The Family Pressure Gauge and Family Proofing as Policy Tools

David Wong
Support for Families Family Policy Conference Warsaw 24 November 2012

The Family Pressure Gauge: the project

Background UK Prime Ministers pledge: to make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe. Conservative Party election manifesto on 6 key pressures families faced: (i) lack of time, (ii) money worries, (iii) impact of work, (iv) schools and crime, (v) unhealthy influences, and (vi) poor housing. Lack of attention given to family policy, lack of progress in promoting the wellbeing of families. Objectives To hold the Government to account. To track progress. To identify areas for policy intervention.

The Family Pressure Gauge: the project

Method Sources of data: European Commissions Eurostat database OECDs Family Database and StatExtracts Eurofounds EurLIFE database 147 potential indicators, trimmed down to a final set of 25 indicators. Grouped into 4 key domains: money, work, caring and parenting, living environment. Overall composite index and domain composite sub-indices (all unweighted) computed using normalised scores.

The Family Pressure Gauge: overall results

Poland Italy

Netherlands 0.380

Denmark

Finland 0.307

ffi
0.452

Spain Germany

Sweden

0.488

United Kingdom

0.235

Norway

Family Pressure Gauge

0.524

Bulgaria

Romania

Overall rankings on the Family-Friendly Index

Overall pressure ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Country Romania Bulgaria United Kingdom Slovakia Latvia Greece Germany Ireland Spain Malta Slovenia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Austria Hungary Italy Estonia Poland France Portugal Netherlands Belgium Finland Luxembourg Sweden Norway Family-Friendly Index (ffi) 0.524 0.504 0.477 0.474 0.470 0.468 0.455 0.454 0.437 0.435 0.420 0.408 0.404 0.400 0.391 0.387 0.385 0.380 0.378 0.376 0.375 0.360 0.346 0.311 0.297 0.287 0.235

Most pressured (1st) half-quartile High-pressure (1st) half-quartile Moderate-pressure (2nd) quartile Low-pressure (3rd) quartile Least pressured (4th) quartile

Domain I

Financial pressures

Financial pressures at a glance

Households with dependent children making ends meet with difficulty or great difficulty Households with dependent children with household debt more than 100% of its monthly disposable income (highly critical situation) Average of net childcare costs for dual earner and lone parent families Households with dependent children experiencing housing cost overburden Costs of energy for domestic consumers (aggregate of gas, electricity, petrol and diesel prices) Food and non-alcoholic beverage prices

Financial pressures: overall results

0.360

fpi
0.261 0.459

0.509

0.162

Financial Pressure Barometer

0.558

Financial pressures: overall results

Pressure ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Country United Kingdom Germany Ireland Greece Denmark Bulgaria Hungary Italy Portugal Austria Cyprus Spain Latvia Slovakia Romania Czech Republic Malta Netherlands Slovenia Belgium France Sweden Norway Poland Luxembourg Estonia Finland Financial Pressure Index (fpi) 0.558 0.557 0.514 0.497 0.473 0.448 0.447 0.418 0.396 0.394 0.377 0.375 0.373 0.367 0.365 0.356 0.349 0.335 0.331 0.322 0.310 0.302 0.301 0.299 0.232 0.206 0.162 M1 19 21 12 3 23 1 2 9 6 20 8 10 7 12 5 14 4 22 15 16 16 25 26 11 24 18 27 Indicator ranking M2 M3 M4 M5 1 3 4 21 1 11 2 15 9 1 20 18 5 17 1 23 15 10 3 12 7 17 1 10 19 8 3 8 12 11 20 20 11 6 4 7 22 17 3 5 27 25 18 5 13 16 13 16 10 12 6 9 8 19 6 14 14 4 13 7 21 2 25 24 16 12 7 9 6 24 5 13 18 15 20 11 8 26 19 25 15 17 2 23 21 10 27 9 14 4 21 16 21 22 23 22 19 16 25 14 23 26 M6 15 8 3 13 2 25 23 10 19 6 10 15 20 21 26 24 18 14 17 7 9 12 1 27 5 22 4

Most pressured (1st) half-quartile High-pressure (1st) half-quartile Moderate-pressure (2nd) quartile Low-pressure (3rd) quartile Least pressured (4th) quartile

Financial pressures: household debt

Germany United Kingdom Cyprus Austria Greece Slovenia Bulgaria Italy Ireland Hungary France Slovakia Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Latvia Netherlands Spain Romania Portugal Luxembourg Malta Estonia Norway Finland Sweden Poland
0.0 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 3.4 3.1 4.9 4.6 5.8 5.5 5.3 8.2 9.8 13.9 13.9

M2: Households with dependent children with household debt more than 100% of its monthly disposable income, 2008 (%).

