Some successful initiatives
Prenatal and postnatal
care: Netherlands
Perinatal care, consisting of the services provided
for mothers before, during and immediately after childbirth, is particularly
effective and comprehensive in the Netherlands. Central to this country’s
policies is the principle that giving birth is a natural process rather than an
affliction and that it should, if possible, be based at home. From this
principle has grown ‘maternity home care’, a support service that combines
medical care with practical assistance to the mother and her family, run by the
Dutch Cross Society. (55)
Current maternity care practice in the Netherlands
developed in response to a high perinatal death rate of about 35 per cent at
the turn of the century. Early attempts to train professionals to assist in
home deliveries were inadequate and disorganized, and resulted in the creation
of a government-appointed maternity care committee, which published a landmark
report in 1943. The report led to significant changes, the most important being
the training of maternity care assistants in centres run by fully qualified
specialist nurses. At the high point, there were 16 such schools.
In recent years, budget cuts, growing pressure from
the medical establishment for care assistants to receive broader training, and
declining birth rates have led to the closing of these residential schools. In
their place are two new training courses: one offered by secondary schools; the
other, a three-year full-time course that qualifies care assistants in a range
of related fields, including perinatal care, family welfare, and care for the
elderly and the physically handicapped.
The Dutch Cross Society admits that the move away
from specialists has meant some small loss in the quality of care.
Nevertheless, the rights and benefits available to pregnant women in the
Netherlands are still impressive. At the heart of the system are the midwife, a
major player in maternity care throughout Europe, and the home visit, a source
of preventive care and parent education. (56)
The system operates in the following way: A pregnant
woman first contacts her general practitioner and then decides whether to
continue with the doctor or transfer to a privately practising midwife, who in
the Netherlands is office- rather than hospital-based. High-risk pregnancies
are referred to an obstetrician, which is one of the main reasons why home
delivery is regarded as a safe alternative and is officially endorsed. (The
health insurance fund will not pay for care by an obstetrician unless medical
indications require it.)
Prenatal care provided by the Cross Society
encompasses health care education in group sessions, gymnastic classes and home
visits. Prenatal health education groups, open to women and their partners, are
often organized in collaboration with midwives. They concentrate on providing
information on such subjects as the growth and development of the foetus, diet,
labour and caring for the new baby. The sessions operate as support networks
for expectant mothers and complement home visits, which offer guidance of a
more individual kind. Home visits aim to prepare parents for the psychological
impact of birth and the lifestyle changes it entails, as well as to inform them
of the services available, from the loan of nursing equipment to the health
screening of babies and children up to the age of four. A 1987 survey indicated
that pregnant women in the Netherlands are visited at least once before birth,
and postnatal visits are made on a daily basis for 8 hours a day, up to a
maximum of 10 days. (57)
The Cross Society’s prenatal gymnastic classes are
popular and over-subscribed. In 1988, 45 per cent of all pregnant women in the
Netherlands took part. Over the course of 8 to 10 sessions, a physiotherapist
prepares women for the rigours of delivery, emphasizing a woman’s active role
in what happens to her and teaching breathing and relaxation techniques that
will help diminish her fear and stress. Classes aimed at restoring the
functions of a woman’s body after birth are also offered by many of the local
branches of the Cross Society, but not all, because postnatal gymnastic classes
are not paid for by the health insurance fund.
A surge in the popularity of hospital births during
the 1970s — 57 per cent of births took place at home in 1970, but by 1989 the
figure had dropped to 33 per cent — led to the establishment of the ‘golden
mean’ of polyclinic delivery. This means that a woman gives birth in hospital,
without a formal admission and usually under the supervision of a midwife. If
all goes well, she returns home after 36 hours (or even 24 hours), unless there
is a medical reason for her to remain in hospital, such as a premature or
Caesarean birth. The mother then receives a level of maternity home care
determined by her choice and financial considerations, since families have to
pay 300 guilders (approximately US$ 150) for 8 to 10 days of full home care.
Without the benefit of Cross Society membership or private insurance, costs can
be much higher.
Contributions, at an average of less than US$20 per
year, cover one fifth of the cost of most of the Society’s services; the rest
comes from the insurance moneys levied by the tax authorities. The exception is
maternity care, which to a large extent is financed through the national health
care insurance fund. The fund provides 70 per cent of the Dutch population with
free care by general practitioners and specialists including midwives, free
dentistry, free medication and nursing care in either general or psychiatric
hospitals. Contributions are mandatory for workers below a certain income level
(about US$21,000). The fund provides not only for employees paying the premium
but also for their families, nonworking students and the disabled. The
remaining 30 per cent of the population holds private medical insurance
policies.
