Caroline Davey2013-05-20T10:05:41-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=caroline-daveyCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Caroline DaveyGood old fashioned elbow grease.Life on the Breadline for Single Parents: What It's Really Liketag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30299272013-04-07T19:00:00-04:002013-04-07T18:06:01-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
Meanwhile, on the ground, huge changes are taking place to benefits that will affect millions of ordinary - and, dare we say it - hard-working families.
Hundreds of thousands of people have signed a petition asking DWP minister Iain Duncan Smith to try living on £53 a week. Mr Duncan Smith has dismissed the petition as a stunt, though many argue that all they are doing is asking the man who wields such power over their lives to walk a week in their shoes.
We asked single parents to tell us what life on the breadline was really like for them. And in just 24 hours we were inundated with responses.
Some people told us about the struggle they already face to manage their money day to day, week to week:
"I have around £20 a week to spend on food for my three children and I after paying bills."
"During the summer I cannot claim anything and cannot work due to childcare problems, so have to make a small amount go a very long way (until October). I eat one meal per day, we have no holidays or days out... and birthdays are particularly difficult times. I have been doing this for three years now."
"I know my shopping list down to the last penny, if anything unexpected comes up or needs buying I have to sacrifice something else 'essential'."
"I earn £9 too much a month to qualify for clothing grants or school meals. That means for my daughter to have a hot lunch at school I have to pay £40 a month - for the sake of earning £9 a month too much. According to the government's own statistics my daughter and I live below the breadline yet do not qualify for free school meals, free milk, clothing grants, fuel payments, housing or council tax benefits... when you work it out I could be just the same financially if I wasn't working. It makes no sense!"
"I am a working single parent with a seven-year-old. Every day I have to make a choice between essential purchases. I went back to work when my daughter was six months old and it wasn't as hard back then, even with paying private childcare."
Then there are the stark facts that show how it impacts on their children:
"If I think about it too much I cry, so I do anything to keep from thinking about my child saying: 'We're poor aren't we mum.'"
"My child is now locked into the poverty trap. She doesn't expect anything so is not prepared for a struggle and seems resigned to the fact that she will always be poor. It is so sad."
"It is sad when your child is the only one who cannot go on their school trip... It is sad when your children's shoes have worn out and you cannot afford to buy new ones..."
And how they feel about the stigma of being poor and claiming benefits:
"Having to weather the tirade of humiliating and degrading rhetoric from the government... marks your family out as different and undeserving."
"Does Iain Duncan Smith know? Has he or Mr Cameron or Nick Clegg lived as a lone parent? Have they had to miss meals, had no heating, been off sick unpaid?"
"We are statistics, percentages and mathematical equations... we are not real people..."
"To be made to feel like you deserve to be freezing cold, hungry, scared every day of the situation you're in and how that's affecting your children is so, so, so wrong."
This is the real 'lifestyle' those struggling to make ends meet are enjoying. It's happening in every town and city, and these cuts mean more and more families will be feeling the same way as the parents we spoke to this week. We think it's wrong, and we don't think it has to be like this.
We're asking more people to contribute their voices to the debate. You can add yours here: gingerbread.org.uk]]>Budget 2013 - What Does It Mean for Single Parents?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29163972013-03-20T12:37:22-04:002013-05-20T05:12:02-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/aspire to work hard and want to get on, what was there in the budget to help them?
First off: childcare support. And we must acknowledge that, in an era of tight government spending and widespread cuts, it is truly an achievement for the government to recognise so clearly that childcare costs are a critical issue for working parents - not least single parents, who must juggle work and childcare alone - and to seek to address that issue to support more parents in work. Yes there are details to be worked out, yes there are still questions about how this additional spending is being distributed between lower income and higher income households, and yes there is the enormous stumbling block for parents struggling today that none of the additional support will kick in until 2015. But overall this is welcome news and a big step forward - albeit with more still to do - for the many parents and organisations who have been campaigning on childcare for so long.
What else did the budget have in store for single parent families, who are still twice as likely to live in poverty as couple families, and - despite bucketloads of aspiration and ambition - still have an employment rate of 59% compared to the 71% of mothers in couples who are in work? Well, the picture at this point is not so clear. One of the Chancellor's most-trailed announcements was the raising of the personal tax allowance threshold to £10,000 a year early, from April 2014. While welcome news for some, this isn't a straightforward good news story for low income workers - not only does ippr's distributional analysis show that this measure disproportionately helps those on higher incomes, but Gingerbread research has raised serious questions about how the higher personal tax threshold will interact with universal credit, finding that lower income workers are likely to gain only a third of the full amount of future tax threshold increases.
Other measures brought clear benefits to businesses that will hopefully create jobs - such as cutting corporation tax and employer national insurance contributions - but very little else of tangible support to low income workers. Rather, there was an implicit threat of future welfare cuts in the Chancellor's rather throwaway line hinting at decisions he'll be taking in the June Spending Review - described in the budget document as "introducing a firm limit on a significant proportion of AME [Annual Managed Expenditure], including areas of welfare expenditure".