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

% of households with dependent children

Financial pressures: childcare costs

Ireland Malta United Kingdom Czech Republic Cyprus Slovakia Austria France Poland Denmark Germany Netherlands Latvia Finland Sweden Luxembourg Greece Belgium Hungary Portugal Norway
-4.6 1.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 4.7 3.9 3.2 3.1 8.6 8.1 7.6 7.3 7.0 10.0 12.9 12.5 12.1 15.1 23.5 30.6 40.5

M3: Average of net childcare costs for dual earner and lone parent families, 2004 (% of family income).

Estonia 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 % of family income 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

-5.0

Financial pressures: housing cost overburden

25.0
24.1 21.4 20.9

20.0

M4: Households with dependent children experiencing housing cost overburden, 2009 (% of total population).

% of total population

15.4

15.0
13.6 13.4 12.0

10.0

8.8 8.6 8.4 8.3

8.0 7.4 6.5 6.4 5.7 5.3 5.3 4.6 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7 1.8 1.7

5.0

0.0
La tv ia I relan d Lu xe mbo urg Ger m any De nm ark Un ite d K in gd om nia Ne th erlan ds Hu ng ar y Slova kia No rw ay Port u ga l Repu blic Finla nd Slove nia Bulg ar ia en Est o nia n Malt a Gre e ce Pola nd Belg ium Fra n ce Ita ly ria Swed Ro m a Cy pr u Spai Aust s

Czec h

Financial pressures: costs of energy

Bulgaria Sweden Hungary Poland Slovenia Portugal Czech Republic Slovakia Netherlands Latvia Italy Denmark Spain Romania Germany Estonia Austria Ireland France Belgium United Kingdom Luxembourg Greece Malta Cyprus Finland 0.00
0.89 0.89 1.26 1.14 3.32 4.10 4.05 4.01 4.00 4.53 4.44 4.59 5.19 5.13 4.95 4.92 4.91 4.83 5.64 5.50 5.49 5.31 6.09 5.92 6.42 7.05

M5: Costs of energy (gas, electricity, petrol, diesel)* for domestic consumers, 20092010 (Purchasing Power Standard).

* Prices have been converted to Purchasing Power Standard (PPS). The costs above are the average of PPS per gigajoule (for average consumption between 20-200 GJ) of gas, PPS per kilowatt/hour (for average consumption between 2500-5000 kWh) of electricity, PPS per litre of premium unleaded gasoline 95 RON and PPS per litre of diesel.

2.00

4.00 PPS per unit

6.00

8.00

Domain II

Work pressures

Work pressures at a glance

Hours worked per week of full-time employment Population in employment usually working on weekends Population in employment usually working in the evening and/or at night People for whom it has been difficult to fulfil their family responsibilities because of the amount of time spent on the job People who find their work too demanding and stressful Employees not allowed to adapt working hours within certain limits People who take more than 20 minutes to travel to place of work or study People in employment who think it is very likely or quite likely that they will lose their job in the next 6 months People living in households with very low work intensity

Work pressures: overall results

0.416

wpi
0.283 0.550

0.616

0.149

Work Pressure Barometer

0.683

Work pressures: overall results

Pressure ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Country Greece Romania Bulgaria Slovakia Latvia Spain Germany Cyprus Slovenia United Kingdom Malta Poland Estonia Portugal Czech Republic Austria Italy Netherlands France Hungary Ireland Belgium Finland Luxembourg Denmark Sweden Norway Work Pressure Index (wpi) 0.683 0.612 0.609 0.577 0.556 0.530 0.527 0.517 0.510 0.499 0.497 0.473 0.470 0.446 0.440 0.434 0.423 0.422 0.417 0.411 0.408 0.371 0.341 0.301 0.299 0.268 0.149 W1 2 15 7 12 13 8 10 8 6 3 14 4 18 11 4 1 15 21 17 21 25 18 23 25 24 18 27 W2 1 2 18 8 13 6 10 15 12 20 8 24 21 14 18 4 3 5 6 27 16 22 10 26 17 25 23 W3 4 9 20 2 24 10 5 27 7 3 8 24 11 22 23 16 13 1 11 26 17 19 6 14 18 14 21 Indicator ranking W4 W5 W6 3 2 3 2 13 5 4 7 2 13 8 10 1 12 7 10 11 8 20 15 15 7 1 1 6 6 14 17 22 19 14 4 9 5 14 4 11 5 17 16 3 6 9 21 12 12 10 20 22 9 13 15 26 25 27 17 16 8 18 11 19 20 18 18 22 22 25 25 26 20 19 21 24 24 24 26 16 27 23 27 23 W7 22 7 13 5 3 15 1 13 21 9 15 22 2 25 18 26 22 4 9 18 18 9 15 7 9 5 W8 16 5 1 2 4 14 20 11 13 15 24 7 10 6 9 26 18 25 8 16 22 19 3 23 11 21 27 W9 20 12 15 24 18 14 5 27 24 2 8 15 24 15 23 13 6 9 9 4 1 3 11 21 7 22 18

