Why the Child Maintenance Service Fails the Value for Money Test

Public spending in the UK is not assessed in vague terms.

It is measured against a clear standard used by the National Audit Office:

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

These are not optional benchmarks.

They are the basis on which Government systems are judged.

1. Economy – The Cost of the System

The Child Maintenance Service costs approximately:

  • £116 million per year

This is justified on the basis that the system ensures financial support reaches children.

But cost alone does not determine value.

What matters is what that spending delivers.

2. Efficiency – The Cost of the Outcomes

Freedom of Information data has identified:

  • 35 suicides among paying parents in approximately six months

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

  • ~£117 million per year

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

This is not a claim of causation.

It is a comparison of cost.

A system that generates outcomes carrying economic costs comparable to its operational budget raises serious questions about efficiency.

3. Effectiveness – Is the System Achieving Its Purpose?

The purpose of the Child Maintenance Service is clear:

To ensure children receive financial support.

But in practice:

  • When a parent dies, financial support is lost
  • When a parent is forced out of work, financial support is reduced or stops
  • When disputes remain unresolved, payments can become unsustainable

This leads to a fundamental contradiction:

A system designed to support children can, in some circumstances, fail to deliver that support.

The Human Impact Behind the Numbers

These are not abstract issues.

Independent reporting has highlighted:

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

There have been:

  • Calls for a public inquiry
  • Evidence of severe distress among those affected
  • Cases where incorrect or disputed arrears have played a central role

While each case must be assessed individually, the pattern is sufficient to require scrutiny.

The Wider Economic Impact

The financial implications extend beyond direct costs.

Where individuals are pushed out of work:

  • Tax revenue is lost
  • Benefit expenditure increases

This creates a double cost to the taxpayer:

  1. Reduced income
  2. Increased spending

At the same time, the intended outcome—financial support for children—is undermined.

Does the System Meet the NAO Standard?

Measured against the three core principles:

  • Economy – High cost
  • Efficiency – Outcomes generating comparable economic cost
  • Effectiveness – Evidence that intended outcomes are not consistently achieved

This raises a clear and legitimate question:

Does the Child Maintenance Service meet the value for money standard expected of public spending?

Conclusion

This is not about rhetoric.

It is about applying the same test used across Government.

When a system:

  • Costs over £100 million per year
  • Is associated with significant additional economic cost
  • And may not consistently achieve its stated purpose

…it is reasonable to ask whether it meets the standard of being:

economical, efficient, and effective

If it does not, then the issue is not isolated.

It is systemic.


Further Reading

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

Is the Child Maintenance Service Value for Money?




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