Children�s Centres, health clinics, Extended Schools, register offices, community 
centres and Citizens Advice Bureaux. New infrastructure could include one-stop 
shops for disability services, (such as mobile clinics, see Chapter 3) the Australian 
model of Family Relationship Centres or the Croydon model of Family Justice 
Centres (see Chapter 6). In practice, Children�s Centres and Extended Schools are 
likely to feature most prominently as Family Services Hubs, as by 2010 there are 

19 
Local authorities, working in conjunction with their Partnership Boards would be in the best place 
to delimit �neighbourhoods� within their boundaries. 

36 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

The original Commission on Social Justice stated that 
�If current cuts were reversed supportive community 
networks could be built around midwives, health 
visitors and GPs; playgroups and parent-and-toddler 
groups; childminders and nurseries; schools and after-
schools groups; parks, playgrounds and holiday 
schemes; youth clubs and youth organisations, 
children�s facilities within sports centres, supermarkets 
and shopping centres and so on.� Hewitt & Leach 1993:14 
expected to be 3,500 Children�s Centres and all schools will be obliged to offer 
extended services. 

Local authorities would be 
required to ensure that a 
well-specified list of services 
be delivered, maximise the 
coordination of services and 
work with health authorities 
etc to provide adequate 
training and supervision for 
professionals where necessary. 
We would recommend 
that they co-locate services 
wherever practical, and work 
with the public, private and 
voluntary sectors to determine 
how to deliver those services. Child and adult mental health services, health 
visitors and social workers should ideally be co-located or closely linked with 
providers of relationship support. We therefore aim to build on the Surestart idea 
of centralised access to services and outreach, be much more prescriptive about 
the menu of services required, but much less prescriptive about the required 
infrastructure. The implications of this greater load on local authorities should be 
thoroughly thought through by an Implementation Working Party which would 
include appropriately senior members of the Local Government Association. 

The importance of Children�s Centres and Extended Schools 

Children�s Centres and primary schools should be the focus of as much parent


ing support as possible.20 A greatly reduced emphasis on the provision of child


care in Children�s Centres will release space and resources for other services for 
parents. (We discuss our proposals for greater choice in childcare and home 
care in Chapter 5.) The importance of the existing school infrastructure for 
supporting an enormous range of adult learning cannot be overestimated. 

Example: Bromley Children�s Project has been working with partner agencies 
for 10 years to evolve a range of services that children and parents say will 
make a difference. Five �hubs� have been established which provide a good 
model for what we are proposing. Sixteen primary schools have become welcoming 
family and learning centres offering cr�ches and a wide range of courses, 
training, individual help and services for the whole family. Workers are 
attached to geographic clusters of schools. Because families consistently determine 
and monitor all provision, it continues to be appropriate, effective and 
well attended (3000 children and their families are directly involved each year), 

We note that the 2006 Respect Action Plan states that �20 million will be invested in piloting a new 
school-based outreach role - Parent School Advisers - to intervene early in supporting children and 
families where there are signs of problems. We would anticipate that, if pilots are successful, such figures 
could be essential personnel working with (and linking schools to) the Family Services Hubs. 


37 

Breakthrough Britain 

�Mental, emotional and social health should be at the 
heart of schools� Weare 2000 
with clear evidence of 
achievement, progression 
and strengthened communities. 
Families are able to 
identify difficulties and 
access appropriate help 
before problems become 

embedded, thus reducing demands on more expensive statutory services. 
We recommend that schools be drawn into a national initiative to improve 

mental health in several ways: 

z 
Pre/primary/secondary school programmes to help develop emotional 
intelligence eg. Roots of Empathy21 (for others see Hosking & Walsh 2005). 

z 
Other programmes can help children understand about change and loss, 
whether through bereavement or family breakdown. One such programme, 
Seasons for Growth,22 has proven effective in building resilience 
and emotional maturity and in decreasing isolation, in children of all ages. 

z 
Anti-bullying strategies and programmes need to take more account of the 

latest research and developments. Currently programmes are often targeted 
on the victim and on 
�raising awareness�. 
However, it is equally 
important to make the 
whole school environment 
one in which people nurture 
each other, which requires 
identifying bullies as early as 
possible, and instituting 
effective intervention strategies, 
including referral to 
more specialist psychological 
services when necessary 

A survey of 11- to 16-year-olds for the NSPCC found 42% of children 
had been hit, punched or kicked at school and almost one in 10 had 
been attacked with a weapon or object 
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/mediabriefings/policy/bullying_wda45645.html 
Childline announced a 42% increase in the number of children 
counselled by the charity about bullying and said this single issue now 
accounts for 1 in 4 calls it receives - over 31,000 in the past year. 
http://www.childline.org.uk/Bullying-biggesteverriseincalls.asp accessed 19/5/07 
(eg. programmes designed by the UK Observatory for the Promotion of 
Non-Violence23 based at the University of Surrey). 

Importance of outreach 

However, we also note the importance of outreach emphasised by organisations 
like Parentline Plus and recommend that this is a priority of the hubs. 
Dorit Braun, Chief Executive says24 �A huge problem for government is that 

21 http://www.rootsofempathy.org 
22 www.seasonsforgrowth.co.uk 
23 http://www.ukobservatory.com/index.html 
24 Guardian 25th April 2007. 
25 Although they currently run five local hubs on a shoestring budget of �200k each per year. 

38 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

generally they want people to �turn up�. For instance, to get Jobseeker�s 
Allowance you turn up at the jobcentre and go through a process that, bureaucratically 
and administratively, opens up other avenues. Now government is 
seeking to create an equivalent in parenting support, but � although the 
Government is intending for Children�s Centres and schools to become key 
arenas there will always be parents who won�t go. We trudge streets and estates 
leafleting, knocking on doors. We go wherever people have to go as part of 
their daily life. We work with people no one else is reaching.� 

Cost implications 

Since each local authority would be able to make use of existing local facilities � such 
as Children�s Centres, health clinics and Extended Schools � the need for new infrastructure 
will be minimal in some places. Costs will comprise re-location & co-location 
of professionals and provision of new programmes. Additional central government 
grants would be available when new builds are deemed necessary (see Chapter 
6), for the higher anticipated numbers of health care professionals (see later) and for 
the roll out of cost-effective voluntary sector provision described in Chapter 2. 

We asked the Bromley Children�s Project to estimate full running costs of one 
multi-agency community-based family support �hub� and with their figure of 
�517,000,25 we estimate that to spread similar hubs throughout the country 
would cost �86m.26 

1.2 Greater emphasis on supporting parents in the very 
early years 
Over the course of the Commission we have become aware of many organisations 
and programmes developed in response to research indicating the 
importance of the first three years of a child�s life. Before going on to describe 
how more health professionals could be trained to deliver these essential services, 
it must be said that the voluntary sector has a strong role to play. The preventative 
interventions of organisations like OXPIP27 and PIPPIN,28 whose pri


mary aim is give babies a 
secure and loving start in 
life by providing therapeutic 
support for vulnerable parents, 
do much to promote 
the lifelong emotional 
health of infants and can 
transform the emotional 
landscape of their carers. 

MacLeod and Nelson (2000) studied 56 separate programmes 
designed to promote family wellness and prevent abuse.They found 
that, to a very large extent the programmes worked, and the earlier 
the intervention the better. What worked best were programmes 
which took a positive approach to the parents and built on their preexisting 
strengths. Programmes whose style was to criticise 
weaknesses were much less successful. 
26 
The Surestart 2006 Cost Effectiveness report has shown how medium and larger centres use their 
overheads more efficiently and much of this would comprise co-location of existing services. 

27 
www.oxpip.org.uk 

28 
www.pippin.org.uk 

39 

Breakthrough Britain 

�Health visitors meet a demand that really does cross 
all classes and backgrounds. Problems around child 
development, postnatal depression, child abuse and 
good parenting are not confined to the poor and 
excluded - far from it.� Society Guardian 23rd May 2007 
Both organisations directly help vulnerable parents and parents-to-be and provide 
training for health care and social services professionals so that they in 
turn will be able help (prospective and actual) parents to build strong nurturing 
relationships with their infants. Evaluations of their work testify to its effectiveness, 
and the heightened national awareness of the critical importance of 
early infant attachment, due in no small part to the work of such organisations, 
compels us to recommend that Family Services Hubs draw on their expertise. 

Enhanced role for health visitors 

At the present moment, important preventative resources are being eroded by 
both policy and budget cuts. Health visiting services in particular are being 
significantly reduced, insufficient numbers are being trained and the profession 
is becoming increasingly demoralised. The Family and Parenting 

Institute recently reported 
that health visitors were 
becoming an endangered 
species and that numbers 
are in �freefall�. Yet 76% of 
parents want health visitors 
and 83% would like home 
visits from health visitors 
(Gimson, 2007). 

We recommend that 
funding be provided for intensive home visiting during pregnancy and infancy 
in order to promote and facilitate family and child health, development, 
resilience and mental health. Currently home visiting programmes by health 
visitors seem to exist in some parts of the country but not others. We welcome 
the recent announcement that the Nurse-Family Partnership of Professor 
David Olds is being piloted in the UK (described in more detail below) but 
share the concern of organisations like the Family and Parenting Institute29 that 
such services are �only for a tiny proportion of the population �. a strong universal 
offer is critical for the majority of families who also need support and 
parenting help from health visitors.� An emphasis on the very early years of a 
child�s life cannot be confined to those children who are at most risk of social 
exclusion and turning to criminality. The future mental health of a much 
higher percentage of the population would be distinctly improved by focusing 
resources and attention here, and the role of health visitor needs to be protected 
and developed with increased numbers, direct entry and appropriate training. 


A preventative and supportive universal home visit service has merit for its own 

sake. Such a programme will also allow early identification of those needing more 

intensive help, with improved consequences for family well-being later on. Whilst 

40 
29 See Guardian 16th May 07 �Unborn babies targeted in crackdown on criminality�. 


family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

wishing to learn from the results of the pilots, and not to preempt 
the findings, we would would provisionally but strongly 
recommend that the Nurse-Family Partnership approach be 
adopted as a matter of priority throughout the country. This 
programme trains nurses to act effectively as a life coach for the 
parents, creating a high level of trust between nurse and family. 
Far from feeling �nannied� or undermined in their role, mothers 
report a strong bond with their nurses, who provide them with a 
level of support which many have never experienced in their lives 
before. 

Other models exist, such as the Sunderland Infant Programme (see Hosking 
&Walsh 2005:50), which points to a new and very important role for health visitors, 
as infant mental health workers. A health visitor working on the programme said 
their practice has changed 
�dramatically�, with a deeper 

Evaluation of the Nurse-Family Partnership 

understanding of the impor-

Compared to control group-counterparts, 15 year-old children of low


tance of the emotional aspects 

income, unmarried mothers who had been in the programme thirteen 

of health and secure attach-

years earlier, had 56% fewer emergency room visits where injuries 

ment and the detrimental 

were detected; a 79% reduction in child maltreatment; 56% fewer 

effects of insecure attach-

arrests & 81% fewer convictions among adolescents; 40% lower 

ments. Approaches should be 

cigarette consumption; 56% lower behavioural problems due to drug 

theory-based, using evidence-

and alcohol consumption and 63% fewer sexual partners (Olds, 1997). 

based methods at every stage, 
be appropriate in intensity of 
intervention during pregnan-

In the US they have found that for every dollar invested at the pre-

cy and the early years, be 

kindergarten stage, there is at least a seven fold return. A more recent 

resourced appropriately (e.g. 

RAND report (Karoly et al 2005) found that well-designed programs for 

caseloads no bigger than 25), 

disadvantaged children age 4 and younger can produce economic benefits 

with appropriate staff recruit-

ranging from $1.26 to $17 for each $1 spent on the programs. 

ment, training and supervi-

Commenting on this statistic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said 

sion, and integrated with all 

�We consistently fail to invest in what will save us money.� 

other services. 

Guardian 23rd May 2007 

Ensuring every child is 
well cared for 


Cost Implications 

According to the FPI (Gimson 2007), there are 9,000 health visitors on Band 6-7 
pay scales ranging from �22 to �37k. The supply of health visitors is falling at 10% 
per year. Taking �30k as the average cost of recruitment and one year training, a 
50% increase in health visitors would initially cost �135m. There would also be 
some savings due to staff replacement and substantial longer-term savings from 
the preventative nature of health visitor work. 

Although this form of intensive support is expensive it produces savings in the form 
of reduced welfare and criminal justice expenditures and increased tax revenues. 
These exceed its costs by a factor of 4 over the life of the child according to an economic 
evaluation by the RAND Corporation (Greenwood et al, 1996), which found 
that the original investment is returned well before the child�s 4th birthday. 

41 

Breakthrough Britain 

1.3 Enhanced support and training for professionals 
We recommend a number of system changes to the child and family workforce 
to enhance the effectiveness of their work. These include direct access to mental 
health professionals for young children, tiered access to family services, 
(ranging from universal frontline services to those intended to deal with complex 
and chronic problems) common inter-agency training and application of 
a coherent theoretical model of family support, and a more facilitative role 
(requiring better training) for managers. 

z 
To reiterate, more personnel and resources are needed to promote families� 
well-being during pregnancy and the first three years of life but also to meet 
their current mental health needs where dysfunction is identified. This 
includes the further development of child mental health services (including 
infant mental health specialists) on the grounds that relatively few children 
with psychosocial problems are seen by specialists. Moreover, such specialists 
are needed to train and support other personnel.�Back office� and IT solutions 
should be better resourced to enable professionals to spend more time with 
clients, rather than at their desks dealing with administration backloads. 
z 
Services need to be available to families in their own localities, with better 
integration of agencies and disciplines at different levels of specialism. 
Services should be organised on a tiered basis to improve coordination of 
all services and access to higher levels of specialty. As many different services 
as possible should be co-located or organised closely together, including 
child mental health specialists, speech and language therapists and the 
like, regularly available in Children�s Centres and schools. 
z 
We would recommend that services be based upon the concept of partnership 
with families and that the quality of the professional�s relationship 
with the client(s) be at the heart of delivery (see Davis et al 2002). 
The first implication of this is that careful attention will have to be given 
to selection and recruitment procedures to ensure that the workforce has 
the qualities and skills to engage families in true partnership and communicate 
with them effectively. 
z 
All people working with families and children � across social care, health and 
mental health, education and the voluntary agencies � should receive specialist 
training to hone their understanding of the processes of helping and promoting 
family well-being and the interpersonal skills required for their work 
no matter what their role, as suggested by the Family Partnership Model (see 
Davis et al, 2002). Rather than imposing solutions, the collaborative model 
integrates the expertise of parents with that of potential helpers. 
z 
As the use of a common model is likely to enhance inter-agency cooperation, 
it should not be limited to professionals� post-qualification period 
(and to child protection as stated earlier). Such training should be given 
pre-qualification in a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary setting. 
z 
A final implication is that the management of all staff should be improved, 
and that regular, facilitative supervision be guaranteed. This will require 

42 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

managers to be selected for their interpersonal qualities and supervisory 
skills, trained to enhance these and well supported themselves (Braun et al, 
2006). 

Cost implications 

Doubling the present stock of clinical psychologists and consultant psychiatrists 
would amount to the addition of a further 8,500 health professionals. This would 
cost an additional �350m based on an average mid Band 8 salary of �42,000. A 
more cautious expansion would involve an additional 1,000 mental health practitioners, 
based on CAHMS wait list of 25,000 children and a caseload of 25 children 
per professional. 

Applying similar pay rates as for health visitors, this would cost �30m. There 
would also be further training costs for health professionals (the cost of training in 
foundation interagency skills is approximately �550 per person). In context however, 
the former plan represents an increase of 4% to 5% above the �7.9bn cost of 
public services devoted to mental health, according to a 2004 Cabinet Office 
review. Seen as prevention, there is potential for substantial longer-term savings. 

Chapter 2 
Rolling out Relationship Education across the Nation 

2.0 Introduction 
The need to focus on prevention 

Family breakdown is an expensive and painful business. Any attempt to reverse 
the long-term trend of increasing family breakdown needs to be backed by 
serious long-term strategies. We propose a radical step change in our national 
approach towards improving relational competence and reducing family 
breakdown. Through a series of government-backed schemes, administered 
through �invitations�, we aim to facilitate the expansion and provision of preventative 
relationship and parenting education by the voluntary sector to 
around 800,000 families per year, across the socio-economic spectrum. 

In our report Fractured Families, we established that the main drivers of 
family breakdown have been divorce in the 1960s/70s and cohabitation in the 
1980s/90s. The breakdown of the nuclear family has also been accompanied by 
even more pronounced breakdown of extended family links. In the absence of 
traditional sources of immediate wisdom and experience previously found 
amongst grandparents, uncles and aunts, all sorts of advisory services have 
emerged and become normalised. Families and individuals typically seek education 
and support from peri-natal services, friends, and an array of self-help 
books and magazines. 

43 

Breakthrough Britain 

The striking exception to these resources involves relationships. To many 
people, the concept of seeking preventative advice on how to manage relationships 
at home is either alien or only for those with problems. We estimate 
that fewer than one in 100 couples per year seek any kind of relationship support 
� 75% of which involves the treatment of problems, for example via 

Relate, rather than their prevention.30 Yet in recent years, a great deal of 

research has led to the development and evaluation of effective relationship 
and parenting skills programmes that can improve relationship adjustment 
and parenting behaviour as well as reduce family conflict and divorce 
(Benson, 2005). A recent study found that 44% of US couples who married 
in the 1990s attended some form of marriage preparation programme 
(Stanley et al 2006) with positive effects (lower conflict, higher satisfaction, 
lower divorce risk) amongst couples from diverse racial and economic backgrounds. 


The case for relationship education 

Government has recently begun to treat parenting education as a serious 

aspect of its Respect Agenda, launching a National Academy for Parenting 

Practitioners and encouraging local authorities to develop local parenting 

strategies (DfES, 2006). In contrast, the potential for relationship education 

remains almost completely overlooked. For example, the 1998 Green Paper, 

Supporting Families, recommended that registrars signpost engaged couples 

towards marriage preparation, but this did not become government policy. 

The voluntary sector, most notably the National Couple Support Network 
has stepped in and is aiming 
to provide �coordina-

Parents have a critical role in helping their children to develop the 

tors� in every registration 

values and behaviour that underpin respect. Many say they would 

district through whom 

value help with parenting�. 

engaged couples can access 

Respect Action Plan 2006 

marriage preparation services. 
A lack of government 
validation for marriage 

preparation and recognition of research that indicates its likely effectiveness 
(eg. Carroll & Doherty, 2003) is discouraging many registrars from engaging 
with these coordinators. 

Since relationship programmes have been shown to reduce family break


down and improve family outcomes (Carroll & Doherty, 2003), there is a 

strong case for improving access and provision as well as normalising such 

30 
Estimating how much relationship support takes place is largely educated guesswork because so 
much is done under the radar by individuals and small providers. We have drawn from a variety of 
sources including Relate, The Marriage Course, Marriage Care, a University of Sussex survey of marriage 
preparation, Community Family Trusts and others. Unofficially, we estimate that around 
20,000 couples attend preventive marriage preparation courses or sessions, a further 10,000 attend 
preventive marriage or relationship courses, and 100,000 couples seek remedial relationship help 
each year. 

44 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

programmes from their current position at the margins. Likewise, there is good 
evidence that parenting programmes can lead to improved parent-child relationships 
and child outcomes (Moran et al, 2004). 

Learning from abroad 

The USA leads the field in this area, for example, in the area of marriage preparation 
mentioned earlier, although much is also happening in Australia (Parker 
2007) as Chapter 6 makes clear. The best research on the best programmes 
shows that couples can learn effective communication, conflict management, 
and other relational skills, and are highly satisfied with what they learn 
(Halford et al, 2004; Stanley, 2001; Carroll & Doherty, 2003). Government-
backed Healthy Marriage Initiatives (HMI) are now emerging in various US 
states that extend relationship programmes across other key life stages for married 
and unmarried couples and lone parents. The most advanced of these 
projects in Oklahoma has run relationship education programmes for over 
100,000 adults in the last few years, impressively reaching around 1 in 20 young 
adults within this time. It was recently evaluated by the US Department of 
Health and Human Services (Dion, 2006). Despite the significant challenges of 
these large scale �demonstration projects�, it is especially striking that the most 
economically disadvantaged report the greatest interest and openness to such 
efforts (Johnson et al, 2002). 

The nearest equivalents in the UK are the much smaller Community Family 
Trusts (CFT). As an example of active projects formed in recent years, Bristol 
CFT currently puts around 
700 adults per year through 

relationship programmes A 2003 evaluation by Exeter University showed that CFT marriage 
on minimal funding, reach-preparation courses significantly improved confidence levels and 
ing around 1 in 80 young helped most couples resolve conflict. 

adults locally (BCFT, 2007). 
Married and unmarried 
couples are accessed through civil registrars, churches, ante-natal and postnatal 
clinics, schools and prison. Similar projects run in York, Somerset, Poole, 
Bedford and Southampton. 


Cost of family breakdown 

Despite family breakdown costing every taxpayer between �680-�82031 government 
spends just 58p per taxpayer on preventative and remedial relationship 
support. In focusing all its efforts on treatment, government is sending 
the message that mainstream family breakdown is largely inevitable. Yet family 
breakdown is often avoidable. Our proposals below, for a national �invitation� 
scheme for relationship and parenting education programmes � and an 

Fractured Families, pp67-68. 

45 

Breakthrough Britain 

accompanying media campaign � represent a serious attempt to strengthen 
family relationships and prevent unnecessary family breakdown across the 
socio-economic spectrum. We recommend the following: 

2.1 A new Marriage and Relationships Institute (MRI) 
alongside the existing Family and Parenting Institute 
(FPI) 
Through talking to many family organisations, we have become aware of a seri


ous absence of genuinely preventative family support. Family support can be 
seen as a spectrum, ranging 
from preventative (strategies 

In YouGov polling for the SJPG (Apr-May 07), of those expressing an for healthy relationships) to 
opinion 60% agreed or strongly agreed that prevention of family remedial (strategies for deal-
breakdown is possible and should get significant government funding. ing with specific problems) 

to treatment (strategies for 

dealing with persistent prob


lems). In practice, almost all current family policy that is described as preventa


tive might be better described as remedial. 

The dividing line between these areas is not always obvious or straightforward. 
A minority of organisations � such as Relate and Parentline Plus � do 
work across these boundaries although they are most well-known for their 
remedial and treatment work. The vast majority of voluntary sector organisations 
that focus on prevention tend to be small scale and specialise in one specific 
area, such as pre-marriage or parenting courses. 

We propose the establishment of a new body focused entirely on prevention, 

the Marriage and Relationships Institute (MRI), to act as champion and 

administrator of a major series of preventative initiatives. 

Visits to Oklahoma and Washington 

In developing this proposal, several members of the group visited US Healthy 
Marriage Initiatives at federal and state level. The group has been impressed by 
how state-wide initiatives, such as in Oklahoma, have been rolled out across the 
community on a large scale. Despite openly highlighting marriage as best practice, 
these initiatives have attracted wide political support through their equal 
emphasis on healthy, non-abusive32 relationships and their work with low-
income communities. Alongside programmes for engaged or married couples, 
state-wide initiatives typically include preventative relationship and parenting 
programmes specifically for unmarried parents and lone parents on welfare. Our 
proposals aim to take the best of the US experience and adapt it to a UK setting. 