Most pressured (1st) half-quartile High-pressure (1st) half-quartile Moderate-pressure (2nd) quartile Low-pressure (3rd) quartile Least pressured (4th) quartile

Work pressures: working hours

Greece 43.7 Aus tria 44.0 Norway 39.2

W1: Hours worked per week of full-time employment, 2008 (hours).

Ireland 40.0 Luxem bourg 40.0

United Kingdom 43.0

Denmark 40.2 Finland 40.3

Czech Republic 42.7 Poland 42.7

Slovenia 42.5

Bulgaria 42.0 Cyprus 41.9

Spain 41.9 Germany Portugal Slovakia 41.7 41.5 41.6

Latvia 41.3

Hungary Netherlands 40.8 40.8 Belgium Es tonia 40.9 40.9 France 41.0 Italy 41.1 Malta Rom ania 41.2 41.1

Work pressures: working unsocial hours

Netherlands Slovakia United Kingdom Greece Germany Finland Slovenia Malta Romania Spain France Estonia Italy Sweden Luxembourg Austria Ireland Denmark Belgium Bulgaria Norway Portugal Czech Republic Poland Latvia Hungary Cyprus 0.0
2.8 10.5 10.2 10.2 9.9 9.8 9.4 9.2 8.5 7.9 7.4 7.2 6.7 6.7 6.6 13.2 12.9 12.2 11.7 11.7 15.1 14.3 17.7 17.6 17.4 18.8 20.9

W3: Population in employment usually working in the evening or at night, 2009 (% of total employment).

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

% of total employment

Work pressures: fulfilling family responsibilities

50.0 45.0 40.0
47.1 46.6 45.7 45.3 43.4 42.6 41.2 40.5 38.7 38.1

35.0 % of employed individuals

33.3 31.6 30.8 29.3 29.2 28.8 28.5 28.1

W4: People for whom it has been difficult to fulfil their family responsibilities because of the amount of time spent on the job, 2007 (% of employed individuals).
25.0 24.3 24.3 23.9 23.0 21.2 19.7 18.5

30.0

25.0 20.0

17.3

15.0

10.0 5.0 0.0

La tv i a Pola nd Slov e nia Cypr us Hu ng ar y Cz ec h Re pu bli c a Ne th erlan ds Port u ga l Un ite d Kin gd om Belg ium I rela nd Ger m any Lu xe mbo urg kia y Bulg ar ia Ro m a Slova De nm Finla nd Swed en Fra n ce nia Gre e ce Spain Esto nia Ita ly No rw a Aust Malt ark ria

Work pressures: flexible working

Cyprus Bulgaria Greece Poland Romania Portugal Latvia Spain Malta Slovakia Hungary Czech Republic Italy Slovenia Germany France Estonia Ireland United Kingdom Austria Luxembourg Belgium Norway Denmark Netherlands Finland Sweden 50.0
56.3 68.4 67.0 65.1 65.1 79.9 79.7 79.6 79.3 78.6 76.8 76.2 75.4 84.4 83.2 82.5 93.8 93.5 93.4 92.5 92.4 91.9 91.3 90.1 97.1 96.4 96.1

W6: Employees not allowed to adapt working hours within certain limits, 2005 (%).

