Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Welfare Reform and Lone Parents in the UK


Author Info

  • Paul Gregg
  • Susan Harkness
  • Sarah Smith



The last thirty years saw dramatic increases in the proportion of children living in lone parent households. In 1997 the incoming Labour government initiated a series of policy reforms aimed at reducing this high level of child poverty. A key element of their strategy was a move towards increasing employment rates among families with children by a combination of increased in-work support through the Working Families Tax Credit and active case management of the population on welfare through the New Deal for Lone Parents. The assessment of this policy reform agenda has focused to date mainly on lone mothers’ employment and poverty. In this paper we extend this to include at the impact on the numbers of lone parent families and a range of outcomes for mothers and children. We cover mothers’ mental well-being and health, child outcomes and relationship patterns. As well as representing the basic facts about employment incomes and hours of work. Our results show there was no significant impact of these policy reforms on family structure. Mothers malaise scores are, unsurprisingly, very high on family break up but they tend to recover after around 2 years. WFTC is found to reduce the spike of high malaise co-incident with the transition into lone parenthood but to have no longer term effects. This decline in malaise is strongly associated with improved financial indicators. Adolescent children in lone parents families report lower self-esteem, more unhappiness, lower quality relationships with the mother and a number of worse or risky behaviours. Difference-in-difference techniques suggest a marked narrowing if these gaps since WFTC. The magnitude of these changes are quite large, half of the gap in self-esteem and unhappiness scores and in truanting, smoking and planning to leave school at age 16 are eliminated after the policy reforms. This strongly suggests that the increases in incomes and employment associated with the reforms have profoundly changed the quality of life children in lone parent families.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK in its series The Centre for Market and Public Organisation with number 07/182.

as in new window
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bri:cmpowp:07/182

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2 Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TX
Phone: 0117 33 10799
Fax: 0117 33 10705
Web page:
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Welfare reform; lone parents; tax Credits;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Greg Duncan & P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, 2001. "Welfare Reform and Child Well-being," JCPR Working Papers 217, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
  2. Paul Gregg & Susan Harkness & Stephen Machin, 1999. "Poor kids: trends in child poverty in Britain, 1968-96," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 20(2), pages 163-187, June.
  3. Hilary Hoynes & Richard Blundell, 2001. "Has "In-Work" Benefit Reform Helped the Labour Market?," NBER Working Papers 8546, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Richard Blundell & Alan Duncan & Julian McCrae & Costas Meghir, 2000. "The labour market impact of the working families’ tax credit," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 75-103, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.


This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


Access and download statistics


When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bri:cmpowp:07/182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.