32 Providers are required to develop domestic violence protocols in collaboration with the National 
Resource Center on Domestic Violence, a course of action we would similarly recommend. 

46 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

MRI to champion prevention 

We propose that the new MRI has two roles. The first is to initiate, champion 
and administer a range of government-sponsored preventative relationship 
and parenting education �invitation� schemes. This would involve running a 
media campaign to promote the scheme, managing national registers of 
approved programmes and local facilitators, providing resources for training 
and support, liaising with the appropriate commissioners of services in local 
councils (see Chapter 8), operating a website linking couples or parents with 
local facilitators, and administering the �invitation� scheme itself. 

The second role of the new MRI is to initiate and commission a major 
research programme into what makes marriages and families work. The goal 
of the research programme is to find practical ways to prevent and reduce family 
breakdown � whether through dissolution, dysfunction or dad-lessness. 
Research methods are likely to include identification of the dynamic predictors 
of relationship success that may be amenable to change through relationship 
interventions, and the evaluation of such interventions. 

Alongside this would be the establishment of a world-class academic journal 
with an appropriately prestigious editorial board. Successful relationship and parenting 
interventions can only emerge out of a thorough understanding of the 
attributes of successful families. The majority of current research in both these 
fields comes from the US. Many of these findings transfer well to the UK but there 
are also cultural differences that may interact with other common factors to create 
a different set of inputs or outcomes. MRI�s research programme would build on 
this work, review other existing research and commission UK longitudinal studies 
looking at marriage and family outcomes and the effectiveness of relationship 
interventions. We must emphasise that we are not just proposing yet another family 
organisation: it is intended that the MRI would make Britain a world leader in 
understanding what makes families work and how they can be best supported. 

Interaction with other organisations 

We would expect that national organisations like the Family and Parenting 
Institute (FPI) will continue their important role in supporting families at the 
remedial and treatment end of the spectrum of family support. FPI currently 
acts inter alia as administrator of the �17 million Children and Young Peoples 
Fund and co-deliverer of the new National Academy of Parenting Practitioners 
(NAPP). We acknowledge and affirm their work which has earned respect from 
politicians and practitioners alike. 

We especially value the role of FPI in drawing together voluntary sector organisations 
from different areas of family support � such as preventative and remedial 
relationship and parenting education, domestic violence, responsible fatherhood, 
lone parent support, relationship counselling and treatment � to help build understanding, 
diminish stereotypes, establish common goals, and find areas of mutual 
cooperation. Although MRI�s role is preventative there is clearly much potential for 
overlap and it is intended that MRI, FPI and NAPP work closely together. 

47 

Breakthrough Britain 

Cost implications: 

In 2006, FPI administration comprised 5% of parenting fund costs. On a similar 
basis, MRI administration of a fully operative invitation scheme would eventually 
cost �10m per year. A research programme at least equivalent to that of Joseph 
Rowntree would cost a further �10m per year. 

2.2 A national relationship and parenting education �invitation� 
scheme for couples and parents at key life stages 
We propose the development and national roll-out of nine streams of relationship 

and parenting education programmes, administered nationally by MRI, with 
desirable outcomes specified 
by them, and operated locally 
by the voluntary sector 

�The most useful session of our post-natal course!� 

through appropriate access 

�As a midwife I can see what a huge difference this 

points (including Family 

will make, even for the �normal� family.� 

Services Hubs). The first five 

Comments following a recent relationship seminar held in a health clinic. 

streams � pre-marriage, antenatal, 
and parenting 0-5s, 511s 
& teens � access all fami-

Dorit Braun has seen some welcome changes over the last decade in lies. The last four streams � 
public attitudes towards parenting courses.The chief executive of lone parents, prison, military 
Parentline Plus says:�Ten years ago,if a cab driver asked what I did,the and care parents � access speresponse 
was:�That�s for bad parents,isn�t it?� Now they invariably say: cific vulnerable families. 

�What�s the number?�� 
Just as marriage per se does 

Guardian April 25th 2007 
not guarantee good outcome, 

neither does relationship 

education. However enough 

is known to be confident that widespread provision of relationship education will 

make a significant and positive difference to the stability of Britain�s families. 

The nine streams are as follows: 

z 
Pre-marriage. One day relationship programme, or three sessions with 
facilitator and couple inventory, for couples entering marriage or civil 
partnership who are accessed through registrars and churches. 

z 
Ante-natal. One taster session of relationship education for couples having 
a baby, married or not, accessed through health visitors and clinics, 
and signposting further opportunities. 

z 
Parenting of 0-5s, 5-11s and teens and lone parenting (4 streams). Six session 
parenting and relationship programme, age-appropriate for married, 
cohabiting or lone parents. Main access is through registrars, primary and 
secondary schools or through the benefits agency. 

z 
Prison couples. Six session relationship and parenting programme for prisoners, 
married or not, and their spouses/partners (accessed through prisons). 

48 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

z 
Military couples. Weekend or six session relationship and parenting programme 
for members of the armed forces, married or not, and their 
spouses/partner (accessed through the military.) 
z 
Care families. Residential weekend away including relationship and parenting 
programme for parents with adopted, foster or disabled children. 
Access to these families at higher risk through social services. (We discuss 
the stream for parents of disabled children separately in Chapter 3). 

A paper giving further description of each stream is available on the website 
www.bcft.co.uk 

Table 1.2.1: Relationship and Parenting Education: Estimated take-up rates, course type, scheme 
costs, reduction in family breakdown 
Per Year Population Take-up Access Course Course Provider Incentive Childcare Costs Costs Reduced Breakdown Savings 
(families %) rate no. type length cost cost allowance* (�/family) (�m. p.a.) % Families (�m.p.a) 
% of all families 
Pre-marriage** 280,000 14% 37,800 Rel�ship 1 day /3 ses �100 �60 -�32 �1.2 -�30% -1,288 -�18.4 
Ante/post natal 720,000 30% 218,800 Rel�ship 1 session �30 �25 �20 �75 �16.4 -20% -7694 -�89.1 
Parenting 0-5*** 720,000 20% 144,000 Parenting 6 sessions �80 �50 �120 �250 �36.0 ---
Parenting 511 720,000 20% 144,000 Parenting 6 sessions �80 �50 �120 �250 �36.0 ---
Parenting teeens 720,000 20% 144,000 Parenting 6 sessions �80 �50 �120 �250 �36.0 ---
Lone parents**** 185,000 20% 37,000 Both 6 sessions �80 �50 �120 �50 �9.3 ---
Prison 80,000 10% 8,000 Both 6 days �500 -�300 �800 �6.4 ---
Military***** 190,000 20% 38,000 Both Weekend �250 -�100 �350 �13.3 -30% -798 -�9..2 
Care parents 60,000 33% 20,000 Both Weekend �250 -�300 �550 �11.0 ---
Total****** 3,675,000 22% 791.000 -Annual Cost �66.4m �31.8m �78.9m �209 �165.5 --10,080 -�116.7 
as % of total 40% 16% 44% 
* Childcare allowance is �20 per session, �50 per day course, or �500 per weekend for adoptive/foster parents of care children 
** Pre-marriage costs are offset by �20 increase in wedding fees, discounted by �60 for course participants 
*** All parenting courses include one session of parent-parent relationship education 
**** We estimate annual lone parent family formation arises from 75,000 married and 110,000 unmarried families. Costs include childcare allowance of �20 per person 
***** Military family breakdown rate is conservatively estimatedusing national divorce rate of 1,4% 
****** Totals may include some overlap between schems 
Improving family stability at key life stages 

Preventative relationship and parenting education programmes can be 
extremely effective. Reviews show that programmes lasting just a few hours can 
strengthen family relationships over a period of one to five years (Carroll & 
Doherty, 2003; Moran et al, 2005). For example, a major study of 3,000 families 
in the US found that divorce rates were 30% lower over the first five years 
of marriage amongst those who had completed a well-organised marriage 
preparation programme (Stanley et al, 2006). With UK family breakdown so 
heavily concentrated in the early years of marriage and parenthood, even modest 
improvements in family stability at these key stages will still prove highly 
cost effective. 

Since outcome studies show that lay educators with a minimum level of 
training can produce the same or better results as professional educators, 
preventative relationship education is ideally suited to local volunteers 
(Laurenceau et al, 2004). The vast majority of existing providers or facilitators 
of preventative relationship and parenting educational programmes are 

49 

Breakthrough Britain 

volunteer individuals, parents or couples, attracted to the notion of supporting 
other families. 

How �invitations� work 

Personalised �invitation� schemes have several advantages over block grants. 
Most importantly, invitations attach directly to course attendance thus ensuring 
a clear link between funding and delivery. Funding comprises two parts: 

1 Service delivery funding will support existing providers � mostly volun


tary sector charities, churches or individuals � and will also encourage new 

entrants, regardless of size 
2 Attendance of the programme is supported by a childcare allowance and 

rewarded with supermarket vouchers. This provides a fixed incentive 

scheme that will prove relatively more attractive to lower income groups 

who are also proportionately more at risk. 

Experience in both the US and UK suggest that incentives are an important 
way to encourage demand for unfamiliar programmes. Our proposed funding 
comprises 16% incentives, 44% childcare allowance contribution, and 40% 
service delivery. Incentives differ according to length of course and general 
appropriateness. For example, the pre-marriage incentive is a �60 wedding fee 
discount, paid for by increasing wedding fees by �20, making this stream largely 
self-funding. 

Professionals and lay educators � the importance of proven skills 

It is essential that MRI, as a body designed to support voluntary sector intervention 
in the prevention of relationship breakdown, strike a careful balance 
between encouraging the voluntary sector to flourish (through avoidance of 
over-regulation and, where it is unnecessary, an undue emphasis on highly 
qualified practitioners), whilst at the same time protecting participants from 
poor programmes or poor facilitators. A quick and easy approval and training 
process must be backed up by a robust complaints procedure. MRI must also 
provide proper auditing procedures to protect against the potential for �invitation� 
scheme fraud. 

Current training for facilitators of preventative programmes typically involves 
observing a course at first hand and then applying their own experience using a 
manualised leaders guide. Worldwide, almost all relationship education programmes 
apply this observational learning method, including the empirically-
informed and tested course PREP. The largest provider of relationship education 
in the UK is The Marriage Course,33 running up to 1,000 courses for 6,000 couples 
yearly. Training for volunteers is through a one day training programme that 

33 themarriagecourse.org 

50 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

includes observation of a single session. Increasingly, home-use DVDs provide the 
training programme. Supervision for facilitators is usually limited to informal support 
from a parent organisation or training resource provider. 

Professionals more used to treatment programmes with 
clinical populations, such as Parenting UK, have expressed 
concerns to us about the risks posed by lay educators equipped 
with minimal training and supervision. The skill level of the 
facilitator, for example, is directly related to the effectiveness of 
parenting programmes amongst these more demanding 
groups (Scott et al, 2006). We acknowledge that a large scale 
intake of new facilitators will require support to build sufficient 
small group management and people skills. We therefore 
propose that MRI require facilitators to participate in a mentored 
training scheme where any skills deficits can be identified and addressed. 
Minimum requirements will also be set for ongoing evaluation, support and 
some level of supervision from a mentor. Similarly, MRI will establish protocols 
for evaluation of programmes and processes, to facilitate continuous 
learning and improvement. 

Overcoming hurdles 

We are well aware that a huge expansion programme brings new and formidable 
challenges, many of which have not been fully addressed here. Yet current provision 
of relationship and parenting education likely represents less than 5% of 
what is needed. From various sources, we believe there are at least 2,000 facilitators 
currently delivering marriage or relationship courses, as well as 3,500 health 
visitors trained in relationship support and 2,500 relationship counsellors. We 
expect the 20-40,000 facilitators that our schemes ultimately require will mostly 
comprise parents looking for a rewarding part-time challenge. 

It is to be hoped that these services, on the scale we suggest, will not be necessary 
in perpetuity. By offering them so extensively, and giving them the 
imprimatur of government funding, the aim is to incrementally build the relational 
competence of the nation. As this generation of parents passes on these 
skills and attitudes to their children, the need for these interventions will gradually 
diminish, but it could take twenty years or more to transform the relational 
landscape. 

Cost implications 

The table above details the range of schemes costing �166m once fully operative 
after a few years. Although the savings generated by the parenting, prison and care 
schemes are hard to quantify, the pre-marriage, ante-natal and military schemes 
all pay for themselves several times over through reduced family breakdown. Once 
up and running � likely to take place incrementally over several years due to the 
need to build capacity within the voluntary sector � we estimate the proposed 
�invitation� schemes detailed above could impact the relationships of around 

Harry Benson, Deputy Chairman 
of the Family Breakdown group 
met stateside experts Stanley and 
Markman to discuss sucessful 
family support initiatives 


51 

Breakthrough Britain 

800,000 families annually, at an average cost of �209 per family. The expected 
reduction in family breakdown from each year group will produce sufficient savings 
to cover scheme costs within two years. We estimate that this scheme would 
impact the relationships of around 250,000 young married and unmarried couples 
every year, prevent at least 9,000 unnecessary divorces or separations every 
year, and save the taxpayer �107 million for every subsequent year that these families 
avoid family breakdown. Within five years, the cumulative annual net gain 
to the taxpayer could amount to �500 million or more. 

2.3 Relationship education in schools 
As family breakdown increases, children can grow up with a desire for family 
stability yet lacking the personal or family experience, knowledge or confidence 
that this is attainable. Schools have a potentially important role to play 
in educating children and young people about the nature of marriage, family 
and relationships. Small changes in risk behaviour amongst a minority of children 
could be hugely cost effective. 

We are wary of being too prescriptive regarding school policy, partly because 
more research is needed in this area. We therefore make only two recommendations. 
The first is that the PSHE curriculum includes a specific opportunity 
to learn about, explore and discuss the nature of marriage, family and relationships. 
The second is that the voluntary sector be actively encouraged and welcomed 
in providing PSHE resources for relationship education. 

Young people might reasonably be expected to learn about family structure, 
stability, process and breakdown. PSHE relationship programmes must be evidence-
based using reliable research sources � such as Fractured Families � and 
illustrated with personal experience. It is clearly important to avoid stigmatising 
young people whose personal experience of family and relationships may be very 
negative. However the priority is that any curriculum must focus substantially on 
successful relationship formation and maintenance. This includes placing the current 
SRE curriculum in a clear relational context that discourages early sexual 
activity. Information about family structure needs to be supported by explanations 
of what to look for in a potential mate, why it�s risky to move in before you�re 
clear about your future, why married couples do better, why it�s better to commit, 
how men and women commit in different ways, and so on. 

Cost implications 

Additional costs of the occasional relationship education to PSHE are expected to 
be nominal. Costs may even be reduced through using voluntary sector services to 
replace existing input. Love4Life,34 a voluntary sector provider in Loughborough, 
highly respected by local schools, gave us the following figures: �There are 7 high 
schools in this town, with a total of approximately 600 year 9 pupils. To deliver 
three quarters of the required sex and relationships education (as part of their key 

34 http://www.love4life.org.uk/ 

52 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

stage 4 PSHE curriculum) in all these Loughborough schools would cost only 
�2000 (based on 4 lessons per year 9 pupil, with approximately 30 pupils in each 
class, giving a total of 80 lessons @ �25 per lesson, which pays for two educators)� 

Chapter 3 
Supporting Families with Disabilities 

3.0 Introduction 
In Fractured Families,35 we described the problems faced by families dealing with 

disability as follows: �Disability puts additional strain on families, particularly 
when associated with children 
or when the onset has 
been sudden. As well as the 

�If you gave us �500 million to spend on anything we 
psychological and financial 

liked for the disability community, we would put �350 
difficulties, access to the sup-

million of it into respite care. Being able to take breaks 
port system which should 

from the strain of care is what protects and saves 
assist is frequently a further 

family relationships.� 

source of huge pressure, fur-

Steve Broach, Every Disabled Child Matters campaign 

ther stressing the family unit.� 
We consulted with a broad 

�If I did not get respite care from my disabled 

range of organisations and 

mother, I couldn�t do this anymore�

experts, visited projects in 

Female carer, North East England 

Austria, the UK and the US, 
and reviewed the recent, 
well-researched reports on 

policy for families with disabilities.36 This evidence highlighted three main areas 

where we think policy change could make a significant difference to families dealing 
with disability. We are recommending the following: 

3.1 Creative ways for delivering more respite care 
There is a strong evidence base to support the notion that all families, whatever 
the age of the relative cared for, need a break from caring (Mencap 2005). 

35 p87. 
36 Such as Policy Review of Children and Young People - interim report (HM Treasury/DfES, 2007); 
Parliamentary hearings on services for disabled children (Oct 2006); Improving Life Chances of 
Disabled People (Prime Minister�s Strategy Unit, 2005); Children�s National Service Framework 
(DfES/DH, 2004); Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES, 2004); Services for Disabled Children 
(Audit Commission, 2003). 

53 

Breakthrough Britain 

This policy review supports more funding in respite care as a protective factor 

for family relationships. However respite care is undoubtedly expensive37 and 

despite the demand for it, facilities offering respite are closing and will contin


ue to do so without investment.38 

Although in February 2007 the Disabled Children (Family Support) Bill39 
failed to get its Second Reading in parliament (it was objected to on the 
grounds of cost), a three-year budget for respite care of �340m was announced 
in May 2007. According to the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign group, 
this money will provide an additional 40,000 short breaks for families with 
children who receive the higher component of Disability Living Allowance � 

meeting only 40% of what they estimate to be the need.40 

Paying relatives and trusted friends at a lower rate 

As a general measure, we recommend that creative ways be sought to make it easier 
and more cost-effective for parents to receive respite care. In keeping with our 
later recommendations on individual budgets, parents should be given �cash in 


hand� for respite care, to spend as they think fit, on either formal 
or informal care. A lower level of government subsidy should be 
payable to grandparents, other close family members or trusted 
friends, who could look after disabled children whilst their parents 
are away (in much the same way as we recommend in a later 
chapter that childcare tax credit be payable at a lower rate to family 
members). Parents should be able to make the choice to leave 
their children with those whom they trust, in the unregulated 
environment that is their or the carer�s own home. 

We heard that many parents would prefer to use such an 

option and would feel that it was easier to ask a close relative if 
they knew there would be some financial assistance (thus reducing the sense of 
imposition). Subsidised or free professional care would still be available for those 
unable to call on close family to assist. If such a scheme were adopted, cheaper 
respite care would be more readily available. 

�Relationship weekends� 

As a specific measure, we recommend that funding be provided for respite breaks 
that also include relationship and parenting support. This creative scheme to support 
wider family relationships serves multiple purposes, not least of which is to 
stimulate regeneration of respite facilities provided by the private and voluntary 
sector. As well as providing a rest, the break offers the opportunity for couples to 
take advantage of protective relationship and parenting strategies as well as to 

37 In Birmingham a bed for respite care costs �152 per night and in Oxfordshire the cost is over �180. 
38 Oxfordshire in 2007 will lose 2 of 5 respite centres. 
39 The bill would have amended the Children�s Act 1989, the Carers Act 1995 and the Childcare Act 


2006 to make certain that the rights of disabled children to short break care are set out in law. 
40 Campaign group Every Disabled Child Matters say that there are 100,000 families with disabled 
children. 

54 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

One disability rights campaigner told us 
�The central problem is that state run systems all 
demand risk averse highly structured and tightly 
regulated environments. Your solutions must break 
that mould and move back to care being provided in 
the trusting, unregulated environment of the extended 
family.� 
link up with parents in a similar 
situation. 

In the US, Oklahoma 
Healthy Marriage Initiative 
has run weekend retreats � 
two days/one night � for 
over 300 couples, with considerable 
success. Some of 
these weekends have been 
aimed at parents with 
adopted or foster children, 
others at parents with disabled children. A similar UK pilot is currently under 
discussion in Bristol. The cost of these programmes is relatively high because 
of the need for hotel accommodation for the parents and high quality care for 
the children. Cooperation of local government would be essential in order to 
access eligible parents and arrange appropriate childcare. We would imagine 
that existing respite facilities would be used, thus stimulating the market for 
such care and opening up opportunities for third sector and private providers 
to meet demand. 

Whilst it must be stressed that we realise this proposal will not meet a family�s 
entire need for respite care, this solution would give families a break and 
equip them at the same time for a more relationally healthy future. 

3.2 Simplified access to support and services through 
one-stop shops (specialised Family Services Hubs) 
One of the problems identified from the interim report was the need for disability 
services to be joined up practically and for the system to be simpler to 
navigate so that families could find the help they needed. We visited 
Birmingham and spoke to various organisations such as Special Abilities41 and 
Hurdles who explained how a �one-stop shop� might function, where services 
and information to help families are found under one roof. One existing example 
is the Josian Centre in Southampton where a number of NHS services and 
other organisations, such as the Red Cross, share costs and facilities and also 

save families time and energy by being in one location.42 

Other countries recognise the need for families to have simple access to a full 
range of services. The PACER parent centre in the US provides a good example 
of a specialised family services hub for those with disabilities. We specifically 
recommend a detailed review of the Austrian model of �mobile clinics� 

which represent a one-stop shop for disabled children and their parents and 
work through a simple (and single) assessment process as follows: 

41 http://www.abilities.fsnet.co.uk/ 
42 http://www.southamptonhealth.nhs.uk/ourservices/achs/josiancentre. The Josian Centre, visited by the 
policy group, opened in July 2006, 10 years after the initial proposal to move all services to one site. 

55 

Breakthrough Britain 

Case Study - The Pacer Center USA 
The work of the PACER (Parents Advocacy Coalition for 
Educational Rights) centre in Minneapolis, USA provides a 
�central hub� in a local community to support families in 
accessing disability services. 
With the backing of government legal requirements and 
funding, this model of good practice has now been replicated 
throughout the US.There are currently 106 centres at least 
one in every state. 
Founded by four parents in 1979, the majority of Parent 
Centre staff are parents of children with disabilities, able to 
bring personal experience and empathy when working with families. 
Parent centres provide a variety of services including one-on-one support and assistance, workshops, publications 
and websites.They also provide signpost to other organisations providing more specific training or help. 
Chief Executive Paula Goldberg and management team, Pacer 
Center Minneapolis 

z 
Parents ask for assessment, then visit the mobile clinic (where there is a 
multi- disciplinary assessment team). Respite care needs and available 
�extended family alternatives� would be included in such an assessment 
z 
Funds are allocated in response to the assessment outcome (paid �in kind� 
in Austria, but we would propose that where possible they are paid in cash 
� see later section on Direct Payments and Individual Budgets) 
z 
Mobile clinics provide guidance (if needed) on service availability to meet 
care plan 
z 
Reassessment on an annual basis (as a minimum) 

Cost implications 

A hub equivalent to the Josian center in Southampton in every parliamentary 
constituency would cost �65m in annual rent. However although centralised hubs 
bring increased costs for new services, they also bring considerable efficiency gains 

to both provider and user by putting many services under one 
roof. 

3.3 Creation of a new compact between 
local authorities and the disability 
community 
There needs to be greater respect for voluntary sector (especially 
user-led) solutions. Direct Payment/individual budgets 
should be treated in the same way as Disability Living 
Allowance, as �cash in hand�, allowing recipients greater control 

over their own lives. (See also Voluntary Sector Funding, Volume 6, 3.3.7: 
Vouchers in Third Sector Funding) 

Family group visiting the Josian 
Centre, Southampton. 


