Submission to the senate community affairs committee on penalties and breaches. The content of the following report illustrates the problems faced by sole parents and the lack of logic of imposing coercive penalties when most want to co-operate but find other barriers. See Sole Parent Union submission

Eva Cox, Senior lecturer, faculty of humanities and social sciences, UTS. Eva.cox@uts.edu.au ph 95142787

                    Kathleen Swinbourne, Kathy Esson, & Eva Cox,
                                        with Bronwyn Scouler 

It’s hypocritical ... They say, ‘education is important. Stay on at school. Get a degree. Do all these things’. But - if you’re a single parent, ‘get out to work’. If you’re in with a partner, you might be working different shifts, but if you’re a sole parent [the children] are coming home to an empty house. They might be going out with their friends and you don’t know what they’re getting up to ... [and] they’ll blame it on the fact that you’re a single parent. It is very hypocritical and very cynical saying on one hand ‘be good parents’ and then on the other hand, say ‘hard luck, you have to go out and work’.

This Report was funded by the Ronald Henderson Foundation as a contribution to more effective social policy development. The project came from Kathleen Swinbourne, in her role as president of the Sole Parent Union, and she was mainly responsible for the broad design, background research, focus groups, transcription and initial analysis. Substantial final analysis was conducted by Kathy Esson. The project was advised and auspiced by Eva Cox, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). The final report was written by a coalition of all of the above, with assistance by Bronwyn Scouler who undertook some of the research and provided research assistance.

PREFACE

Sole parents are in the uncomfortable limelight as one of the key groups targeted by welfare reform proposals. Since the late eighties, sole parents have been seen in policy terms as a drain on Government funds, and on the honest taxpayer, and there have been moves to reduce their ‘welfare dependency’. This has occurred at the same time as introducing parenting payments designed to help mothers make the ‘free’ choice of taking on paid employment. These policy changes started the ball rolling in the direction of tightening sole parents’ eligibility to receive government benefits, most government discussions since have followed continued on the same path. The perceptions that sole parents are a ‘burden’ on other taxpayers was also a principal reason behind the introduction and design of the 1988 Child Support Act, which reduces government expenditure through enforcing financial responsibility of non-custodial parents.

Currently, residence parents, who have the major responsibility for children, have had some of their child support entitlements cut, with more being proposed. In these cases the beneficiaries are the non-resident parents, who have had a reduction in their child support payments, at the same time as many have had a cut in their income tax. Sole parents who earn over average weekly earnings have their entitlements reduced further. The net effect of these policies on resident parents is negative, and is backed up by frequent derogatory media coverage, suggesting women leave marriages at will to become sole parents and put their children at risk.

The current debates on changes to the welfare system (mid 2000) put ‘participation as mutual obligation’ on the agenda for both those officially unemployed and other working age recipients of payments. This is intended to increase sole parents’ capacity for self-support, by entering into or increasing hours in paid work. Presumably this will include enforcing some specific plan for workforce re-entry once children are deemed old enough but not yet sixteen. These proposals are built on presumptions that ‘dependence’, specifically ‘welfare dependence’ is bad, and that what is good for the government is also good for sole parents. 

This project had two aims: the first to give voice to the complexities of decisions taken by sole parents in relation to their participation levels in paid work; the second to challenge policy makers to extend their inputs past the economic data they may use to estimate the ‘benefits’ of  re-entry to paid work to the social benefits and costs to relationships, levels of trust and capacities of the diverse population group  

In a time when welfare reform is on government agendas, the voices of the possible recipients are not often heard. The present inquiry’s terms of reference focus strongly on social and economic participation, so we are pleased to offer one of the few research outcomes which focus on how a wide cross-section of sole parents see their roles and responsibilities. 

The major outcome of the project has been a clear articulation of the complexities of decision making for most sole parents. As mothers (mainly) they share general concerns for the well being of their children, but often face demands, both practical and emotional, which limit their options and choices. There is no evidence here of the public scapegoat sole parent who is careless with her favours and responsibilities, which raises issues about the damage of such stereotypes to sole parents and government policy making. We also have little evidence that sole parents are work shy or happy to continue on benefits indefinitely, in fact the reverse is more likely, of parents postponing their desire to take paid work until they feel it is best for the children. 

