Is the Child Maintenance Service Value for Money?

 Public services are not judged on cost alone.

They are judged on whether they deliver value.

Under the framework used by the National Audit Office, public spending must be assessed against three key principles:

  • Economy – is money being spent carefully?
  • Efficiency – are resources being used well?
  • Effectiveness – is the system achieving its intended outcomes?

These are the standards applied across Government.

The question is whether the Child Maintenance Service meets them.

The Cost of the System

The Child Maintenance Service costs approximately:

  • £116 million per year to operate

This is public money, funded by taxpayers, and justified on the basis that it supports children by ensuring financial maintenance is paid.

The Cost of the Outcomes

Recent analysis based on Freedom of Information data has identified:

  • 35 suicides among paying parents in a six-month period

Using Parliament’s estimate of £1.67 million per suicide, this equates to:

  • ~£117 million per year

That is broadly equivalent to the entire cost of running the service.

This is not a conclusion about causation.

It is a comparison of cost.

The Impact on Children

The purpose of the system is clear: to support children.

But in practice:

  • When a parent dies, a child loses both a parent and financial support
  • When a parent is forced out of work, financial support is reduced or lost

This creates a contradiction at the heart of the system:

A service designed to support children can, in some circumstances, leave them without both financial support and a parent.

The Impact on Employment

There is also a wider economic issue.

Where maintenance demands are:

  • Disputed
  • Incorrect
  • Or unaffordable

—but enforcement continues, individuals can be pushed beyond their capacity to cope.

  • Loss of tax revenue
  • Increased reliance on benefits

This creates a double cost to the taxpayer:

  1. Lost income
  2. Increased expenditure

A Pattern That Raises Questions

Independent reporting has highlighted that:

  • Death rates among CMS paying parents may be significantly higher than the general population

There have also been:

  • Calls for a full inquiry
  • Concerns raised in Parliament
  • Evidence of distress and hardship among those affected

While no single dataset provides all the answers, the pattern raises legitimate questions.

Value for Money?

Under the principles applied by the National Audit Office:

  • A system that carries a high operational cost
  • Produces outcomes that generate further economic and social cost
  • And may undermine its own stated purpose

…raises serious questions about value for money.

Conclusion

This is not about assigning blame.

It is about asking a fundamental question:

Is the Child Maintenance Service delivering value for taxpayers’ money?

Because when:

  • The cost of the system is high
  • The cost of the outcomes is also high
  • And the intended beneficiaries may not receive the support expected

The issue is no longer just operational.

It is structural.



Read more:

The Double Cost of CMS: £117 Million in Deaths — and the Hidden Cost to the Taxpayer

Child Maintenance Service UK – The Truth Behind the System

 How the State and Gingerbread Framed Innocent Parents As Deadbeat Dads



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The £4 Billion Lie

Image
How the State and Gingerbread Framed Innocent Parents As Deadbeat Dads UK Parliament – Palace of Westminster, home of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee that examined Child Support Agency arrears. For more than thirty years, the British Government and its favoured charity partner, Gingerbread , have cast one group of citizens as villains: the Non  Resident Parent . Labelled “deadbeat dads,” they’ve been accused of failing their children. Behind that slogan lies a manufactured scandal — a fictitious debt worth billions, created by the Child Support Agency (CSA)  on the 1993 -2003 child support schemes and continues to be collected by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). The Henshaw Report (2006): The Warning They Ignored In 2006, the Government commissioned Sir David Henshaw to review the failing Child Support Agency. His report, Recovering Child Support – Routes to Responsibility , was blunt: “The Agency has not delivered agai...
Read more

Gingerbread’s Misrepresentation of Child-Maintenance Arrears

Image
  Findings Summary:  Between 2016 and 2024, the charity Gingerbread (No. 230750) repeatedly asserted in media articles, parliamentary briefings, and reports that £3.8 – £4 billion in unpaid child-maintenance arrears was owed to single parents. This figure appeared in The Guardian , BBC News , The Mirror , The Sun , Raeside Chisholm Solicitors , iNews , and Early Day Motion 575 (19 October 2016) — all explicitly citing Gingerbread as the source. However, official findings from the National Audit Office (NAO), Work and Pensions Committee, and Public Accounts Committee (2009 – 2024) confirmed that the overwhelming majority of this debt was fictitious, inflated, or owed to the Secretary of State, not to parents with care. The House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CBP-7776 (2021) recorded that, of the £3.7 billion in legacy CSA arrears, only £0.1 – £0.6 billion was realistically recoverable. On 7 July 2020, the Charity Commission for England and Wales upheld a public comp...
Read more

Selective Scrutiny: Who Gets Heard on the Child Maintenance Service — And Who Is Shut Out?

Image
Baroness Sherlock Minister responsible for Child Maintenance policy There is a growing problem in the debate around the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), and it is not just about policy. It is about access, influence, and whose evidence is allowed to shape decisions . Direct Access — But Not for Everyone On its own website, Gingerbread confirms that it has already taken part in a roundtable meeting with Baroness Sherlock, where single parents were invited to speak directly to the Minister about their experiences. That matters. It shows that certain stakeholder groups are being given direct access to ministerial discussions , with the opportunity to shape both narrative and policy direction. At the same time, groups such as STOPSuicides UK (STOPS) — who are raising evidence of systemic harm, including suicide and elevated mortality linked to CMS processes — have been repeatedly refused equivalent engagement. The issue is not that Gingerbread is being heard. The issue is that others ar...
Read more