And finally, the cheapest of shots at a positive headline - reducing beer duty by a penny a pint. Quite apart from the fact that this will make a negligible difference to the expenditure of even the most avid beer-drinkers amongst us (you'd have to drink a hundred pints a week - well over the recommended limits! - to save just one pound), for all those who are struggling on desperately low incomes and at the mercy of further cuts being implemented next month, it feels like a kick in the teeth to splash out £170 million pounds next year alone on such an obvious headline-grabber.
Budget verdict? Long-term childcare support good, but little to cheer those who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table today.]]>'Off the Shelf' Employment Support Fails Single Parentstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28617342013-03-13T19:00:00-04:002013-05-13T05:12:01-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
And politicians agree - if there's one mantra that underpins much of the government's social policy reforms, it's that work is the answer. Whether it's benefit cuts, radical welfare reform, troubled families, or child poverty, the end game is principally based on getting people into (or back to) work. It's an issue that successive governments have failed to resolve - but, despite the promises of a new approach to employment support, our new research shows that this government is no closer to making this a reality.
Gingerbread's latest report looks at single parents' experiences of the package of government-funded employment support, from both the Work Programme and Jobcentre Plus. It explores the job-seeking journeys of single parents and questions whether the support on offer is delivering for them and, ultimately, for the taxpayer.
The coalition government made clear commitments to delivering a more personalised approach to employment support to achieve a step-change in getting people back to work. This includes the promise to give "more responsibility to Jobcentre Plus advisers to assess claimants' individual needs and to offer the support they think most appropriate", as well as, in particular, the Work Programme's aim of "creating a structure that treats people as individuals and allows providers greater freedom to tailor the right support to the individual needs of each claimant".
But in practice, our research shows that this rhetoric is firmly at odds with many single parents' experiences, despite all the evidence showing that the best way to get single parents into work is to offered tailored, personalised support. Instead, single parents are being offered a basic and generic 'one size fits all' service which often doesn't recognise their needs or the barriers they face to work - such as the cost and shortage of childcare, a shortage of family-friendly jobs and the impact this has on making work pay.
The result of this untailored approach is a job outcome rate for single parents in the Work Programme of just 2.5% - a third lower than the overall (and already disappointing) rate for claimants as a whole. Focus on young single parents and this rate drops even further to 2%.
Even if the Jobcentre can only achieve delivery of a more of a basic and generic approach, the Work Programme should be the start of more intensive, targeted support that helps those a bit further away from work - those who have been long-term unemployed, or those who have requested a bit of extra help. As one of the single parents we spoke to said:
"It lifts your spirits a little bit thinking maybe this is different, maybe this is something that is more about me, because that's how they sell it to you - it's more personalised. But actually your experience isn't that different."
Instead single parents found it was groundhog-day. They again were offered basic courses ill-matched with their experience and met with advisers who weren't trained to understand or meet their needs.
We're recommending that the government carries out an urgent review of the service offered to single parents across the Jobcentre and Work Programme, ensuring a clear distinction between the two and putting a renewed focus on getting more single parents into sustainable work that fits, allowing them to balance employment with bringing up their children.]]>Childcare: Where's the Emergency?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27725942013-02-27T19:00:00-05:002013-04-29T05:12:01-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
It's at times like that you realise just how important those child-to-carer ratios are - and what an impact the government's latest proposals to increase them could have. Certainly all the childcare staff I saw during the drill looked like they had their hands pretty full taking care of the little ones in their charge under the current ratios, and it was hard to see how they'd have been able to evacuate safely if they had more children to look after - tucked under their arms perhaps?!
It reminded me, yet again, that it's time to sound the alarm on childcare.
The cost and shortage of childcare is harming our economy and our society. Parents who were once an active part of the workforce are giving up their jobs, childcare costs are overtaking mortgage payments, and women are being held back from senior positions in all industries.
The evidence is so clear, and the arguments so well-rehearsed, that tackling the childcare problem is absolutely fundamental to addressing a whole host of issues, not least improving maternal employment rates, particularly for single parents. But then why is there still no sense of urgency from the government to act? And when I say act I don't just mean tinkering round the edges with ratio proposals, but properly biting the bullet and putting serious investment into childcare to fix it once and for all?
Much as we have heard many warm words from government about how they understand the importance of childcare, and we even - allegedly - got close to an announcement on investment a few months ago, in the echoing silence since all we actually have are delayed announcements and reports of coalition squabbles over how to spend (any) money.
Which, in itself, shows that they haven't really got it at all. Because if the government truly acknowledged the crisis that childcare in the UK is in, it would not bicker over which group of female voters to buy off with a small cash injection, it would instead begin a fundamental system reform that would not only help to transform how we work and how we care for our children, but would also significantly strengthen the economy. Just look at all those Scandinavian countries that have childcare sewn up and seem to be weathering the 'global' recession far better than we are.
If declaring a state of emergency is the only way to get politicians to tackle our country's childcare seriously, then it's time to sound the klaxon.]]>'Family Friendly' Britain? It's Not Looking That Way in 2013tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24013502013-01-03T06:50:30-05:002013-03-05T05:12:01-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
1. "Hi George - I earn £60K a year and consider myself comfortably off. My husband also has a good income (£40K a year), and now that our children have flown the nest and we've nearly paid off our mortgage, we feel we can enjoy the good life. We know about all the tough austerity measures you're having to put in place though - do you want us to contribute any more?"
