Patrick Butler's cuts blog

Cuts and the family: 'It's not about having tons of money, it's about having enough'

A detailed study of austerity on low to middle income households finds government cuts are having a destabilizing effect on families least able to cope with them
  • Jump to comments ()

There's a gaping, baffling hole at the heart of Iain Duncan Smith's first social justice strategy annual audit, published this week, which it would not be too excessive to identify as the absence of reality.

Family stability lies at the heart of the strategy, but it curiously fails to mention the biggest threat to this, which is the government's own austerity policies. Welfare reform and council budget cuts are already "transforming lives" but not in the way Duncan Smith presumably intends.

Duncan Smith - and indeed everyone involved in policy - should read Family Matters, a superbly detailed and nuanced account of the turbulent and immiserating impact of austerity on 11 British low-to-middle income families, published by the Family and Parenting Institute, the Daycare trust and Ipsos Mori.

None of these families fall into the "disadvantaged" category that Duncan Smith's strategy focuses on, but three of them live close to the poverty line, and several more experience a level of ongoing financial and psychological stress that suggests their "squeezed middle" status is highly precarious, and their familial resilience deeply compromised.

The families suffer shrinking incomes and rising living costs, and the report shows how this affects their physical and mental health, as well as the acute strain it puts on family relationships.

Lack of control, a feeling that they were unable to manage financial risk, was keenly felt by all. In practically all cases the overwhelming sense was of survival, of living at the edge.

The "four C's" both dominate and create fragility in their lives:

Cost of living, cars, credit and childcare

Lack of money was a constant source of anxiety, stress, physical ailment and mental illness. The cost of food, energy and housing swallowed all their earnings, and left them unable to save or afford small luxuries ("We just can't afford luxuries like proper meals", one mum says, seemingly without irony). Opportunities to make further easy economies were long gone. The car or the washing machine breaking down spelled disaster.

These might be seen as hard times - the inevitable general consequences of recession; we all have to take some pain, tighten our belts, adapt to changed circumstances. But these mainly working families struggle with financial precariousness, and it is this which returns us to Duncan Smith's austerity policies: cuts destabilise and undermine those families least resilient to financial shock.

The unexpected removal of maternity benefits or tax credits plunged some already vulnerable families into crisis. In one case a son charged board by his mother to fill a £170 gap in her monthly income caused by a housing benefit cut triggered a "significant deterioration" in their relationship. The capacity of parents or friends to bail them out with small loans was exhausted. Some turned to payday loans.

Many of the families felt undermined by stress, doubt, guilt, and shame.

Interestingly, though most of the families were "hard workers" and appear to be characteristic in many ways of the archetype Duncan Smith might refer to as "strivers", there was a strong attachment to some benefits, which were felt to be essential (and deserved) stabilisers of family life.

For example, tax credits were felt by one parent to be "the only reason they were getting by" and:

...sometimes considered to be recognition of the realities of hard working families...[families] who experienced substantial losses via tax credit reduction, found the uncertainty, stress and loss involved was a recipe for substantially increased stress and reduced wellbeing.

In some cases they avoided benefits even though they qualified for them, because of perceived stigma (free school dinners) or the belief that applying for support in this way would entangle them in time-consuming bureaucracy.

Universal public services were appreciated, perhaps more so now money was tight. Libraries were a vital source of rare family entertainment for families lucky enough to live near to one. The loss of services through cuts had a significant impact, from the loss of free swimming lessons for a disabled son, to the closure of Connexions careers advice and the chopping back of the educational maintenance allowance.

There was a general appreciation of the importance of community, stability and "roots" in enabling them to cope. As families effectively stopped being "consumers" - survival being the new watchword - their appreciation of and reliance on accessible communal assets such as parks and libraries as buffers against austerity came to the fore.

Interestingly, the report notes that:

The sentiment that families would be better off in council housing was not uncommon

Specifically, families wanted lower living costs, and affordable credit and childcare. More broadly, the message was that they sought control over their lives, not more consumer choice; their priorities were breathing space, stability and certainty, not luxury.

One mother puts it this way:

It's not about having tons of money, it's about having enough

You might conclude they want a measure of social security, in its broadest sense, though it seems increasingly unlikely that they will get it as the state support they rely on is taken away. Policy makers like Duncan Smith, who say they want to encourage family stability and resilience, should take note.

The study notes that its subjects, their lives tracked in detail by researchers over the course of 12 months, demonstrated remarkable resilience, ingenuity and fortitude (you sense they don't need tips from ministers on how to live more frugally). They remained in some ways remarkably hopeful about the future.

They improvise, adapt and - so far - muddle through. But the study sounds a note of caution: the reality is that low and middle income families live fragile and uncertain lives, and many feel trapped.

It's important, say the authors, that

we don't underestimate exactly how challenging life can be for families in austerity

Today's best video

Today in pictures