New deal for lone parents: learning from the prototype areas
A hard copy of this report summary can be obtained by contacting Paul Noakes [E-Mail: Paul.Noakes@dwp.gsi.gov.uk] or by writing to him at the 'Social Research Division, Department for Work and Pensions, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT'.
Research Report No. 92
By Helen Finch, William O’Connor with Jane Millar, Jon Hales, Andrew Shaw and Wendy Roth
This evaluation of the initial phase of the New Deal for Lone Parents was commissioned by the Department of Social Security, and conducted by a consortium of independent researchers at Social & Community Planning Research (SCPR) and the Universities of Warwick and Bath. This report presents preliminary findings, based on qualitative and quantitative interviews with lone parents, carried out from December 1997 to April 1998. At this stage in the evaluation, the main aim was to examine factors that influenced participation and consider lessons about what was most effective.
- Phase 1 of New Deal for Lone Parents was launched in July and August of 1997 in eight prototype Benefit Agency districts. In all, 78 depth interviews were carried out with lone parents in prototype and matched control areas, supplemented with data from the first wave of face-to-face interviews with a random sample of lone parents from the prototype areas.
- Awareness of the programme, until lone parents received their initial contact letters, was low and lone parents' initial reactions were mixed, although on balance more positive than negative. Only two thirds of targeted lone parents remembered receiving a letter.
- The survey found that around 20 per cent of targeted lone parents sent a letter attended an initial interview. One in ten of all lone parents attending an initial interview were 'early starters' from the target group, who came forward before receiving an invitation letter.
- Lone parents clearly delineated between 'effective' and 'ineffective' advisers. The effectiveness of advisers, as described by lone parents, depended advisers' personal characteristics, how they did their job, and how they related to lone parents.
- Generally lone parents felt that the scheme should remain voluntary, but that all lone parents should be targeted not just those whose youngest child had reached school age.
- Following contact with the programme, lone parents can be thought of as being on a continuum of distance between being on benefits with jobsearch 'on-hold', to being in work and off benefits altogether.
- The diversity of opinion as to whether lone parents felt the programme had made a difference in their jobsearch was directly related to whether they had an 'effective' or 'ineffective' adviser.
- Those who felt the programme had made a difference emphasised the financial reassurance and advice given, the building up of their confidence, help with jobsearch, and in some cases the ability of the programme to combat feelings of isolation.
Introduction
Phase 1 of New Deal for Lone Parents was launched in July and August 1997 in eight ‘prototype’ areas based on Benefits Agency (BA) districts. Four of these areas were managed by BA, while the other four were managed by the Employment Service (ES).
Eligible lone parents in receipt of Income Support are invited to participate in the programme if their youngest dependent child is aged five and three months. Lone parents whose youngest dependent child is below school age may ‘opt-in’ to the programme by requesting an interview with an adviser. Lone parents in the target group are usually sent a letter that invites them to attend an initial interview. At this interview the adviser will determine whether the lone parent is interested in looking for work or can be persuaded to do so, and will then develop a plan for improving labour market participation.
The objectives of the evaluation
At this stage of the evaluation, the main aim was to examine the factors which influence participation and to consider the lessons about what is most effective. These were to inform the development of the national programme.
In the longer term, the evaluation is concerned with the ‘success’ of the programme, including a detailed assessment of its impact on employment rates and other outcomes. This will involve an estimate of the benefits of the programme in relation to the costs of implementation. A crucial aspect of the evaluation design is the use of a ‘control’ group of lone parents drawn from six other BA districts known as 'control' areas. The same range of information, with the exception of the cost-benefit measures, is being assembled for these 'control' areas.
A Profile of the lone parents
The quantitative data are from 998 interviews with a random cross-section of the lone parents in all eight prototype areas. The qualitative data are from in-depth interviews with 48 lone parents in prototype areas and 30 lone parents in control areas. The profile of the lone parents’ lives gathered through the survey and through the qualitative study reflects the diversity of characteristics and circumstances found in other studies of lone parents.
The survey sample could be described as adult rather than as young parents, more than half being in their thirties and another quarter in their forties. As many as a quarter had long-standing health problems or disabilities and just as many had a child with similar problems. Seven out of ten were divorced, separated from a spouse or had ceased cohabiting with a partner, while a quarter were never-married.
One quarter of survey respondents said they had access to childcare when they first heard about the programme, mainly relying on relatives or friends. However, only three per cent had someone else who regularly looked after their children. Hardly any used registered childcare.