On a home visit, a maternity care assistant typically
checks on the baby’s physical condition, gives practical help with
breastfeeding, advises on birth control, looks after older siblings and helps
out with household chores such as shopping, cleaning and cooking. One mother
may decide she needs maternity care visits for only one hour twice a day, while
another may opt for the full eight hours. Whatever level is chosen, the new
mother is also visited by the midwife or general practitioner who attended her
delivery. He or she offers counselling on infant care and follows up on the
mother’s health and physical condition after the birth. At four weeks, 90 per
cent of new babies attend a well-baby clinic, one of 3,000 organized and run by
the Cross Society. During the first year of life, a baby attends a clinic an
average of 10 times.
The maternity care provided in the Netherlands by the
Dutch Cross Society seems hard to fault. It is sensitive to the needs of the
new mother and has the additional advantage of being low cost, because
expensive obstetricians are used only in complicated or risky cases. However,
highquality home care accessible to all is an ideal that has been affected by
recent budget cuts. The provision of 10 days of home care is no longer
automatic but “tailored to the individual situation of the family.” (58) Since
1987, a 10 per cent cut-back in mandated services has been accompanied by calls
for a greater reliance on the private market. Recently, the Minister of Public
Health suggested that the maximum period of home care should be cut to five
days. (59)
Despite these worrisome developments, perinatal care
in the Netherlands still attains an extremely high standard. Strictly in terms
of health, Dutch babies do very well (the neonatal mortality rate in 1989 was
3.8 per 1,000 live births, which places it at the low end of the European
scale). What’s more, the system of home births and/or care at home after
delivery underpins and supports the family in the critical post-partum period,
and in so doing plays a role in preventing the development of a broad range of
problems.
Experts at the Dutch Cross Society are convinced that
a qualified maternity care assistant operating in a home can both detect
incipient problems and help resolve them in areas as diverse as dental care,
birth control and child abuse. Especially with young children, prevention is so
much better than cure, and home visits are a good example of how government can
help create the conditions that allow mothers and babies to flourish, rather
than wait until families are already in crisis and offer damage control.
Parenting leave: Sweden
Sweden has one of the most liberal parenting leave
policies in the developed world. New parents are now entitled to 450 days
(approximately 15 months) of paid leave when a child is born. Not only is
Swedish policy particularly generous in the amount of time given to new
parents, it also avoids the discriminatory aspects of the more standard
maternity leave policies. Because parenting leave is equally available to both
men and women, it is hard for employers to use it as an excuse to fail to hire
or promote mothers.
Parenting leave is the most important component of
parental insurance, which is part of Sweden’s social insurance system and comes
under the National Insurance Act. The first maternity benefits were established
in 1937 and combined a cash grant with a job guarantee. In 1974, Sweden shifted
from maternity to ‘parenting benefits’, creating a six-month paid parenting
leave for both mothers and fathers. This was extended to 360 days in 1980 and
to 450 days in 1989. Both natural and adopted children are included. Parenting
leave has gradually expanded as increasing numbers of Swedish women have
entered the labour force — today, 80 per cent of all Swedish women with
children under the age of seven are employed full or part time. (60)
Parenting leave can be used entirely by one parent or
shared between them. In the latter case, parents decide how to divide up the 450
days, since only one can receive compensation at a time. Leave can be used to
stay at home full time or it can be combined with part-time employment, in
which case the parent receives a combination of salary from the employer and
benefits from the insurance system. The 450 days can be taken until a child’s
eighth birthday. For the first 360 days, parenting leave is paid at 90 per cent
of the parent’s gross income. For the final 90 days, a fixed reimbursement rate
of 60 kroner (about US$8) per day is paid. An extension of this benefit to 18
months at 90 per cent of income for the entire period was scheduled to go into
effect in 1991, but has been abandoned.
When parenting leave was first introduced in 1974,
only 3 per cent of fathers took advantage of it; in 1986, 23 per cent of those
drawing this benefit were fathers; in 1990, 26.1 per cent were. (61) It seems
that if a government creates a parenting entitlement that is both generous and
available to both sexes, sexual stereotypes do begin to break down. A quarter
of Swedish employers are now tolerating, even supporting, ‘daddies on velvet.’
Sweden is one of only two countries to have
established male rights to parenting leave on a large scale. Interestingly, the
other country is Australia. As of July 1990, Australian male employees with 12
months of continuous service are entitled to 52 weeks of unpaid leave in order
to become the primary caregiver of a newborn child. Because this is unpaid
leave, no one expects the ‘take up’ rate to be very significant. However, this
new entitlement does advance the cause of equal parenting. (62)
A second component of the parental insurance system
in Sweden is the ‘10-day benefit’, which entitles the father to a special paid
leave of up to 10 days for childbirth. A father is entitled to this leave even
if the mother is receiving parenting benefits for the same child at the same
time. In 1990, the benefit was used by 109,000 men, 86 per cent of all fathers
of children born that year.