2. "Hi George - I earn £60K a year and am the sole earner in our household. My wife gave up work to look after our three kids as childcare costs were so high, and even though we know we're not doing badly compared to a lot of people, money can still get pretty tight at the end of the month. Do you want us to contribute any more?"
The answers that these two taxpayers will get from the Chancellor will be quite different - and not necessarily in the way you would expect. In the first scenario, she will get a reassuring 'no.' But in the second, he will hear that, from 7 January, his family will have to give up their full child benefit entitlement, which (with three children) amounts to £2,449.20 per year. [It's important to note that those earning over £50,000 a year will also be affected and will lose some of their child benefit - on a sliding scale - but those earning over £60,000 a year will lose it altogether].
And it's this point that bothers me most about the forthcoming removal of child benefit from higher earners - notwithstanding the fact that there also appear to be some fairly serious problems (some might say 'chaos') with the administrative process of actually telling the 1.1 million families affected what they have to do and by when.
Because, while it may seem obvious on many levels that of course the government should take money from higher earners in a difficult economic environment - in particular when one of the other political debates raging at the moment is about introducing real-terms benefit cuts for those on the lowest incomes, a move likely to plunge even more children into poverty - it has always struck me as singularly unfair that the only higher earners being asked to pay more are those with children. Indeed, the government has gone out of its way to protect higher earners generally, for example reducing the top rate of tax for those earning over £150,000 a year from 50% to 45% as of April 2013.
Sadly, this chimes all too clearly with other cuts which are disproportionately affecting families with children, whether that's cuts to child tax credits, education maintenance allowance, or childcare support. And all this from a government headed by a prime minister who once pledged to make Britain "the most family-friendly country in Europe." As parents - whether on high or low incomes - look at what 2013 has in store for them and their families, that pledge is starting to sound very hollow indeed.]]>Finally Putting the 'Skiver' Myths to Bed: My Political Wishlist for 2013tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23453392012-12-21T19:00:00-05:002013-02-20T05:12:02-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/what's on their wishlist to Make it work for them in 2013. Our latest campaign aims to unpick how best to support more single parents into work, and with the first round of Work Programme statistics having made for fairly bleak reading, we're hoping our calls for solutions to this perennial problem won't fall on deaf ears.
This has prompted me to think about what I'd like to see more of - or less of - from politicians next year. Here are my top two wishes for 2013:
1. Let's put welfare myths to bed. For good.
Politicians and the media have long been fond of using extreme examples for, shall we say, dramatic effect. But in recent months the scale of myths and stereotypes trotted out to support increasingly drastic welfare cuts has been truly astonishing. Routine comments about generations of the same families choosing a 'culture of worklessness' (recently exposed as a complete fallacy); aspersions cast about households where 'the blinds are down long after the hard working neighbour has set off for work'; and time and again the false distinction drawn between 'strivers' and 'shirkers'.
This thinly-veiled reversion back to Victorian concepts of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor is completely at odds with the true picture of life for those who some are starting to call the 'precariat'. These are people - single people, parents, families - living on low incomes, most likely cycling in and out of work, and dependent in one way or another on financial support from the state because of the combination of low wages (if they can find work at all); high housing, energy and food costs; and the insecurity that comes from working at the low-paid end of the labour market.
These welfare myths have been so comprehensively debunked that it's shameful to see how willing some politicians are to replay them for political point-scoring. More importantly though, this form of myth-based policy-making is exceptionally damaging, and it needs to stop.
2. More joined-up policy-making
The holy grail for policy-makers is surely 'joined-up government' - where decisions made across different government departments all mesh seamlessly to form one coherent whole. I have no doubt this can be difficult to achieve - in some cases nigh on impossible - but wouldn't it be nice to see policy-makers try a little bit harder not to introduce policies that are so directly contradictory they end up making no sense?
Case in point #1: the government has long cited its drive to increase the personal tax allowance to £10,000 as one of its central mechanisms "to help lower and middle income earners" and as proof that it's delivering fairness. However, the interaction of the personal tax allowance with Universal Credit - itself designed to 'make work pay', remember - will effectively cancel out the majority of its value for anyone in receipt of Universal Credit. Meaning that workers on the lowest incomes will only receive a third of any tax allowance increase compared to those on higher incomes who will receive the full amount.
Case in point #2: the government has made much of the fact that Universal Credit is partly designed to encourage personal financial responsibility - by giving tenants their housing benefit, for example, rather than paying it direct to their landlord, "allowing claimants to prepare for the financial responsibilities they will face when in work". However, there is also an alarming undercurrent of support for proposals to pay benefits through some form of cash card to dictate the spending habits of those on benefits and to 'stop them buying booze and fags'. So which is it to be? Pushing claimants to take on more financial responsibility, or assuming that without (nanny) state intervention they will only fritter away the money they do get? [Which leads me back to my point about myth-based policy-making...]
The government has been criticised for a series of high-profile U-turns this year (pasty tax, anyone?), in which it's been accused of not foreseeing or thinking through the consequences of various policy decisions. Next year let's see instead more thoroughly considered and tested policies that actually support the people they are intended to.