Unfortunately the male groups organised failed to eventuate on four occasions, so we do presume to speak on their behalf. We recognise that organising affinity groups with some groups drawing women from a range of services groups, others from friends and acquaintances, meant we also did not tap into those sole parents who are most isolated. We are reasonably confident that there views were represented by some of the women in services who had been there. As a long time researcher with groups, I am confident that the views we used are reasonably representative.  

We thank the hundred plus women and four men who came to and/or organised groups, talked to us and trusted us with their stories. This report is based on their stories, sorted to make it easier for policy makers to understand the pressures and joys of sole parenting.  They now cannot claim that economic betterment is in itself enough to justify coercing sole parents into paid work. 

In our original submission to the Ronald Henderson Foundation we identified the following areas to explore:

The aim of this project differs from much of the current research into sole parents and income support because it starts from the viewpoint of the sole parent, and does not begin with presumptions about how their behaviour is affected by income support programs. There have been many changes in income support over the past decade but there is relatively little evidence of substantial changes in financial problems of sole parents, or of their workforce behaviour.

This project would establish how sole parents react to welfare, how much they understand about the interaction between welfare and paid work, and how they feel they would best be helped to become independent. A great deal of research exists to show a link between sole parenting and poverty, with sole mothers the group most likely to live in poverty. Current and proposed policy changes look at only the interaction between the tax and social security systems, and withdrawal and taper rates for social security benefits. However, unless sole parents are aware of the implications, and can make informed decisions these changes are often restricted to the policy makers. 

The main researcher in this project has lived through this process while studying and has re-established the Sole Parent Union to provide a means of both support and lobbying. It is from her experiences, her research and the stories of the women sole parents she is in contact with that this project has been developed. 

Previous research into sole parents and income support has concentrated purely on the economic aspect of workforce participation, welfare dependency and poverty traps. This research will take a more sociological view and examine how sole parents understand the relationship between welfare and paid work, and how their attachment, or lack of attachment, to the paid labour force affects their participation. It will seek to determine, from the sole parents themselves, what issues affect their ability, or desire, to obtain paid employment, and how best they feel these situations could be improved.’ 

Eva Cox UTS July 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report on the world views of a cross section of sole parent raises the concept of a social economy where decisions are made by intertwining social outcomes with financial ones. In a climate where social welfare reform is again on the political agenda, this study provides a rich and important entry to understanding that decisions on participation in the labour market involve complex social and emotional factors. The dimensions emerging in this research show that sole parents, diverse as their situations may be, will generally put the well being of their children first on their agendas. Time becomes a major factor in decision making, underpinned by explicit and implicit messages that good mothers are available to their children. The needs of their children for social and emotional support, particularly close to a break up of a relationship is crucial; the lack of supports, formal and informal, can also be a major problem, together with the specific problems of transport, housing, child care and other infrastructure. Financial issues are always there but there is a greater recognition that access to low paid, sporadic work is not very empowering or enriching.

However, policy changes often appear to be based on an assumption that income support recipients make economically ‘rational’ decisions based on an accurate knowledge and understanding of the ways in which the social security system and tax system work both independently and together. This assumption underlies recent changes in both income support and tax arrangements. Changes under the new tax system (July 2000) go some way to improving the financial benefits of undertaking paid work by increasing earnings thresholds and reducing taper rates. While these economic adjustments to current arrangements are welcomed, it is our contention that a range of other issues needs to be addressed directly if the economic participation of sole parents is to significantly increase.

This study shows that sole parents can be relatively risk averse. That is they do their own cost/benefit analysis of the demands of entry into paid work, or increases in hours, against a relatively predictable income, social disapproval and discomfort of being on the welfare, and the constant lack of money. Their sums are based on the ways they assess risks to their capacity to cope and to their children’s well being. It is the risk/trust nexus which, in this sense, underpins so-called choice. 

However, choice is also limited by the ways in which sole parents both view themselves and perceive others view them. Those women who hold to the ‘traditional’ view of mothering, wherein good mothers are at home and available for their children, have their choice prescribed for them. Combining family and work responsibilities not only becomes extremely difficult but also serves to negatively reinforce their feeling that they are ‘bad’ mothers. Whilst this can be true for mothers generally, for sole mothers who already experience negative stereotyping based on their family structure, the impact on their own and their family’s well-being is multiplied.