A third component is the ‘temporary child-care
benefit’, which reimburses parents for the loss of income involved when one of
them stays home to care for a child—their own child or an adopted child, foster
child or stepchild. This benefit is payable for up to 90 days per child
annually and occasionally can be extended to 120 days. Situations qualifying
for the benefit are: when a child falls ill; when the person who looks after
the child falls ill; when one parent needs to look after a child at home while
the other parent takes another child to a doctor or hospital. Compensation is
80 per cent of income for the first 14 days and 90 per cent thereafter.
A fourth component of parental insurance is a
‘contact days benefit’, which entitles parents with children between the ages
of 4 and 12 to take two days off work per child each year to visit the child’s
preschool, leisure centre or school. Parents are fully compensated for loss of
income incurred on these days. In 1990, contact days were paid for 29 per cent
of all children in the 4- to 12-year-old age group.
And last, a ‘pregnancy cash benefit’ is payable to
expectant mothers who are unable to continue with their normal tasks during the
latter stages of pregnancy and who cannot be assigned more suitable work. The
pregnancy cash benefit is paid at the same rate as the parenting benefit and is
payable for a maximum of 50 days during the last two months of pregnancy. In
1990 the average number of benefit days per pregnancy was 39. (63)
To non-Swedish eyes, this list of parental benefits
seems astonishingly generous, even profligate, and yet government officials
justify the policies on economic grounds. “Swedish employers want productive
employees,” according to Bo Adolfsson, labour counsellor at the Swedish Embassy
in Washington, D.C. “Women in America go back to work, and they aren’t good on
the job because they are worried about their child. Turnover is high. The main
reason is not low wages but, more likely, bad child care.” (64)
It is important to remember that over the last
several decades Swedish social benefits have gone hand in hand with successful
economic growth: GNP per capita is now US$25,490, the third highest in the
world, and above the per capita figure for the United States, which stands at
US$22,560. (65)
Child care: France
France has the most comprehensive child-care system
in Western Europe. Responsibility for the provision and control of child-care
services is shared between the Ministry of Social Affairs, which works through
local authorities and covers nursery and child-minding facilities for children
under the age of three, and the Ministry of Education, which provides
preschools for children of ages two to six. Today, almost every French child
between the age of three and six and nearly half of all children aged two to
two and a half attend some form of preschool. Preschool care, while not
compulsory, not only supports maternal employment, but also provides a vital
first step in the socialization and development of French children. (66)
For reasons ranging from increased female employment
to trade union pressure and pronatalist sentiment, child care in France has
been defined for some time as a public responsibility. Increasingly, extended
periods of maternity, paternity or child-care leave mean that many of the
youngest children in France are in their parents’ care. Nevertheless, 33 per
cent of those under age three are in day care, including 10 per cent of those
under two. Most provision for this type of care is made by local authorities,
or is otherwise publicly funded. (67)
France boasts a long tradition of out-of-home care.
As early as 1771, Jean-Frédéric Oberlin, a Protestant pastor, set up infant
schools in remote villages in the Alsace mountains so women could work in the
local timber industry. In the 19th century, crèches were established by
philanthropic agencies with the aim of reducing poverty and infant mortality
among the working classes by freeing mothers to work outside the home. In the
postwar era, crèches and écoles maternelles (publicly funded preschools), have
become an integral part of the French social security and family support
system. Once considered welfare institutions for the poor, creches are now in
great demand by middle-class working parents. Today, all crèches take children
up to the age of three and are partially subsidized by the State.
Crèches collectives are essentially crèches that
offer full-day care, 8 to 12 hours per day for children under three. Places are
restricted to children of working mothers. Eighty per cent of the crèches
collectives are for use by residents of a particular neighbourhood; the
remaining 20 per cent are attached to workplaces — mainly hospitals — with
opening hours designed to suit employee needs. The average facility
accommodates 50 children, divided into either two or three age groups. Older
children are organized in groups of 10 to 12 with an éducatrice (instructor)
for part of the day. In France, 85,000 children (4 per cent of the underthrees)
attend crèches collectives. About 6,600 children are looked after in
mini-crèches, which take fewer than 16 children and are usually situated in
apartments or houses.
The fees for crèches collectives are income-related
and range from 15 to 85 French francs (about US$3 to US$ 17) per day. In
1987,26 per cent of the cost was borne by parents. The remaining costs were
divided between local authorities (54 per cent) and regional family allowance
offices known as caisses des allocations familiales (20 per cent). (68) These
offices, funded by employee contributions, were originally set up to give cash
benefits to needy families with children, but since the 1970s they have
subsidized child-care services, thus allowing local authorities to expand
services for children under age three. (Expenditure by the caisses rose by 41
per cent between 1984 and 1987.) Their objective is to increase the quality as
well as the quantity of child-care places, both by reducing the size of nursery
classes and by providing a greater diversity of services. Their recommendation
is that child-care costs should be around 12 per cent of family income.