Overall, survey respondents had several years of work experience. Nearly half (45%) had previously been in work for eight years or more. Over two-fifths had no qualifications at all.“ ”“”The majority of lone parents interviewed in the survey were still in receipt of Income Support at the time of the interview. In addition, more than 70 per cent had accumulated debts in the form of cash loans, outstanding credit card balances and other debts. Nevertheless, just over a third said they ‘get by alright’ financially and only a minority considered they were in serious financial difficulty.
Motivations and preferences in relation to work
Almost all the lone parents wanted to work at some time. The advantages of being in paid work over staying at home out of the labour market and on benefit, were noted and valued. As well as wishing to increase income, work was valued as a route out of isolation, to gain dignity and to achieve independence. The preference, for many, however, on re-entering the labour market, was for part time work, to fit in with other commitments, most notably those surrounding childcare.
The majority of lone parents interviewed in the survey were either in work, searching for work, or said they wanted to work at that time. For other lone parents, there remained a desire to work, but not yet. Most frequently in these cases (and particularly where there were younger children), there was a tension between the desire to work and their role as a parent to provide continuous care for their child. Occasionally this view was reinforced by feelings about the wish to ‘compensate’ for the child having only one parent; others stressed their child’s dependence on them for security. There were also several instances of parents whose children needed high levels of care, associated with chronic physical health problems, learning difficulties or emotional and behavioural problems. In such situations, there might be long-term treatment or crisis situations, both requiring visits to doctors or hospitals. For some, work was out of the question ‘yet’ because of the instability of their situation, such as the aftermath of a relationship having broken down.
There was some evidence that lone fathers had a particularly difficult time as a lone parent. They were often committed to full time parenting and either did not wish to cope with the additional requirements of work on top of their parental role or felt unable to do so. A few men felt that they had to be seen to give priority to their children to avoid a risk of their custody being challenged.
Barriers to labour market participation
Practical barriers to labour market participation varied in type and intensity for individual lone parents but two specific areas dominated: difficulties with childcare arrangements and financial concerns.
As well as the problems perceived in relation to leaving children, described above, lone parents experienced difficulty in finding childcare that they considered to be high enough quality as well as affordable, reliable, convenient, or appropriate for their child’s needs.
Financial concerns were pervasive. There was financial risk involved and some lone parents perceived employment as not financially viable. Living on low incomes, there was security in the knowledge that benefit was reliable and guaranteed. If one started a job and it did not last, financial security could collapse.
There was some doubt about the ability to reinstate benefits and wariness of the amount of effort and uncertainty that this may entail.
A second aspect of the financial uncertainty perceived by lone parents was whether the income from work (with Family Credit) would be enough in view of the loss of passported benefits such as free school meals as well as expenses on clothing and travel to work. Those with mortgages could face the cost of arrears as well as the resumption of payments. Where childcare was available, the earnings from work might be insufficient to cover its cost. Lone parents with particularly high outgoings such as a mortgage repayments saw these as insuperable barriers.
Many lone parents lacked qualifications and recent work experience, which they perceived to bar access to jobs and restrict earning potential. Those who had experienced long periods on benefit felt out of touch with workplace skills and also commonly lacked job references or were ignorant of job search methods. Some encountered employer prejudice against taking on lone parents, and felt that local labour market conditions, lack of appropriate local job opportunities, or inflexible hours, militated against them. A pervasive factor underlying the barriers to work, especially apparent in the qualitative interviews, was a lack of confidence.
Participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents
First impressions of the programme
Awareness of the programme was generally quite low until receipt of the initial letter inviting participation. On first hearing of the programme, lone parents’ impressions were mixed, though generally more positive than negative, regarding it as sympathetic to the situation of lone parents and a source of support. Those with negative impressions tended to be apprehensive because they thought the programme was compulsory; for example two-fifths of those who recalled receiving a letter felt that it was compulsory to attend an interview. This was often coupled with a fear that non-compliance would lead to a loss of benefit.
Inviting participation
The survey found that as many as 78% of the targeted lone parents who had been sent a letter did not attend an initial interview and that non-participation was more likely among those who had larger numbers of children, a lower level of work experience, or were without regular access to childcare. In the qualitative study, non participants often expressed a wish to remain at home to care for their children full time. In some cases, their own ill health or that of a family member prevented them from participating at the present time. The trauma resulting from the end of a previous relationship was also a factor associated with non-participation.
Attendance at an initial interview was more likely if the invitation specified an appointment with the adviser. Among respondents in the survey, one-fifth (22%) had attended an interview and almost half (45%) remembered the letter but did not attend the initial interview. One in three (33%) had no recollection of a letter, although administrative records showed that most of those people (at least 60%) had been sent one.