As is becoming abundantly clear, 2013 will be extremely tough - on the unemployed and on workers on low incomes, on those with disabilities, on families, on single parents and, yes, on those who work with them and for them to help improve their circumstances. So having spelled out what I want to see from politicians next year, what do I resolve to do in 2013?
Simple: Stand taller. Get angrier. Fight harder.]]>High or Low Income - Families With Children Still Pay the Pricetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20236882012-10-28T19:00:00-04:002012-12-28T05:12:01-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
First, there has been a lot of disquiet about the forthcoming withdrawal of child benefit from higher earning families - due to be implemented from 7 January next year - with particular concern expressed about the lack of awareness of the policy among those affected, and the potential for 'confusion and muddle' when it kicks in.
Second, Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has faced strong criticism over his suggestion that government financial support for children - it's unclear yet whether he means child benefit, child tax credit, both, or a wider combination of benefits - should be capped at two children for families on benefits.
On the face of it, of course, these look like very different stories - one targeted at the highest earners and framed around the rhetoric of ensuring that 'we are all in this together'; and the other targeted at those on the lowest incomes and aiming to use economic levers to incentivise (or disincentivise) certain behaviour. And when looking at the child benefit cut, it may seem obvious to many that of course the government should take money from higher earners in a difficult economic environment - indeed, there will be precious little sympathy from those struggling on low incomes for a cut which only affects those earning over £50K a year.
But if you look beyond the headlines then the common thread through these debates is that, at heart, they're about taking money away from children.
There is still support - including politically - for universal benefits for pensioners (bus passes, winter fuel payments, and the like), with a clear understanding that these benefits in part recognise the contribution that older people have made to society throughout their lifetime.
But in contrast, there is a curious absence of any recognition that children, too, will make a contribution to society over their future lifetimes as citizens and taxpayers of the future. Politicians and commentators alike therefore ignore the value there is in contributing to the cost of their upbringing from a straightforward economic perspective - as well as the value in its own right of ensuring that children have what they need for a childhood free from poverty.
Indeed, somewhat extraordinarily, the impact on children themselves has been fairly absent from these discussions, which have focused squarely on political choices and parental decision-making. And it's this that should worry us most. For when we're faced with forecasts of rising child poverty, and when cuts across the income spectrum are biting hardest on families with children, it's vital that at the heart of the debate is what this means for children themselves. Now is the time that we need to hear from children directly - before decisions are made and their lives are affected.]]>We've Heard About the Welfare Cuts - Now Where's the Focus on Creating More Jobs?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19650572012-10-15T19:00:00-04:002012-12-15T05:12:01-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/choose not to work", preferring instead to "sleep off a life on benefits". But we've heard precious little about how the government is going to create enough jobs to meet the desperate need and want there is out there for work.
Yes that's right. The need and want for work. Because - far from the stereotypes - there is plenty of evidence to show that those on benefits would love to work, but genuinely struggle to find a suitable job in the right place; or indeed any job at all. We've all seen the stories of people applying for literally hundreds of jobs, and not getting a single reply.
Our experience at Gingerbread is that single parents who are out of work - and it's important to note here that 59% of parents raising their children alone do currently have a job - are highly-motivated to go out to work, but face the combined barriers of low pay, high childcare costs, limited support into work, a labour market which still raises an eyebrow at the idea of 'flexible working' and a lack of opportunities to train and skill up.
Successive governments have recognised that getting single parents into lasting employment is vital to tackling child poverty and cutting the costs of the benefits bill. But despite years of programmes, drives and policies, the rate of employment for single parents in the UK continues to lag 12 percentage points below the European average. Meanwhile, single parents on the ground are feeling the impact, finding themselves and their families trapped in a cycle of low wage jobs and desperate but fruitless attempts to find work that fits around home responsibilities. As one single parent told us recently:
"I would love to work but there are very few jobs I'm able to do and fit around school, and the competition for those few jobs is fierce. I hate being on benefits!"
The simple fact is that the system isn't working. With 1.16 million children growing up in workless single parent households, and over 300,000 working single parent families living below the poverty line, what's needed is a total gear shift.
That's why Gingerbread is launching a three-year campaign to seek decisive action on four key areas that, taken together, will transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of Britain's poorest families and, finally, Make it work for single parents. And if we can make it work for them, it will work for everyone who struggles to access employment:
1. Make work a guaranteed route out of poverty
Sounds obvious doesn't it? Yet one in five single parent families where the parent works full-time lives in poverty. We need renewed debate and action on wage levels and low pay, and further investment in Universal Credit.
2. Get 250,000 more single parents into work by 2020
Single parents need access to specialist support from advisers who understand their needs, and the government also needs to commit to sustained activity to stimulate job creation.
3. Employ a different attitude to work and school hours
Employers must open up the potential of flexible working options, government must extend the right to request them from job offer onwards, and schools must offer extended opening hours to better match the hours parents need to work. It's the 21st century, remember?
4. Unlock single parents' skills and potential.
All single parents on jobseeker's allowance should be entitled to a year's job-related training, and single parents on income support should be eligible for course fee remissions.