56 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

YouGov polling for the SJPG (Apr-May 2007) found that 85% of 
people agreed or strongly agreed that �Lone parents and disabled 
people capable of working should be encouraged to do so.� 
Delivery of services 

We found considerable agreement between parliamentarians and the disability 
community about the 
direction of legislation and 
what needs to be put in 
place. Understandably however, 
problems arise at the 
point of delivery where 
services and benefits are 
considered to be poor. The perception of many service users and voluntary sector 
service providers is that there is a lack of local accountability in that clear, 
desirable outcomes are not set, upon which local authorities must then deliver. 
One family carer from Berkshire said to us, ironically, that �The only thing 
worse than a target is having no target� because, as we heard repeatedly, funding 
eg. for disabled children�s services is commonly diverted, especially towards 
child protection where there are is a much clearer sense of accountability. 

We are reluctant to impose more targets on local authorities although we are 
sympathetic to the view that they should be assessed on the extent to which services 
and support provided to families of disabled children are satisfactory to the 
users themselves. Therefore we are suggesting a different approach which is that a 
new relationship between local authorities and the disability community be fos


tered through the creation of local compacts between these two parties.43 

�Enabling authorities� 

In his paper on local communities, Dick Atkinson44 (describes how a local author


ity could become an �enabling authority which does less (but better!) and challenges 
ordinary people, voluntary and faith organisations to build Civil Society, 
accept responsibilities and do more to help themselves.� Such an approach would 
be particularly appropriate in the area of disability services. In their submission to 
the Equalities Review in 2005, the Disability Rights Commission stated that 
�Social and health services need to be transformed to support disabled people�s 
contributions � reversing the notion that disabled people are only passive recipients 
of care, and instead supporting their active contributions as citizens.� They 
called for opportunities for disabled people to make a recognised contribution and 
interact with the wider community on more equal terms. 

The innovative and creative character of the voluntary sector is particularly 
necessary in the delivery of services which often have to be very personalised and 
take into account a diverse range of needs and circumstances. Arguably, it is unrealistic 
to expect a local authority which, by its very nature is well-equipped to 

43 This may require the drafting of a proper legal definition to determine the expectations and responsibilities 
of all parties involved in assessment processes. 
44 See �Vibrant Villages - Building quality lives in quality neighbourhoods� at http://www.balsallheathforum.
org.uk/start.htm (accessed 23rd May 2007). 

57 

Breakthrough Britain 

deliver a more standardised product, to be able to �turn its hand� to the bespoke 
services which many disabled people need. The strong impression we received 
from the many individuals and organisations we spoke to was that many local 
authorities were still not engaging as fully as they might with the voluntary sector. 
One mother caring for a disabled adult who has been on the Local Strategic 
Partnership Board of her council for several years told us that �they are willing to 
talk to user-led disability services organisations, and ask their advice on how best 
to deliver services, but stop short of actually giving them the responsibility and 
funding to do the job themselves. There seems to be a lack of respect for what 
they could do to actually solve these difficult problems.� 

Harnessing experience and expertise 

It is this perceived �lack of respect� that a compact would be designed to remedy. 
If service users were drawn into partnership with the local authority in the 
development of plans for service delivery, their considerable expertise in providing 
services could be harnessed. Such a compact would also necessitate a 
regulatory audit to identify where the voluntary sector was being unnecessarily 
hampered, for example, by an obsession with health and safety (Voluntary 
Sector Paper, 3.3.1: Local Area Agreements). One carer had been provided with 
very specialised respite care for her seriously disabled child by a voluntary sector 
provider for several years, until the regulations changed such that the 
provider was unable to meet a particular criterion. The provider was no longer 
able to offer the service, but had been the sole provider in the area. Since this 
point this family has had no respite care, not because of a lack of funding but 
because of a lack of a suitable provider. 

There is no doubt that health and safety have to be carefully thought through, 
but the imposition of what may be unnecessarily exacting standards onto the voluntary 
sector is one example of the local authority�s paternalistic relationship 
with it. A compact would challenge the assumption that the local authority 
should have undue dominance and create a more equal relationship between the 
two sectors. Additionally, just as voluntary sector providers are expected to conduct 
evaluations of their work, a symmetrical expectation would be placed on 
local authorities. The best way for assessment to be carried out on their delivery 
of disability services is by surveying those families most affected by them. 

Direct Payments and individual budgets 

It is envisaged that a compact between the local authority and the disability community 
would also affect the availability of schemes such as �Direct Payments� and 

45 Direct Payments are part of a new overarching �individual budgets� approach to public services which the 

current government are moving towards and we would want to further embed. According to Home 

Office minister Liam Byrne and Anne Rossiter from the Social Market Foundation, such an approach 

�stresses empowerment and equity as much as efficiency.�where we have tried it, it appears to work and 

offers staggering results. Individual budgets in social care today give people a different chance to put 

together a package of care from different players in a way that is as unique as they are, sometimes at a 

fraction of the cost of state provision.� (Society Guardian, 23rd May 2007, �We must plot a new course�). 

58 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

YouGov polling for the SJPG (Apr-May 2007) found that, of those 
expressing an opinion, 86% agreed that �People needing government-
funded social care (e.g. due to illness or disability) should have the 
right to choose from a range of providers to find the one that best 
suits them�. Similarly 72% agreed or strongly agreed that �People in 
receipt of government funded care (due to illness or disability) should 
be able to choose who provides it, whether the state, private 
companies or charities� 
�Our lives as a family changed dramatically when we got 
Direct Payments for our son. We could spend the money 
on the care and support we most felt we needed - life 
became a lot more fun and we all got on better� Father from Manchester 
individual budgets.45 Such 
schemes currently offer families 
greater flexibility than if 
services are provided by local 
authorities, allow them some 
control over their own lives 
and, as the boxed quote indicates, 
can act as a protective 
factor against relationship 
breakdown. There is a perception 
within the disability 
sector that they are not suitable 
for all situations firstly 
because recipients effectively 
become an employer of a 
carer and secondly because 
they have to find alternative 
services to those provided by 
local authority. 

However, looking at these two concerns in turn, the regulations imposed by 
local authorities on how these funds can be spent undermine the sense that 
these are truly individuals� budgets. For example they stipulate that �you cannot 
secure a service from your spouse or civil partner, close relatives or anyone 
who lives in the same household as you, unless that person is someone you 
have specifically recruited to be a live-in employee (other than in exceptional 
circumstances, which your council may agree with you).�46 

Local authorities currently demand that people in receipt of Direct 
Payments account for every penny spent whereas Disability Living Allowance, 
administered by the DWP is handed over (even at the highest rate), with no 
�strings attached�. The control local authorities exert over spending decisions of 
individuals may be making the Direct Payment system more daunting than it 
needs to be, creating an environment where people are concerned that they will 
be accused of mis-spending funds, that they will be unable to meet the 
accounting standards imposed and ultimately deterring them from choosing 
to source their own services. 

It is possible that there will always be recipients who lack the skills to source their 
own services. In many cases skills deficits could be addressed by individual tutoring 
or tailored courses to build confidence, competence and skills which would be 
transferable to other aspects of life. Individual budget systems could be developed 
to became a runway to greater independence, but this will only happen if control 
over funds is placed more fully in the hands of the recipient. 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10016128 accessed 9th June 2007 

59 

Breakthrough Britain 

Case Study:The Stepping Stones Project, Birmingham. 
The Stepping Stones Caf� is mainly staffed by people with 
learning difficulties, and supported by a small grant of �6000 
(which pays for an able-bodied member of staff to oversee 
the project). In addition, those with disabilities use their 
Direct Payments to bring in care support staff to help them 
work.The caf� brings in �1500 profit a year, which is reinvested 
into equipment for the caf�. 
The project is run out of a small community centre and 
provides wholesome, affordable food for local residents, 
including many pensioners.This project therefore provides a 
service and social interaction for the elderly, building the 
community as well as training those with disabilities, giving them a �stepping stone� to the wider workplace.The 
project builds self esteem in its staff and gives them a sense of purpose 
Stepping Stones Disability project in Birmingham 

Looking at the second concern of having to find alternative services, due to 
the current lack of investment in the voluntary sector and the small profit margin 
for private sector ventures in this field, it can be hard to source these services. 
Also, local authorities are still required to fund their own services, which 
can make them hesitant to promote a Direct Payment/individual budget system 
because of its cost implications. However, the new relationship implied in 
the compact would be expected to shift an emphasis away from what is simplest 
and cheapest for a local authority towards what is most appropriate for 
an individual�s circumstances. Again, this is not about how best to manage 
dependency, we came across examples of Direct Payments being used in an 
entrepreneurial way which enabled recipients to be involved in work. 

There are 7 million disabled people of working age in the UK, 20% of the 
working population. The Shaw Trust47 told us that only 50% of disabled people 
are working (as opposed to 80% of the non-disabled workforce) and that 
half of those who are currently not working, would like to, given the right 
opportunity and support. Where work is possible for disabled people, it greatly 
improves family relationships and eases care burdens. Moreover, as the 
Disability Rights Commission48 state, �Participation in public, civic and community 
life is both an outcome, and a means to an end. Participation is important 
in increasing the voice of disabled people, in providing greater opportunities 
for disabled people to make a recognised contribution, in fostering interaction 
between disabled and non-disabled people on more equal terms, in 

47 http://www.shaw-trust.org.uk/ 
48 Submission to the Equalities Review, 2005 (see 
http://www.disabilityagenda.org/docs/DRC_final_submission_to_the_equalities_review.doc accessed 
23rd May 2007). 

60 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

transforming attitudes and expectations, and in providing disabled people 
with opportunities to acquire skills and experience.� A lack of confidence and 
training prevent many from going into the work place but Direct Payments can 
help people to take the necessary steps (see boxed case study). The Economic 
Dependency paper in this volume discusses disability and work further. 

Barriers to access to Direct Payments and individual budgets 

Organizations (and reports) we consulted explained that there are other reasons 
why Direct Payments are not available as widely as they might be. In particular, 
there needs to be a preliminary consultation with a social worker which 
constitutes a bottleneck in the system and there is no standardised method for 
assessing needs.49 A simple, single (but regularly recurring) assessment process 
such as is used in Austrian mobile clinics would address both of these issues.50 

More generally however, taking the individual budgets agenda forward in 
the disability services arena requires that people with disabilities and carers of 
disabled dependents have far greater control over how monies are spent. It will 
also require a reconfigured relationship between the disability community 
(which includes voluntary sector service providers, many of which are user-
led) and local authorities. A compact setting the terms of this reconfigured 
relationship is recommended, the parameters guiding which would require significant 
engagement with representatives of both local authorities and the disability 
community to determine (and consideration by an Implementation 
Working Party as described earlier). 

Cost implications 

As local authorities do not account separately for disability spending, it is �difficult 
to get any figures that make any sense on Direct Payments�, according to the campaign 
group Every Disabled Child Matters. Although increases in Direct Payment 
add to the cost of local authority services already provided, the flourishing of voluntary 
sector services and the use of informal respite care (and other services) will 
offset the need for some, more costly state provision. As well as being more convenient 
and flexible, privately sourced provision is usually more cost effective and savings 
are anticipated in the medium to long term. 

49 
�Basic human needs� fall under the categories of family, mobility, social/recreational, language/cultural 
and there are 4 different levels of �eligibility criteria� (critical, substantial, moderate and low) for 
meeting these needs, which determine the level of benefit. However, local authorities are not bound 
by law to assess on all four levels. 

50 
In addition, budgetary conflicts between health and social services mean that if a need falls under 
healthcare, they cannot grant Direct Payments to patients (and therefore end up offering healthcare 
packages, where cheaper Direct Payments would have been fulfilled the same need). 

61 

Breakthrough Britain 

Economic aspects of family breakdown 


Chapter 4 
Reforming the welfare system to strengthen the family 

4.0 Introduction 
As Fractured Families made clear, the UK has amongst the highest rates of un


partnered childbearing and family breakdown in the western world. The marriage 
rate has been falling 
and an increasing proportion 
of children are being 
raised by unmarried cohabiting 
couples. The decline in 
marriage has contributed to 
the modern growth in lone 

largely negative effects of 
family breakdown on children, intergenerational ties, the elderly and society in 
general. These social trends are also of concern as they are very costly to the 
taxpayer who must foot a massive bill to deal with the associated poverty, crime 
and poor educational performance. 

Alongside these developments the role of the family as a locus of mutual 
support and care has been undermined, as its functions have been progressively 
taken over by external private and public institutions. Some of these changes 
were inevitable and some were desirable. However, there are also areas where 
the outcome has been undesirable and in some cases, the Government itself 
has contributed to the negative developments. It could be argued that state 
provision obviates the need for a providing father and for men and women to 
be interdependent, especially when they are raising children together. The provision 
of state support should be done in a way that ultimately encourages 
family networks to be self-supporting as the accompanying report on 
Economic Dependency makes clear. It systematically describes appropriate 
work requirements for different categories of benefit recipients, recommending 
for example that lone parents with primary school-age children be expected 
to either look seriously for work, take up work within their capabilities or 

Bertrand Russell considered that when the father�s purpose to 
protect children whilst they are growing up is taken over by the state 
�the father loses his raison d�etre� 
Russell 1929 
parenthood since cohabiting 
couples are on average 
far more likely to separate 
than married couples. Our 
earlier report described the 
Our YouGov (Apr-May 2007) polling showed that only 24% agreed 
that lone mothers do not have the support of a partner and have at 
least one income, therefore they should be entitled to more money 
and benefits than couples (19% said they didn�t know) 
62 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

be engaged in an active labour market scheme (See Economic Dependency 
Paper 2.4.2: Work Expectations). 

The Couple Penalty 

We have argued that the present tax and benefit policy is not just a response to 
social disintegration, but is also a causal factor. In the name of combating child 
poverty, it has had the unintended effect of subsidising un-partnered childbearing 
and family breakdown, thereby contributing to their spread. To some degree 
this is unavoidable. Any humane society must be concerned with the welfare of 
its citizens and must seek to 
ensure an acceptable stan-

Also in the YouGov (Apr-May 2007) poll for the SJPG, 77% of those 

dard of living for everyone. 

expressing an opinion agreed that 'the Government should provide 

In the case of a lone parent, 

benefits for married couples to support the stability marriage brings 

for example, this result is 

to society. Currently the benefits system is an incentive to claim as a 

achieved through some com


lone parent.' 

bination of welfare benefits, 
wage supplements and childcare 
subsidies. The value of 
the resulting package is typically much larger than a similar un-partnered parent 
would receive if he or she did not have children. The composition and scale of the 
package can be altered but it is very hard to eliminate the subsidy for un-partnered 
childbearing without impoverishing the children. (Even in the USA, which 
has imposed a time-limit on many means-tested benefits with the aim of getting 
lone parents into work, there is still employment-related support for lone parents 
under the Earned Income Tax Credit programme.) 

In addition to the subsidy it provides for un-partnered childbearing, the present 
tax and benefit system may impose a substantial penalty on couples who are married 
or openly cohabit (see Draper and Beighton 2006, IFS 2007, Campbell and 
Roberts 2002 and the Appendix commissioned from tax and benefits experts at 
the back of this report). The main focus of anti-poverty policy in recent years has 
been on lone parent families, with the result that poverty in two-parent families has 
actually increased.51 The scale of this has not been sufficeintly addressed. 
According to information in the official tax and benefit tables, taking into account 
housing benefit, many low-income couples would be thousands of pounds a year 
better off if they split up than if they live together. These may not be princely 
sums by the standards of highly-paid professionals, but they are large in comparison 
with the income of those at the bottom of the income scale. In some cases, the 
penalty can be as high as �8,500 for a family with an income of only �20,000.52 It 
would be wrong to claim that the couple penalty is responsible for the entire 
growth in lone parenthood, but it has surely played a role.53 

51 See Table E5 HBAI (DWP 2005/6). This shows on a before housing cost (BHC) basis that 60% of 

poor children were in two-parent families in 2005/06 compared with 57% in 2002/03. On an after 

housing cost (AHC) basis it is 58% compared to 55%. 
52 See Appendix. 
53 See Fractured Families, pp89-92. 

63 

Breakthrough Britain 

Policymakers are prone to focus on marriage penalties and bonuses for 
low income families, because that is the most vulnerable segment of the 
population. I would argue, however, that these families do not make their 
decisions in a vacuum.They are affected by societal norms, reflecting 
marriage patterns of higher-income couples with and without children. 
Policymakers should therefore be concerned about these less vulnerable 
populations as well.While they may never need government assistance, 
their choices to marry or cohabit have cumulative effects. Marriage needs 
to be encouraged, honored, and rewarded for all. 
Burstein 2007:43 
There are two ways of tackling the couple penalty. One method is to reduce 
dramatically the amount of financial support for lone parent families. This 
would impoverish a large number of children. A better alternative is to provide 
more support for couple families. This would reduce the incentive for unpartnered 
child-bearing and family breakdown. It would also help to relieve 
the widespread poverty and stress in low-income couple families. This subject 
receives fuller treatment in the Appendix to this report commissioned from 
independent experts in this field. 

Support for marriage 

Marriage is a valuable institution that is of benefit both to children and to society 

at large. The boxed quote indicates the need to avoid the trap of only focusing on 
the most vulnerable families 
in this area. Support for marriage 
cannot be simply dismissed 
as giving money to 
those who are already comfortable. 
The Appendix to 
this paper explains how the 
tax burden on families has 
risen disproportionately in 
recent history. As one commentator 
put it, �the middle-
class, middle-income family, 
that bastion of social stability, 
hard work and high aspira


tions has never been so embattled.�54 Marriage is concentrated in these more edu


cated (Ermisch & Murphy 2005), middle class and beleaguered sections of the 
population. To acknowledge the enduring value of this institution is to shore up 
marriage in its heartland. It also sends the signal to the lower deciles, characterised 
by greater informality and therefore instability, that marriage, to which many 
aspire (Edin & Kefalas 2005), is a social good. 

Couples who get married are on average more committed and stable than those 
who cohabit but marriage also helps to cement relationships by altering the 

behaviour of those who get married55 (ie. we are not just describing selection 
effects). Since marriage is a valuable social institution there is a strong case for 
supporting it. Politicians and other commentators dismissively refer back to the 
time when marriage was recognised in the tax system with the married couples� 
tax allowance (which is now available only for couples in which one of the part


54 
Sunday Times Review, 5th March 2006. 

55 
As Fractured Families states, on p127, �Socio-economic selection effects undoubtedly account for part 
of the apparent benefits and protections afforded to married couples. But, as Wilson & Oswald 
(2005) demonstrate in their review of longitudinal studies, marriage brings with it a causal component 
that is not accounted for by socio-economic background factors.� 

64 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

ners was born before 1935). They argue against the ability of a tax allowance to 
act as a support for marriage, on the grounds that family breakdown rose during 
the period over which the MCA was available to all married couples. However, 
using the MCA as a reference point for a positive tax treatment is flawed. That is 
because the allowance was never in reality much of a financial 
support for marriage per se since the same amount of money was 
also available under another name, as the additional personal 
allowance, for lone parents or cohabiting couples with dependent 
children. Therefore the MCA itself was only a genuine financial 
bonus to married couples without dependent children and 
potentially greatly limited in its effect. 

There is a case for introducing a differently constituted married 
couples� tax allowance, both to acknowledge the interdependency 
that marriage represents and, for symbolic reasons, to 
indicate the social importance of marriage. Given what we say 
above, the group has considered measures other than the old MCA, such as a tax 
credit or a transferable tax allowance restricted to married couples. Again, this 
receives fuller treatment in the Appendix to this report. 

Incoherence in the tax and benefit systems 

The tax and benefit system is incoherent and different parts operate according 
to radically different principles. For income tax purposes, the unit of taxation 
is the individual and, apart from one minor exception mentioned above, 

there is no tax allowance for family dependants such as children, non-working 
spouses or elderly relatives. To put it another way, adults who do no paid 
work but fulfil caring responsibilities, volunteer or otherwise serve their communities, 
are not entitled to a personal tax allowance. Given the contribution 
that many are making to the functioning of their own family, local community 
and therefore to the wider society, it is inequitable that this caring and community 
work is not acknowledged in the tax system. 

In contrast, the unit of account in the welfare system is the family. For example, 
under income support, the personal adult allowance for a couple (�92.80) is 
considerably less than twice the allowance for a single person (�59.15, aged 25 or 
over). Likewise, the second adult element in the working family tax credit (�1,700) 
is identical to the lone parent element, despite the fact that it has to cover an additional 
adult. Such inconsistencies in the tax and benefit system have no logical justification 
and should be eliminated (see Appendix). 

Taxation of Married Couples 

In the vast majority of European countries,56 (including Norway and 
Denmark) the tax system recognises the interdependence of husband and wife 

See Table of Family Taxation Systems in European OECD Countries at end of Appendix. 

Money talks 


65 

Breakthrough Britain 

and makes allowance for the existence of spousal obligations. The form and 
generosity of these allowances varies from country to country. The taxation of 
couples can be divided into two main types: individual and joint. In this country, 
the unit of taxation is the individual and interdependence between spouses 
is almost entirely ignored. For tax purposes they are treated as totally separate 
individuals. This is an unusual system and in the rest of Europe the vast 
majority of people (93%) live in countries that make allowance for spousal 
obligations.57 In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Italy, there are 

transferable tax allowances whereby an earning member of a couple can use 
the unused tax allowance of the non-tax paying partner. In other countries, 
such as France and Germany, an income splitting system is used whereby the 
income of all family members is pooled and then taxed according to a formula 
which takes into account the number and characteristics of family members. 
This system is normally to the advantage of families with non-taxpaying members 
or where there are big disparities in the earnings of family members. In 
most countries that operate this system it is not compulsory and individual 
taxation is available as an option for those who prefer it. 

Childcare 

This will receive further attention in the next chapter but as the benefits system 

includes childcare tax credit, it is important to mention it in this context. There 
has been a massive extension 
of state-subsidised 
nurseries for younger children 
and in �wrap-around� 
out-of-school and vacation 
care for older children. 
These developments have 

been justified as a means of enabling lone parents to work and to compensate 
for the deficits in nurture and stimulation experienced by some disadvantaged 
children. They also enable the second partner in a couple to work, so as to 
reduce poverty in couple families and to promote gender equality. There may 
be an argument for encouraging lone parents to work, in the interests of reducing 
child poverty and to make it clear that complete, long-term dependence on 
state support is no longer an option. However, there are also the interests of 
the children to consider, and in the next chapter we describe how parents often 
feel unduly constrained in their choices about the best form of care for children. 
The contested nature of the evidence of the benefits of formal care renders 
this lack of choice even more problematic. 

Between the ages of 0 and 3, children may often be better off if they are cared 
for at home by a lone parent than brought up in a professional nursery. In the 

57 
This has been calculated by referring to the taxation systems identified in tables S1 and S2 in OECD 
2003 and using population figures from UN 2003. For further information see Appendix. 

According to the original Commission on Social Justice,�Collective 
childcare provision should not be seen as a substitute for parenting 
but as a support for it and an enrichment of children�s lives� 
Hewitt & Leach 1993:25 
66 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

Polling by YouGov (Apr-May 2007) indicates that 96% of people 
expressing an opinion agreed that giving extra support for people to 
care for elderly relatives would allow older people to stay in their 
homes for as long as possible and save the cost of providing care in an 
old people�s home 
case of couple families, even those on low incomes, the case for encouraging 
both parents to work is weak when there are caring responsibilities, and in 
most cases there is no strong reason to favour professional nurseries over home 
care for young children. Ways of redressing the bias against informal care by 
close relatives are discussed in the next chapter. 

