What made the difference?

The general impression that emerged from the study was that lone parents’ decisions about work were typically made on the basis of a substantial number of factors, all of which required satisfactory solutions if they were ultimately to achieve a delicate balance of arrangements, which would facilitate the tricky combination of paid work and family responsibilities. There was very little evidence, therefore, that a decision about whether or not to (re-) enter work might be taken on the basis of one consideration in isolation. However, some factors did stand out as being particularly important and, for some parents, it appeared that, while these were not sufficient for making a decision about work, they were certainly necessary conditions of any such decision being made.

The New Deal for Lone Parents and the Childcare Element of the Working

Tax Credit

Government intervention under the NDLP was clearly fundamental in some parents’ decisions about whether to work, as had the availability of financial support through the childcare element of the WTC (as mentioned earlier). Several parents attributed their (re-)entry into work directly to their involvement with the NDLP: these parents tended to be among the more highly-skilled, highly-qualified and strongly work- orientated. Information about the childcare element of the WTC and the carrying out of a ‘better-off’ calculation had often been a strong influence in these cases; it was also clear that a ‘holistic’ approach, whereby the adviser addressed other issues such as finding and paying for childcare provision, had been particularly successful for some parents. Even in some cases where parents had not yet entered work, there were signs that the NDLP was moving their thinking forward by presenting them with opportunities that they may not previously have considered, and again particularly by informing them about the childcare element of the WTC.

Although some parents had responded negatively to the initial approach from NDLP, finding it ‘cheeky’ or intrusive, or feeling that it implied they ‘ought’ to be in work, there was a sense that others appreciated the ‘exploratory’ nature of the programme and the fact that they were able to develop an ongoing relationship with their adviser. Equally, while some parents found that the service they received from their NDLP adviser was limited or inflexible in some respects, others commented on the experience of a process focused on finding a way for them to reach their goals rather than to impose somebody else’s goals on them. We will explore lone parents’ policy messages regarding both the WTC and the NDLP in Chapter 5.

Availability of childcare

Childcare availability is clearly a key factor in many parents’ decisions about whether to work, whether this be related to cost, type, hours, times, location, quality, trust, safety or a combination of all these factors. We have already mentioned, for example, a group of lone parents who stated that they would not work if they could not find a satisfactory childcare provider and, while some parents may be prepared to make certain compromises when it come to childcare, ultimately the question of whether they can find childcare that meets their minimum standards – of affordability, accessibility, quality and, crucially, trust – was certainly of primary importance in lone parents’ decisions about whether to work.

Among all the childcare-related factors, however, the availability of informal

childcare very commonly made the difference in a decision about whether to work. This was true of parents with a variety of jobs and work orientations, and was commonly related to a perceived lack of formal childcare in the local area or the need or desire to avoid the cost of formal care. In some cases, the role played by informal childcare was primarily or solely financial: for some parents (particularly those with several children or low earnings potential), it seems that childcare has to be free to be feasible, sometimes in spite of the help afforded by WTC (although, as we have

mentioned, the childcare element of the WTC had also made a big difference to some parents). In other cases, the significance of informal care related to a strong preference for friends or family as the ‘next best thing’ to parental care and, at the extreme, an aversion to all forms of formal pre-school care, usually on grounds of trust. And sometimes the availability of informal care was crucial to parents’ decisions about whether to work because of coordination factors, including evidence or perceptions that other forms of care would not be as flexible, i.e. would not be available at atypical times (a consideration especially relevant to shift and night workers), for small numbers of hours (e.g. ‘the school run’) or on an ad hoc or irregular basis. In some cases, aversion to formal care and perceived exclusive associations between informal care and affordability, availability and flexibility were partly the result of a lack of information about the availability, cost and flexibility of formal provision. Nevertheless, for all these reasons, some lone parents were very clear that the availability of informal care was what made the difference in their decision about work.

It is notable that, while lone parents used a variety of family members and friends for informal childcare, in general, non-resident parents appeared to play a much less significant role. There were exceptions to this, however, such as one strongly work- orientated lone mother whose ex-partner had a much weaker work-orientation and had agreed, on that basis, to provide childcare (both parents also had a strong aversion to formal childcare on cultural grounds). Here, the non-resident parent had such a significant involvement with childcare, that the mother said she did not effectively consider herself to be a lone parent at all.

The ‘better-off’ calculation – does working have to be ‘worth it’?

Whether carried out with or without the support of an NDLP adviser, the calculation of whether working would make a family financially ‘better off’ typically represented the ‘bottom line’ for lone parents. Parents who talked at length about the potential non-financial benefits of working, the need to provide a ‘role model’ for children, the stigma of being on benefits and so on, were still quite clear that working for no financial reward was simply not an option, particularly as work usually came at the cost of spending less time with children:

‘What is the point of slogging your guts out at work, if you can get the same money for looking after your child?’

(lone mother of six-year old, worker)

Moreover, some parents’ aversion to ‘working for nothing’ was not just about the financial benefits of working, but also about a feeling that a failure to come out ‘better off’ might actually undermine some of the non-financial benefits of working as well. We have already described how a substantial part of the attraction of work was linked to parents’ pride and self-esteem, a sense of having a purpose or function, of being ‘on a level’ with other adults. If they were to work without earning, arguably the potential of work to make them feel useful, to help them

perceive themselves as having something to offer beyond the realms of home and family, or even for making them feel ‘normal’ might be weakened as well.

There were, however, a few exceptions to the ‘better-off’ rule. Some parents claimed that they would work – or even wereworking – for very little or no financial reward. In some cases this was explained in terms of the non-financial benefits of working, but it was also likely to be linked to the notion of a long-term investment, i.e. it might be considered acceptable to work without financial reward in the short- term if it helped to develop a parent’s career so that, eventually, work would start to pay off financially as well as in other ways. In addition, as we have already mentioned, some parents in the sample had undertaken voluntary work, usually within school or childcare settings. In some cases, these activities were viewed as ‘gateways’ into work, and so to financial advantage; in others, they were simply a way of ‘getting out of the house’. The voluntary work undertaken typically involved a small number of hours at convenient times, and was of a type that the parent enjoyed or had a particular interest in.