Of course the UK is facing economic constraints, but that's no excuse not to act. We all benefit when single parents work: single parents can make the most of their skills and their children enjoy a more financially secure childhood. Employers can access a wider talent pool with much to contribute. And society gains from sustainable savings from higher taxes and a lower benefits bill.
Which is back to where we started....So it's time for politicians to stop talking and start acting. It's time to make it work.
www.gingerbread.org.uk/makeitwork]]>Why Bother With Facts on Welfare When Fiction Is So Convenient?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19506552012-10-09T19:00:00-04:002012-12-09T05:12:02-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
Despite starting his speech by saying: "We're not going to get through this as a country if we set one group against another, if we divide, denounce and demonise", George Osborne went on to do exactly that - setting up division between "the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits" - which the Guardian followed up with a nice riff on why people might choose to keep their blinds down - between "young people who have never worked... and working people twice their age... still living with their parents"; and between "people in work [who] have to consider the full financial costs of having another child, whilst those who are out of work don't".
Of course, these are all stereotypes that play well with a certain strand of popular perception - but what's the reality? And what would cuts like the ones the government is floating actually mean for people on the ground? Because it's clear that this announcement comes at a time when those on low incomes are already struggling, and risks plunging even more children into poverty.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has already forecast a steep rise in the rate of child poverty to 2020 on the basis of welfare cuts already announced. Despite the fact that many of these cuts are yet to be implemented - with 88% of the cuts still to hit - organisations supporting low income families are already reporting rising levels of poverty and hardship.
Here at Gingerbread, we've taken a spate of calls in the last couple of months from single parents unable to afford school uniform for their kids as they start the autumn term. And the food bank network run by the Trussell Trust helped over 128,000 people in 2011-2012, a staggering 100% increase compared to the previous year, and is now opening four new centres a week to cope with rising demand.
Let's take a moment here: Food banks. In the seventh richest country in the world. In the 21st Century.
Further cuts to families who are already - literally - on the breadline will be devastating. Over half of under-25s on housing benefit have children living with them; and what about the family with three or four children who are suddenly faced with redundancy - will they lose their child benefit and child tax credits overnight too because they didn't foresee a global recession when they had their children? And as the IFS has shown, in order to reach the £10billion figure proposals would need to go significantly beyond what was suggested at Conservative conference this week - who else will feel the axe when the full details are fleshed out?
It's vital that we separate fact from fiction: the vast majority of people who receive government support do so because they can't earn enough to support their families, or even find a job in the first place. Not to mention the reality of the low-pay/no-pay cycle at the bottom of the labour market meaning it's almost inevitable that many will churn in and out of work regularly rather than be able to find a secure and permanent job. Rather than taking support away from those who need it the most, the government must instead focus on creating more jobs and making work pay for everyone.
But not to worry, there'll be no dividing, denouncing or demonising as these debates play out and final policy proposals come forward in the coming months, because we're still "all in this together". So that's okay then.]]>What Price 'Work-Life Balance'?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19095052012-09-26T19:00:00-04:002012-11-26T05:12:02-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/National Work-Life Week this week, a timely opportunity to reflect on how achievable so-called 'work-life balance' is in the current climate of economic downturn. Amid continuing fears for job security - not to mention the digital revolution which puts pressure on many workers to be available 24/7 - does 'balance' fall down the list of work priorities?
Not if you're a single parent - for whom finding (and keeping) work that fits with their caring responsibilities is their overriding aspiration, and one which, for many, dictates when, where and how many hours they work. New research from Gingerbread finds that practicalities come far ahead of personal ambition: hours of work, and childcare availability and affordability are key to single parents' success in moving into work and staying there.
It's clear that single parents overwhelmingly want to work - but while 59% of single parents already do (and most of the rest want to), many working single parents continue to face poverty, instability and a lack of opportunity for progression. Our research found that many single parents were in fact "bumping down" their careers - with higher qualified, skilled and experienced parents choosing to take jobs at a much lower level and salary than they should be able to command. Single parents told us that higher level jobs placed too great a demand on them in terms of time and responsibility for them to be able to balance work with their caring role. They felt that these jobs wouldn't be available with shorter or flexible hours and so were simply not an option for many.
"I'd do anything if it fitted around my hours, because then I'd be happier and less stressed."
This is no doubt a familiar story for many working parents (whether single parents or not) - so where do we go from here? Given the steady stream of political and media rhetoric that more single parents should be in work, and increasing pressure on them to do so once their youngest child reaches the age of five, what can be done about supporting single parents in the labour market to allow them to fulfil their potential and balance work with their role as a parent?
We spoke to employers across different sectors to understand more about how they supported the needs of a range of employees with external demands on their time. These employers strongly emphasised the business benefits of offering flexible working arrangements, such as the ability to trade for longer as a result of offering a variety of start times and hours patterns; a reduction in overhead costs; and greater productivity and customer satisfaction stemming from happier staff. In many cases, relatively small changes can make a big difference - allowing staff to flex their start and finish times to accommodate the school run, for example, or making use of technology to promote working from home.