With the number of working mothers growing rapidly,
the few available creches have long waiting lists. Large cities such as Paris,
Lyons, Marseilles and Orleans have more creches than poor rural districts. For
example, nearly half of all available places in nurseries are in the Ile-de-
France region around Paris, although this area has less than one fifth of the
French population.
Crèches familiales (family day care) is based in the
home of an assistante matemeUe or nonrrice, both child-minders, and staffed by
caregivers who are supposed to be registered and approved by the authorities,
but frequently operate without a licence. Each caregiver takes responsibility
for a maximum of three children, including her own. The public agency that
enrols and supervises the assi-statttes ma tern dies is headed by a paediatrics
nurse, who organizes medical examinations and collects parental fees, which are
income-related; pays caregivers; and provides equipment and assistance. A
statute passed in 1977 gave the axsistantes matemeUes legal entitlements
including rights to a minimum wage, social insurance and paid holidays; but
many still resist registration because it makes them liable for income taxes.
A crèche familiale costs less than a crèche
collective because in the former, the children are taken care of in a private
home, where operating costs are typically about 30 per cent lower than those of
centre care. In 1987, there were 46,400 places in this type of day care (2 per
cent of the children under age three); 38 per cent of the costs were paid by
parents, 42 per cent by local authorities and 20 per cent by the caisses.
Haltes-garderies are part-time nurseries offering
41,400 places for children up to the age of six, though most attending are
under three. Originally intended to care a few hours each week for the children
of nonworking mothers while they went shopping or pursued other interests,
haltes-garderies are gradually turning into part-time mini-nurseries, in
response to the growth in part-time employment.
And finally, there are private child-minders — about
138,000 who are registered care for approximately 200,000 children under age
three (about 9 per cent of the total). An additional number who are
unregistered look after atleast 130,000 children under age three. The latter,
like the assistantes maternelles above, resist registration because once their
activity becomes official, they are liable for income taxes. However, in 1981,
France introduced tax relief on day-care expenses incurred by families, and
this has encouraged registration.
The French écoles maternelles (publicly funded
preschools), were established in the 1950s. Today, the schools are so popular
that places for two-year-olds are invariably oversubscribed. Preference is given
to children of working parents. There is more space available for older
children, however: Only 60 per cent of mothers with children aged three to five
are in the workforce, yet more than 95 per cent of children in this age group
participate in the preschool system. Hours are generally from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30
p.m. But outside school hours, when working parents need a complementary
child-care facility, service periscolaire is available in recreation centres
that are generally attached to the preschools and open at 7.30 a.m. and close
at 6.30 p.m. The ecole maternelle itself usually adjoins a primary school, but
has its own director and exists as a separate entity.
There are three levels within preschool: ages two to
three and a half (called les tout-petits, the little ones); ages three and a
half to five (les moyens, the middle ones); and ages five to six (les grands,
the big ones). Emphasis is placed on encouraging children to develop confidence
and self-esteem, as well as on learning how to learn, in preparation for
primary school. Research has found that French children who do not attend the
preschool programme are likely to be at a disadvantage when they begin regular
school.
From 20 to 30 per cent of the cost of the ecoles
maternelles is paid for by the central Government, the rest is underwritten by
the local authorities. Tuition is free, but parents do pay income-related fees
for meals, before- and after-school care, and Wednesday afternoon programmes
(when French schools are closed).
Throughout the 1980s, there was a steady increase in
the provision of publicly funded child care in France. The rise in the
proportion of young mothers joining the labour force has undoubtedly been a
major spur to the development of such an impressive system, but that is only
part of the story. Recent Governments have all recognized that proper preschool
care and education are an investment in the nation’s future citizens. (69) Olga
Baudelot of the National Institute of Pedagogical Research in Paris makes a
cost-benefit case for publicly funded day care. “Child care,” she says, “has
freed a million women to work and allowed 500,000 others to make a living out
of child care. These women are consumers and taxpayers.” (70)
Child care and child
rights: United Kingdom
Interestingly, the United Kingdom, a nation that
publicly funds a mere 2 per cent of its day-care places, has produced some of
the most finegrained research on the costs and benefits of child care. Two
reports, both published in 1991, demonstrate convincingly that creating a
comprehensive child-care service in the United Kingdom would boost the economy
as well as strengthen the financial and educational circumstances of British
children.