60.0

70.0 % of employees

80.0

90.0

100.0

Work pressures: worklessness

20.0 19.8 18.0 16.0

14.0
12.6

W9: People living in households with very low work intensity, 2009 (% of total population).
12.3 11.3 10.8

% of total population

12.0

10.0
8.8 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 7.7

8.0

7.2

7.0 6.9

6.9 6.9 6.7

6.7 6.5 6.3

6.2 6.0

6.0

5.6 5.6 5.6 4.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
Irela nd La tvi a Gre e ce Lu xe mbo urg Swe d en Czec h Re pu bli c E sto nia Slov e nia Slov a kia Ne th erlan ds King d om B elg ium Hu ng ar y Ger m any Finla nd Ro m a nia n B ulg ar ia Malta Pola nd Portu ga l y Fra n ce ark Ita ly ria No rw a De nm Cypr u Aust S pai s

Un ite d

Domain III

Caring and parenting pressures

Caring and parenting pressures at a glance

Full-rate-equivalent paid maternity and paternity leave (aggregate) Employed persons between 25 and 49 having to make special working time arrangements over the last 12 months to care for children Employed persons 25-49 years old regularly taking care of other children up to 14 or people older than 15 in need of care (sandwiched generation) Average weekly hours allocated by women and men aged 18 or over to care for elderly/disabled relatives Average of children 11-15 who have been bullied at school at least twice in the last couple of months and who do not like school

Caring and parenting pressures: overall results

0.388

cpi
0.264 0.512

0.574

0.140

Caring & Parenting Pressure Barometer

0.636

Caring and parenting pressures: overall results

Pressure ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Country Romania Malta Slovakia Latvia Ireland Denmark Czech Republic Norway Finland Greece Germany Slovenia Sweden Spain Italy Luxembourg United Kingdom Portugal Belgium France Hungary Austria Poland Estonia Netherlands Cyprus Bulgaria Caring & Parenting Pressure Index (cpi) 0.636 0.606 0.585 0.471 0.465 0.438 0.411 0.371 0.370 0.353 0.346 0.343 0.341 0.340 0.333 0.331 0.322 0.321 0.316 0.309 0.293 0.283 0.278 0.263 0.257 0.229 0.140 C1 8 1 7 23 19 22 4 6 10 14 5 15 20 17 9 11 2 21 3 17 15 11 24 25 11 26 Indicator ranking C2 C3 C4 11 1 5 8 5 18 5 5 15 7 19 1 2 4 19 6 5 13 1 20 25 4 3 27 14 21 2 22 9 20 14 8 3 10 25 16 8 2 15 7 18 26 13 18 11 9 23 12 4 10 15 24 12 13 21 13 9 21 9 18 21 21 17 11 25 15 17 6 20 24 2 17 16 11 C5 1 11 12 4 20 7 2 15 14 13 3 5 18 8 9 6 15 17 10 19 -

Most pressured (1st) half-quartile High-pressure (1st) half-quartile Moderate-pressure (2nd) quartile Low-pressure (3rd) quartile Least pressured (4th) quartile

Caring and parenting pressures: maternity and paternity leave

Malta United Kingdom Belgium Czech Republic Germany Norway Slovakia Romania Italy Finland Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Greece Slovenia Hungary France Spain Ireland Sweden Portugal Denmark Latvia Poland Estonia Bulgaria 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 weeks 40.0 50.0
5.9 9.6 12.5 13.7 14.0 15.0 15.4 15.8 16.0 16.2 16.4 16.4 16.4 17.4 17.8 17.8 18.0 18.0 18.2 18.9 19.0 20.0 20.6 22.0 30.0 56.7

C1: Full-rate-equivalent paid maternity and paternity leave (cumulative)*, 2007 (weeks).

60.0

* An inverse relationship is implied between the figures and pressure on the family. Data on paternity leave is not available for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey. Figures for these countries represent only maternity leave.

Domain IV

Living environment pressures

Living environment pressures at a glance

Households with dependent children experiencing severe housing deprivation Individuals aged 18 and over who think that it is very unsafe or rather unsafe to walk around the area they live at night Adolescent fertility rates (births to women aged 15-19) 15 year-olds who have been drunk at least twice 15 year-olds who have used cannabis in the last 30 days