Negative public discourses about sole parents are both a psychological and actual barrier to their being able to fully participate in community life. This very public scapegoating further reinforces their self-doubt, anxieties and other feelings, and decreases their propensity to take risks. There are very obvious contradictions between the discourses of ‘good’ mothers being there for their children, and ‘welfare cheats’ who stay at home and bludge off the system. These descriptions also create an artificial divide between mothers, the majority of whom are already combining public and private roles. Definitions of sole parents as being welfare dependent hide the fact that many of them are in paid work, and many more contribute in a voluntary capacity. They also create a false definition of dependency, as encompassing only those whose main source of income is the state rather than a partner, and excluding those whose dependence is emotional or physical rather than financial. As the saying goes “no (wo)man is an island”. In effective communities interdependencies are recognised and valued, rather than derided.

These pressures increase the anxieties sole mothers feel that any decision they make will be the wrong one, and therefore they stay with the familiar of the status quo. These women become the ‘negative’ decision makers, whose options both for themselves and their children become severely restricted, and who are more likely to be, or to become, isolated and marginalised. This risk is further enhanced as many distance themselves from ‘other’, more stereotypical, sole mothers.

Many women in our study clearly identify the huge gap between the public and political discourse surrounding single mothers and the reality of their own lives. Having to take sole (or nearly sole) responsibility for children, dealing with government bureaucracies and in many cases having to explain and defend your actions both as an individual and as a mother, all without the support of a partner or even in some cases of one’s own family; takes its toll. Those who have the added burden of family court and/or custody issues, domestic violence, lack of resources, and few skills can feel a sense of despair and hopelessness for the future. That many women overcome these disadvantages is a testament to their courage and resilience.

Despite the barriers, and in direct contrast to the stereotypes, sole parents do participate both economically and socially. Eardly (2000) provides data to show that sole parents workforce participation is increasing, and their welfare ‘dependence’ is decreasing. Currently around half of all sole parents are in the paid workforce. Between 1988 and 1998 the proportion of sole parents in part-time work has doubled, and the percentage not in the labour force has dropped to just over two-fifths overall (less for parents with school-age children). However, the rate of participation in full-time work has decreased, a trend also evident in the workforce generally. Because sole parents often access low-paid, insecure, part-time work, many are also dependent on social security to top up their wages. 

Where sole parents have access to strong, positive trustworthy support networks, and feel valued as members of society, their capacities to seek and find paid employment or volunteer work in the community are greatly enhanced. Conversely, when the cultural, social and financial resources provided to sole parents are low or unacceptable, they are less likely to participate actively in paid or voluntary employment. Put simply, those who see and experience higher risks because of personal circumstances, less education, a lower earnings capacity, few support networks and/or less confidence, need more assistance to overcome these hurdles and enter the paid workforce than those who are more appropriately resourced.  The population of sole parents is very diverse and there is no one-size-fits-all policy option.

This study suggests that the majority of sole parents are very interested in undertaking paid work when the time is right, but that bad experiences will reduce their willingness and capacity to have a go. They are almost uniformly positive about paid work, training and education, with the exception of a small minority who identify mothering as their primary job. Many already participate widely in a social capacity both for their children and with them, and many are in the paid labourforce. However, some lack the personal, social and financial resources to manage more than minimal participation. These need carefully structured interventions and access to formal support services before they can gain the capacity to move on.

However, for many women the financial benefits attainable from casual, part-time or low paid full-time work are simply not considered acceptable when weighed against the costs to family life and well-being. This acts as a clear and tangible disincentive to engage in work, often tilting the pendulum in the no-work direction, and can act to lock out many sole parents from participating in paid work, education, and training.

Many sole parents in this study were forced to move suburbs when they separated, and have lost social networks. Others have experienced direct discrimination due to being a sole parent: in the workforce, in finding accommodation, or in other ways. All except those whose income is substantial, such as professional women, feel vulnerable about their situation and concerned that they are becoming worse off, and will be even more so under proposed changes to both social security provision and child support. Some can see through the inconsistencies in public discourses concerning the importance of parenting at home and having choices, which sit uncomfortably with what are seen as moves to force sole parents into paid work. And many lament the negative stereotypes surrounding sole parenthood (which although they rarely mention it, is usually a proxy for sole motherhood, and therefore has a clearly gendered underpinning). 