"A flexible approach is paramount - being in 10 minutes later so school drop can be done, leaving to pick up from school etc, being able to make up for time during lunch, working from home - being productive does not mean sticking to past rules."
However, all too often employers use flexible working policies largely as a retention rather than recruitment tool - these policies are rarely designed into a new role from the beginning. It's time for this culture to change: as technology increases the possibilities for a mobile workforce, more employers should look to how roles can be created to offer in-built flexibility, rather than just stick to the tried and tested full or part-time, 9 to 5, office-based model. This is where technology can be a force for good - freeing workers up from being tied to their desks at particular times - rather than a virtual ball and chain expecting workers to be 'switched on' round the clock.
Ultimately we all win if, as a nation, we are able to benefit in full from the diverse talent pool of employees and potential employees out there. So go on, next time you're recruiting take a look at our top tips for employers and see how you can redesign a new role to accommodate the broadest range of candidates possible. The workforce is waiting.
"You should have the option not to dumb down just because you want shorter hours".
And don't forget to clock off on time yourself today while you're at it...]]>Game Changer? How the Olympics Could Help Us Re-Think the Way We Worktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15521332012-05-30T19:00:00-04:002012-07-30T05:12:13-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/Get Ahead of the Games" and plan their working patterns and travel carefully for the period of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Many of the solutions being proposed will be familiar to anyone who has ever worked on family-friendly or flexible working policy: earlier or later starts and finishes - possibly combined with compressed hours, for example squeezing five days' work into four longer days; working from home; reducing working hours during the games and then upping them afterwards to make up the difference (known as annualised hours if operated on a more permanent basis); and using tele or video-conferencing rather than travelling to or from London for meetings. (The only less-than-orthodox suggestion I've come across so far is the "go to the pub after work to avoid the rush-hour" proposal, from none other than Transport for London Commissioner Peter Hendy).
In the main, London's employers are stepping up to the challenge. Despite some sniping in the press, London-based civil servants - many of whom already benefit from fairly generous flexible working arrangements - are being actively encouraged to work from home and make greater use of tele-conferencing during the whole games period. And many other businesses already have plans in place to manage their staff working hours and business practices to ensure continued smooth operation and minimal disruption over the summer.
But why should such innovative approaches to work be restricted to the period of the games themselves? Surely this should be seized on as an opportunity to trial - and then roll out permanently - modern, flexible working practices which could not only benefit employees long-term, but their employers too?
Here at Gingerbread, we hear time and again from single parents who tell us how frustrating it is not to be able to find a family-friendly job that fits around their caring responsibilities. In a Gingerbread/Netmums survey of over 500 single parents 62% had seen no or very few jobs advertised at part-time hours; 97% had seen no or very few jobs advertised within school hours; and 97% had seen no or very few jobs advertised as flexible in any other way. And our most recent policy report, published last week, highlighted the lack of family-friendly jobs - alongside the need for better skills training and more childcare - as one of the key barriers to work for single parents of younger children in particular.
With the technological developments available to us in the 21st century, it seems increasingly anachronistic that many jobs are still advertised by default as full-time, 9 to 5. Many employers have cottoned on to offering part-time and/or flexible working as a retention tool for existing employees - supported by the law which grants the right to request flexible working to any parent or carer who has been in post for six months or more (but, disappointingly, not at the point of job offer). However, all too often when a vacancy comes up, managers revert back to the classic 9 to 5 formula rather than thinking about more creative ways of widening the talent pool from which they recruit.
As well as being a source of frustration to working parents - and indeed anyone else with non-work commitments that prevent them doing standard full-time hours (perhaps even a future Olympian with a tough training schedule to maintain) - employers are shooting themselves in the foot by not making their jobs available to the broadest pool of candidates possible.
So my wish for London 2012 is that we do indeed make the most of the games; not only by enjoying the summer of sports, culture and entertainment in store, but also by using the momentum from the games to transform our workplaces and make London - and the rest of the UK - the most family-friendly and flexible place to work in the world. Surely that's worth a gold medal?]]>A House Divided: The Cost of Financial Privilegetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12855832012-02-17T17:14:16-05:002012-04-18T05:12:01-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
In the space of a week in late January, the House of Lords inflicted a series of defeats on the government by passing amendments to the bill on a number of specific measures which peers believed were unfair and unjustifiable (even in the current economic climate). This included the largest defeat since the coalition government was elected, on proposals to charge single parents to access the statutory child maintenance service, which former Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern explained thus: "I do not believe that it is fair to require them [single parents] to pay charges when they are not responsible for creating the need for the use of the service".
Other amendments passed were intended to mitigate the worst effects of radical policies such as imposing an overall household benefit cap, reducing child tax credit payments for disabled children, and imposing under-occupancy penalties on all social tenants with an additional bedroom. And it's important to be clear that this wasn't a rebellion of the usual suspects: serious, heavyweight peers across the political spectrum - Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and independent cross-benchers - spoke eloquently and voted decisively on matters in which their collective knowledge, expertise and experience shone through in the quality of the debates.
As is parliamentary practice, the Bill was then passed back to the House of Commons for MPs to consider the Lords' amendments - at which point the government invoked the tool of 'financial privilege' to throw out all of the amendments (notwithstanding a few minor concessions). It's worth writing in full how this is described in the parliamentary record: "Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient".