In one of the reports, for the National Children’s
Bureau, Sally Holtermann estimated that it would cost £550 million (SI =
US$1.50, 1 September 1993) to improve and expand existing child-care services
sufficiently to accommodate an extra 2 million children. That would allow the
percentage of women with a child under 11 who are in paid employment to rise to
70 per cent, from 50 per cent in 1989. One and a quarter million ‘extra’
parents at work would boost the national economy by approximately £12 billion.
In the Holtermann study, the positive effects of expanded subsidized child care
were wide-ranging and included the creation of about 350,000 jobs in child care
and the lifting out of poverty of 500,000 children in families currently
dependent on income support. (71)
The second study, published by the Institute of
Public Policy Research, has estimated
that up to half a million children could be lifted out of poverty if
high-quality, affordable child-care services freed their mothers to work. (72)
In this study, the direct rate of return to the Government for moneys invested
in child care ranges from 5 per cent to 51 per cent over a 13-year period,
depending on how intensively parents use child-care services. And the social
rate of return — which includes the economic gain for the household (enhanced
earnings) as well as flowback to the Government (taxes) — ranges from 24 per
cent to 84 per cent.
Recently, children’s rights in the United Kingdom
have also gained attention through the Children Act (1989), which came into
force on 14 October 1991. The Act has been described by the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Mackay, as “the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform of child law...
in living memory.” (73) That may be an exaggerated claim for an Act that has
yet to have much effect on children, but many of its limitations are due to
funding shortfalls. In the sphere of principle, the Children Act is on the
cutting edge of attempts to make legal systems more responsive to the needs and
rights of children.
A systematic review of laws relating to children was
launched in the 1980s after a House of Commons Select Committee report
described existing legislation as complex, confusing and unsatisfactory. (74)
The Act was also, in part, a response to the debate following inquiries into
the child-abuse related deaths of three children: Jasmine Beckford (1985), Tyra
Henry (1987) and Kimberly Carlisle (1987). The inquiry into Kimberly’s death
concluded that the law had failed the social workers in their primary task of
protecting the child because no legal mechanism had been available to allow
them access to her or to ensure that she had a medical examination. (75)
The Act brings together legislation from both private
and public law. Items covered under private law include, for example, disputes
between divorcing parents about the future of their children. Public law, on
the other hand, deals with public policy issues such as the duties and powers
of local authorities. A central thrust of the Act is that the welfare of
children should be ‘paramount’ in all of these legal contexts. A basic
recommendation is that children should be brought up within their own families
whenever possible. They should be taken into care only when it is absolutely
necessary, because the best place for a child to be is in his or her own home.
The language of the Act represents a distinct change
of emphasis. The words ‘parents’ rights’, ‘custody’ and ‘access’ are replaced
by ‘parental responsibility’, ‘partnership’ and ‘contact’. Parents still have
rights, but the emphasis now is on responsibilities — how a parent can best
safeguard the well-being of a child, how best to take into account a child’s
wishes and needs. In fact, the Act attempts to give new priority to children in
divorce proceedings, stating that “never again will parents in separation or
divorce battles be able to lay claim to their children as if they were
property.”
The Children Act is also a step forward for fathers,
as it encourages divorcing parents to negotiate shared responsibility for their
children. At least for married individuals, parental responsibility is now for
life. (In the case of unmarried fathers, parental responsibility is not
automatic, but can be acquired if the mother agrees, or the court rules, that
he should have it.)
Should parents be unable to agree on how to
distribute parental responsibility in the wake of separation or divorce, the
court can pass a variety of Section 8 orders. Examples are a Resident Order,
which stipulates where the child should live; a Contact Order, which may
require the parent with whom the child is living to allow telephone calls,
visits and overnight stays with the other parent; or a Specific Issue Order,
which settles a particular area of dispute, such as the choice of a school.
Indeed, anyone concerned about the welfare of the child may apply for a Section
8 order. Grandparents, for example, may contest an adoption order and ask that
the child come to live with them.
Many of these new regulations need adequate funding
if they are to be properly implemented. For example, budget cuts in the 1980s
undermined a non-custodial parent’s financial responsibility for a child by
reducing the number of social security staff devoted to collecting child
maintenance. The result was 9 per cent less child maintenance collected from
1988 to 1989 than from 1981 to 1982.
Regulations under the Children Act that mandate a
certain level of local authorities’ services have already run into severe
funding constraints. These new regulations cover disparate matters, from the
rules governing private foster-care arrangements, to the registration and inspection
of child-minders and children’s homes.
Many professionals believe that the resources
necessary to implement the Act — whether for regulation, inspection or training
— are simply not there. For example, they argue that the £3.5 million available
nationally for training is nowhere near enough. Brian Doughty, head of Strategy
and Development for the region of North Tyneside, has complained that the
resources are totally inadequate and have to be “massively topped up from the
local authorities’ existing budgets. If central government really wishes to
promote the welfare of young children and ensure they have access to the range
of services of the Children Act... they should ensure adequate finances are
made available.” (76) The Association of County Councils estimates that
implementation of the Act will cost as much as £150 million nationwide.