Types of participants
There were several variants among participants. Firstly, prompt participants included both those keen to participate and those who felt their benefit might be affected if they did not explain why they did not wish to participate. The others can be described as delayed participants, who only responded when sent a reminder letter or when telephoned by an adviser. This underscored the importance of additional input from the adviser.
The most common route into the programme was in response to a letter of invitation from an adviser. However, lone parents also came forward in advance of receiving an invitation to participate. In addition, the programme attracted lone parents from outside the target group (i.e. with children below school-going age) who opted to take part. These lone parents had already embarked on a search for employment; some had found a job and wanted confirmation that they would be better off financially or sought support in reaching the decision to accept it. Typically, they were referred by ES or BA staff to the New Deal office on making an application for a job or an enquiry about Family Credit.
Initial interviews
The initial interview seeks to gain a commitment to find a job. Most interviews took place at the local office, although others were conducted in the homes of lone parents.
The role of the adviser
During interviews in the qualitative study, lone parents’ own descriptions of their relationship with their adviser clearly delineated between an ‘effective’ and an ‘ineffective’ adviser.
There was no evidence that this distinction was area related, since both were found within the same area. As described by participants, the effectiveness of advisers depended on:
- their personal characteristics;
- how they did their job;
- how they related to the lone parent.
‘Effective’ advisers were described as friendly, outgoing, positive and enthusiastic, and at the same time participants remarked that such advisers’ relaxed and confident demeanour encouraged them to feel at ease during the interview, making lone parents feel they were understanding, interested and had time to listen. They were prepared to work with the lone parent on their motivation and confidence. In particular, they were non-judgmental and respectful.
By stark contrast, ‘ineffective’ advisers were rarely seen in such a light. Such advisers were repeatedly described as “‘inexperienced’, ‘unclear’” and “‘wishy-washy’. ”While these ‘ineffective’ advisers appeared capable of fulfilling the practical aspects of the role such as giving benefit information, completing better-off calculations or initiating a job search, they appeared to participants to do so with little enthusiasm or vigour. It was clear from accounts given during the qualitative interviews that such advisers were devoid of the motivational and confidence building skills that underscore the success of an ‘effective’ adviser.
This inconsistency in the delivery of the programme clearly had implications for the content of interviews, as well as the level and type of contact between the adviser and the lone parent following the initial interview.
However, even the attempts of ‘effective’ advisers to assist lone parents into work were often thwarted by the insuperable barriers to work which lone parents regularly faced. Nevertheless, in these circumstances, ‘effective’ advisers still managed to give the impression that they were doing everything possible for the lone parent. Such support was clearly valued.
Content of the interviews
Both ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’ advisers covered basic topics such as personal details, benefit information, childcare arrangements and work or training opportunities. However, the ‘effective’ advisers covered these items in more depth and were also likely to spend time discussing ambitions, personal needs and circumstances. Those who met an ‘effective’ adviser were more likely to have left with a clear course of action.
Nearly all who had an initial interview reported having had a projection of their in-work income, usually referred to as a ‘better-off calculation’. This showed two-thirds of them that they would be better off in work.
The voluntary nature of the programme
There was a recurrent view that the voluntary basis of the programme was crucial, and that any move towards compulsory participation in future might ‘backfire’. It was sometimes suggested that, with exceptions for those in ill health or with very young children, it might be made compulsory to meet the adviser.
The age limit for participation
There was wide support for all lone parents to be included within the target population, rather than the age of the youngest child being used to distinguish target and non-target groups. Lone parents themselves identified advantages of contacting lone parents with younger children, such as keeping them in touch with the labour market and avoiding getting ‘stuck in a rut’.
The effect of the New Deal for Lone Parents
Following contact with programme, lone parents can be situated along a continuum of distance from or nearness to employment, that is, from being on benefit and not looking for work, to being in work and no longer receiving benefit. This continuum is made up of five stages: ‘on hold’, ‘looking for work’, ‘in work on IS’, ‘in work on FC’ and ‘in work off benefit’.
The stages are by no means rigid and there is some indication of fluidity between them. Movement along the continuum (and back) is mainly attributable to three central factors - barriers to the labour market, the motivation to work and the effect of the programme.
‘On hold’
Those in the 'on hold' stage were not ready for work and generally not looking for a job. The main reasons for this were
- parental responsibility, a wish to provide continuous care for children;
- health problems;
- trauma associated with their separation or divorce or related events;
- commitments such as an education course.
