Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T20:37:48.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Estimating the Cost of Contact for Non-resident Parents: A Budget Standards Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2001

PAUL HENMAN
Affiliation:
Sociology Department, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia
KYLE MITCHELL
Affiliation:
Strategic Policy and Analysis Branch, Australian Department of Family and Community Services, Box 7788, Canberra ACT 2610, Australia

Abstract

Most Western countries have, for some time, provided income support and/or taxation relief to parents with children in their care. The significant amount of research into the costs of children to couple and sole parent households has been important in assessing and developing family support policies. Changing societal expectations about the level of involvement of fathers in child rearing activities has highlighted the need to understand the costs facing usually male non-resident parents in having contact with their children. The budget standards methodology is used in this paper to estimate the costs for non-resident parents exercising regular contact with their children. Costs of contact are found to be high. For contact with one child for 20 per cent of the year, costs of contact represent about 40 per cent of the costs of that same child in an intact couple household with a medium income and more than half of the costs of that child in a household with low income. Household infrastructure and transportation is the reason for high costs. One implication of this finding is that the total cost of children substantially increases when parents separate. The article discusses some policy implications of these findings. This research is of relevance to social security, taxation, family law and child support policies and administration.

Type
Article
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and can not be taken to reflect the official views of the Australian Department of Family and Community Services nor of the Australian Government. We greatly appreciate the advice of Marilyn McHugh and Peter Whiteford in undertaking this research and the preparation of this article. Our appreciation is also given to two reviewers whose comments have led to an improved article.