Clearly, many of the Act’s good intentions will come
to naught without proper funding, and they might even have undesirable
consequences. One example is the proposal to expand the registration scheme for
child-minders to include all those caring for children up to the age of eight.
(Current provision is limited to under the age of five.) Local authorities must
not only re-register and inspect every child-minder already on their books —
more than 100,000 in England and Wales — but they must also register and
inspect new child-minders and check them for appropriate attitudes to
children’s cultural, religious and dietary needs.
Most local authorities despair of meeting the Act’s
demands. For example, in the town of Sutton, insufficient resources and staff
have created such a backlog that the authority is unable to register any new
child-minders at all, leaving the field wide open for people to work outside
the law — the very danger the Act was designed to combat. Another problem
concerns high fees. Registration fees of£100 and inspection fees of £75 for
nurseries and playgroups may signal the end for small, informal programmes that
survive on a shoestring budget.
The Children Act sets high standards for the United
Kingdom, and yet at present, the Government seems unwilling to provide the
resources necessary to meet those standards. (77) Children with special needs
are a case in point. The Act requires local authorities to provide support for
disabled children and latchkey children. But without central government
support, how can financially strapped local authorities provide afterschool
programmes or special schooling? This paradoxical situation compromises many of
the recent reforms in education and health care, which are bound to fail
because there has been no commensurate increase in the size of budgets. Indeed,
in some critical areas — such as industrial training — budgets are actually
shrinking.
Family allowances: Belgium
Family allowances, sometimes referred to as ‘child
benefits’ or ‘child allowances’, were first adopted in Europe in the 1930s to
combat falling birth rates and to supplement family income at a time of high
unemployment. Initially financed by an employer payroll tax, many European
countries gradually moved towards family allowances financed from general
government revenue. In the 1950s and 1960s, these allowances were permitted to
erode in value, but this trend was reversed in the late 1960s, when governments
became concerned once more about poverty in large families and the rise in the
number of single-parent families. Then, in the late 1970s, the allowances
declined again. In most European countries, family allowances have dwindled
over time as a proportion of family income, although they remain important to
lowincome families.
There are striking similarities in the pattern of
benefits. Throughout the European Community, member States pay family
allowances through their social security systems, targeting the mother as the
recipient of the benefit. Most pay more for larger families and older children,
and design the family allowance as a universal rather than a meanstested
benefit.
In a recent report using data from 1990, Belgium
emerged as having the most generous system of family allowances in Europe
administered by a powerful Ministry for the Family.
As is the case in some other European countries,
family support policy in Belgium was once tied to a strong pronatalist
approach, designed to encourage families to have more children. Thus, the
payment gradient is steep—the rate for the third child being three times the
rate for the first. (Rates range from approximately US$70 a month for the first
child to US$220 a month for the third child.) The rate per child also rises
with the age of the child. The Belgian family allowance is not means-tested and
is payable until the child reaches the age of 18 or completes full-time
education. In practice, many families collect until age 25.
In Belgium, the family allowance is referred to as an
‘indirect wage’, and it is a significant source of economic security for
families. However, it has not been immune to the spending cuts of the 1980s.
The family allowance as a percentage of a family’s after-tax income diminished
from 3.8 per cent in 1980 to 3.2 per cent in 1986. In recent years, the
allowance has lagged behind the rise in wages, and as a result, families with
children have fallen behind.
There are calls in Belgium for the child, rather than
the mother or the father, to become the ‘entitled person’. (This is often seen
as a solution to problems raised by changing caretakers, which occurs with
divorce or remarriage.) There are also new pressures for higher family
allowances, coming from Belgium’s strong ‘family movement’, which is
conservative in orientation. The movement, which has particular currency among
the Catholic population, stresses that higher allowances would enable more
women to stay out of the paid labour force, thus preserving the traditional
division of labour between men and women.
Outside the European Community, the leading country
in family allowances is Sweden, which adopted them in the 1930s. Sweden’s
family benefits were not inspired by pronatalism. Rather, they have aimed at
redistributing resources in favour of families with children and at providing
better employment opportunities for women with children.
A European Community survey in 1990 found that the
level of family allowance was not a key factor in influencing a person’s
decision to have a baby; it ranked seventh on the list. Economic prospects,
availability of housing, the existence of child-care facilities and the
strength of the marital relationship were all more important determinants. It
seems that pronatalism is no longer the dominant force behind this benefit.
Instead, family allowances are part of a general commitment in Europe to family
and child welfare, a commitment that has been sadly lacking in other rich
nations.
