Professor Stephen McKay, University of Lincoln. Child Maintenance - International Perspectives and Policy Challenges. An ESRC International Research Seminar Series. First principles: comparative legal frameworks and public attitudes. Seminar 2. Attitudinal norms about child maintenance. 28 March 2014. Nuffield Foundation, London.

1. Measuring the child support policies
the public prefers: how best to do it
and why it matters
Stephen McKay
University of Lincoln
(initial period at University of Birmingham)
Work in progress

2. Acknowledgements
UK research team US Research
Ira Mark Ellman
[Arizona State University]
Caroline Bryson
[Bryson Purdon Social Research]
Sanford Braver
[Arizona State University]
Stephen McKay
[University of Lincoln]
Rob MacCoun
[University of California, Berkeley]
Joanna Miles
[University of Cambridge]
The Nuffield Foundation has funded this project but
the views expressed are those of the authors and
not necessarily those of the Foundation

3. Child support system – structures
• Classic choice: % NRP income or income-shares
approaches
– % NRP income ignores income of PWC
– Examples: Wisconsin, UK CSA 2003, 2012
• PWC income is considered in income shares models
– Examples: Arizona, original CSA 1993 system
– The specific effect can be small (or non-existent)
depending on the formula and income situations, often
income-shares uses declining %s of income
• Also, choices about %s, treatment of shared care, other
children, etc …

4. % NRP income or income-shares –
what does the public think?
• General attitude surveys agree public believes
mum’s income should matter
– America, Australia, GB – see Caroline’s
presentation.
• Don’t really explain in what way(s) it should
matter

5. Aim
• To arrive at a $ amount for the appropriate
level of child support in a given set of
circumstances
• May be analysed, comparing circumstances to
baseline, within demographic groups,
compared with more general attitudes

6. Broader aims
• Whether people would in fact have any
systematic idea about this
• Whether their case judgments would be
consistent with their views about principles.
• Could help inform policy if responses
consistent

7. US research (Ellman, Braver &
MacCoun, 2009)
• Based on good samples of citizens
• Initial study: Respondents were citizens called to serve
on the jury panel in Pima County (Tucson), Arizona
• High response rates, representative cross-sections of
the population (… eligible for jury service in that
county)
• Answered on general attitudes, as well as setting child
support amounts
• Self-completion approach, N=863 in original study,
rising to several thousand across this and later studies

8. As asked in the US
We want to know the amount of child support, if any, that
you think Dad should be required to pay Mom every
month, all things considered. What will change from story
to story is how much Mom earns, and how much Dad
earns. There is no right or wrong answer; just tell us what
you think is right. Try to imagine yourself as the judge in
each of the following cases. Picture yourself sitting on the
bench in a courtroom needing to decide about what
should be done about ordering child support in the case
and trying to decide correctly. To do so, you might try
putting yourself in the shoes of Mom or of Dad or
both, or imagine a loved one in that position.

9. Income combinations used
• Questions asked about 9 income combinations
• (L/M/H for mother and father)

10. Key results in US studies
• Support goes up with Dad’s income, beyond
any anti-poverty role
• Mum’s income matters
• Support rises faster with Dad’s income when
Mum’s income is lower
– Hints at a larger principle = Reduce disparities?

11. UK Study aims
• What does the British public think the State
should require of non-resident parents with
respect to child maintenance?
• Should required amounts be affected by changes
in income (mothers and fathers) and a wide range
of family circumstances?
• Timely evidence in light of recent changes to UK
Child Support – more personal agreements.
• Comparison with past research in the US

12. Research questions
• How much do the public think non-resident
parents should be required to pay, and how far
do they adjust their views based on parents’
incomes?
• Are there important differences in opinions
between different population sub-groups?
• Do current statutory provisions on child
maintenance, including the calculation formula,
align with the views of the British public?

13. Methodology
• Fielded questions on 2012 British Social
Attitudes Survey (BSA)
• BSA is an annual cross-sectional survey,
tracking public attitudes since 1983
• 3,000+ respondents: random probability
sampling
• Face-to-face, plus self-completion supplement

14. The questions
• Series of vignettes (each person asked two)
• Baseline vignette for all respondents (11/12ths
sample)
• “I want you to imagine a family in which there
is one child, an 8 year old boy. His parents were
married for 10 years, but are now divorced. He
lives mainly with his mother, but sees his father
twice a week after school, and usually stays with
his father overnight once at the weekend.”
• How much should the law require him to pay?

15. Then, by 9 income combinations (low,
medium and high for each parent)
• Amounts set to be at a minimum level, median level, and
around top 10%-20%
• Low: PWC on benefits and low rent; NRP on minimum
wage
• Median: average level of net income
• Top 20%: relating to lone parents, and male FT
employees
• Also rounded to suitable numbers and disparities
• And presented as being per month, after tax: By income, I
mean their entire income after tax, including any wages,
tax credits, state benefits and any other money coming into
the household.’

16. Then, by 9 income combinations
(low, medium and high for each
parent)
NRP income
PWC income
£900 £1,500 £2,200
£1,000 £50 .. ..
£2,000 £300 .. ..
£3,000 £300 .. ..
Each question will ask you how much child maintenance you think (the law should
require/it is fair to expect) the father to pay the mother each month, all things
considered. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers - we just want you to
decide.
Methodology: randomly, 4 different ways of asking for the amounts. Starting with
high as well as low income groups.

17. First respondent

18. Some are less generous, overall

19. Some, more so

20. Then, asked about a change in one
circumstance – e.g. shared care 50/50
NRP income
PWC income
£900 £1,500 £2,200
£1,000 £0 .. ..
£2,000 £150 .. ..
£3,000 £200 .. ..
Are able to look at past set of answers.
May enter the same figures … common for some scenarios.

21. The vignettes look at:
• Contact –
– No overnights
– 50:50 care
– No contact (no reason given)
– No contact (mother has
encouraged father to see child,
but he hasn’t, for no good
reason)
– No contact (father tried to see
child, but mother refused, for no
good reason)
• Prior relationship status –
– Lived together for 10 years, not
married
– One night stand
Repartnering –
Mother has new partner on a low
income (£1k per month)
Mother has a new partner on a
high income (£3k per month)
Mother has a new partner and is
no longer working herself
Father has a new partner (not
working) and child

22. Further questions
• 10 ‘Likerts’ (agree/disagree questions with 5-
point scales) in self-completion – to capture
public opinion in terms of the underlying
principles of child support (eg parental
obligation; role of state; basic needs;
distribution of income)

23. Today
• Results from the project
• Taking in turn: baseline amounts; overview of
attitudes and their role; overview of how
contact makes a difference (or not)
• Covering relevant results from US studies
where they match the British methods
• More to follow …