The welfare system and care in general eg. eldercare 

Carers of elderly and disabled people are not adequately resourced or recognised 
for the work they do. Carers UK told us that one in five carers is forced to give 
up employment to care and 
the trend towards downward 
social mobility of carers is 
concerning. For those who 
remain in employment the 
working culture of their 
organisations may not support 
eldercare and it can be 
very hard to manage work and caring responsibilities. Carers Allowance is granted 
to those providing over 35 hours a week of care to someone who is on middle 
or upper rate Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance. It is a 
benefit payment of �48.65 a week. Carers are allowed to earn another �87 per 
week but benefit is completely withdrawn as soon as that figure is exceeded. The 
low level of Carer�s Allowance discourages people from providing care to family 
members. It is one of the lowest forms of benefit available but it there is a high 
level of expectation in terms of work, in return. 

The need for fundamental reform 

After extensive consultation and reflection we have come to the conclusion that 
the tax and benefit system needs fundamental reform. The objectives of such 
a reform should include: 

z 
Reduction of the couple penalty by providing more help to low income 
couples 
z 
Support for marriage through more favourable treatment of married couples 
in the tax and benefit system 
z 
Acknowledgement of family ties through a comprehensive system of tax 
allowances for dependent relatives, such as children, non-working spouses 
and elderly parents 
z 
Elimination of the bias against informal childcare in the tax credit and 
benefit system 

The end result of such a reform would be something like the present French tax 
system which is more coherent than our present system, is less biased against couples 
and makes comprehensive allowance for family ties. In seeking to eliminate 

67 

Breakthrough Britain 

Carers should be adequately 
recognised for the work they do. 


the bias against informal childcare, the reform would be following the example of 
Finland and Norway which provide generous financial support for the home care 
of children. Such a comprehensive reform would be complex and could not be 
achieved overnight. This is not least because of the need for a cultural change 
within many sectors of British industry. Flexible working has to become more 
acceptable, to the extent that many professions and occupations which currently 
have somewhat rigid career trajectories will be less �forgiving of interruptions� 
(Hewlett 2002:73). If a parent is financially able to take time out of work but 
penalised in career terms (which usually curtails their future earning power) then 
this will prevent take-up of the measures we suggest. In the meantime, we recommend 
that the following first steps be taken: 

4.1 Raise the level of Carers Allowance to �90 a week 
The rationale for raising the UK�s low level of Carers Allowance rests on the fact 
that this allowance, in reality, recompenses a very high level of work.The 
Economic Dependency paper (4.2.1: Fair Level of Support for those that truly 
cannot work) describes the importance of active benefits and an 
underlying expectation in the system that there should be 
�something for something�. This benefit already meets such a criterion. 
In addition, the carer is potentially saving the state the 
large amount of money which outsourced care would cost and 
that should be taken into account.58 The UK lags behind other 

nations in supporting informal care. For example Ireland last 
year greatly increased its Carer�s Allowance to �135 for one person 
being cared for and �200 for 2 people. 

According to the Government tax credits site59 if a single 

woman with no dependants aged 46, caring for her mother, 
received Carers Allowance at �2,529.80 per year and the figure was classed 
as a wage, she could claim an extra �2131.20 in Working Tax Credit per year. 
Adding these two figures together amounts to just under �90 per week. We 
are not recommending that Carers Allowance be officially classed as income 
and the additional amount applied for as the model above suggests. If that 
were the mechanism, any gains would be offset in low-income households 
by reductions in other tax credits because of the way in which elements in 
the benefits system interact. In a similar vein, for the doubling of the 

58 
Carers UK (2002) estimated that carers saved the Government �57.4 bn per year - the same amount 
as NHS annual spend. This calculation is based on an hourly carer�s rate of �9.95 per hour which 
takes into account the complex care needs most carers meet. eg. To provide physiotherapy services 
twice a day to a cystic fibrosis sufferer would cost �45 per hour, if provided externally. To estimate 
savings to the Government, even if carers were working only 35 hours a week (although many carers 
will commonly be caring for around 50 hours per week) at minimum wage (�5.35 per hour) each 
person cared for would cost just over �9000 per annum. If Carers Allowance was set at �90 per week 
the total cost per carer would be almost half, at �4,680 per annum. This is an overall saving of just 
over �4000 per carer, per year, totaling over �3 bn in savings for the 795,000 people that receive 
informal care today. 

59 http://www.taxcredits.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/Qualify/EntitlementResults.aspx 

68 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

allowance to have an effect, an exemption would need to be made on the 
extra sum of money so it did not affect income/allowances on other claimed 
benefits such as Carers Premium. Finally, we are also recommending that 
allowable earnings be raised to �100 after which a taper is applied, rather 
than immediate loss of all allowance. 

Cost implications 

The DWP suggests that 795 000 people have applied for Carers Allowance 
(although more are entitled to it), but at present 339 000 of those claim other types 
of benefit in preference (because of its low rate). Assuming that all 795 000 carers 
claimed the benefit, at the present rate of �48.65 per week the cost to the 
Government is �38,676,750 per week. If the level of Carers Allowance was 
increased to �90 a week, the cost to the Government is �71,550, 000 per week or 
an additional annual spend of �1.7bn per year. We place strong caveats on these 
figures however, as the DWP insist that it is impossible to predict how many more 
people would claim Carers Allowance if the benefit was raised (and who would 
swap from a different benefit to claim it.) However, significant savings are anticipated 
because informal care costs far less than state provision60 and this would 

enable/encourage more people to provide it. 

4.2 Reduce the couple penalty61 
by increasing the amount of tax credit or income support that couples get. We 
suggest that this could be done by enhancing the couple element in Working 
Tax Credit, which is currently identical to the amount a lone parent receives i.e. 
it makes no allowance for the presence and expense of an additional adult. This 
would reduce child poverty in intact low-income families. It would also reduce 
family breakdown by relieving the financial stress on low income couples and 
reducing the incentive to separate. 

Costs and criteria 

Currently a couple receive the same amount of working tax credit as a lone 
parent. The basic element paid to everyone who is entitled to receive Working 
Tax Credit is �1,730. As stated earlier an additional adult in the household 
receives �1700 on top, but if you are a lone parent you also receive another 
�1700. So a couple receives �3430 and a lone parent receives �3430. ie. there is, 
in reality, no allowance made for an additional adult. Rather than suggesting a 
reduction in the lone parent element we asked the Institute of Fiscal Studies to 
cost three different ways of reducing the couple penalty. 

They told us that if we were to: 

60 For example, physiotherapy services provided twice a day to a cystic fibrosis sufferer would cost 

�45/hour. 
61 This receives fuller treatment in the Appendix to this report commissioned from independent 

experts in this field. Also see Economic Dependency Paper, Section 4.2.4: Avoid Benefit Traps That 

Discourage Two Parent Family Formation or Encourage Fraud 

69 

Breakthrough Britain 

1 
raise the couple (additional adult) element to 2 times the amount currently 
received by a lone parent, it would cost �5.9 bn62 and 2.2 million couples 
with children would gain on average �51.57 per week (this cost includes a 
�0.2 bn saving on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit because of the 
way tax credits and benefits interact). 

2 
raise the couple element to 1.5 times the amount currently received by a 
lone parent, it would cost �2.6bn and 1.8m couples with children would 
gain on average �28.25 a week. 

3 
raise the couple element so that the ratio of WTC for a couple as compared 
to a lone parent is the same as under the present income support system, 
this would cost �3 bn and 1.8m couples with children would gain on average 
�32.05 a week. 

In the interests of consistency with other facets of the benefits system we 
would recommend option 3. To double the amount of working tax credit 
(option 1) does not take into account the fact that a couple living together 
experience economies of scale by virtue of so doing. In other words it overcompensates 
for the additional adult whereas Option 2 undercompensates or 
does not sufficiently take a second adult�s cost of living into account. The ratio 
employed by the income support system (where a couple receives around 1.6 
times that of a single adult) provides a more realistic figure. Moreover, the 
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Brewer et al 2006) recommended that aligning 
the Working Tax Credit ratio for couples with that of income support as a necessary 
reform in order to reach the 2020 child poverty target. 

If however a reduction in the couple penalty had to take place incrementally, 

over several budgets, the IFS have calculated that it would cost �1bn to increase the 

working tax credit for all couples with children by �780 per year (�15 a week).63 

4.3 Transferable tax allowance for married couples (TPA) 
according to criteria which would have to be established by an incoming gov


ernment. Since marriage is such a valuable social institution we recommend 
that an incoming government 
allow the transferring 
of tax allowances between 

Our Apr-May 2007 YouGov polling indicated that of those expressing 

married couples. (Also see

an opinion 80% agreed or strongly agreed that extra support for 

Economic Dependency

marriage should be given in the tax and benefits system, such as a 

Paper, Section 4.2.1: Fair 

MCA or transferable tax allowance 

Level of Support for Those 
That Truly Cannot Work.) 
We envisage that the TPA would be confined to married couples and not available 
to cohabiting couples. The allowance is intended to support the institution of 

62 All policies are expressed in 2007 prices but assume implementation in April 2008. 
63 See Ch 12 of IFS 2007, Brewer M., �Supporting Couples with Children through the tax system�. 

70 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

marriage because of its proven advantages to children and the wider society (for 
example, married couples play a key role in caring for elderly relatives). Marriage 
establishes a legal relationship of interdependence between the persons concerned. 
Statistics indicate that cohabitation is inherently less stable, so there is not 
the same justification for recognising it in the tax system. Neither is it a relationship 
of legal dependence, so extending the TPA to these couples would present 
significant practical difficulties for tax offices needing to ascertain the exact status 
of informal relationships (as countries like Sweden have discovered). 

Costs and criteria 

In response to a request from this group, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has 
estimated the cost of a transferable tax allowance according to different criteria. 
Their estimates assume that the allowance applies only at the basic rate of 
taxation, due to be 20% in April 2008, and is equal to the existing personal 
allowance (set at �5,225 for 2007/8). 

The IFS has estimated that the option of a transferable allowance 

z 
For all married couples would cost �3.2bn; 
z 
For all married couples, but where only half the personal allowance was 
transferred, would cost �1.6bn64 (if there were not sufficient funds initially. 
Such an option would allow an at-home spouse to earn around �2,500 
before being liable for tax.65) 
z 
For all married couples with dependent children or receiving Carers 
Allowance, would cost �1.5bn; 
z 
Given only to married couples with children under 6 would cost �0.9bn 

A TPA of the full personal allowance amount would provide only modest 
financial support for marriage - �20 a week to those making use of it � encouraging 
rather than incentivising it. The main rationale for the allowance would 
be to provide symbolic recognition of the institution of marriage. It would 
indicate that marriage is valued because of its benefits to children and the 
wider society. It would make it easier for a mother or father to remain at home 
to look after their children whilst the other spouse worked, or for one partner 
to do voluntary work within the community, look after elderly or disabled 
members or manage a home in a way that enables partners and families to have 
more undivided time together. We would thus see this as a measure with the 
potential to increase family stability and improve the quality of family life. 
(The table at the end of the report indicates how most European OECD countries 
have spousal tax allowances and income splitting, almost all of which have 
lower rates of family breakdown than the UK.) 

64 The 2008/09 cost of this year�s tax credit package was �1.6 billion. 
65 Although this is not our recommendation, we acknowledge its benefits - the Equal Opportunities 
Commission drew our attention to the disincentive of a TPA for usually non-earning spouses earning 
a little extra money for the household, eg in the run up to Christmas. Not transferring the whole 
allowance would allow them to do this without having to pay tax on the first pound earned. 

71 

Breakthrough Britain 

4.4 Front-loading Child Benefit (see also Economic Dependency 
Report, 4.3: Direction of Policy Development: Front Loading of Child Benefit) 
Labour MP Frank Field suggested that this be done by increasing the amount of 

child benefit for young children and reducing the amount parents receive when 

the same child is older. In other words, over the child�s life-course parents would 

receive no more money in total but they could receive larger amounts of it eg. 
during the pre-school or 0-3 
years period, when children 
are most in need of informal 
care. This proposal would 
relieve the financial pressure 
that forces many mothers to 
work when they would prefer 
to stay at home (see next 

chapter). It would also provide an opportunity to address deficits in nurture and 
care, by helping parents who are currently struggling to come to grips with the 
many demands of parenting, thus building stronger, more sustainable families. 

Conditions attached to receipt of front-loaded benefits 

We are not recommending �testing� all parents and closely scrutinising family life. 

However, as we indicated in the section in this chapter on childcare, it is because 

of deficits in parental care that some disadvantaged children are entering nurs


eries. Therefore, there might be some concern that funds are effectively being 

provided which will encourage ill-equipped parents to look after their children 

themselves instead of entering paid work and placing their children in daycare. 

It is to address these concerns and the parenting deficits they are based on, that 

some conditionality would attach to the receipt of front-loaded child benefits. 
Earlier in this report 
(Chapter 1) we emphasised 
the importance of intervention, 
where necessary, in the 
first three years of a child�s 
life, for the sake of their lifelong 
emotional (and physical) 
health. Regular cognitive 
and behavioural checks, routinely 
carried out on all children 
by a revitalised health 

visiting profession, would identify those parents who need help to bond with and 
successfully raise their child such that they will be prepared, across a spectrum of 
measures, to enter school and be ready to learn. 

When struggling parents are identified by health visitors, home visiting, parenting 
support and the other remedial services described in Chapter 1 would all be 
available. Receipt of front-loaded child benefit as described earlier, will be dependent 
on health visitors and other professionals being satisfied that infants and young 

52% (of those expressing an opinion) agreed or strongly agreed that 
�child benefits should be �front-loaded�, allowing parents the option of 
choosing to claim more of their child benefits at the early stages of 
childhood and at a lower rate when they are older 
YouGov poll for SJPG Apr-May 2007 
Our polling found that 88% of those expressing an opinion agreed or 
strongly agreed that �there should be a requirement to attend 
parenting classes for those parents who social services believe are 
struggling to bring up their children� and slightly more (85% of those 
expressing an opinion) agreed that if parents receive money from the 
state to bring up their children they should be willing to attend 
classes if necessary 
YouGov poll for SJPG Apr-May 2007 
72 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

children are making the necessary developmental progress under the care of their 
parents. Where parents are unwilling to engage with parenting support services to 
address deficits, their access to 
the temporarily higher level of 
child benefit would be affected 
and eventually denied. 

It is anticipated that only 
a very small percentage of 
parents will be required to 
take up these services in 
order to receive front-loaded 
child benefit. It cannot be 
overemphasised that this 
would not be a way of �testing� all parents and intruding into their family lives. 

Most children present no concerns when current developmental checks are carried 
out but for those who do, it is not unreasonable that some expectation be 
placed upon their parents to address deficits which could have severe consequences 
for the rest of the child�s life. 

If this proposal were adopted we would want all parents to have the option of 
drawing down large monthly rates of child benefit in the early years. However, as 
the Economic Dependency Report indicates, if this is not possible in one budget, 
then we would recommend a phased process in which the initial focus is on those 
families who would benefit most from such a policy. The life chances of children 
who might otherwise be most at risk of lacking in nurture and quality parental 
care could be vastly improved by providing such a measure and linking it robustly 
to parenting support. We also recommend a detailed and thorough consideration 
of the future availability of 

4.5 Home Care Allowances 
In the tax system, of the Norwegian or Finnish type which enable parents of 
young children to stay at home to look after them should also be considered. 
These, like the measure described above, acknowledge the importance of primary 
carers bonding with their children and being there for them in the early 
years, if that is their choice. 

Both this measure and front-loaded child benefit raise complex incentive and 
implementation issues, as they could, for example, more easily facilitate un-partnered 
childbearing. However they cannot be dismissed on these grounds as effective 
elements in a system 

YouGov polling (Apr-May 2007) showed that whereas 92% of those 
expressing an opinion agreed that parenting classes could be a great 
help to the minority of parents who are unable to cope with bringing 
up their children, an almost identical amount agreed that the state has 
no business telling parents how they should be bringing up children. 
This indicates that well-researched and evaluated programmes, 
delivered by the voluntary and community sector, rather than by 
social services, might receive a better public reception 
which recognises the importance 
of early years care and 
the need for parents to be 
able to choose how that care 
is delivered, as the next chapter 
indicates.. 
The YouGov (Apr-May 2007) poll found that of those expressing an 
opinion, 76% agreed or strongly agreed that money should be available 
in the form of home care allowances or tax breaks in order to help 
one parent stay at home with young children if they want. 
73 

Breakthrough Britain 

Chapter 5 
Creating genuine choice for families in paid work 
and childcare 

Introduction 

Getting lone parents and other benefit-dependent adults into work is a key 
part of any strategy to end child poverty. Moreover, although we emphasise the 
importance of nurture, especially in the first three years, as children become 
older it becomes increasingly important for them to understand the importance 
of at least one of their parents working. Most parents realise this and 
many lone mothers consider that �going out to work� makes them a good role 
model for their children (Duncan 2003, Bryson et al 1999). 

However, the need to work is complicated by the need for �high-quality 
affordable childcare� - whether it is provided outside the home or by the parents 
themselves. It is very difficult for childcare to be both affordable and high-
quality without significant government subsidies. The current cost of living 
(eg. high tax burden, housing and childcare costs) make it very difficult for 
many parents to manage working and child-rearing responsibilities. 

The British Social Attitudes 23rd Survey (2007) concludes that more than eight 
out of 10 parents working 
full-time would like to spend 
more time with their family, 
up from under 75% in 1989. 
The survey finds that full and 
part-time employees, men 
and women alike, struggle to 
combine their jobs with family 
responsibilities. Although 
working hours have fallen 

slightly for men, an increase in working hours for women means that, overall, the 
total hours worked in two-earner households have risen. At the same time, the 
pressures of work appear to be increasing, with both men and women expected 
to work harder. 

Many of the organisations and individuals who gave evidence to the 
Commission noted this �time bind� (which affects families across the socioeconomic 
spectrum) but considered that the current government places too much 
emphasis on the value of paid work outside the home and too little on the 

value of care provided by at-home parents. Full Time Mothers66 told us that 

Little has changed since the original Commission on Social Justice said 
in 1993,��wherever surveys have been carried out, almost all 
mothers - and many fathers as well, if they are also asked - express a 
preference for part-time or more flexible working hours �if only it 
were possible�� Social Justice, Children and Families 
Hewitt & Leach 1993 
74 
66 www.fulltimemothers.org 


family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

�bringing up children is not a job you can do effectively in spare time from 
work. Raising a family is a huge, difficult, exhausting, amorphous 20-year project 
� vital and rewarding 

Hewitt and Leach also said �Our emphasis on choice for parents as to 
how they wish to arrange the care of their children, and on their right 
to care for them personally if they wish, is rather different from the 
usual emphasis on childcare provision�..we believe that parents are 
generally the best judges of what their children and they themselves 
need�� (p24) 
though it is. Economic contributions 
are valued far 
above caring and social contributions 
but parenting as a 
full-time choice must be 
made more acceptable 
socially and less damaging 
financially.� It was the lack of 
perceived choice which was highlighted by most of the people we consulted. 

Individual families are being increasingly pushed towards dual and full-time 
earner models and formal, state-subsidised childcare receives more financial 
support and acknowledgement from the Government than informal and private/
voluntary sector provision. 

According a proper place to informal (including parental) childcare 

Studies indicate the decisive influence of the quality of parenting on children�s 
outcomes. However, despite the desire of many parents to give more priority to 
their children, present policy appears to focus on getting as many people into 
work as possible, regardless of caring responsibilities. There seems to be very 
little regard for a growing body of research which emphasises the importance 
of high-quality, loving, high-availability care in the first three years of life 
(Stern 1985, Schore 1994, Schore 2000). There is no doubt that some young 
children thrive in nurseries but studies indicate that a significant number are 
subjected to much mental stress (eg. Lamb et al 2004) and might be better off 
in a more informal care setting. 

The present government is investing large sums of public money in childcare 
subsidies which must be spent on state-registered service-providers, and 
the Childcare Act 2006 has paved the way for 3,500 Children�s Centres to spearhead 
affordable and accessible group day-care. Such initiatives are inconsistent 
with the well-documented preferences of parents and recent reports which 
indicate that almost a quarter of existing nursery places are empty.67 Parents 
with young children are working more flexibly, taking longer maternity leave 
and the most popular form of childcare is that done by relatives and friends 
(chosen by 52% of working parents, although it has to be said that some of that 
preference is due to the higher cost of nurseries). 

Since Children�s Centres increasingly provide daycare for babies and very 
young children, it might be presumed that this huge political and social initiative 
is well-grounded in positive findings from developmental research. 

67 Times, 2/5/07, �Nurseries feel pinch as mothers stay at home�. 

75 

Breakthrough Britain 

Child nursery centres 


However Ahnert and Lamb (2004) state that �A variety of family circumstances, 
multiple types of nonparental child care, and the complex effects of temperamental 
differences among children all ensure that child care in and of itself is 
unlikely to have clear universal effects, either positive or negative.� The research 
evidence suggests that the benefits of group child care are mixed at best and 
damaging at worst. 

The effects of group child care 

The biggest UK study into the effects of childcare, the �Effective Provision of 
Pre-School Education� (EPPE, Sylva 2004) study followed 3000 children 
from age 3 to 7. Childcare for the under twos, especially if more than ten 
hours per week, was associated with slight increases in anti-social behaviour. 
Better quality childcare reduced bad behaviour but did not eliminate it. One 
Surestart nursery nurse said �We can tell which children do long hours in the 
centre because their behaviour gets worse and worse throughout the day. 
�Dry� children suddenly wet themselves three times in half 
an hour, they just become permanently tired and should 
really be at home. Despite our best efforts, many appear 
increasingly stressed. I love my job but I am not going to put 
my children in a nursery.� She admitted that some full-time 
places are paid for by the local authority because the mothers 
cannot cope but said �Surely the answer is not to do the 
job for these mums but to give them the basic skills so that 
they can do it themselves. Often these mums have other children 
and another baby on the way, we have to think longer 

term. The problem is that increasing numbers of the parents 
we see feel completely unfit for the task and think the nursery will do a better 
job. But we can�t be there 24/7 and those deficits are going to emerge 
somewhere along the line.� Ahnert and Lamb (2003) make the same point 
that �home remains the emotional center of children�s lives and it is important 
that supportive parent�child relationships not be harmed by child care 
experiences.� 

A new report on the biggest US study of childcare NICHD ECCRN (Belsky 
et al 2007), following 1,300 children through to their 12th birthday, shows that 
good quality childcare predicts better children�s vocabulary but that group 
childcare predicts more behavioural problems. Both effects are relatively modest 
and �non-clinical� and the study found that the quality of parenting was a 
more important factor for subsequent learning and behaviour. 

Previous findings from this study had already shown that quality, quantity 
and type of childcare all have different effects on children. Quality 
boosts academic performance but does not affect behaviour. Quantity, and 
increases in quantity, boosts problem behaviour but does not affect academic 
performance. Amongst types, group childcare in particular boosts 

76 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

academic performance but also boosts problem behaviour. But not all positive 
and negative �effects� of childcare wear off over time. An unexpected 
earlier finding has been that �effects� that had disappeared by age 5 had 
reappeared again at age 8. This new report showed that problem behaviours 
linked with longer experience of group childcare persisted all the way to age 

12. 
To summarise, these and other highly respected studies do contest the current 
emphasis on group day care and paid work outside the home. They state 
firstly, and most importantly, that children do best when they are given good 
quality parenting. Second, childcare can be good for children, provided it is 
only for a few hours a week and especially if the children are looked after by 
relatives. Third, group childcare in particular is linked to modest but persistent 
behavioural problems, especially where nursery hours are long, the quality is 
poor, and the child is under two. In conclusion, the effects of childcare are both 
mixed and modest. Ultimately, good quality parenting is what matters most 
but this is harder to achieve in the time famine which is so prevalent a feature 
of contemporary family life. 

