Duncan Fisher

I have today written to the Minister of Children about child poverty and fathers.  Here is the letter.

Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP, Minister for Children

Department for Children, Families & Schools

29 May 2009

Dear Beverley,

I see that you are presenting to the Work & Pension Committee on Child Poverty in June.  Could you use the opportunity to question the current approach to child poverty, which fails to access the resource that fathers can be for their children?

A UNICEF report in 2006 stated that fathers throughout the world often have decision-making power and control over resources, yet many health and other interventions “continue to target solely women….. Fathers’ involvement is one of the greatest, yet most underutilized, sources of support available to children in our world today”.  [Engle 2006]

I am writing this as an open letter, published on my blog, www.duncanfisher.com, in the hope that more public discussion of these issues might make an impact on the still dominant paradigm in child poverty policy: that caring for children is the domain of one “primary carer” or single “parent with care” who alone is a priority for support.  I do not believe this approach can be justified against the evidence of influences on children.

The closest the debate about child poverty has got to perceiving that the current paradigm is inadequate is Lisa Harker’s report in 2006, Child Poverty: what would it take? She states: “A modern welfare to work system should mirror the society we have in which fathers are increasingly involved in children’s day-to-day lives and where parents make decisions about their working patterns as a family.”

Government has made some steps forward, for example all your work with Children’s Centres, some of which now engage with both parents.  You have made available funding for more services to parents who parent apart. And the CMEC Options Service delivers care to both parents equally.  But I do not see this new thinking in the child poverty debate.

Parents living together

Within intact families, it matters how fathers work, just as it matters for mothers.  The way a father works is not an immutable background factor that frames and limits the mother’s options, but something that can be supported towards better outcomes for the family.  A father continually searching for casual employment or working long hours on low pay is correlated with poor outcomes for his children.  There is evidence that improving the literacy, numeracy and general education of such fathers has a positive impact on lifting their children out of poverty.  And yet, if a man enters an employment office he is not asked about his parental status, a question reserved for women.

The more that such mothers and fathers are supported together, particularly in the early years of the child’s life, the greater the chance that they will remain as cooperative parents.  To survive in the 21st century economy, the vast majority of parents must have skills and confidence in both earning and caring roles.

Parents living apart

For parents living apart, the situation is more extreme.  When parents separate, or have always been separate, the state designates only one as the carer and all supports are directed at this parent - even the term “primary carer” (at least implying a “secondary carer”, albeit demeaningly) is dispensed with in favour of “parent with care” or “lone parent”, irrespective of the degree to which the other parent is present in the child’s life.  Child poverty statistics are based only on the experience of the child with one parent, irrespective of whether the child is actually living with two parents at different times.

I use a different terminology in this letter: the “designated parent” and the “non-designated parent” - reflecting how they are perceived rather than what they do.

We know from much anecdotal evidence (but not substantial research, since the dominant paradigm determines the research questions) that the poverty of the non-designated parent is a significant cause for concern for some children.  Lack of resources for food, accommodation and basic needs on the part of some non-designated parents profoundly decreases their ability to engage in the responsibilities of parenthood.

In Australia, if a parent cares for a child at least one night a week then that parent is designated a “parent” and has access to support for caring for their children.  In Australia the idea of a child having two “lone parents” is conceivable.

In the UK, the role of the non-designated parent is solely to provide cash.  But even on this front, the supports are weak.  A parent who has a job is able to provide more cash, and yet employment support it not offered to such parents, nor support with other factors that contribute to unemployment, such as poor mental health and extreme distress.  Non-designated parents are at high risk of unemployment.

A proposal for new thinking

We need some new core principles, above all the principle that as a society we should hold every single father and every single mother as equally responsible for their offspring.  We should also follow the example of Australia and classify both parents as parents if they are both actively discharging their responsibilities or could do so with support.

The targets for child poverty policy should then become equal for both parents:

• The child in poverty needs both parents to contribute as much money as possible, thereby allowing the other to provide more care.

• The child in poverty needs both parents to contribute as much care as possible, thereby allowing the other to provide more money.

• The child in poverty needs both parents to contribute as high quality care as possible, because we know this makes a big different to child outcomes.

• The child in poverty needs parents to cooperate with each other, irrespective of where each lives.

The enormous discrepancy between the supports enjoyed by designated parents and non-designated parents, a discrepancy that exists in both the statutory and voluntary sector, would then become an issue of concern and enquiry.

With best wishes,
Duncan

Fatherhood child poverty, family, Fatherhood, work