Criticism
The Independent Case Examiner’s Office was set up in 1997 as an independent body to deal with complaints about the CSA. Three recurring themes are mentioned in multiple previous annual reports, namely delay (51% of complaints in 2004-2005), error (24% of complaints in 2004-2005) and No Action Taken (14% of complaints in 2004-2005). According to Department for Work and Pensions statistics, the average length of time for a case to be cleared under the new scheme has increased from an average of 18 days in March 2003, to 287 in December 2005.
Updated statistics published in the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 showed that, whilst payments were being made in 65% of CSA cases for the year April 2006 – March 2007, this had increased to 78% by March 2011.
Assessments based on the same financial criteria can give different results, depending on which rules the case is judged under. Non-resident parents who would pay less under the new rules currently cannot get reassessed, except in special circumstances. While the CSA plan to eventually move everyone to the same system, in the interim different people with the same current situation will pay different amounts, based solely on when the case was first assessed. One father, Mark Cook, whose monthly payments would drop from £250 to £150 if assessed under the new rules, is taking the CSA to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that this discrepancy amounts to discrimination under Article 14. However, official statistics show that the average weekly liability is slightly more under the new scheme. For the years 2006-2007, the average new scheme liability was constantly £23 per week, whereas the old scheme varied from £22 to £23.
In November 2004, the head of the CSA resigned amid widespread criticism of the CSA systems. Sir Archy Kirkwood, chairman of Work and Pensions Committee, described the situation as "a systemic, chronic failure of management right across the totality of the agency." In November 2005, Tony Blair admitted that the CSA is "not properly suited" to its job, amid reports that for every £1.85 that gets through to children, the CSA spend £1 on administration.
Even prior to its opening, the CSA was subject to criticism, with MP David Tredinnick describing the CSA as a "sequel to 1984" due to concerns about "CSA Snooping". In February 2006, Work Secretary John Hutton asked Sir David Henshaw to redesign the child support system with three key areas of focus; how best to ensure parents take financial responsibility for their children when they are apart, the best arrangements for delivering this outcome cost effectively and the options for moving to new structures and policies, recognising the need to protect the level of service offered to the current 1.5 million parents with care. This was announced when Work Secretary John Hutton stated that the CSA's performance was "unacceptable", and announced that it would be reviewed. Sir David Henshaw was to report his findings before the parliamentary summer recess and subsequently Sir David Henshaw's Report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Recovering Child Support: routes to responsibility was compiled.
The situation eventually got so bad, that on Monday 24 July 2006, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions John Hutton MP, announced that the CSA was not working and as a result would be axed and replaced by a "smaller, more focused" body.
In March 2008 a website was created to challenge the CSA, allowing people to publically post their stories and receive feedback. The website, CSAhell.com, has been quoted in the national press on CSA related stories, including the BBC website and the Sunday Telegraph. Since its creation, the website has published almost 2,500 stories and complaints about the CSA, and has itself been criticised by the Public and Commercial Services Union.
Read more about this topic: Child Support Agency
Famous quotes containing the word criticism:
“The critic lives at second hand. He writes about. The poem, the novel, or the play must be given to him; criticism exists by the grace of other men’s genius. By virtue of style, criticism can itself become literature. But usually this occurs only when the writer is acting as critic of his own work or as outrider to his own poetics, when the criticism of Coleridge is work in progress or that of T.S. Eliot propaganda.”
—George Steiner (b. 1929)
“The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art—and, by analogy, our own experience—more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.”
—Susan Sontag (b. 1933)
“Parents sometimes feel that if they don’t criticize their child, their child will never learn. Criticism doesn’t make people want to change; it makes them defensive.”
—Laurence Steinberg (20th century)