Living environment pressures: overall results

0.364

lpi
0.246 0.481

0.540

0.128

Living Environment Pressure Barometer

0.599

Living environment pressures: overall results

Pressure ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Country Bulgaria Estonia United Kingdom Denmark Romania Ireland France Spain Latvia Slovenia Austria Poland Czech Republic Netherlands Finland Hungary Belgium Luxembourg Italy Slovakia Malta Cyprus Germany Portugal Sweden Greece Norway Living Environment Pressure Index (lpi) 0.599 0.497 0.495 0.458 0.456 0.454 0.448 0.441 0.432 0.427 0.416 0.402 0.387 0.382 0.374 0.364 0.362 0.341 0.329 0.329 0.324 0.320 0.289 0.279 0.249 0.161 0.128 L1 3 6 14 21 1 22 15 20 2 4 12 5 9 26 25 7 17 18 8 13 19 26 16 11 23 10 24 Indicator ranking L2 L3 L4 25 1 4 24 4 2 19 2 3 1 26 1 21 9 7 9 13 3 13 21 11 14 15 26 5 6 9 23 8 2 11 7 17 10 11 16 15 14 8 25 19 3 18 5 22 7 10 10 19 18 11 12 22 13 22 24 20 6 12 13 3 26 3 21 13 16 16 17 8 23 3 24 20 23 17 25 20 17 L5 12 11 8 17 25 9 3 1 16 14 19 13 7 2 22 21 6 4 5 18 10 15 20 24 23 -

Most pressured (1st) half-quartile High-pressure (1st) half-quartile Moderate-pressure (2nd) quartile Low-pressure (3rd) quartile Least pressured (4th) quartile

Living environment pressures: housing deprivation

40.0 39.1 36.0 32.0
27.8 25.0

28.0 % of total population 24.0

21.3

L1: Households with dependent children experiencing severe housing deprivation, 2009 (% of total population).
18.1 17.0 15.6

20.0 16.0

12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0

La tv ia nia

10.9 9.3 8.8 6.9 5.8 5.5 4.8 4.2 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.6

0.4 0.4

Germ any Belg ium Lu xe mbo urg

Czec h

Un ite d

s Ne th erlan ds

Esto nia Hu ng ar y

kia King d om

nia

Bulg ar ia

Repu blic

Port u ga l

Pola nd

Fra n ce

Spain

Malt a

Gre e ce

ark

en

No rw a

Finla nd

I ta ly

ria

I relan

Ro m a

Slove

Slova

De nm

Swed

Cypr u

Aust

0.00
Bulg aria Un i ted Kin gd o m
3. 85 2. 59 2. 18 2. 14 2. 09 2. 02 2. 00 1. 87 1. 67 1. 35 1. 28 1. 20 1. 17 1. 15 1. 09 1. 06 1. 04 1. 03 0. 99 0. 80 0. 65

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Mal ta Est o nia La tv ia Slo va k ia Hu n gar y Por tuga l Irela nd Pola nd Aus t ria Lu x emb o urg Fra nce Cze c Spa in hR epu blic Ger man y Gre ece Finl and Belg ium No r wa y Cyp ru s I ta ly Slov e nia Swe d en Ne t h erl and s De n mar k
0. 64 0. 61 0. 59 0. 58 0. 56

Living environment pressures: teen pregnancies

L3: Adolescent fertility rates, i.e. births to women aged 15-19, 2005 (%).

Living environment pressures: teen drinking

Denmark Estonia United Kingdom Bulgaria Finland Latvia Austria Slovenia Romania Hungary Poland Slovakia Ireland Czech Republic Spain Germany Norway Belgium Netherlands Sweden France Luxembourg Portugal Italy Greece Malta 0.00 10.00
38.61 36.80 36.31 36.28 35.88 35.16 33.72 33.30 31.16 29.58 28.81 28.24 26.29 26.00 24.76 24.04 21.94 20.21 19.10 16.62 47.44 46.90 45.48 44.98 50.57 57.48

L4: 15 year-olds who have been drunk at least twice, 2006 (%).
30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

20.00

% of 15 year-olds

The Family Pressure Gauge: a policy tool

Holding government to account Pledge-reality gap: UK third most pressured in Europe Recent reforms: flexible parental leave, flexible working, benefit cap, removal of high-earners child benefit Track progress Replicate index and identify consistency/inconsistency with policy goals Identify areas for policy intervention UK: household debt, childcare cost, housing cost overburden, long working hours, working unsocial hours, worklessness, paid maternitypaternity leave, teen pregnancies, teen drinking Poland: costs of energy, long working hours, fulfilling family responsibilities, flexible working, housing deprivation

The European picture alone is not enough

Scotland
Overall: 9 Finance: 11 W ork: 12 Caring & parenting: 5 Living environment: 6

North East
Overall: 3 Finance: 8 Work: 8 Caring & parenting: 1 Living environment: 7