A bias in the system 

Undoubtedly the system is biased away from informal care, such as has historically 
been provided by grandparents, other kin and trusted friends. It also discourages 
parents from 
working part-time or not at 

In our YouGov (Apr-May 2007) poll, of those expressing an opinion 

all for bounded periods of 

80% agreed that it is better for pre-school children to be looked 

time whilst their children 

after by a parent at home rather than by a childminder or day 

are small. Ideally profes


nursery, whereas only 29% of people agreed with the statement 

sional childcare should be 

that we should be trying to encourage mothers to go back to work 

available for those who 

and contribute to the economy, rather than making it easier to stay 

want to use it but the sys


at home. 

tem must not penalise those 
who want to look after their 
own children. A balance has 
to be struck and a strong, culture-challenging signal sent, that for those who 
want to spend time at home looking after their children or a close relative there 
is room in the system for that choice as well as for the choice to work continuously. 


As stated earlier, the commission received substantial evidence of the benefit 
to children of parental care in the early (first three) years. This is a contested 
area of research but the body of evidence about the importance of attachment 
and nurture for brain development is too significant to ignore when constructing 
national policy on this issue. Again the intention is not to coerce or 
prescribe a particular way of raising children but the Government must 
respect the desires of those who feel that their children need their care, and 

77 

Breakthrough Britain 

recognise that this is supported by research and is not some kind of outmoded 
and reactionary view of the family. 

It must be emphasised that our policies are in no way intended to discourage 
primary carer parents, usually the mother, from re-entering the workplace 
or coerce a return to tightly prescribed roles for mothers and fathers within the 
family. This is not the underlying reason for the proposed change in policy. 
What is being addressed is the lack of choice that either the mother or father 
(or carer of elderly parents) has, to be less engaged with the labour market at 
key points in the lifecycle of the family. Again, the aim is to take practical steps 


to strengthen the family. 

The role of grandmothers and other close relatives in childcare 

Research by Brown and Dench (2004) indicates the preference 
which many parents prefer have for informal care for 
their children. If for some reason, such as work, the parents 
cannot care for their children, the �next best thing� is often 
seen as the care provided by a grandparent, usually a grandmother. 
However many grandmothers still have a job themselves 
and whilst they might be willing to cease work or 

reduce their hours in order to look after their grandchildren 
they can only receive payment by Childcare Tax Credit69 if they (and their 
homes) pass muster with an OFSTED inspection. Grants are made available 
to help bring the structure of and equipment within homes up to the necessary 
standard but to receive the tax credit grandparents have to take on 
other children in addition to their own grandchildren. 

This system discourages relatives, especially grandparents, from looking 
after children in a variety of different ways. Firstly, many find it a demeaning, 
intrusive and lengthy process to be subjected to OFSTED scrutiny when 
they normally have considerable experience with small children. Secondly, 
many have no wish to take on additional children. They are only interested 
in look after their own grandchildren and have no desire to become professional 
child minders. For those who do and who are looking after other people�s 
children we are not suggesting a change. However we are recommending 
the following: 

69 
Although child minder rolls are falling and harnessing the willingness of grandparents and close relatives 
has been seen as one solution, their payment is precluded, a) unless they are registered and 
approved but also b) if the child/children is/are being looked over by a registered or approved relative 
in their own home and c) if a registered or approved child carer is providing childcare away 
from the child/children�s home, but is only caring for a child/children they are related to. However, 
such family members are legally allowed to care for children 
(http://www.taxcredits.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/Qualify/WhatAreTaxCredits.aspx - a relative of a child 
means a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother or sister, whether by blood, half-blood, marriage 
or affinity. 

78 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

5.1 A reduction in the current bias in the tax credit system 
against informal care 
By allowing the use of childcare tax credit to pay close relatives albeit at a lower 

rate, (possibly set at 80%70 of the new, higher rate of Carers Allowance recom


mended elsewhere in this document) if they are not registered child minders. This 
lower rate reflects the lower overheads that are involved in looking after the children 
in their own home or in that of the informal carer. We are aware of concerns 
about the potential this has to �marketise� the family, but consider that as some 
grandparents are giving up work to care, family members are already trading off 
financial considerations between themselves and there has already been some 
implicit market penetration. 

We discussed whether or not child protection considerations (such as the 
need for a Criminal Records Bureau check) should apply to informal care by 
close relatives where it is paid for at the lower rate of childcare tax credit. 
However we concluded that this would represent unwarranted state intrusion 
into family life and an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. 
OFSTED state that you do not need to be a registered child 
minder if you are a close relative of the child you are looking 
after. Currently there is a big gap between who can legally look 
after your children and those who can be paid using government 
money for this purpose. 

This is partly but not sufficiently explained by the need to 
avoid fraud. However, we question whether there are strong 
incentives to defraud the system. If a parent claims childcare 
tax credits to pay a relative or non-resident parent, and the 
money is not used for that purpose, the parent will still have to 
make some kind of alternative childcare arrangement. The need to find such 
an alternative will act as a disincentive to fraud and where fraud does occur the 
normal penalties would apply. 


(We would also note that in an earlier chapter we recommended that serious 
consideration should be given to the introduction of home care allowances 
along the lines of what is currently available in Finland and Norway. We took 
evidence from other European nationals who described various ways in which 
their governments made it possible for one parent to stay at home within the 
first three years. For example, Germany legally guarantees that a mother can 
return to work after this period.) 

We took evidence which suggests that partial payment caps the amount that eg. a grandmother 
charges her daughter/in-law, as she knows that the final 20% must be found. Money would have to 
be applied for and acceptable hourly rates determined by government. This would prevent claimants 
from always applying for the full entitlement, regardless of actual hours worked. 

79 

Breakthrough Britain 

Cost implications 

Allowing childcare tax credit to pay close relatives is likely to encourage an 
increase in demand. According to HMRC, 374,000 families claimed childcare 
element of working tax credit in 2006 at an average weekly cost of �49.80. A 
doubling of current take-up would cost an additional �1bn annually. The net 
cost of such a scheme would in reality be lower, even if particularly hard to 
quantify. Some savings would emerge as existing claimants switch from higher 
cost group childcare to lower cost childcare by relatives. Further savings emerge 
as relatives now receiving income from childcare see a consequent reduction in 
their own tax credits. 

5.2 Targeted assistance for parents who currently struggle 
to nurture their young children 
Such as therapeutic counselling for carers and their babies within the first 
two years of the baby�s life (eg. that provided by organisations such as 
OXPIP). If parents decide to look after their own children, the quality of the 
care they provide is important. Stay-at-home parents who struggle to nurture 
their children, do not know how to stimulate their child, or have poor 
nutritional awareness etc. may do a �worse� job than a day nursery.71 

However, research (Ahnert and Lamb 2004) indicates that if a child is not 
securely attached to a primary carer when he or she enters a nursery, say at 
one year old, then the stress of entering such a setting can send cortisol 
(stress hormone) levels soaring much higher than if he or she were securely 
attached. 

Whether or not their children go to nursery, we cannot ignore the nurturing 
difficulties these parents are facing. Higher quality care does, of course, 
reduce negative results but cannot completely neutralise them. The best 
thing for a child in the very early years is secure attachment to a primary 
care-giver (Bowlby 1969, 1973), whether that is full-time at home or combined 
with some non-parental provision. That is not achieved in the current 
situation where children are entering childcare early because of nurturing 
deficits at home. 

User satisfaction with well-designed programmes 

Brown and Dench (2004) found that when low income young mothers were 
made more aware of child development and helped to relate to their children, 
their level of engagement in and enthusiasm for such programmes was high. 

71 The �home� group (300 children) in the EPPE study cited earlier were especially disadvantaged, mak


ing statistical control even more important when comparing their progress to children who attended 

pre-school. 

80 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

Addressing parenting deficits rather than focusing solely on outsourcing care 
may produce greater relational health, improve a wide range of outcomes 
across and constitute an investment for the rest of parents� and their children�s 
lives. 

Cost implications 

Provision of additional parenting skills and knowledge can be 
provided both at home via health visitors and in the community 
via parenting education courses. These have been costed in 
Chapters 1 and 2. 

Although we have sought to make it easier for many parents to 
stay �at home� with their children if that is their choice, equally 
we acknowledge that many households are currently 
dependent on the formal childcare sector which faces many 
challenges. We are also recommending: 


5.3 Removal of the bias towards state-provided childcare 
and acknowledgment of the current disadvantages faced 
by other providers in the childcare sector 
Our research (such as testimony from the National Day Nurseries Association) 
has highlighted the problems private, voluntary and independent (PVI) nurseries 
face when local authorities set up Children�s Centres and when schools 
establish nurseries (eg. as part of their Extended Schools programme), in areas 
where PVI day nurseries already provide sufficient childcare to meet local 
needs. 

When Children�s Centres do not seek to form a partnership with local day 
nurseries but establish their own subsidised facilities instead, this can distort 
and flood the local market, reducing occupancy levels to the point at which 
existing day nurseries simply become unviable. However, some local authorities 
are opting for a partnership approach and these provide models of good 
practice which others can follow with regard to commissioning, integrating 
and planning early years service. (Children�s Centres are not obliged to have 
day nursery facilities on site, although families are entitled to access a Centre�s 
integrated services at a point nearby.) 

The second issue affecting the viability of PVI day nurseries is the new code 
of practice on free entitlement. This entitles every three and four year old to 

12.5 hours free nursery education, 38 weeks per year. Low income families, 
lone parents seeking part-time work or parents re-training to re-enter the job 
market find the free entitlement particularly useful in getting childcare support. 
Although day nurseries support this in principle, many local authorities 
81 

Breakthrough Britain 

are purchasing free entitlement places from them at a rate substantially below 

the cost of providing the childcare.72 

Providers cannot recover the shortfall by charging parents a top-up fee. 
Since 96% of three year olds and 100% of four year olds use the free entitlement, 
a high take-up produces a bigger funding gap. A growing number of day 
nurseries are faced with the choice of either withdrawing from the free entitlement 
scheme or gradually being forced to close. Both options disrupt continuity 
of care for children and deprive parents of choice and local facilities. If these 
(and other similar) issues are not resolved, the state will become the principal 
provider of childcare services. This will reduce choice for users, increase the 
burden on the state (as such services are highly subsidised) and further 
increase parents� dependency on the state. Commentators such as Jill Kirby 
describe the creeping �nationalisation of childrearing� (Kirby 2006) and have 
criticised public policy which firstly privileges formal childcare and then privileges 
state-provided formal childcare as fundamentally and unacceptably 
biased. 

The distinctiveness of the PVI childcare sector 

PVI nurseries often have an established local presence and reputation and are 
important providers for parents of children with disabilities or learning difficulties. 
They have recommended to us that local authorities conduct rigorous 
audits and local sufficiency assessments before planning their own subsidised 
childcare; that local authorities, schools and good non-maintained 
providers work more closely together to ensure a cost-effective, coordinated 
and sustainable supply of childcare for local families (with greater incentives 
provided to encourage partnership between local authorities and PVI nurseries) 
and that local authorities� funding for free entitlement for three and 
four year old nursery education be ring-fenced and reflect the full cost of 
childcare. We support these recommendations but go further in recommending 
that 

5.4 Childcare should be located outside community-based 
Children�s Centres wherever possible 
This would leave these Centres free to concentrate on delivering the kinds of 
services we have elaborate in the earlier chapters on community-based services 
for mental and relational health. It should be a priority for every local 
authority to do all it can to guarantee as much choice as possible within its geographical 
area, providing subsidised state childcare only where necessary to 

72 Most local authorities buy free entitlement places at less than �4 per hour whereas providers� over


heads demand that nurseries charge between �4.50 and �5.50, with costs rising where overheads are 

greater (eg. London and the South East). 

82 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

meet local demand and not in competition with existing providers, such that 
well-performing nurseries are in danger of being priced out of business by subsidies. 


Cost implications 

Although private sector childcare costs are readily available � typically �5-8,000 
per year � it is not obvious how to tease out the equivalent costs from Children�s 
Centres. The 2006 Surestart cost effectiveness review,73 for example, reports that 
childcare comprises 18-21% of the �1,000 spent per child aged 0-4 in each catchment 
area. No details are available for how many children received childcare. 
However it seems highly unlikely that Children�s Centre provision will prove 
cheaper than private sector provision. The cost of outsourcing childcare is therefore 
likely to be lower. 

5.5 Childcare and Disability 
It is far harder for parents with disabled children to access childcare and services 
are usually charged at significantly higher rates due to the need for higher 
staff ratios or more specialised care (Dobson & Middleton 1998). Working tax 
credit makes some provision for disability but not enough to offset this kind of 
disparity. A survey of 350 families with a disabled child found that for 90% of 
families the costs of childcare were a major deterrent to work (Beresford 1995). 

The National Audit Office found that only 10% of childminders, 41% of 
playgroups and 49% of day nurseries offer services for disabled children. The 
Every Disabled Child Matters campaign group describes the need for local 
authorities to commission services to stimulate the childcare market for disabled 
children, such as by subsidising the provision of disability training. In the 
light of this, and other evidence, we recommend that: 

The current disadvantages faced by parents accessing childcare for disabled 
children be alleviated 

by setting a higher rate of childcare tax credit (for children requiring specialist 
services or higher staff ratio care) and by requiring local authorities to take 
active steps to encourage greater provision eg. by providing subsidised training 
for private, voluntary and independent nurseries. 

Cost implications 

According to Every Disabled Child Matters, parents of disabled children face a 
shortfall of �140 per week after offsetting allowances against actual childcare costs, 
compared to a shortfall of �26 for parents of non-disabled children. Only 16% of 
mothers with disabled children work compared to 61% of mothers more general


http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/documents/synthesisReports/1287.pdf accessed 27th May 2007 

83 

Breakthrough Britain 

ly but these figures might go up if there were higher allowances. Narrowing the 
financial shortfall entirely and the difference in mothers working by half, for the 
100,000 parents claiming higher disability allowance, would cost an additional 
�200m annually. Once again, net costs would be lower as the removal of a key disincentive 
to work decreases state dependency for many families. 

Chapter 6 
Supporting and encouraging family cohesion 
post-separation 

6.0 Introduction 
Although few would disagree with the dictum that prevention is better than 

cure, current policy suggests a pervasive view that family breakdown is 
inevitable and that efforts will be most fruitfully focused on 
alleviating difficulties post-separation. Elsewhere in this document 
we have tried to redress this emphasis, but we cannot 
ignore the very real difficulties which families face once they 
have broken down. There are significant financial issues to be 
resolved, most notably the payment of maintenance by the 
non-resident parent (usually the father) and we discuss here 
our views on the proposed Child Maintenance and 
Enforcement Commission. Undoubtedly parents and children 
also face serious emotional issues. We would hope many of 
these would be substantially relieved through the �invitation� 


system and the Family Services Hubs recommended in Chapters 1 and 2. 
However, in addition new dispute resolution services are also needed to effect 
conciliation and mediation. 

Achieving payment compliance from non-resident parents 

In all western countries there are policies for ensuring that non-resident parents 
provide financial support for their children (Skinner et al 2007). In both Canada 
and the USA, penalties for non-compliance range from confiscation of the offender�s 
driving licence or passport to imprisonment for more serious offenders. Many 
other countries use at least one of these methods. In Australia and Norway, an 
offender�s passport may be confiscated, and imprisonment is used as a sanction in 
Belgium, New Zealand and Norway. In this country, penalties are comparatively 
weak and failure to pay child maintenance is not at present a criminal offence. A 
non-resident parent may be imprisoned for failing to provide information or 
knowingly providing false information, but not for refusing to pay. 

84 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

The level of maintenance payments in this country is decided and enforced 
by the Child Support Agency (CSA), the agency set up in 1993 to replace the 
previous court-based system. 
The CSA is widely 
regarded as a bureaucratic 
and costly failure with only 
one in three lone parents 
receive any maintenance 
payment at all from the 
non-resident parent. 
However, evidence suggests 
that the effect of child support 
obligations is to reinforce 
existing couple relationships. Recent UK research finds strong evidence 
that the large child support liabilities, arising from the 1992 rules, significantly 
reduced the risk of separation (Walker & Zhu 2006). Indeed, the results are 
big enough to explain all of the approximately 15% fall in divorce rate for parents 
with dependent children that has occurred since 1992. The researchers 
believe this effect would have been much larger if the CSA had been more effective 
at achieving payment compliance from fathers. 

A recent report by Sir David Henshaw recommended the abolition of the 
CSA and its replacement by a new body operating on different criteria 
(Henshaw 2006). Most his specific recommendations have been accepted by 
the Government and a completely new agency, the Child Maintenance and 
Enforcement Commission (C-MEC), is to be set up. 

In response to Henshaw�s report, the Government�s objectives laid out in its 
recent White Paper (DWP 2006) are as follows: 

z 
Help tackle child poverty by ensuring that more parents take responsibility 
for paying for their children and that more children benefit from this; 

z 
Promote parental responsibility by encouraging and empowering parents 
to make their own maintenance arrangement wherever possible, but taking 
firm action - through a tough and effective enforcement regime - to 
enforce payment where necessary. The new enforcement measures include 
confiscation of passports and curfews on non-resident parents who do not 
meet their child support obligations and publishing, in suitable cases, the 
names of non-resident parents who are successfully prosecuted or who 
have a successful application made against them in court.74 More intensive 
use will also be made of existing sanctions such as the removal of driving 
licences and imprisonment; 

The YouGov poll (Apr-May 2007) found that of those expressing an 
opinion, over 90% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement �Fathers 
should be forced to take more responsibility for helping to bring up their 
children after separation or divorce� The same number of people agreed 
with the statement �too many children suffer from not having a good 
male role model after family break-ups and courts should do all they can 
to ensure that children continue to have contact with their fathers� 
We are concerned about the possible effects on children of having their non-resident parents publicly 
�named and shamed�. It is our view that the other methods of enforcement are preferable to this 
and would probably act as a greater incentive to responsible payment. 

85 

Breakthrough Britain 

z 
Provide a cost-effective and professional service that gets money flowing 
between parents in the most efficient way for the taxpayer and 
z 
Be simple and transparent, providing an accessible, reliable and responsive 
service that is understood and accepted by parents and their advisers 
and is capable of being administered by staff. 

In terms of our own recommendations we support these objectives especially 
some of their proposals for tougher enforcement (with the caveat expressed in 
the footnote below) but we would add the following: 

z 
Discourage irresponsible behaviour, by ensuring that men cannot father 
children or walk out on their families without any cost to themselves (the 
same principle applies to mothers). 

z 
Treat family breakdown (dissolution, dysfunction and dadlessness) as preventable 
and not inevitable occurrences. 

Therefore, there are a number of points where we differ or where these proposals 
need to be complemented by other measures and we recommend that: 

6.1 Judges be specifically encouraged to reinforce the 
importance of contact arrangements to separating parties 
We took evidence from several fathers and fathers� lobby groups who argued 

that the courts do not enforce contact obligations adequately. We are not in a 
position to ascertain how 
common this is but would 
argue that such obligations 
should be enforced. We recommend 
that the Judicial 
Studies Board (responsible 
for the continuing education 
of judges) explicitly 
encourage judges to take a 
more �hands-on� approach 
by stressing to parties the 
importance of abiding by 
arrangements, the possibili


ty of being held in contempt of court through non-compliance etc. 

These same lobby groups raised further issues on contact, shared residency 
etc. Such issues touch on complex areas of the law. Whilst the views of the judiciary 
in this country on these areas are already changing to some extent, we 
recommend that the legal position of non-resident parents be considered as 
part of the legal review recommended in Chapter 7. (There are no significant 
cost implications for this proposal). 

In our Apr-May 2007 YouGov poll over 90% of those expressing an 
opinion agreed with the statement �Fathers are currently unfairly treated 
by the courts and not given the same rights as a matter of course as 
mothers are. Children should have the right to have both their natural 
parents involved in their upbringing following a family break-up and 
mothers and fathers should be treated equally.� Only 22% agreed that 
�fathers have adequate access rights�the fathers involved in militant 
protests have often only lost access rights because of domestic violence 
and abuse� (38% said �Don�t know�) 
86 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

6.2 No nil rate 
Under government proposals non-resident parents who are students in full-
time education or whose income is less than �7 per week will have to pay no 
child maintenance. However we disagree with the concept of exemptions, as it 

undermines the general principle that every child�s non-resident father or 
mother should have to pay something towards his or her upkeep.Students 
and all able-bodied persons who are unemployed should be willing and 
expected to do some kind of job in return for the money required to meet obligations 
to their children. 

Cost implications 

The small amount of payments is unlikely to affect tax credits or benefits in any 
meaningful way due to the current disregard of small maintenance payments (�10 
per week and likely to increase). Therefore this policy is unlikely to cost or save the 
Exchequer a significant amount (excluding enforcement costs). 

6.3 Information and services to prevent subsequent 
breakdown 
Henshaw also recommends that a redesigned CSA would act as a service 
provider, offering information, advice and signposting to other services and 
the need for a �radical shift in business model, culture and efficiency.� Such an 
agency is uniquely placed not only to inform people about benefits but also 
about what they could do next time around to ensure that their future relationships 
stood a higher chance of success. It could dispassionately provide evidence 
of the likely instability of different forms of relationships and information 
about what makes relationships work and how they fall apart. 

This could make a very big difference to the adults and children in these families. 
For example, a good stepdad or stepmum can make a huge difference to a child but 
one in four stepfamilies break down in the first year. Stability is crucial in determining 
whether or not stepfamilies enhance children�s wellbeing but it may be hard to 
achieve when one or both partners has never really understood why their first relationship 
ended in the first place or if they are still deeply hurt from the fallout. 

An emphasis on preventing serial family breakdown will require the kind of 
cultural shift we called for in Fractured Families which treats dissolution, dysfunction 
and dadlessness as preventable and not inevitable occurrences. The new CMEC 
should be signposting 
clients towards services which 
can, for example, help fathers 
to be more involved and 
which can promote psychosocial 
wellbeing following 
the trauma of a family crisis. We would anticipate that local C-MEC services would 
work closely with the Family Services hub in their area. 

YouGov polling (Apr-May 2007) showed that (of those expressing an 
opinion) 60% agreed or strongly agreed that prevention of family 
breakdown is possible and should get significant government funding 
87 

Breakthrough Britain 

Cost implications 

Access to information and services to prevent future relationship breakdown will 
be provided through Family Services Hubs discussed in Chapter 1. 