As many peers themselves pointed out during the latest debate when the Bill came back to the House of Lords, it's pretty unusual for a government to invoke this mechanism for anything other than finance bills, and it sets them on a dangerous path if it becomes common practice in future. As Lord Hennessy - also known as eminent political and constitutional historian Peter Hennessy - put it: "If one or the other Chamber pushes its powers to the maximum, it tends to produce a spiral of escalation that leads to Parliament becoming much less than the sum of its parts. It would be impossible for your Lordships' House to serve as a Chamber of what Walter Bagehot called "respected revisers" if the other place pushed its undoubted financial privilege to the maximum in anything but the most exceptional circumstances".
However much the government tries to dress up its use of financial privilege here as perfectly normal practice, let's be honest: this is the parliamentary equivalent of a parent turning to a child and saying "Because I say so, and that's the end of it".
So where does this leave us? For those of us campaigning on the Welfare Reform Bill there will be more work to do, and further opportunities to push for change as the detail is developed through regulations. We will also be here to mitigate, and - importantly - evaluate the impact when the policies are finally implemented on the ground.
But there is a wider question here. If the government intends to apply the same strong-arm tactics in future, what role does a two-chamber political system designed specifically to apply legislative checks and balances actually play? What price an upper house - elected or not - if all it becomes is a talking shop rather than a genuinely revising chamber?]]>Smart Moves: Why Harnessing Mobile Technology is a Must for Charitiestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12086022012-01-17T19:00:00-05:002012-03-18T05:12:01-04:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/Europe's most digitally aware nation. We spend an average of over 12 hours online per week, watch more TV online than even our US counterparts and are more likely to do our shopping online too.
The internet and all it holds has been firmly cemented within the fabric of modern life. According to a recent Special Rapporteur from the UN, access to the internet as a means to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas" might be considered a basic human right.
However, it's not all plain surfing. As more and more businesses and organisations choose to place their services online first, in person second, there are those who have been left waiting on the verges of the digital super-highway.
Government figures show that 1 in 6 people - 8.4 million - have never been online, and of those, 4 million are among the most socially disadvantaged. A recent ONS report found that, of those that do not have access to the internet at their home, 19% cite equipment costs being too high as the main reason.
And this doesn't simply mean you can't get on to Facebook. 20% of contact with public services is performed online, and this is expected to grow. That's access to information about benefits, information about housing, information about healthcare - the basic services which are supposed to support those most in need.
So what happens if you can't afford a laptop to link your home to all that information, or you're one of the growing number of people whose local libraries are under threat of closure? Well, like almost half (46%) of mobile subscribers, you might make the move to the smartphone as your primary internet connection.
Smartphones are fast overtaking other modes as the way we communicate with each other and share information. In its 2011 survey of individual and household internet access trends, the ONS found that 45% of internet users use a mobile to get online - a growth of 6 million people using their phone to surf the web in just a year.
As contracts are renewed this January with free smartphones up for grabs, it's clear that this trend will only continue. And when you consider that mobile companies are happy to offer heavily subsidised, low cost payment plans providing calling and texting privileges and access to the web on the go, it's perhaps unsurprising that many lower income households are forgoing traditional internet access methods in favour of those that better fit their budgets and their lifestyles.
At Gingerbread, the national charity for single parent families, we launched our mobile site earlier this year in order to give Britain's 1.9 million single parent families access to practical advice, support and information direct from their phone. While more than half of single parents (57%) work, their families still face increased levels of poverty. 46% of children in single parent families are poor, compared to 24% of children in couple families. For many, a home computer just isn't an affordable purchase.
But a smartphone is. 52% of our members told us they have a phone with internet access. And from where we're sitting, it doesn't look like an extravagance or a waste of money. To not have access to the growing wealth of information and guidance that's inexorably moving online puts vulnerable parents at a very real disadvantage. If we want to bridge the digital divide, we need to work with the technology and the trends that are actually being used.
It's not just information that single parents are hunting for through their phones - it's friendship too. Being a single parent, especially to young children, means a lot of long nights in alone. The Gingerbread mobile site allows single parents to interact with other mums and dads like them in our online forums, helping to fight some of the social isolation that they tell us is the worst part of single parenthood.
For Gingerbread, launching a mobile site wasn't a gimmick to show we're hip. It wasn't done on a whim. It was a strategic move to help us reach more single parent families who need our advice and support. They use smartphones - so we use smartphone-friendly technology. It's as simple as that.
The rise of the smartphone has changed the way we consume information. Charities, government and those who provide public services need to pay attention to this shift if they're to move the feast closer to those most in need. ]]>Give and Take?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11289032011-12-05T05:53:17-05:002012-02-04T05:12:01-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
No, I'm not referring to an oblique Christmas cracker joke, but rather to a detail buried in the supporting Treasury documents underpinning the Chancellor's Autumn Statement last week. Here's the sentence in full: "The Government will not go ahead with the planned £110 above inflation increase to the child element of the Child Tax Credit."
