Talk:Child Support Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Child Support Agency: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • POV check - as rewrite was mostly by one author. If other editors are happy, please remove this.
  • Existing sections:
    • Calculations, do these need clarifying?
    • Sytems, background (I believe it's by EDS, same people that are doing ID cards)
    • Critisms - Surely there are some positive comments in the news?
  • New Sections:
    • Amount of money going through the system
    • Payment methods,and breakdown, e.g. salary deductions.
    • Disagreements - e.g. DNA testing requirements? (ref case where man was proven not to be the father, after paying for years [1])
    • Stats - breakdown of male/female being parent with care relavent?

Overall, I think the non-critism sections need expanding to avoid the article coming acorss as too negitive. Unfortunately, references for critism are easier to find, although the two (old and new) leaflets have a lot of background

I believe that placing this item as the root page for 'Child Support Agency' is inappropriate given the number of agencies around the world with the same name who also have Wikipedia entries, but are not immediately findable within Wikipedia's search. This leaves bias towards UK Wikipedia users, disadvantaging those from other countries seeking the domestic equivalients.

As such I recommend developing a new root navigational page which provides background information on the general operation of these types of agencies and links to all appropriate agencies and moving the current content to a page such as 'Child Support Agency UK'.

I believe this extensive a change needs the involvement of an official Wikipedia editor. Aceyducey (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this current article is biased against the Child Support agency and does not leave the impression of a balanced view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terry Keen (talk • contribs) 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Overhaul

I agree with the above that the article is unbalanced, many of the claims are unsupported and use "weasal words". It's also factually incorrect in places, e.g. criteria when the CSA can get involved. I think it needs a complete overhaul. I'm going to try and do some of it, as the csa website appears to be easy to navigate to find the information required. Plus, there are several bbc articles on the CSA which give background reading and other points to include. MartinRe 13:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks great now. I made 2 very minor changes, but other then that it seems like a complete and well-cited article. ---J.Smith 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) I've done my best to cite everything, but it's far from complete! However, I underestimated how tiring writing in depth on one topic is, so will be back to this article again soon. MartinRe 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've just completed a first draft of a rewrite. Have tried to expand the article quite a bit, including lots of citations. Comments welome. Even better someone else can continue - full articles are quite hard work! MartinRe 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On reading, can see some things that need correcting/adding (not including typos)
  • calculations %63 under old rules is running total, should be better phrased.
  • systems needs more info and references.
  • critism - surely there are positive articles out there too?
  • stats are confusing, would like to have X cases per yer figure, but can't figure out which figures in the report that is.
  • link to ICE in external links.
And of course, written in more flowing prose, which isn't my strongest suit! MartinRe 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors section

For the year April 2004 – May 2005, Department for Work and Pensions statistics show an accuracy rate of 75% (new scheme) and 78% (old scheme), a drop from the previous years' 82% and 86%. Interim reports for the current year (April 2005 – May 2006), show an improvement to 83% and 84%, respectively.

That's what it looks like now (in line citation removed). Being someone who doesnt know anything more about the CSA then what I have just read, can you give more information about what an error is? Is it something as simple as a typo in the mail-address or something more-major? ---J.Smith 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much more myself, having never had to deal with them. However, the error figures are taken from the stats marked "This table shows the proportion of maintenance decisions (calculations or assesssments) carried out in the reporting period that were checked and found to be accurate to the nearest penny." Proably should put that in, rather than expect readers to follow the reference just to get that info. MartinRe 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-check

I've added a POV-check template on the top, for discussion on the neutrality of the article. MartinRe 11:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup work

I just wikified most of the article, merged some sections and did a general cleanup on the article fixing wording and spelling errors - I also added the CSA logo image. I hope this helps!— Wackymacs 09:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it does, it reads much better now, my style was way too jumpy. Cheers. MartinRe 12:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] updating page

I'm going to update the page, as it looks like a little more information about "C-MEC" has emerged since this article was last worked on. Also there a mistake in the Functions and Involvement section, a child cannot request a case to opened against an NRP(s) unless they are resident in Scotland (where the legislation allows this). Potentially this could mislead a child leaving in England or Wales.

--Grahamhopgood 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] proposed merge

It has been proposed that some of the material contained in the topic currently titled Child support should be merged with this article. Rogerfgay 10:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)