Most lead complex lives involving substantial participation in work places, schools and neighbourhoods; a small minority seem to find the challenges of going it alone consume almost their entire focus. As these (mainly) women discuss their daily lives, the passion and involvement they demonstrate flies in the face of popular (mis)conceptions of sole parents (i.e., mothers) as irresponsible - as the ones most likely to neglect their children and to have children who are unkempt and/or in ‘trouble’.

All these factors are a challenge to policy makers. If they wish to change participation rates they need to take account of attitudes, feelings and the limits on time and resources that affect sole parents. They need to understand and respect the experiences and realities of sole parents’ lives. Altering taper rates and thresholds, while important, has been shown to be ineffective in substantially changing the workforce patterns of sole parents. Those in work receive a benefit; those not currently undertaking paid work are not encouraged to do so. 

Current directions in welfare reform both nationally and internationally are often based on sets of assumptions about using coercive power to change participation rates. There seems to be a presumption that carrots are secondary to, and will not work without, sticks. This can be dangerous in that it both adds to distrust and scapegoating, and may undermine the capacities of sole parents to cope with difficult situations and to parent effectively. Capacity building requires optimism and mutual trust before it can manifest in its ‘dependents’. Sole parents are already participating by rearing children. Most wish to do more. However they need support not coercion to move on. 

Understanding the social, and its impact on economic decision making, is perhaps the biggest test  facing policy makers today. However, until they do so the likelihood of their affecting the behaviour and workforce patterns of sole parents, and thereby improving the future prospects for them and their children, is minimal at best. 

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

What we need is an experienced sole parent up there making decisions for sole parents. We don’t need any dickhead guys who probably have left their wives, making those decisions.

We have identified in this report a number of areas and life events which affect sole parents’ ability to both make decisions and choices about what is best for themselves and their children, and their ability to fully enact those choices.

Policy makers need to understand the processes of decision-making, rather than making assumptions about human behaviour based on an economically fundamental view of the world. Our research shows that humans are not calculators, and cannot be assumed to be so. Any separation of the social from the economic is likely to result in policy that acts counter to its purposes. 

In order for social security to act as a “springboard” rather than a “hammock” it needs to be made safer and easier not only for people to leave the system, but also for them to re-enter it, if and when necessary.

Carrots not only work as well as sticks in effecting short-term change, but also improve the likelihood that that change will continue in the long-term.  Positive encouragement, a visible improvement in their circumstances, and the practical support and infrastructure to be able to manage all aspects of their lives are enough for the vast majority of sole parents, as with the population generally, to participate more broadly in the community and in the paid workforce.

Trust and Social Capital

This is perhaps the most important, and least understood, aspect of social policy. Without trust, people are unlikely to respond to policy changes, even when those changes might be in their best interests.  

Scapegoating of sole parents, increasing surveillance of their activities, moral judgments about their lifestyles, reduce trust and the likelihood of compliance. The first step in increasing levels of trust must come from the government. The state has a responsibility to all its citizens, to create the circumstances which will enable a more cohesive society which values all its members. Creating artificial divisions, indulging in ‘victim’ blaming, and public scapegoating lessen us all both individually and collectively, and go no way towards creating a civil society.

Attitudes to government and bureaucracies expressed in this study suggest that the relationship between government and sole parents are not necessarily seen as helpful. Any proposals to introduce additional forms of coercion on sole parents to participate economically may well lead to a further deterioration in the relationships.

Income Support

Incomes need to be able to be averaged over longer time periods, with the capacity to accumulate unutilised earnings thresholds, as in the income bank currently available to students. Fewer and simpler reporting requirements, which result in less likelihood of error, reduce the threat of sanction and loss of benefits, and make it easier for women to take up part-time and/or casual work.

Income support can be viewed by some as a ‘safer’ alternative than the risk of moving into the paid workforce. This is especially true for those women who have experienced ‘high risk’ relationships, involving violence, abuse, harassment, overt control, etc. Rather than making social security less safe, with possible negative effects on families and children, in order to counter this perception, movement into the paid workforce needs to be seen as less risky.