6.4 Navigating the legal maze post-separation 
Much of the direct cost of relationship breakdown to the UK tax payer (�2024bn) 
is attributable or related to divorce and separation (eg. legal aid, protection 
against domestic violence etc). The post-separation services that do exist 
are both fragmented and uncoordinated, creating considerable additional 
stress for separating parents and a great waste of public funds. The present system 
for dealing with conflict resolution is unnecessarily over-reliant on the 
court service and the legal profession. A new approach is needed to successfully 
implement alternative dispute resolution services such as conciliation and 
mediation. We therefore recommend that there be: 

Improved access to justice for separating couples 

In October 2007 the present government will be implementing many of the 

reforms to public legal funding proposed within the Carter report.75 Since the 
deadline for signing the new 
legal service contacts passed 
on 31st March this year we 
are now witnessing a significant 
withdrawal from the 
public sector by the legal profession, 
mainly because the 
new fee structures for Legal 
Aid, to be introduced under 

the new contract in October 2007, cannot sustain many of them in business.76 

Thus there is a very real likelihood of a lack of access to justice for many, due to a 
reduction in legal services providers. According to family lawyers group, 
Resolution,�the proposals will downgrade the quality of work and restrict access to 
justice for the most vulnerable members of society.�77 The proposals we make below 
will help to combat this problem by early intervention and alternative dispute resolution, 
avoiding the legal route altogether where possible. 

Family �Justice� Centres 

Earlier in this report we have looked at Family Services Hubs which co-locate 
and coordinate community-based services. These hubs could also either signpost 
people towards centres which provide a range of legal and quasi-legal 

�By 2010, don�t find yourself assaulted by a partner, 
don�t have matrimonial or domestic problems . . . 
because it�s very likely that no-one will be around to 
provide support� Desmond Hudson Law Society Chief Executive: � 
75 http://www.legalaidprocurementreview.gov.uk/publications.htm accessed 26th May 2007 
76 According to the Law Society Gazette (August 2006), an early analysis of the new payment scheme 
indicates that solicitors will receive a 50% cut in their income and risk �decimating, if not destroying 
altogether, the practitioner base in the field of child law.� 
77 ibid 

88 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

services or, depending on the size of the facility, house these services alongside 
other family support services. 

We have been particularly exercised by the piloting and rollout of Family 
Relationship Centres (FRC�s) in Australia and consider that this concept might 
be relevant and applicable in the British context.78 Heralded as the Australian 
government�s cornerstone for their new family law system, these centres are 
said to be �a source of information and active support for families at all stages, 
including people starting relationships, those wanting to make their relationships 
stronger, those having relationship difficulties and those affected when 
families separate�. The Government have committed to setting up 65 new 
Family Relationship Centres across Australia, based upon one centre for every 
300,000 of the population. 15 are already open, 25 are opening in 2007 and a 
further 25 in 2008. The CEO of Relationships Australia (New South Wales) 
told us that FRCs are being built on a significant foundation of existing relationship 
support which is not yet as well-developed in the UK, but the 
approach would stimulate increased capacity in this field of service provision. 

The Family Services Hub we have described earlier could act as a Family 
Relationship Centre, similarly providing easy access to essential services under 
one roof in a supportive environment and acting as a gateway to other service 
providers. This co-location of resources would include mediation, marriage 
and relationship educators, counselors, advocates, social workers, housing 
providers, debt and welfare benefit advisors, legal services, police officers, children�s 
cr�che, medical and mental health services, faith group support and 
more. The �co-location� of services in a central accessible location would reduce 
the many burdens upon the individuals involved, remove the problem of fragmentation, 
enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of service 
providers, and minimise wasteful duplication of fixed and administrative costs. 

Overwhelming need for �separation� services 

It has to be noted that although initial reports from Australia indicate strong 
public take-up, this is especially by people accessing separation services. 
Centres have been �swamped� by demand for the latter, and resources have been 
somewhat diverted away from family support services as a result. When deciding 
how to organise the new required range of services delineated earlier, local 
authorities would have to consider the advantages and disadvantages of having 
support services and what might loosely be termed �justice� services under one 
roof. Another alternative, and one with a clear British precedent, is to establish 
a centre similar to the Croydon Family Justice Centre which has been running 
since December 2005. This provides a location for over 20 statutory and com


FRC�s have the following principle roles; (i) help prevent family breakdown and strengthen intact 
relationships through the provision of marriage, relationship and parenting education, and signposting 
to other support services (ii) through early intervention initiatives, help parents work out post 
separation parenting and contact arrangements, avoiding the involvement of the court service and 
expensive legal professionals (iii) provide educational support to parents going through separation, 
helping them understand their children�s needs and providing practical information about child 
support and welfare benefits (iv) help resolve ongoing conflicts and new difficulties that may arise as 
circumstances change (v) provide advice and assistance to grandparents, who so often occupy a crucial, 
pivotal and sometimes invidious role in family breakdown situations. 

89 

Breakthrough Britain 

munity based organisations and mirrors a facility in San Diego which is 
arguably the most comprehensive centre in the US for victims of domestic violence 
in terms of centralised, coordinated multi-partnership services. The 
Croydon FJC is, however, limited to serving the victims of domestic violence. 
A similar model could be used for a much broader range of mediation and 
conciliation services, and a local authority might choose to locate the other, 
preventative family support services somewhere else. Crucially however, there 
would be coordination between service providers, facilitated by the Family 

Services Hub and signposting from one to the other, depending on need.78 

The development of something akin to a Family Relationship Centre, designed 
to maximise and best utilise existing community-based provision (such as 
Children�s Centres) would be a natural but hugely significant evolutionary change 
to the way in which families are supported in this country. It would shift the 
emphasis away from the often embittered, adversarial, expensive legal route and 
strengthen the family unit rather than just deal with the aftermath of breakdown. 
Such a scheme would represent a major investment in family life. 

Cost implications 

If the concept of FRC�s is adopted in principle, it is then proposed that a detailed study 
of the Australian model be undertaken, together with an appraisal of pilot locations 
in the UK and a fully detailed proposal with a budget for a pilot scheme produced. 
We can say at this stage that Australian Family Justice Centres are estimated to cost 
�42m per annum (A$100m), for 65 centres covering a total population of about 20 
million. This is about �645k per centre, with each centre catering for 300,000 people. 
Costings we have received from justice centres at home and abroad lead us to conclude 
that running costs of �450k per annum are realistic. Given these two figures we 
are, as a simple starting point, allowing �500k per centre. 

Regarding numbers of centres, if we adopted the Australian population based 
model of one per 300,000 we would require about 175 centres in England and 
Wales for our population of 53 million. (The Croydon FJC covers a local authority 
area with a population of about 350,000 and thus is quite comparable on that 
basis.80) To complete the calculation at this stage, 175 centres at �500k per centre 
would require an operational budget of �100m per annum plus capital costs. 

In terms of cost reductions, such a scheme would result, for example, in significant 
savings to the Legal Aid bill. The Legal Services Commission�s gross figure for 
bills paid in Family proceedings in 2005/6 was �507, 488, 000 ie. More than half 
a billion pounds was spent in eight different areas including domestic violence, 
help with mediation, combined family proceedings etc. some of the work involved 
in which is currently being done in Australian Family Relationship Centres. 

79 If this shift in dispute resolution methodology is accepted, it may be prudent to follow the Australian 

lead where the courts require a certificate indicating alternative dispute resolution has been sought 

before a legal application will be accepted. Publicly funded applications in England and Wales are 

already subject to this. requirement, but it is not difficult to obtain the certificate in practice and it is 

not extended to privately funded applicants at present. 
80 There are, however, just under 400 local authorities in England alone, double the population-based cal


culation. Although local authorities will be the facilitators of these centres (as is the case in Croydon) an 

analysis of the distribution of population and land coverage of these local authorities would be neces


sary to assess the appropriateness of using them as a base for calculation of numbers of centres. 

90 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

Political and Legal aspects 
of family breakdown 

Chapter 7 
Legal issues surrounding marriage and divorce, 
cohabitation, parental rights and the rights of the 
extended family. 


7.0 Introduction 
Our working group has considered the relationship between the law and family 
breakdown, covering the legal aspects of marriage, 
divorce, cohabitation, parental rights and the rights of 
the extended family. In terms of the latter, there is 
growing awareness of the need to look beyond the 
needs of the nuclear family, and to pay particular attention 
to the role of grandparents. The social, relational, 
cultural and religious domains that co-exist in our society 
present many complex considerations which will 
require attention if any law reform proposals are to 
have valid breadth and substance. 


7.1 Divorce reform 
Divorce, with its frequently related issues of children and distribution of assets, is 
often one of life�s most stressful, protracted and costly events. We have received 
evidence that our present divorce law itself contributes to family breakdown and 
contrary opinion that any effect is marginal. The debate whether divorce should 
be made harder or easier ranges across the following themes: 

z 
That the concept of �fault� should play a larger role in divorce. Others urge 
a contrary view and maintain that such issues should continue to be 
viewed as largely irrelevant; 
z 
Calls for speedier divorces by mutual consent are contested by others who 
would impose more significant obstacles to slow the parties down or even 
dissuade them from divorce; 
z 
Some feel there should not be any change at all on the basis that the law is 
working effectively and as intended. The perception for nearly 40 years is 
that the role of the courts is to crush the empty shell of a failed marriage 

91 

Breakthrough Britain 

with the minimum of bitterness and the maximum of fairness, thus allowing 
the parties to move on in their lives. In many ways this is a laudable 
aim which it would be risky to challenge. 

7.2 Cohabitation 
Cohabitants and their children form a larger percentage than ever before of 
families in the UK today and any equalisation of statutory rights for cohabitants 
with married couples raises several important, complex and wide-ranging 
issues. The Law Commission has set up a specific reporting group to look 
at the financial hardship suffered by cohabitants, or their children, on the ter


mination of their relationship by separation or death.81 

The Law Commission consultation period closed at the end of September 
2006, having received a large number of responses from members of the public, 
the legal profession, academics and groups representing a wide range of 
interests. Their report is due for publication in August 2007 when recommendations 
will be set out. We have concluded that it would be wrong to put forward 
proposals ahead of a report from such a distinguished body (after which 
point we obviously reserve the right to reply.) 

In Fractured Families, we consistently highlighted the shift from marriage to 
cohabitation as a major force behind rising family breakdown. We therefore 
have considerable reservations about the negative implications of legal changes 
that further validate the fundamentally unstable status of cohabitation. Four 
issues in particular stand out, all of which suggest that better solutions may be 
found in non-legal policies. 

Concerns about imposing rights and responsibilities on cohabitees 

There is a liberal argument that in a culture where living together without formal 
commitment is socially acceptable, people are caught up in these social 
norms and are badly protected by the law when relationships break down. In 
other words, the liberal approach is to accept that alternatives to marriage exist, 
not penalise in any way those who choose not to marry, and protect people 
from their ignorance about the fundamental differences between marriage and 
these alternatives. Our first point is, as we stated in Fractured Families (pp9596), 
that it would be far more liberal to inform people about the legal and 
behavioural differences between these two statuses, rather than use the law to 
obfuscate these differences. In contrast to the deliberative process involved in 
marriage, cohabitation is more often typified by drift (Stanley, Rhoades et al 

81 
The project concentrates in particular on the following issues: (i) Whether cohabitants should have 
access to any remedies providing periodical payments, lump sums, or transfers of property from one 
party to the other when they separate. (ii) A review of the operation of existing remedies providing 
capital awards (such as lump sums and property transfers) for the benefit of children under the 
Children Act 1989. (iii) Whether, where a cohabitant dies without a will (intestate), the surviving 
partner should have automatic rights to inherit. (iv) A review of the Inheritance (Provision for 
Family and Dependants) Act 1975 as it applies to cohabitants and their dependent children. (v) 
Whether contracts between cohabitants, setting out how they will share their property in the event 
of the relationship ending, should be legally enforceable. 

92 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

2006). The vital role of deliberation is a crucial omission in the Law 
Commission's otherwise comprehensive consultation paper. 

Secondly, and following on from this, we should not lose sight of the fact 
that many people choose to cohabit precisely because they do not want to be 
hemmed in by rights and responsibilities. Imposing a contractual obligation 
on parties who have not freely entered into it is highly problematic and, paradoxically, 
illiberal. It will provide a strong disincentive to living together at all. 
Moreover, it will be very hard to determine whether or not cohabitation is 
actually taking place (as our earlier statements on incentives within the benefit 
system to claim separate residence show). The practicalities of establishing 
cohabitation are potentially very intrusive, necessitating checks on people's 
living arrangements which would make a mockery of the liberal intent of narrowing 
the gap between marriage and cohabitation. The way to avoid the need 
for such checks is by making the formal commitment of marriage.(Other 
countries, such as Sweden, who have granted such rights are accustomed to far 
higher levels of government intrusion which compulsory registration of 
cohabiting relationships entails.) 

Thirdly, recent research reveals fundamental differences in the way men and 
women view commitment. Whilst women tend to commit on moving in, men 
tend to commit when they make clear decisions about their future (Rhoades et 
al 2006). Unmarried women may consider themselves better protected by a 
new law on cohabitation. However fathers may also consider themselves better 
off unmarried as they avoid the deliberative process associated with marriage, 
commitment and stability. The unintended consequence of a new law may 
turn out to be an acceleration in the trend away from marriage and a surge in 
the numbers of unmarried mothers and their children left high and dry by 
uncommitted fathers. If we want to encourage a high-commitment culture, it 
is counter-intuitive to make additional provisions, within the law, for lower 
forms of commitment. 

Finally, some legal provision is already made for the children of cohabiting 
couples through Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. The Law Commission 
point out that few couples make use of such provision because either they 'do 
not seek legal advice' or 'it is possible that some advisors � overlook the 
potential of Schedule 1 or consider it unsuitable for their clients circumstances.' 
(Law Commission (2006:16-17). Although this existing law protects 
children, albeit imperfectly, it is most likely underused because is does not also 
sufficiently protect (typically) mothers. (They may for example be allowed to 
live in the family home with their children until the children reach majority, 
after which point they currently may have no legal right to remain.) A proposed 
new law is likely to minimise the gap in financial rights of married and 
unmarried couples who separate. Whilst doing much to address perceived 
injustices, these proposals are not obviously compatible with a long-term 
national policy aimed at improving family stability by encouraging marriage 
and discouraging markedly more unstable cohabitation. 

93 

Breakthrough Britain 

Fathers can have an active 
role to play in childcare 
choices 


7.3 Parental responsibility, contact and residence 
Increasingly, it is publicly acknowledged that there have been injustices for fathers 
who have not been able to have sufficient contact with their children for various 
reasons. Contact orders may well be made by the courts in 
favour of the parent without residence82 but a breach of such 

order is not easy to remedy because draconian enforcement 
(such as imprisonment for contempt) can materially harm the 
children and their relationship with the absent parent. 

We do detect that some, admittedly slow, progress is being 
made through the courts as the judiciary increasingly recognise 
the importance to the child of a father�s influence. 
Certainly in the area of shared residence the courts are more 
inclined to making orders of this nature even if the sharing is 
rarely strictly equal (or sought to be such). We have much 

sympathy for the many parents who have given evidence, who consider that the 
current rate of change is too slow to improve their position whilst their children 
are young, but are unhappy to make an immediate recommendation. 

7.4 The extended family 
There is growing awareness of the importance of extended family members, 

especially of grandparents in today�s �beanpole� families.83 What (very) little 

law there is on the subject is contested, with lobby groups perceiving there to 
be injustices in the current system. For example, if a grandparent wishes to 
make an application for contact with a grandchild, the Applicant will firstly 
need to obtain leave of the Court under Section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989 
(unless they are exempt under Section 10(4) or 10(5)). 

This two stage approach causes delay and upset to many grandparents, some 
of whom will have been very actively involved in their grandchildren�s lives. (The 
legal route is frequently very bitter as grandparents tend to side with their own 
child upon breakdown.) If both parents are opposed to an application by the 
grandparent such application is unlikely to be successful. We recognise that some 
applications by grandparents for contact are used inappropriately as a back-door 
application to obtain contact for an absent father who has been refused contact. 
Another practical problem with grandparents� contact applications is that there 
are only so many free weekends for children, particularly once they reach a certain 
age, and if the parent without residence is having even adequate, let alone 
generous, contact there may be little additional time available. 

We attach weight to the evidence that the parties who seem to manage contact 
issues more amicably are those who were directed towards compromise at 

82 
The rights and responsibilities of non-resident parents are always carefully considered against the 
framework of the Children Act 1989 where the child�s welfare remains the paramount consideration. 

83 
The way generations in the family are connected by vertical links is sometimes characterised as the 
�beanpole family� - long and thin. As family sizes shrink, the number of siblings and cousins will 
dwindle while the intergenerational relationships become more intense, presenting the state with 
particular challenges (Guardian September 25th 2004) 

94 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

an early stage. We feel strongly that a collaborative approach that supports and 
encourages early mediation and conciliation between the grandparent and the 
parent with residence (which could be facilitated by the Centres described in 
the last chapter, see footnote on Australian FRC�s) has a real prospect of producing 
better outcomes for the family. In so doing this will also relieving pressure 
and financial burden upon the court service. 

The legal challenges outlined above have led many senior figures to conclude 
that a comprehensive review of family law is required. We therefore recommend 
that there be: 

7.5 A dedicated independent commission to review 
these areas 
We have unanimously recognised that any attempt at wholesale reform of these 
topics is a subject beyond the immediate scope of this group. The range and 
sensitivities of the issues for consideration will require substantial additional 
time, research and expertise in order to produce well-founded and practical 
recommendations which are relevant to our culturally diverse society. A full 
review of family law concerning divorce, cohabitation and parental/extended 
family rights law would be welcomed by many and is probably overdue.84 

Accordingly, our recommendation is that an independent commission be set 
up for the purpose, possibly under the auspices of the Centre for Social Justice. 

Chapter 8 
Family-centered policies at the heart of government 

8.0 Introduction 
The first ever government consultation paper on the family (HMSO 1998) 
stated that: 

�Families depend on government for services such as education, health, 
social services, and law and order. In almost everything that government 
does, we can help families, neglect them or even do them active harm. So 
it must be right for government to have a policy towards the family, to 
provide the best support that it can. This positive supporting role is needed 
now more than ever. And just as the strains on families have increased 
over the years, so the support provided to help families needs to change 

There have been earlier attempts to reform the law (predominntly the Family Law Act 1996) but 
even after a decade its partial implementation has not fulfilled the intention behind the legislation. 

95 

Breakthrough Britain 

Polictical focus should take a 
holistic family view. Iain Duncan 
Smith meeting families on the 
Brixton Moorlands Estate 


too. Neither a �back to basics fundamentalism�, trying to turn back the 
clock, nor an �anything goes� liberalism which denies the fact that how 
families behave affects us all, is credible any more� 

In this chapter we consider how local and central government can truly support 
the family within the parameters indicated above. It is far easier to avoid 
the former than the latter evil: it is deeply unfashionable and unrealistic to suggest 
that some �golden age of the family� can be reclaimed but resisting �anything 
goes� liberalism is an altogether greater challenge for government. 

Despite the difficulties, it is however essential that the effort be expended to 

do just that. In her book The Fragmenting Family, the philosopher Brenda 
Almond argues that �the pursuit of individuals� best options, 
narrowly construed, has led to disharmony and a worse rather 
than better outcome for society as a whole. It is an outcome 
that leaves individuals exposed and alone in their personal 
lives and makes them subject to the control of government in 
critical areas of life that traditionally were family concerns.� We 
cannot overstate the extent to which we want strong families, 
fulfilling their essential functions with minimal state interference. 
However government cannot help but perform a strong 
signaling role. A government that fails to send the right signals 
about the importance of commitment and stability and, most 

importantly, to back up those signals with necessary action cannot be said to 
be supportive of the family. We therefore recommend the following: 

8.1 Cabinet-level political representation for the family 
We have been greatly exercised by one of the recommendations of the Laming 
Enquiry, set up after the Victoria Climbi� tragedy, which states �With the support 
of the Prime Minister, a ministerial Children and Families Board should 
be established at the heart of government. The Board should be chaired by a 
minister of Cabinet rank and should have ministerial representation from government 
departments concerned with the welfare of children and families� 
(Laming 2003: para 17.97). 

The sentiment expressed in this recommendation is that the interests of 
families be represented at the heart of government. As a group we have considered 
whether or not the way to do this is by recommending that the current 
position of Minister for Children, Young People and Families be a cabinet-level 

post and renamed as Secretary of State for the Family.85 

According to senior politicians with whom we have consulted, the current 
cabinet system doesn�t support the championing of specific subject areas. 

85 
It has been argued that this would necessitate the inclusion of education in the brief, but given the 
wide range of other ways in which the family is implicated in government considerations, which 
would more centrally belong to its remit, we dispute this. 

96 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

Furthermore cross-cutting cabinet members historically fail because they 
struggle to get different Departments onside. The current Minister for 
Children, Young People and Families is not cabinet level but �� has overarching 
responsibility for children, young people and families policy and the Every 
Child Matters programme, including leading work across government and 
working closely with the new Social Exclusion Ministers.� 

We presume that promotion to a cabinet-level post would not remove the 
disadvantages of cross-cutting. The logical alternative would be to have all 
family policy in one department. It is currently the case that family policy is 
spread between government departments such as the DfES, DCA, Home Office 
and Health. However, the concerns of an institution as central to society as the 
family are inherently and unavoidably cross-cutting and will therefore always 
be subject to the disadvantage already cited. 

It is for this reason that we have considered other ways of �positioning� family 
at the heart of government such as that suggested by Lord Laming above. We 
are recommending that as a first step, the current Domestic Affairs Cabinet 
Committee for Parents and Children be chaired by someone of cabinet rank (the 
current chair is the non-cabinet ranked Minister for Children, Young People and 
Families). Its remit should be extended to cover the couple relationship (if it does 
not do so already) and its name changed accordingly. Such a body would consider 
inter alia the likely impact on families of proposed policies directly or indirectly 
related to them, thus insuring that this institution at the heart of society is 
given due consideration when cabinet-level decisions are made. 

8.2 Reinstate use of �marital status� and related terms in 
government forms and statements 
Official language is vital in sending signals to the public about government policy. 
In a decision buried in a government commentary on the civil partnership 
consultation process (Smith, 2003:41), the term �marital status� was officially 
removed, without debate, from government forms. The implication of this policy 
to remove all official references to marriage is that marriage no longer matters. 

The removal of this term from government forms was accompanied by the 
removal of marital status as an independent factor in government-sponsored 
research.86 Yet a major study based on Millennium Cohort Study data, commissioned 
last year by this group, challenges the wisdom of this policy, by identifying 
the substantial gap in family stability between comparable married and 
unmarried couple parents (Benson, 2006). 

We propose that government send a clear and unambiguous signal about 
marriage with the reinstatement and full public use of the term �marital status� 

Research on the Families and Children Survey (FACS), commissioned by the Department of Work 
and Pensions, illustrates this well. Pre-2003 FACS studies differentiate a range of family outcomes by 
marital status. Post-2003 FACS studies conflate several distinct categories of marital status into the 
umbrella term �couple parent� (see Fractured Families, pp30-31) 

97 

Breakthrough Britain 

Some fathers have experienced 
injustice under current laws. 


and associated terms �husband�, �wife�, �spouse� and �marriage�. Where the word 
�partner� currently appears in prominent official documents, such as tax returns, 
we propose replacement (where appropriate) with the term �spouse or partner�. 
This policy follows on naturally from our conclusions about the importance of 
marriage in Fractured Families and has minimal fiscal implications. 

8.3 The compilation of local data on social cohesion 
We propose the compilation of a new statistical index of family and social cohesion. 
The Government�s social exclusion unit lists eight reasons for social exclusion 
� unemployment, discrimination, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, 
high crime, ill health and family breakdown. All of these reasons, with the exception 
of family breakdown, are well-represented in the indices of social exclusion 
compiled and published by the Office of National Statistics. These indices can be 
used to highlight status and progress of social exclusion within any individual 

local authority or ward. 