Divorce reform: France,
Sweden, United States (Wisconsin)
The adverse consequences of divorce for children seem
to be particularly severe in the United States and the United Kingdom. This is
because, more so than in other countries, reformist energies in the 1970s and
1980s were directed towards maximizing adult rights to freedom and equality
rather than towards providing a safety net for children. As Mary Ann Glendon
has noted, those Anglo-American countries are unique in the degree to which
they have accepted no-fault, no-responsibility divorce, and in their “relative
carelessness about assuring either public or private responsibility” for
children. (78)
The divorce reform movement produced two models in
Western Europe: a ‘traditional’ model (found in France and Italy), which
emphasizes private responsibility and the financial obligation of the former
provider; and a ‘Nordic’ model (in Sweden and Norway), which relies on
elaborate programmes of public support for single parents with children.
France liberalized its divorce laws in 1975, but was
careful to continue to protect the economic interests of women and children.
All assets acquired during marriage are now divided equally, and the spouse
with the higher income (nearly always the husband) is required to make payments
to the other “to compensate... for the disparity which the disruption of the
marriage creates in the conditions of their respective lives.” (79) In
addition, child support awards are generous, and if the non-custodial parent
fails to pay, the State rather than the custodial parent absorbs the risk. This
means that if there is a default in child support payments, all the custodial
parent needs to do is apply to a State agency. The agency then tries to collect
from the non-custodial parent, but in the meantime it advances the amount of
child support owed, up to a limit set by law.
Cases of unilateral no-fault divorce are governed by
a particularly strict set of rules in France. The plaintiff must not only wait
six years for a divorce, but “remains completely bound to the duty” of
supporting his wife and children in their current lifestyle. (80) All of these
safeguards help ensure a reasonable standard of living for children in the case
of divorce.
Sweden protects its children in other ways. Like
France, child support is guaranteed by the State, but instead of relying on
alimony or other support for a divorced spouse to maintain a certain standard
of living, child support is backed with “the most comprehensive and generous
package of benefits for one-parent families in the world.” (81) As one divorcee
explained, “Everyone knows that divorced parents need more money and more
social support because of the additional pressures involved in raising children
as a single parent ... So, as soon as I got divorced my income went up: Both
the local and national Government increased maternal benefits, my tax rate
dropped drastically ... It also helped to have the possibility of 24-hour day
care.” (82)
In the United States, a few states are beginning to
move in a ‘European’ direction in order to better protect the interests of
children. For example, in 1987, the state of Wisconsin drew up guidelines for
child support awards. The new standards are generous—ITpercentof the
noncustodial parent’s income for one child, rising to 35 per cent for five or
more children — and they have dramatically increased the monetary value of
child support. At the same time, Wisconsin instituted a system of routinely
withholding child support from the salaries of non-custodial parents, and this
has brought delinquency rates down. The net result: Custodial parents are
granted much larger child support awards, and the awards are much more likely
to be paid.
Wisconsin has also increased the coverage of child
support awards by treating never-married fathers (where it is possible to
establish paternity) in exactly the same way as divorced fathers, using
identical guidelines and collection procedures. State officials estimate that
eventually 40 per cent of never-married fathers will be forced to contribute
child support. (83)
A powerful feature of the Wisconsin initiative is
that it sets a ‘socially assured minimum benefit’; if the non-custodial
parent’s child support payments are lower than this benefit, the state steps in
and pays the difference.
But is the Wisconsin model enough? Easing financial
hardship is an extremely important goal, but it does not heal the psychological
wounds of divorce. The research evidence seems overwhelming: No matter how
prosperous their environment, abandoned children still yearn for their fathers
and underperform in school.
If governments decide that a father’s presence, as
well as a father’s salary, is important to the welfare of children,
policy-making becomes a great deal more complicated. The State can no longer
‘fix’ the divorce problem by simply producing bigger and more reliable child
support payments. It needs to venture into more difficult territory. Bringing
divorce rates down and, when the breakup cannot be avoided, maximizing contact
between the non-custodial parent and the child both become targets for
legislation.
Despite the United Kingdom’s dismal performance on
the child support front (with payments actually shrinking in the 1980s), the
United Kingdom is taking these non-economic issues seriously. Early in 1992,
Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor, rejected proposals made by the Law Commission
to further liberalize the divorce laws on the grounds that they would undermine
families with children even more. Lord Mackay has spoken eloquently about the
problem: “The Law Commission did not recognize sufficiently clearly the need to
strengthen the institution of marriage.” (84) It seems likely that the United
Kingdom will move towards making divorce more difficult. Lord Mackay is thought
to favour a longer waiting period for contested divorces, along the lines of
French practice.
Family-friendly
workplaces: United Kingdom, United States
Over the last decade the United Kingdom and the
United States have seen a fivefold increase in the number of companies offering
a package of family-friendly benefits to working mothers and fathers. This
dramatic development has been prompted by two powerful trends: a massive
deterioration in the life circumstances of children and the looming skill
shortages of the 1990s.