European FPG is a useful pan-European comparison But doesnt tell policymakers the local situation Need a national-level FPG More accurately identify distribution of pressures and targets for intervention

Yorkshire & The Humber Northern Ireland

Overall: 12 Finance: 9 W ork: 7 Caring & parenting: 12 Living environment: 12 Overall: 7 Finance: 6 Work: 9 Caring & parenting: 11 Living environment: 5

East Midlands
Overall: 4 Finance: 3 W ork: 11 Caring & parenting: 10 Living environment: 3

North West
Overall: 6 Finance: 7 W ork: 3 Caring & parenting: 9 Living environment: 4

East of England
Overall: 11 Finance: 5 W ork: 6 Caring & parenting: 6 Living environment: 11

Wales
Overall: 5 Finance: 2 Work: 5 Caring & parenting: 4 Living environment: 8

West Midlands
Overall: 2 Finance: 4 Work: 4 Caring & parenting: 3 Living environment: 2

South East London South West

Overall: 8 Finance: 10 W ork: 10 Caring & parenting: 2 Living environment: 9 Overall: 10 Finance: 12 W ork: 2 Caring & parenting: 8 Living environment: 10

Overall: 1 Finance: 1 Work: 1 Caring & parenting: 7 Living environment: 1

Links to child benefit

UK Child Benefit system Each child under 16 (or 20 if still in education) One person is eligible; tax-free payment every 4 weeks Eldest (or only) child: 20.30 per week / Additional child: 13.40 per week Benefit reduced for >50,000 earners and abolished for >60,000 earners Subject to new wider benefit cap (500 or 350 per week) Despite high childcare cost, housing cost overburden, relatively low paid maternity-paternity leave But consider wider policy goals Population: birth rates, immigration Labour market: workforce, labour market flexibility Social issues: welfare dependency, poverty, family breakdown

but the Family Pressure Gauge alone is not enough

Family proofing: definition

A systematic and structured way to analyse the effect of policy on family relationships and the familys ability to contribute to key policy goals Foresight, not hindsight: not an evaluation exercise, but a policymaking tool Neutral Systems thinking Influencing relationships and achievement of goals

Family proofing: the 3D7L model of influence

Policy
affects

Policy
Finance Institutional mechanisms & the third sector

affects

Time

Frontline public services delivery

Commitment Responsibility C Conduct Place

affects

Relational skills

Social norms

affects

Policy

Policy

Flow of effect: example of child benefit

General flow affects one or more of the seven which in turn affect one or more of the three leading to

Policy

Critical levers of influence

Key domains of influence

Specific outcomes
(commitment, responsibility, conduct)

might result in Example

which in turn creates

leading to

Increasing the financial amount of child benefit and widening eligibility

Families become financially less pressured, can afford childcare, or one parent can stay at home and spend more time with children

Motivation to return to work, opportunities to spend more time with the family, and to provide informal relational support to family members

Stronger relationships and enhanced wellbeing through the exercise of family responsibilities (e.g. parenting) and compassionate conduct (e.g. caring)

Cause

Intervening effect

Effect

After-effect

Rub-off effects: the interlinked nature of levers

Example of rub-off effects:
Motivation Finance Increasing child benefit
Rub-off effect

Opportunity

Time Support

A two-pronged tool: inductive proofing

can influence family relationships and wellbeing in many ways leading to the achievement of or the failure to achieve a number of wider key policy goals. Wider policy goal Wider policy goal

A specific policy

Policy

Wider policy goal

Wider policy goal Wider policy goal

A two-pronged tool: deductive proofing

that are effected by a number of different policies working in concert. can be achieved through certain influences on family relationships and wellbeing

A specific wider policy goal

Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy

Wider policy goal

Family proofing: a policy tool

Why family proofing is useful for child benefit and/or wider family policymaking Demonstrates systematic effort to ensure that the policy agenda as a whole strengthens family relationships Enables reporting on progress where outcomes (e.g. stronger families) are relatively more subjective and intangible Informing the design of more effective interventions Neutral, adaptable, comprehensive, cost-effective in the long run Departure from traditional methods of social engineering a relationallyliterate approach to policymaking

Contact
David Wong
Associate, Relationships Foundation / Researcher & Head of Organisations and Business Models Research, Big Innovation Centre Big Innovation Centre 21 Palmer Street London SW1H 0AD United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 79763537 E: davidwong@cantab.net