There is no compelling reason why some suitable index of 

family breakdown is not present amongst these indicators and 

much reason to commend its addition. A new index of family 

and social cohesion will fill an obvious gap in the provision of 

local information on social exclusion, allowing both national 

and local government to target resources more appropriately 

towards the reduction and prevention of family breakdown. 

Such a measure is likely to facilitate and enhance local action 

from the voluntary sector. 

The most obvious data for inclusion in a new index are marriages 
and divorces. These data are already collected and published on a 
national basis. However local registration procedures would need to be adjusted 
to collect postcode data in the same way as births or deaths. Other measures 
could include reported and repeat incidents of domestic violence, number of 
children in care and taken into care, births outside marriage and to lone mothers, 
incidences of truancy, incidences of sexually transmitted infections, number 
of registered drug addicts, number of homeless hostel occupants etc. 

Cost implications 

Compilation of a new data series is likely to draw as much on existing resources as 
new ones. On top of the entire �172m Office of National Statistics budget for 
2007-8, which is itself declining as a result of efficiency savings identified in the 
Gershon report, the new dataset is likely to cost around �1-3m. 

8.4 Robust local government support of relationship and 
parenting education 
We propose that local authorities actively support relationship education in 
much the same way as the 2006 Respect Action Plan recommended that local 

98 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

authority delivery of parenting provision be improved. This states that in 
October 2006 �guidance was issued by the DfES to local authorities and 
Children�s Trusts on delivering parenting support. By now all local authorities 
should have a single commissioner with responsibility for assessing need and 
co-ordinating delivery of services to parents.� Amongst the new requirements 
and expectations on local authorities to improve planning, commissioning and 
funding of parenting services, was the need to ensure that every local authority 
has a senior �parents champion� who will be the co-ordinating point for work 
across local agencies and ensure that all services for parents are a key part of 
Children and Young People�s Plans. Local authorities had until 31 March 2007 
to apply for small DfES grants to help them put their strategic approach to parenting 
support into effect over the next few months. 

Such a �champion� should, we would stress, coordinate, facilitate and enable a 
diversity of service provision, rather than control, determine and restrict what is 
available. With these caveats we recommend either that such a senior �champion� 
also be similarly responsible for relationship education (with the same degree of 
importance placed on that aspect of their role) or that another commissioner be 
employed who can focus exclusively on this new area. Such a person would act as 
a link between the national Marriage and Relationships Institute, local Family 
Services Hubs and the access points relevant to the relationship �invitation� 
schemes. Similarly they, or the dedicated parenting services commissioner would 
be expected to engage fully with the parenting work carried out by the Family 
Services Hubs and the access points relevant to the parenting �invitation� schemes. 

Local government acting as a facilitator 

Each of our nine proposed national �invitation� schemes requires the connecting 
of service providers with people who are: getting married; having a baby; 
sending children to primary or secondary school; becoming lone parents; in 
prison; in the military and looking after children in care or with disabilities. 
With the exception of the military and prison schemes, all other schemes 
require some degree of cooperation from local government or their employees. 
It is intended that the emergence of the �invitation� scheme, a new expanded 
role for Children�s Centres, new legislation for civil registrars, and the requirement 
to publish local data on social cohesion, provide sufficient impetus for 
local councils to support voluntary sector work in this area. Local government 
cooperation and support will add greatly to the likely impact of these schemes. 

It is also intended that existing and new relationship education umbrella 
organisations � such as the National Couple Support Network, the National 
Association of Community Family Trusts, and Relate (Life Skills) � will flourish 
as a result of these new policies and see considerable growth in their work. 

Civil registrars provide an excellent example of a key access point because of 
their contact with families at key life stages. Registrars are responsible for registering 
all births, marriages and deaths. Until recently, the vast majority of registrars 
have been unable to provide additional services beyond those required by 
their statutory obligations. However a tiny minority of registrars have voluntari


99 

Breakthrough Britain 

British housing stock is stretched 
and building land is at a premium 


ly taken the opportunity to promote marriage preparation courses when couples 
register for their wedding. Some registrars have been unwilling to provide even 
this service, citing time limitations. Under the 2007 Statistics and Registration 
Service Bill, registrars will become direct employees of local 
authorities. For the first time, this gives local authorities both the 
power and the opportunity to require their registrars to publicise 
and promote relationship and parenting education programmes. 

Local authorities can also facilitate access to people at key life 
stages through primary care trusts, primary and secondary 
schools, and social services. As stated in Chapter 1, the implications 
of this greater load on local authorities should be thoroughly 
thought through by an Implementation Working Party 
which would include appropriately senior members of the Local 
Government Association. 

Cost implications 

As part of government guidance on parenting support, local authorities are encouraged 
to appoint local commissioners of parenting services. Appointment of a similar 
commissioner of relationship education services in each of the 312 local councils would 
amount to an additional �11m. In practice, local authorities may decide to combine 
the posts and may also be expected to finance the post from existing budgets. In turn, 
local authorities can expect significant reductions in future costs resulting from these 
preventative programmes. 

8.5 Using housing to promote security and independence 
for families 
The importance of housing as part of a wider support network for families is often 
underestimated. (We did, for example, receive submissions suggesting that closeness 
to extended family become a factor in the allocation of social housing (co-
location). These received much attention from the group but eventually a decision 
was made not to recommend the measure because other categories of incoming 
tenants also have some grounds for preferential treatment, such as key workers 
performing essential services in the area). Yet, this ignores the real difficulties that 
many families, particularly on lower incomes or in vulnerable social groups, experience 
as a result of inadequate housing. At its worst, housing can preclude the 
effective operation of a family, act as a �stress multiplier� and ultimately contribute 
to family breakdown. 

Housing policy can help to strengthen and underpin healthy family life by: 

z 
supporting aspiration and financial independence: permitting and actively 
supporting upward mobility which allows family members to achieve 
their economic and social potential 
z 
offering guaranteed, suitable accommodation for vulnerable families: 
supporting the foundations of those experiencing significant personal, 

100 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

financial and social difficulties, until the time when they no longer need 
that support and subsidy from the state 

z 
supporting flexibility within the provision of social housing: ensuring a 

flexibility in housing provision that responds to naturally changing cir


cumstances as families grow and develop 
We therefore make four recommendations: 

Investigation of the extension or pioneering of right-to-buy, rent-to-own and 
shared equity schemes to create asset-owning families 

Strong families are built upon financial and personal security. The right-tobuy 
legislation pioneered in the 1970s and 1980s transformed the lives of 1.6 
million people in a generation.87 As such, we strongly support the extension of 
right-to-buy, rent-to-own and shared equity schemes as a method of creating 
asset-owning families. We understand the rationale behind a reduction in 
recent years of right-to-buy discounts, in order to prevent the further reduction 
in scarce social housing stock. However, along with support for the most 
vulnerable in society, the social housing sector needs to be reconfigured once 
again to become a runway for financial and personal independence. 

Creative means should be found for all social housing tenants to be able to 
build up capital within the property they occupy, irrespective of whether that 
be local authority or RSL accommodation (the �rent-to-own� strategy), and 
ultimately to be able to purchase their own properties. RSLs could become 
enablers who view their housing stock as a dynamic and flexible tool to support 
families to achieve that independence. 

By necessity, any relaunching of an attractive �right-to-buy� policy must be governed 
by strict parameters. Proceeds from the (full or part) sale of properties must 
be ring-fenced for investment in new developments. On a local or regional level, 
social housing stock must retain or develop a range of housing types which can 
serve the most vulnerable 
members of society who are 

One RSL told us �If people prove to be good tenants, we would like to 

not yet ready to work towards 

be able to develop new systems so that they could own a percentage 

financial and personal inde


of their property. But obviously we are concerned about what 

pendence. We acknowledge 

happens to other people when the stock diminishes. People definitely 

that his may severely limit the 

want this kind of choice, a helping hand to ownership. Government 

application of �right-to-buy� 

could certainly help by building more houses�.� 

in areas of high demand. 

Reform of the current system
Dependency, 4.3: Direction of Policy Development) 


In order to reduce complexity in the system, we suggest that there be a significant 
rationalisation of services for families living in social housing. Our earlier 
proposals for Family Service Hubs could also assert coherence in this area by 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1151273 accessed 25th May 2007 

 of housing benefit (Also see Economic 

101 

Breakthrough Britain 

either signposting people to the most appropriate providers of housing services 
or co-locating these with other support services described in previous chapters. 
Hubs might also act as a base for outreach to particularly vulnerable 
claimant families. 

As the accompanying Economic Dependency report points out (4.1.6: 
Administrative Complexity, Housing Benefit), Local Housing Allowance Schemes 
currently being piloted have the potential to deliver a more simplified system. They 
also raise the possibility that the administration of housing benefit could be outsourced 
to local Jobseekers Allowance schemes, suggesting a more integrated 
approach which fits well with our own proposals. 

Finally, our research has led us to conclude that the current payment of housing 
benefit in arrears by local authority can create significant problems for users. 
Changes in entitlements, which often take weeks to be properly determined, 
almost inevitably plunge accounts into further debt (and therefore result in the 
suspension of privileges, such as participation in the choice-based letting system). 
We suggest that whatever reforms are carried out, they incorporate a move 
towards debt settlements common in business for utility bills � payment in 
advance with a quarterly or annual adjustment (also see Debt Paper, Volume 6, 
Section 4.6: Reviewing the Benefits SAystem and Social Fund). 

Cost implications 

Much of what we suggest above implies integration with Family Services Hubs 
costed elsewhere and, as we come to no firm conclusions on Housing Benefit, we 
have not provided costings. 

The introduction of flexibility into secured tenure in social housing 

Our research has led us to conclude that social housing policy could operate 
more effectively for vulnerable families. Currently a proportion of social housing 
is occupied by tenants who have gained sufficient financial security to no 
longer require subsidy from the state. A tendency towards under-occupation 
by older tenants whose families have �flown the nest� also constitutes an inefficiency 
in housing distribution.. 

We believe that, ultimately, social housing properties offer the greatest benefit to 
society when supporting the most vulnerable members of society, or those with 
genuine need and therefore recommend that an incoming government consider, 
for new tenants only, more flexible tenancy arrangements and allow local authorities 
the option to request that tenants reconsider their housing arrangements if 
they demonstrably no longer require this kind of support and subsidy. 

A commitment to increasing �supported housing� projects 

Vulnerable families are often unable to manage households and require support 
to move towards self-sufficiency. We believe it is important for some 
assessment to be made of a family�s needs when they enter the social housing 
sector, with finite resources divided accordingly. We have been 

102 

family breakdown: section 4: policy recommendations 

impressed by the work of providers such as Bromford Housing, who offer 
dedicated housing units eg. for young single parents and those receiving 
mental health services. The Working Group visited the Hadley Mews Young 
Family Scheme in Warwickshire88 which aims to provide accommodation-
based support to vulnerable young families between the ages of 16-25. 
Families can be a single parent or a couple with up to 2 pre-school children. 
Each family receives a tailored, realistic support programme to address their 
personal, social and educational development and is allocated a keyworker 
as they enter the project; a specified worker who meets with the family on a 
regular basis to discuss their support needs and to develop an action plan 
during their stay. Practical and emotional support is offered and the key-
worker links families in to local services such as health visiting, schools, 
housing and various other agencies, where appropriate. The programme 
may include; positive parenting, life skills development, budgeting and tenancy 
management. Without such support, young parents can experience 
profound isolation and �fail� in their tenancies, thus increasing the likelihood 
that they will be able to provide sufficient nurture and appropriate 
shelter for their infant children. 

Hadley Mews can accommodate young families for up to 2 years therefore 
more schemes like this could be essential in an integrated set of policy proposals 
which aim to focus resources and attention on the very early years of a 
child�s life. In the introduction to this report we mentioned research carried 
out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Cater & Coleman 2006) on why vulnerable 
young people are more prone to have children very early. Many will 
enter parenting with significant emotional and developmental needs of their 
own. If these are addressed then their children have a strong chance of escaping 
the downward spiral of intergenerational disadvantage. 

Acknowledging the contribution of the community-based sector 

To maximise the contribution which small, community-based, voluntary sector 
providers can make in this area, will require a reconsideration of current 
reliance on market-based tendering in this area. A representative of one RSL, a 
large corporate housing organisation working in well over a dozen local 
authority areas, told us that he knew his provider was forcing smaller ones out 
of the market. 

This concerned him because �Vulnerable people will lose the very type of 
service that might be really good for them. Smaller providers are often those 
with track record, real expertise and local knowledge. They have more credibility 
with service users and there�s greater trust. But it�s a corporate, commissioning 
world. Very small housing associations find it hard to give such good value 

For an example see http://www.bromford.co.uk/uploaded_images/Hadley%20%20Mews.pdf. 

103 

Breakthrough Britain 

for money as big corporate providers who can better absorb costs, and are 
more able to meet tender requirements.� A lot of tender applications need 
insurance to cover �10 million, sight of accounts from the last 10 years etc and 
the scoring system employed makes it very hard for a small group to win contracts. 
Without redressing this balance somewhat, the groups who might be 
best placed to meet highly bespoke local needs will be increasingly forced out 
of business. 

Cost implications 

In some local authorities there would be an additional capital cost in constructing 
accommodation for vulnerable families and an enduring cost of support. Typically, 
an accommodation scheme for vulnerable young parents costs in the region of 
�30,000 per annum (for a 9-unit scheme). The weekly cost of a support service 
per unit is therefore approximately �70 (�30k/52.2/9).89 However this has to be 
offset against the complex costs of failed tenancy. For example, temporary hostel 
accommodation can cost between �300 and �450 per week, the cost of hospitalisation 
due to injuries sustained whilst being homeless can exceed �10,000 per 
episode and interaction with the criminal justice system has severe financial 
implications.90 Also to be considered are costs associated with resettlement, drug 
and alcohol addiction, child protection services etc. 

89 
Figures provided by large RSL. Rent and other service charges are separate and are based on the 
building costs etc and paid for out of housing benefits or from tenant�s wages. 

90 
All figures on the costs of homelessness from Bromford Housing Association 

104 

Section 5 
Conclusions 

The Social Justice Policy Group has been deliberating and 
researching the issues contained in this volume and Fractured 
Families for eighteen months. Many of the lobbying groups 
and academics we met have been calling for the changes in 
policy direction we are recommending for over a decade or 
more. We have been concerned not to jump on any policy 
bandwagons and to shut our ears to the siren call of what seem 
to be the most immediate and pressing issues, but which may 
in reality prove to be merely passing concerns. 

We have tried to take a step back and determine how the 
tide of family breakdown (dysfunction, dissolution and dad-lessness) might 
be turned in our generation � because this is not the work of one government, 
however long its term in office. This baton must be passed onto successive 
governments of different colours and thus have appeal and resonance 
across the usual political divides. The Family Breakdown Working Group was 
largely composed of academics and practitioners who were independent of 
any political party. Throughout the consultation process we tenaciously 
clung to the remit we were given from the outset that this was not to be a 
body of Conservative policies but a manifesto for stronger families throughout 
Britain. (Indeed we were repeatedly encouraged to develop just that by 
the Chairman, Iain Duncan Smith.) As such, and because we are convinced 
that all politicians have got the best interests of the nation�s families at heart 
it is our belief that a new consensus can be build around the family which 
will gradually replace the contested discourse to which we have all grown 
accustomed. 

Supporting people in all types of families 

In Fractured Families (p21) we stressed the need to avoid the usual polarisations, 
but also the usual evasions. In the real world policy cannot be morally 
neutral, and we said that 

�Although moralising (in the pejorative and judgemental sense) is to be 
avoided, committed relationships are essential for the social ecology of the 

Supporting families so they can 
thrive 


105 

Breakthrough Britain 

family, the community and the country, and families which are formed 

on the basis of these should therefore be encouraged.� 

However, our proposals do not promote marriage at the expense of single parents 
but include many measures which are intended to support people in all 
types of families, for example by better integrating them into the communities 
of which they are a part. 

We do however argue against current fiscal policies which disadvantage couples 
because, financial considerations aside, lone parents rarely choose that status,
91 enjoy raising children on their own, or want their own children to 
become lone parents themselves. Children raised by two parents tend to do 
better across a whole range of variables as our earlier volume made clear, so it 
seems somewhat perverse for policy not to do all it can to support rather than 
penalise this family model. 

Thinking beyond anti-social behaviour 

Dealing with family dysfunction requires an integrated and wide-reaching 
effort which is not merely focused on the small percentage of deeply problematic 
families whose children 

The British public believes that family breakdown can be avoided.The 
YouGov poll conducted for the policy group (Apr-May 2007) indicated 
that (of those expressing an opinion) 60% believed that prevention of 
family breakdown is possible and should get significant government 
funding. Most of our proposals and especially those for relationship 
support and coordinated well-being, are designed to act on that belief 
and tackle the very roots of family breakdown. 
receive ASBOs. Prevalence 
of mental health difficulties 
is considered by many to be 
the time bomb ticking away 
at the heart of the nation. It 
is for this reason that we 
have repeatedly stressed the 
need for policy to pay particular 
attention to the 
needs of our youngest citi


zens, those in the first three years of life where the nurture of their parents is 
of prime importance. Many parents struggle to provide the many dimensions 
of nurture outlined in Chapter 1 and a minority are dangerously abusive, but 
the aspiration of almost every new parent is to be a good mum or dad. 

Non-stigmatising programmes which intensively support them when their 
children are very tiny will help them to fulfil these aspirations and could transform 
the future social landscape. Such interventions will greatly increase the 
odds that their children grow up to be emotionally whole people who can form 

strong and lasting relationships. As the chairwoman of OXPIP92 said to us, 

91 People rarely aspire to being lone parents (in their survey MORI found that for nearly two thirds of 
adults their preferred lifestyle was being married with children with only 3% wanting to have children 
on their own (MORI Family and Marriage Poll, 14/3/99 representative quota sample of 805 
adults). 

92 An organisation which helps parents to bond with their children. 

106 

family breakdown: section 5: conclusions 

�Marriage is the natural consequence of two adults being able to commit to 
each other because their own emotional development is secure and has given 
them the necessary confidence.� It is for this reason that we have resisted incentivising 
marriage although our measures strongly encourage it. We must support 
an institution that can be so beneficial, but there is much preparatory 
work to be done to improve the relational health of the nation, especially in 
communities subject to multiple disadvantage. 

Setting our sights on the long term 

To reiterate the point made earlier, we have attempted to set a course for policy 
that will take full effect after several years. Much of the benefit will be felt 
when we see a relational secure generation emerging in future years, although 
helping those who are already struggling with mental health and relational difficulties 
has to be just as much of a priority. Prevention is less easy to sell than 
cure but in the same way that environmental sustainability is an agenda that 
cannot wait, so too is the social sustainability agenda that we are proposing. 

The implication of our proposals is that we need to see widespread cultural 
change. This will be necessary in local and national government if they are to 
prioritise prevention; in industry and the workplace if employers are to allow 
greater flexible working so that parents and carers can better manage other 
equally important responsibilities and in the service providing sectors, if they 
are to recognise the immense contribution which the voluntary sector could 
make in many areas currently dominated by professionals. 

However, it is far easier to recommend that a cultural change take place than 
to effect it. Cultural change requires surfacing and challenging people�s deeply 
held assumptions about what should be prioritised in spending terms, what it 
means to be a good employee and how much trust should be placed in skilled 
and experienced lay people. They may not have a string of qualifications but 
may be better placed to offer transformational support to a despairing parent 
or to a couple whose marriage has seen better days. 

Along with the other reports in this volume, we are recommending these 
policies to an incoming government who will make prevention their watchword, 
who will invest in the future and who will be rightly intolerant of our 
high rates of family breakdown. When our children are considered by UNICEF 
to be the most emotionally needy in the affluent countries of the world it is 
time to look beyond poverty targets, important as they are. We have to ask why 
communities with downward spirals of disadvantage also have such high rates 
of fatherlessness and dysfunction. The broken family with its broken lives can 
and must be rebuilt and we present these policies to further that aim. 

107 

Bibliography 


Ahnert L. & Lamb M.E., 2003, �Shared care: Establishing a balance between home and child care settings�, Child 
Development 74, 4, 1044-1049 

Ahnert L., & Lamb M.E., 2004, �Child care and its impact on young children (2-5)� in R. E. Tremblay, R. G. 
Barr, & R. De V. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development (online). Montreal, Quebec: 
Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development, 2004, 1-6 

Ahnert L., Gunnar M.R., Lamb M.E., & Barthel M., 2004, �Transition to child care: Associations with infant-

mother attachment, infant negative emotion and cortisol elevations�, Child Development, 75, 639-650 
Almond B., 2006, The Fragmenting Family, Oxford: Clarendon Press 
Belsky, J., Vandell, D., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, A., McCartney, K., & Tresch Owen, M., 2007, �Are there 

long-term effects of early child care?�, Child Development, 78, 681-701 
Benson, H., 2005, What interventions strengthen family relationships: A review of the evidence. Paper presented 
at 2nd National Conference on Relationships Education, London, www.bcft.co.uk 
Benson, H., 2006, The conflation of marriage and cohabitation in government statistics - a denial of difference 

rendered untenable by an analysis of outcomes, www.bcft.co.uk 
Beresford, B., 1995, Expert opinions: a national survey of parents caring for a disabled child, Bristol: Policy Press 
Birchall E. & Hallett C., 1995, Working Together in Child Protection, HMSO 
Bowlby J., 1969, Attachment, London, England: Hogarth Press; Attachment and Loss; vol 1. 
Bowlby J., 1973, Separation, Anxiety, and Anger, New York, NY: Basic Books;. Attachment and loss; vol 2. 
Braun, D., Davis, H. & Mansfield, P., 2006, How Helping Works: Towards a Shared Model of Process. London: 

Parentline Plus. 
Brewer M., Browne J. & Sutherland H., 2006, Micro-simulating child poverty in 2010 and 2020 IFS/JRF 
Bristol Community Family Trust, 2007, Annual report 2006-7, www.bcft.co.uk 
Brown, B. & Dench, G., 2004, Valuing Informal Care: what the mothers of young children want, Hera Trust 
Bryson, C ., Budd, T., Lewis, J. and Elam, G. (1999) Women�s Attitudes to Combining Paid Work and Family Life, 

London: Women�s Unit Publications, Cabinet Office. 
Burstein N., 2007, �Economic Influences on Marriage and Divorce� Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 

26, 2, 387�429 
Campbell M. & Roberts C., 2002, �Child Tax Credit and the Family� Family Policy Briefing 2, FPSC/JRF 
Carers UK, 2002, Without us? Calculating the value of carers� support 
Carroll, J. & Doherty, W., 2003, �Evaluating the effectiveness of pre-marital prevention programs: A meta-ana


lytic review of research� Family Relations, 52, 105-118 
Cartwright S. & Cooper C., 2007, �Hazards to health: the problem of workplace bullying� Psychologist, 20, 284-287 
Cater S., & Coleman L., 2006, �Planned� teenage pregnancy: Perspectives of young parents from disadvantaged 

backgrounds, JRF 
Cicchetti D. & Rogosch F., 1997, �The Role of Self- organisation in the promotion of resilience in maltreated 
children� Devel.Psychopathology, 9, 4, 797-815 
Collishaw, S., Maughan, B., Goodman, R., & Pickles, A., 2004, �Time trends in adolescent mental health� 
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1350-1362. 
Davis, H., Day, C. & Bidmead, C., 2002, Working in Partnership with Parents; The Parent Adviser Model. 