Yes, that's right folks, previously-promised cash for low income families - or rather, for the children in those families - was being withdrawn before it had ever been paid. And it hadn't been pledged through just any old promises. These were pledges made consecutively in the June 2010 Emergency Budget and the October 2010 Spending Review, explicitly to support low income families and to prevent further rises in rates of child poverty.
Unsurprisingly, the government was quite happy to take the credit (twice) for those pledges at the time they were made. Here's the Chancellor in his Spending Review statement to the House of Commons:
"We want to ensure that low income families with children are protected from the adverse effect from these essential savings [other measures to reduce tax credits]. Because this Government is committed to ending child poverty. I can announce today that I am increasing the child element of the Child Tax Credit by a further...£50 in 2012-13 above indexation. This will mean [an] annual increase of...£110 above the level promised by the last government. This will provide support to 4 million lower income families - and I can confirm that using the same model we inherited, the Spending Review has no measurable impact on child poverty over the next two years."
A year later and that much-vaunted £110 has disappeared in front of our eyes, leaving families already struggling in the current economic environment staring into an even bleaker 2012.
Clearly there are instances when a 'government u-turn' signals a welcome concession to concerns highlighted and campaigns made - for example the ministerial statement last week that the Disability Living Allowance mobility element for people living in care homes will not be withdrawn after all, as had originally been proposed by the government. But in cases such as the £110 child tax credit withdrawal, we're not talking about reneging on a previous government's promises, but on its own promises made just over a year ago.
Are memories in politics really so short? Or does this mean the government no longer wants to ensure that low income families with children are protected from the adverse effect of other economic measures, or indeed that it is no longer committed to ending child poverty? (There is certainly a debate starting to rage about this latter point).
Whatever the truth, it is low income families who will feel the pinch from the government pulling the rug out from under them. Happy Christmas from the Chancellor.
]]>The UK's Blind Spots: Let's Not Forget the Single Parents in Needtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10948262011-11-17T19:00:00-05:002012-01-17T05:12:01-05:00Caroline Daveyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-davey/
The government, charities and the media present us with a range of explanations for the problem of child poverty in the UK, but sadly it seems that, when confronted with a troubled kid facing a dim future, the kneejerk reaction is still to blame the parents. And where better to find evidence for this view but in the outdated, yet strangely potent, stereotype of the feckless and lazy single parent?
We all know the story. That one about the single mum living rent-free in a six-bedroom townhouse, shirking employment in favour of living off the state. Barely out of her teens herself, her army of children runs wild in the streets while she spends the tax-payers' hard-earned cash on fags and satellite TV. You need only look at some of the post-riots coverage to see how prevalent these stereotypes still are.
But pushing the sensationalist headlines aside, the reality of being a single parent in Britain today is actually rather conventional. One in four households with dependent children is headed up by a single parent, and 3 million children are currently being raised by single parents. The average age of a single parent is 37; only 2% are teenagers and 10% are single fathers. And, perhaps most at odds with the media's caricature, over half of single parents (57%) are in work.
However, children from single parent families face twice the risk of growing up in poverty as children from families with two parents living together. Clearly there is a problem here - so why is the UK so quick to help the children in need but so eager to dismiss their parents?
Gingerbread works nationally and locally, for and with single parent families, to improve their lives. We recognise the brilliant work being done by Britain's 1.9 million single parents, often under very challenging circumstances. We provide expert advice, practical support and campaign for single parents. We tackle the issues they tell us matter to them and make sure their voices are heard - honestly and fairly.
Our website is packed full of expert advice and information on subjects ranging from child maintenance to tax credits, and lets single parents share their experiences and get involved with our work. We also run a single parent helpline (0808 802 0925) which means expert advice is only a free phone call away.
Gingerbread has a membership base of over 30,000 single parents. Our online forums are buzzing with lively discussions and debate, providing often isolated single parents with a supportive place to chat. We also work hard to give our members access to special offers and discounts that can help make family life more fun.
Gingerbread works directly with single parents, and the advisers and practitioners who support them, to provide training, employability and confidence-building programmes. Partnerships with Marks & Spencer and Barclaycard have provided many single parents with a supportive route back into the workplace.
However, paid work does not always guarantee freedom from financial hardship. Pressures on already stretched incomes are often made worse by policies which put single parents at a disadvantage. 25% of single parent families where the parent works part time are classed as living in poverty, and the situation is barely better for those that work full time, with 19% living under the poverty threshold.
Gingerbread campaigns hard to ensure that single parent families receive a fair deal. Recently we've been challenging government proposals to charge parents to access the Child Support Agency, which helps secure child maintenance payments for children.
Our members responded to this issue in droves, telling us that the fees would, in almost half of cases, price them out of accessing this essential support completely. These findings fly in the face of government assumptions that paying fees to use the child maintenance service or coming to private arrangements are realistic options for the majority of separated parents.
It's in making assumptions about single parents that the roots of the problems facing them and their children lie. Assuming that all single parents are the same simply because they're raising a child alone reduces almost 2 million people in Britain to a stereotype that's way out of touch with reality. If Britain can recognise its own blind spots when it comes to the diversity of family life, perhaps Pudsey's spotty hanky can have even more of an impact. ]]>