Throughout the advanced industrial world, corporate
executives warn of a “widening skills gap.” (85) In Australia and Canada,
business leaders worry about an “employment crisis,” (86) while in the United
States analysts talk about a “monumental mismatch” between jobs and the ability
of workers to do them. (87) Across countries and across economic sectors,
corporations are caught in a bind as far as human resources are concerned and
face growing competition for a limited, skilled workforce.
The human capital deficit seems to be considerably
worse in the United Kingdom and the United States than elsewhere, because in
those countries the emerging shortfall in skills has been exacerbated by public
policy. While most other nations have enacted elaborate family benefits, in the
United Kingdom and the United States, public policy has tended to undermine
rather than bolster fragile family structures, leaving to the private sector
the unenviable task of picking up the pieces. This works best when companies
can prove that family-friendly workplaces are good for the bottom line.
In the United States, an impressive body of evidence
now exists to show that in-house programmes of family support can improve
corporate profitability. One large national survey reports the following
‘payoffs’ to family benefits: improved recruitment (cited by 85 per cent of
respondents), reduced turnover (65 per cent), reduced absenteeism (53 per
cent), increased productivity (49 per cent) and enhanced company image (85 per
cent). (88) Over the last three years, several high profile companies,
including investment banking firms, such as Goldman Sachs and Bankers Trust,
have sponsored on-site day-care centres in their efforts to capture these
‘payoffs’.
A few companies have analysed in detail the costs and
benefits of specific family support policies. For example, the Union Bank in
California has shown that on-site child care dramatically reduces labour
turnover among working mothers (from 9.5 per cent to 2.2 per cent a year),
producing significant savings for the company. (89) Honeywell, a computer
manufacturer based in Minnesota, has introduced a sick-child-care programme
that has cut back on absenteeism and reduced labour costs. (90) And Merck, the
large pharmaceutical firm, has demonstrated impressive returns from its
parenting leave policy. The price tag attached to replacing an employee at
Merck is US$50,000. By permitting a new parent to take a generous six-month
child-care leave (cost: US$38,000, which includes partial pay, benefits and
other indirect costs), the company succeeds in retaining almost all of its new
mothers, thereby achieving a net savings of US$12,000 per employee. (91)
J. Douglas Phillips, Senior Director of Corporate
Planning at Merck, stresses the large cost savings inherent in bringing
attrition rates down. In an analysis of turnover costs — duplicated in other
companies with similar results — he showed that turnover costs average 1.5
times annual salary costs. According to Phillips, few companies are aware of
how expensive it is to replace workers, but in most firms, “avoiding turnover
for just a few employees will yield excellent paybacks.” (92) His research
shows that while other programmes are capable of reducing attrition rates,
parenting leave and other family benefits have the greatest impact on turnover.
He believes that Merck’s family support package helps account for the company’s
low annual turnover of 5.5 per cent, compared with the American average of more
than 12 per cent.
The United Kingdom shares with the United States a
dearth of public policies on the family support front and, as is the case in
the United States, British companies have been drawn in to fill the vacuum. For
example, the Midland Bank has set up 300 on-site day-care centres in an attempt
to stop large numbers of women from permanently leaving the bank after they have
children. According to one senior executive at Midland, “The value of the women
who leave is incalculable because of their experience and training.” (93)
Company-sponsored day care or parenting leave is
obviously much less needed in countries where there are well-developed public
policies in these areas. In France, for example, there are relatively few unmet
needs on the child-care front, and therefore little incentive for corporations
to step in with their own programmes.
It is important to emphasize that working parents
need time as well as benefits. Companies at the cutting edge of family policy
have found flexible hours, compressed work weeks, part-time work with benefits,
job-sharing, career-sequencing, extended parenting leave and home-based
employment opportunities particularly popular among employees.
Corporations as different as IBM (200,000 employees)
and NCNB Corporation, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank holding company
(13,000 employees), have found it possible to create a more fluid, less rigid
workplace that gives workers with family responsibilities significant
discretion over how they structure their careers, how many hours they work each
week, and when and where work is performed. For example, IBM employees can now
take a three-year break from full-time employment, with an option of working
part time in the second and third year, to take care of young children or
elderly relatives. With the exception of the part-time component, this ‘career
break’ is unpaid, but health and retirement benefits continue while workers are
on leave, and IBM guarantees a full-time job at the end of the three years.
This ‘gift of time’ has proved immensely popular and
has remained in place as a key employee benefit, despite the cut-backs at IBM
over the last year. (94) In hard-pressed dual-income American households, many
parents are desperate for such relief on the scheduling front.
No comments:
Post a Comment