Looking for work
The looking for work stage mainly included women with a wide range of ages, but who had in common the fact that they had previous work experience. They were motivated to work and many had attended a NDLP interview. Some had already started looking for work, while others had begun looking for work following an interview.
In work on IS
The category of those in work on IS was again quite diverse, though all of them in the qualitative sample were women. Among them were women who were already working part-time prior to the programme, while others had started more recently, but not necessarily as a result of contact with the programme. Some were looking for further work, while others limited their hours to earn the £15 per week allowed under the earnings disregard on IS. Views about increasing work were mixed, some not considering increased work until their children were older. Others considered there were difficulties about the transition from IS to FC, particularly the loss of housing benefit and other benefits associated with being on IS. Childcare was another concern, partly because their existing hours were arranged around times when their children were at school .
In work on FC
All of the qualitative sample members who were in work on Family Credit were women, and their work was in retail, services, clerical or personal care. The striking point about this group was a strong motivation to work. Some had already identified a job prior to contact with the programme, while others attributed their employment to participation in the programme. Those who had experienced the transition reported favourably on the advisers’ help in making it quick and straightforward. A few had delays in receipt of their first payment of FC. On the whole, however, those in this category saw Family Credit as entirely different to being on IS.
There was very low take-up of the child care disregard, partly because of the requirement for using registered childcare, which some lone parents did not trust. This meant that many in this category limited their work to the time their children were at school. As a result, their target was to work just enough to qualify for FC, and full-time work was not an option. One obstacle was the difficulty managing with the long school holidays. Access to informal child care provided by friends and relatives appeared to be a key to making the move into work on FC. However, maintaining a balance between work and time to be with their children seemed to be the aim of these lone parents.
In work off benefit
There was only one example in the qualitative sample in this final category on the continuum, and she had already found work before contacting the programme and was looking for in-work benefit information.
Lone parents from the control sample
The sample of lone parents in control areas tended to be located in the ‘earlier’ stages of the continuum. However, the primary focus for the control area qualitative sample was lone parents in receipt of Income Support. Thus, lone parents in receipt of Family Credit are not represented within it.
The barriers to labour market participation appeared more impenetrable among the lone parents in the control sample, often because of the apparent lack of help available. Awareness of the New Deal for Lone Parents was very limited, but, when described, the control sample respondents felt it would greatly aid their search for work. More striking than this were the numerous occasions on which respondents had mentioned spontaneously that they needed ‘“a helping hand into work’”.
Making a difference to lone parents’ lives?
There was considerable diversity of opinion among participants about whether the programme had made a difference to their search for work. However, this was directly related to whether the lone parent had an ‘effective’ or ‘ineffective’ adviser.
Those who felt the programme had made a difference emphasised particular aspects such as:
- the financial help and reassurance given, notably in the explanation of in-work benefits and the better-off calculation, which influenced the decision to accept job offers; advisers also helped resolve problems in benefit receipt or maintenance arrangements;
- building their confidence and motivation to find work;
- the help given with job search skills or with finding work, such as help with filling in application forms, preparing a CV or ideas about where to look for vacancies;
- and in some cases, the ability of the programme to combat isolation, making lone parents feel that they had access to support, and the opportunity to discuss their hopes, fears and expectations.
Relevant publications
Bryson A and Marsh A (1996) “Leaving Family Credit”, Department of Social Security Research Report No. 48, London: HMSO
Finlayson L and Marsh A (1998) “Lone Parents on the Margins of Work, ”Department of Social Security Research Report No. 80, Leeds: CDS
Ford R, Marsh A and McKay S (1995) “Changes in Lone Parenthood”, Department of Social Security Research Report No. 40, London: HMSO
Ford R, Marsh A and Finlayson L (1998) “What Happens to lone parents?, ”Department of Social Security Research Report No. 77, London: TSO
Hales J, Shaw A and Roth W (1998) “Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: A Preliminary Assessment of the Counterfactual, ”Department of Social Security In-house Research Report No. 42
Marsh A, Ford R and Finlayson L (1997) “Lone Parents, Work and Benefits,” Department of Social Security Research Report No. 61, London: TSO
McKay S and Marsh A (1994) “Lone Parents and Work”, Department of Social Security Research Report No. 25, London: HMSO
Payne J and Range M (1998) “Lone Parents’ Lives, ”Department of Social Security Research Report No. 78, London: TSO
Woodfield K and Finch H (1999) “New Deal for Lone Parents: Evaluation of Innovative Schemes, ”Department of Social Security Research Report No. 89, Leeds: CDS.