London: Harcourt Assessment. 
Dench G., 2003, Rediscovering Family, Hera Trust 
Department for Work and Pensions, 2006, A new system of child maintenance, Cm6979, Norwich: HMSO 
DfES, 2006, Parenting support: Guidance for local authorities in England, London: Department of Education 

and Skills 

Dion, M. R., 2006, The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative: An overview of the longest-running statewide marriage 
initiative in the U. S., Washington D. C. : U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (www.acf.hhs.gov) 

Dobson, B. and Middleton, S., 1998, Paying to care: the costs of childhood disability, JRF 
Draper D. & Beighton L., 2006, The need to restructure tax credits, CARE Policy Paper 
Duncan S., 2003, Mothers, Care and Employment, Values and Theories, CAVA Working Paper No 1, ESRC 
Durham M., 2001, �The Conservative Party, New Labour and the Politics of the Family� in Parliamentary 

Affairs, 459-474 
Edin K. & Kefalas M., 2005, Promises I Can Keep, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press 
Ermisch J. & Murphy M., 2005, Changing household and family structures and complex living arrangements, 

ESRC Seminar Series 
Feldman, R., 2007, �Parent-infant synchrony and the construction of shared timeing; physiological precursors, 

developmental outcomes and risk conditions� Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 329-354. 
Gimson, S., 2007, Health Visitors - an endangered species,FPI 
Goldsmith H. et al, 1997, �Epigenetic approaches to Developmental Psychopathology� Devel. Psychopathology 9, 

2, 365-87. 
Gonz�lez L., 2006, The Effect of Benefits on Single Motherhood in Europe Institute for the Study of Labor IZA 
DP No. 2026 
Greenwood, P. et al, 1996, Diverting Children from a life of crime: measuring costs and benefits, RAND 
Corporation: California 
Halford, K., Markman, H., Kline, G. & Stanley, S., 2003, �Best practice in couple relationship education� Journal 

of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 385 - 406 
Hart G., 1999, The Funding of Marriage Support � a Review, London: Lord Chancellor�s Department 
Henshaw D., 2006, Recovering child support: routes to responsibility, report to the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions, London: HMSO (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/childsupport/pdfs/Henshaw_complete22_7.pdf) 
Hewitt P. & Leach P., 1993, Social Justice, Children and Families,ippr 

108 

family breakdown: bibliography 

Hewlett S.A., 2002, �Executive Women and the Myth of Having it All� in Harvard Business Review, 80, 4, 66-73 

Home Office, 2000, Supporting Families: A Consultation Document, London: HMSO 

Hosking, G. & Walsh I., 2005, The WAVE Report 2005: Violence and what to do about it, Wave Trust 

Hymowitz K., 2006, Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and unequal families in a post-marital age, Ivan R. Dee 

Institute of Fiscal Studies, 2007, The IFS Green Budget 2007 

Johnson, C., Stanley, S., Glenn, N., Amato, P., Nock, S., Markman, H., & Dion, M., 2002, Marriage in 
Oklahoma: 2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage and divorce (S02096 OKDHS). Oklahoma City, 
OK: Oklahoma Department of Human Services 

Kiernan, K., & Smith, K., 2003, �Unmarried parenthood: new insights from the Millennium Cohort Study� 
Population Trends, 114, 26-33. London: Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys 

Kirby J., 2006, The Nationalisation of Childhood, CPS 

La Valle I., Arthur S., Millward C., Scott J. & Clayden M., 2002, Happy Families? Atypical work and its Influence 
on Family Life, Bristol/York: The Policy Press/JRF 

Laming H., 2003, The Victoria Climbi� Inquiry Report, HMSO 

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J., 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to age 70, Cambridge: 
Harvard University Press 

Laurenceau, J-P., Stanley, S., Olmos-Gallo, A., Baucom, B., & Markman, H., 2004, �Community-Based 
Prevention of Marital Dysfunction: Multilevel Modeling of a Randomized Effectiveness Study� Journal of 
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 933-943 

Law Commission, 2006, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown, A 
Consultation Paper (Overview) 

MacLeod, J., & Nelson, G., 2000, �Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child 
maltreatment: A meta-analytic review� Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 9, 1127-1149 

Mansfield P., 2004, �The Missing Link in Parenting Education and Support� One Plus One: The Bulletin, 8, 2, 
10-11 

Mansfield P., 2005, �Marital Relationships: Someone who is there for me� in Buonfino A. & Mulgan G., (eds) 
2005 Porcupines in Winter, Young Foundation 

McKie L. & Cunningham-Burley S. (eds), 2005, Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships, Bristol: Policy Press 

Meltzer, H., Gatward, R., Goodman R. & Ford, T., 2000. Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in Great 
Britain. London: The Stationery Office. 

Mencap Report, 2005, Breaking point. Families need a break 

Moran, P., Ghate, D., & van der Merwe, A., 2004, What works in parenting support: A review of the international 
evidence, DfES: Policy Research Bureau 

MORI, 1999, Family and Marriage Poll (14/3/99) 

OECD, 2003, Taxing Wages: 2002 Edition, Paris: OECD 

Olds D., 1997, �The prenatal/early infancy project: Fifteen years later� in G.W.Albee & T.P. Gullotta, eds, 
Primary Prevention Works, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Issues in Children�s and Families� Lives, Vol VI 

Ooms T., 2002, �Strengthening Couples and Marriage in Low-Income Communities� in Hawkins A. et al, 2002, 
Revitalising the Institution of Marriage for the Twenty-First Century,Praeger 

Ooms, T., Boggess, J., Menard, A., Myrick, M., Roberts, P., Tweedie, J., & Wilson, P. , 2006, Building bridges 
between healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood, and domestic violence programs, Washington: CLASP 

Parker, R., 2007, Recent Progress in Marriage and Relationship Education in Australia, Australian Family 
Relationships Clearinghouse Briefing,3,1-9 

Pearce N. & Paxton W., (eds), 2005, Social Justice: Building a Fairer Britain, ippr/Politico�s p. 58 

Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Markman, H., 2006, 'Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital 
commitment' Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 553-560 

Russell B., 1929, Marriage and Morals, London: Allen and Unwin 

Schore A., 2000, �Attachment and the regulation of the right brain� Attachment and Human Development 2, 1, 
23-47 

Scott, S., Carby, A, & Rendu, A., 2006, Impact of therapist skill on effectiveness of parenting groups for child antisocial 
behavior. Unpublished manuscript: Kings College London 

Skinner, C., Bradshaw, J. and Davidson, J., 2007, Child support policy: an international perspective, Department 
for Work and Pensions, Research Report No. 405 

Smith, J., 2003, Responses to civil partnerships, London: Women and Equality Unit, Department of Trade and 
Industry 

Speak S., Cameron S., Gilroy R., 1997, �Young, single, non-residential fathers: their involvement in fatherhood� 
Social Policy Research, 137, London: JRF http://www.fathersdirect.com/index.php?id=13&cID=422, 
accessed 26th May 2007 

Stanley, S., 2001, �Making a Case for Pre-marital Education� Family Relations, 50, 272-280 

Stanley, S., Amato, P., Johnson, C. & Markman, H., 2006, �Premarital education, marital quality, and marital 
stability: Findings from a large, random, household survey� Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 117-126 

Stanley, S., Rhoades, G., & Markman, H., 2006, 'Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the pre-marital cohabitation 
effect' Family Relations, 55, 499-509 

Sunderland, M., 2006, The Science of Parenting, Dorling Kindersley. 

Sutton E., Cebulla A. & Middleton S., 2003, Marriage in the 21st Century, Centre for Research in Social Policy 
Report 482, Loughborough University 

Swain, J., Lorberbaum, J., Kose, S, & Strathearn, L., 2007, �Brain basis of early parent-infant interactions� 
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 262-287 

Sylva, K. et al, 2004, The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education 
(EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 12 - The Final Report: Effective Pre-School 
Education. London : DfES / Institute of Education , University of London 

UN, 2003, World Population 2002, New York: United Nations Population Division 

UNICEF, 2005, �Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005�, Innocenti Report Card No.6 

Walker J., (ed), 2001, Information Meetings and Associated Provisions within the Family Law Act 1996 Final 
Evaluation Report, London: Lord Chancellor�s Department 

Walker J., et al, 2004, Picking up the Pieces: Marriage and Divorce Two Years after Information Provision,London: 
Department for Constitutional Affairs 

Walker, I. and Zhu, Y., 2006, �Child Support and Partnership Dissolution�, Economic Journal, 116, 510, C93C109, 
March 2006 

Weare, K., 2000, Promoting Mental, Emotional and social health, A Whole School Approach, Routledge 

Wilson, C. M., & Oswald, A. J., 2005, �How Does Marriage Affect Physical and Psychological Health? A Survey 
of the Longitudinal Evidence,� IZA Discussion Papers 1619, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). 

109 

Appendix::Supporting 
marriage and encouraging 
couples to come together 

Tax and tax credit options: 

Summary of a paper by Leonard Beighton and 
Don Draper (independent policy advisers to CARE) 

1 
We have been asked to advise on changes that could be made to the tax and 
tax credit system with the aim of supporting marriage and making it easier 
for couples to come together and stay together. The two principal 
options are enhanced tax credits for couple families and a tax allowance 

for married couples.94 

Background 

Tax burden 

2 
The problems families face result partly from the way income tax evolved 
between the 1960s and 1990s. During this period the tax burden95 on low 
income families quadrupled. Even a family on average income saw its tax 
burden more than double.96 There was no comparable increase for taxpayers 
without family responsibilities. Families came under strain and child 
poverty increased alarmingly. After netting-off tax credits, the direct tax 
burden on a single earner family on an average wage will still be over 20% 
in 2009.97 This is certainly less than in the 1980s and 1990s but still more 
than twice what this family would have paid in the 1960s. It is substantial


ly higher than in other OECD countries.98 

94 In this document references to marriage are to be taken as including civil partnerships. 
95 Income tax and national insurance contributions net of child benefit. 
96 Table 7 Family and Parenthood, Utting 1996, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 


97 Para 5.15 Budget 2007 HC 342 
98 In the average OECD country in 2006, for a married one-earner couple with two children, income 
tax plus employee and social security contributions less cash benefits amounted to 15% of gross 
wage earnings in the average OECD country. In the UK the figure was 20%. See Chart 03 of Taxing 
Wages 2006 Edition OECD Paris 2007. 

110 

family breakdown: appendix 

3 
The UK tax system is unusual in that it now takes virtually no account of taxpayers� 
obligations to their spouses. By contrast most Europeans pay tax 
under systems that do take account of spousal obligations.99 The most common 
system in other countries is some form of joint taxation, although separate 
taxation is available in most cases as an option for those who want it. 

4. 
Tax credits do take some account of family responsibilities, the cost of raising 
children, but ignore spousal obligations. They were introduced primarily 
as a means of reducing child poverty in low income families100 and they 
help to explain why child poverty has fallen. However, there are still 2.8 
million children in poverty on a before housing cost basis (BHC) and 3.8 
million on an after housing cost basis (AHC).101 Sixty percent of children 
in poverty live in couple families. This percentage is increasing while the 
percentage of children in poverty living in lone parent families is reducing.
102 A couple family will typically have to earn three times as much as a 
comparable lone parent family to be above the poverty line.103 

5 
The reason why so many children in two parent families are still in poverty 
is that, while tax credits are based on family income, they do not take 
account of the living costs of all family members. No allowance is made for 
a second adult. The inevitable result is that a two-parent family will be 
poorer than a directly comparable lone-parent family. 

Couple penalty 

6 
The current tax and benefit system not only fails to provide any support 
for marriage, it also penalises all couples � both married and unmarried. 
Many couples with combined incomes of less than �50,000 a year are 
worse-off financially if they live openly together than if they live-apart. 

7 
The �couple penalty� arises principally because of the way in which tax 
credits, and to a lesser extent benefits, have been designed. As a result, couples 
with children may face a large drop in their combined income if they 
set-up home together even allowing for a saving in housing costs. The 
drop in their benefit income will not be replaced by the earnings of the 
new spouse or �partner�. 

8 
The great majority of couples on low or modest incomes face a couple 
penalty. If one parent is in full-time paid work and the other is in part-
time paid work or is not in paid work at all, then by living openly together 
they can lose between �1300 and �7000 in tax credits and out-of-work 
benefits. When the loss of other benefits is taken into account, the penalty 

99 
A table summarising family taxation in European OECD countries is to be found in the full version 
of this paper available on the CARE website. 

100 
See table in the full paper on the CARE website. 

101 
HBAI 2005/06. 

102 
Table E5 HBAI Household Below Average Income 1994/95 -2005/06. 

103 
See full paper on CARE website. 

111 

Breakthrough Britain 

can be as high as �8,500 for a family with an income of only �20,000.103 
It seems implausible that many people with comparatively low incomes 
will not take this figure into account in deciding how they should live. And 
there is some evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case. 

Reducing the couple penalty and child poverty 

9 
Both the couple penalty and child poverty could be reduced by increasing 
tax credits paid to couple families. 

10 
With the present structure of tax credits the child poverty targets are 
unlikely to be met at an acceptable cost.105 A low cost option for meeting 
the targets would be to structure credits in the same way as income is 
adjusted for measuring poverty. In practice this would mean extra tax 
credits for couples. 

11 
Within the working tax credit (WTC) there is a �couples element� and a 
�lone parent element� but the amount of the credit is the same in each case. 
An enhanced credit for couple families could be delivered either though 
WTC106 or as part of the child tax credit (CTC). 

12 
In other benefits the benefit is higher for a two-parent family than for a comparable 
single-parent family. It is tax credits which are out of line. Increasing 
the couple element in tax credits could be defended on the grounds that it 
was bringing tax credits into line with other benefits. Bringing credits fully 
into line with benefits would mean increasing the �3430 WTC couples currently 
receive to �5385 i.e. by �38 per week - costing �3 billion.107 

13 
This would substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the �tax credit� couple 
penalty for many families with incomes of up to �20,000. There would still 
be a substantially penalty where housing benefit and council tax benefit 
are in payment and where the income exceeds �20,000. The couple penalty 
where both parents are on income support would not be affected. 

Supporting marriage 

14 
The only way marriage as such can be supported is though the tax system. 
One possibility would be to reinstate a Married Couples Allowance 
(MCA). An alternative would be to introduce a Transferable Personal 
Allowance (TPA). A MCA would benefit all married couples. A TPA 
would benefit only one-earner couples. 

105 
The IFS have estimated the cost of meeting the 2010 target with present policies at �3.8 billion. 

106 
It is not known whether in systems terms this is a single credit or two credits. If it is two separate 
credits, an additional amount for couples could probably be introduced quite quickly. If it is a single 
credit substantial reprogramming might be required. 

107 
For income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit a lone parents� personal allowance is 
�59.15 and a couple�s allowance is �92.80.IFS have said that the cost at 2007 prices would be �3 billion 
and that 1.8 million families would benefit on average by �32 per week. 

112 

family breakdown: appendix 

15 
When there was a MCA there was also a linked allowance of equal value � 
the Additional Personal Allowance (APA) - which was given to other taxpayers 
(lone parents and cohabiting couples as well as widows and widowers) 
with dependent children. Hence the MCA provided a tax incentive 
only for married couples without children. To provide significant financial 
support for marriage it would be necessary to reinstate the MCA without 
reinstating the APA. 

16 
There are a number of ways in which a TPA could be structured. The main 
options are: 

z 
Applies to all married couples 
z 
Applies only to married couples with dependent children 
z 
Applies to married couples with dependent children below a chosen 
age 
z 
Applies to married couples with dependent children below a chosen 
age plus disabled children of any age 
z 
Applies as above but also where there is a dependent relative living 
with the claimant 
z 
It could be given at the basic rate only or at the higher rate if 
applicable 

If the primary aim is to support and acknowledge legally binding committed 
relationships the TPA should cover as many married couples as possible. 


17 The value of the �5225 allowance at the 2008/09 basic rate of 20% would 
be �1045 or just over �20 a week. If the spouse in paid work were a higher 
rate payer, then the transferred allowance would be worth twice that if it 
ran through to higher rate tax (which would be a question for decision). 

18 
The IFS has said that the cost of a basic rate only TPA for all marred couples 
would be �3.2 billion, but only �1.5 billion if it were limited to couples 
with dependent children or receiving carers allowance and �0.9 billion 
if limited to children under 6108. 

19 
A parent-with-care who had chosen to transfer the personal allowance 
would obviously then pay tax on any earnings, however small. Some 
would see this as a disadvantage. On the other hand a TPA could be seen 
as a means of acknowledging for married couples the opportunity cost of 
child care provided at home 

20 
A �20 per week TPA would provide a modest financial support for marriage 
and it would also send a strong signal. It used to be argued that a TPA 

108 The 2008/09 cost of this year�s tax credit package was �1.6 billion. 

113 

Breakthrough Britain 

was regressive. This would not necessarily be the case especially now that 

almost all recipients would benefit equally.109 

21 
Although a TPA would not be targeted at child poverty or at reducing the 
couple penalty, it would reduce both. 570,000 of the 3.9 children in poverty 
(AHC)110 are in single earner households111 �the main beneficiaries of a 
TPA. The parents of 78% (445,000) of these children are married.112 If all 
these children could be taken out of poverty, that would be more than 
twice as many has will taken out by this year�s Budget. When the self-
employed are included the number could be as many as the Government 
has taken out since 1997/98.113 For those couples able to use it, a �20 TPA 
would reduce the couple penalty by a greater amount than an enhanced 

couple credit costing a comparable amount.114 

Combining both measures 

22 
There is an argument for recognising that cohabitation is often the first step 
towards the more committed and more beneficial relationship of marriage. 
The present situation where couples feel that for financial reasons they cannot 
make even that first step is clearly unsatisfactory. If resources could be 
found, one option to think about would be a TPA combined with an 

enhanced credit for couples.115 People would get the enhanced credit as soon 

as they made the commitment to live together officially and subsequently the 
TPA when they felt ready and able to make the more public and long term 
commitment which marriage implies. An enhanced tax credit for couples 
would paradoxically also benefit lone parents. Many lone parents are trapped 
in lone parenthood by the present system. 

23 
Distributional effects are measured on a household basis and either a TPA 
or an extra credit for couples would make for a fairer distribution of the 
tax burden not only between families and taxpayers without dependents 
but also between families. 

109 
A distributional analysis across working-age couples with children can be found on page 233 of the 
IFS Green Budget. This shows that even with a 10% tax rate (which will largely disappear next year) 
the poorest 50% of couples receive most of the benefit; those in the lowest three decile groups getting 
the greatest benefit. 

110 BHC figure is 364,000. 
111 Another 500,000 are in self employed couple households some of which will be �single income� fami


lies. 
112 Figure supplied to authors by the IFS. 
113 Table 6 Poverty and Inequality 2007, IFS. 
114 In the Green Budget 2007 the IFS said that increasing the WTC for all couples with children by �15 

per week would have a similar 2006/07 cost as making the income tax personal allowance transferable 
for couples with children under 6 restricted to the 22% basic rate. 
115 Cost of combining a TPA and a couples allowance is broadly the sum of the two proposals. 

114 

family breakdown: appendix 

Other issues 

Fraud 

24 
The couple penalty discourages cohabiting couples from being open with 
the authorities. It can be a short step from this to criminal fraud. It is no 
help to low income couples who may already be carrying debt to be tempted 
into a fraudulent arrangement and more debt. An enhanced tax credit 
for couples would keep some cohabiting couples from accepting tax credits 
to which they are not in law entitled. The IFS has pointed out that in 
2004/05 the HMRC paid tax credits to 200,000 lone parents than live in the 
UK.116Maintenance payments 

25 The Government is currently considering a proposal to disregard maintenance 
payments when calculating benefit entitlements �as they are already 
disregarded for tax credits. There is an argument for this, but it would discriminate 
against those parents who maintain children out of their own 
income � principally (but not exclusively) intact couple families. Some 
way would have to be found of restoring an element of balance. Either an 
enhanced credit for couples or a TPA could go some way towards meeting 
this need. Whether either would be an adequate response is open to some 
doubt. If a compensating couple credit were introduced, it would be essential 
that it should apply to all couples and not only to couples where both 
are in-work. 

Cost to Treasury 

26 
The present arrangements which discourage couples from setting-up 
home together involve a substantial cost to the Treasury. CARE has tentatively 
estimated this cost a �3-4 billion annually.117 Reducing the couple 
penalty would reduce this cost. 

Free school meals and other passported benefits 

27 
Free school meals and healthy start vouchers are available to people who 
receive income support or CTC but not to those who receive WTC. The 
loss of such benefits when cohabitation begins may be a major reason why 
some couples decide to stay apart. In some cases the families who lose 
these benefits will be in poverty. 

Rebalancing income tax 

28 
An income tax system based on independent taxation and a cash transfer 
system based on joint family income do not sit comfortably together. The 
case for rationalising them will become increasingly compelling. Tax cred


116 IFS Briefing Note No 70. 
117 Restructuring Tax Credits CARE November 2006. 


115 

Breakthrough Britain 

its need to be made less complicated and the circumstances in which overpayments 
can arise need to be further reduced and if possible eliminated. 
Major changes to either system cannot be made quickly. The policy 
options discussed in this note could be seen as interim measures to bridge 
the gap before more fundamental changes can be made. 

Administrative issues 

29 
Administrative issues shape any decision. These would probably become 
apparent only after coming into office. If, for example, the lead time for the 
introduction of a TPA were much longer than the introduction of an 
enhanced credit for couples, or vice versa, this might influence the final 
decision. 

Leonard Beighton & Don Draper 26th May 2007 

Table: Tax Treatment of Married Couples in European OECD Countries 
(Weighted by population in 2003) 
Individual Taxation: Individual Taxation: Joint Taxation of Married Couples 
No Recognition of Transferable Spousal 
Spousal Obligations Tax Allowances/Credits 
Country Population Country Population Country Population 
Finland 5.2 Austria 8.1 Belgium 10.3* 
Greece 11.0 Czech Republic 10.2 France 60.1 
Hungary 9.9 Denmark 5.4 Germany 82.5* 
Sweden 8.9 Iceland 0.3 Luxembourg 0.5 
UK 59.3 Italy 57.4 Ireland 4.0* 
Netherlands 16.1 Norway 4.5�* 
Slovakia 5.4 Poland 38.6* 
Spain 41.1 Portugal 10.1* 
Switzerland 7.2 
Total 94.2 Total 158.9 Total 202.8 
(excl. UK) (34.9) 
Source: Taxation systems from Taxing Wages: 2001-2002, OECD, Paris, 2003 tables S1, S2; population from World Population 2002, United Nations 
Population Division, New York, 2003 
Notes: this table refers only to the taxation of earnings, other forms of income are excluded; in some countries registered cohabiting couples are 
taxed in the same way as married couples. 
* = individual assessment is available as an option. 
� = The report OECD (2003) states that the tax unit in Norway is individual; however, it also states that when a �spouse has no income or low 
income, optional taxation as a couple is more favourable.� Norway is therefore classified in this table as a country with joint taxation of married 
couples. 
116 


# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assess the view that childhood has changed signifcantly in the last half century 2016 V2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assess the view that the growth of family Kyra 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Changes to childhood in the last 50 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The growth of family diversity has led to the decline of the traditional nuclear family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Laws and Social policies relating to the family

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feminists views on the family and religion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family Childhood and Children Monday 28th April

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microsoft PowerPoint - Divorce - Introduction