Recognising Caring

Universal family payments, which are not withdrawn when income is earned, recognise the ongoing responsibilities and supplement earned income without imposing high effective marginal tax rates. This allows women to combine their family and financial responsibilities without pushing them into one or the other. A higher basic level of child related payments, should not be income or means tested. A sole parent allowance would recognise the extra costs of one person providing care. The transfer of these payments from the social security to the tax system should make such a transition easier.

The caring role is particularly important for sole parents. Many feel, with good reason, that it is more important for them to be there for their children, particularly at times of high stress. It is therefore important to support women in their role as mothers, while still allowing them the possibility of taking on paid work. 

Child Care

The costs of the child care must be affordable for those on pensions and very low incomes, with the gap fee not exceeding 10% of parental income. Fees must be set low enough to provide a clear incentive for greater social and economic participation, and the quality high enough to instill a sense of trust and security.

The provision of good quality, affordable and accessible child care, with highly qualified staff is important for sole parents to feel that their children are well cared for when they are not there. It is also an important early intervention strategy to redress disadvantage and enable children themselves access to support and resources they would otherwise not have. 

Education and Training

Education supplements to income support recipients must realistically reflect the additional costs of the courses, including fares, child care, stationery, books, etc. Benefits paid for study purposes, such as the PES, therefore need to accommodate the requirements of sole parents by allowing for and encouraging part-time study. Access to courses may require personal support bridging courses and other assistance to ensure that potential students can manage their study and parental responsibilities, and maintain the necessary level of confidence to make success possible.

International research shows that the best strategies to break inter-generational cycles of poverty and disadvantage are long term education and training. Costs of entry into higher education and training courses need to be low enough to be affordable. Repayment rates, such as HECS, need to take into account the additional costs sole parents incur in raising children, and be set accordingly. 

Family Resources -v- Extended Social Networks

Community services providing child care, including respite care, and other forms of family support need to be funded adequately to allow them to both build networks and support systems for those sole parents who approach them, and to have outreach and follow up services to make and keep contact with more marginalised sole parents. Where communities have large clusters of sole parents and have poor levels of local networks, generalist community building and social capital development programs need to be funded.

Governments need to recognise that developing such networks in disadvantaged and social resource poor communities requires time, and financial resources to strengthen local communities.

The indications of this study are that there will be some sole parents who require long-term and ongoing support in order to build their confidence levels and maintain their out-of-home participation.

Sole parents in this study identified their local community services as being of primary importance in building their self-esteem and confidence, and encouraging them to become involved in the community, either through voluntary work, study, training, or paid work. These services are often run on a shoe-string and are unable to fully service all those in need.  Many support services are becoming, or have become, crisis services, severely restricting their ability to act for all families in their areas. These services however are not necessarily known, particularly by remote or isolated families. Aboriginal sole parents and other groups need to be made feel welcome in generalist services, particularly when there has been the fear of violence which may reduce the capacity to call on parents or old friends.

Sole parents, particularly those with no family support, often identify the lack of any respite from their role as being an issue. This is not only true for those in clear distress or crisis, but also for those who need time out in order to prevent a crisis occurring. The constancy of the demands on sole parents’ time and emotions can be such that they have no opportunity to recharge their batteries, and minor occurrences can escalate into major problems. Respite care is essential for these families.

Change of focus to children’s rather than parents’ rights

Children’s rights should not be confused with children’s obligations. Research indicates that children benefit from maintaining a relationship with both their parents. However the encouragement of these relationships should not be at the expense of the safety, security, or expressed wishes of the children. Family Court research shows, and anecdotal evidence would suggest, that some children are being forced to maintain relationships which are detrimental to their well-being. Courts need to look at the overall well being of the family unit, and try to avoid creating huge stress in the children by assuming a right of non custodial parents. Changes to child support focus on the needs and desires of the non-custodial parent, rather than the needs of the children. Tax provisions allow high income earners to reduce their child support liability.

The rights of fathers over their children are taking precedence over children’s rights to safety. This focus needs to change to emphasise the rights of children to safety, to security, and to be financially supported according to both their parents’ abilities.