Log in
This report discusses the impact of the work by Rudge and Gilchrist on the relationship between fuel poverty and poor health.This work has been used as evidence on the health effects of fuel poverty by consumer and advisory groups, NHS groups, UK central and local government and various overseas organisations.
Fuel poverty is a serious social problem. Research within the Unit has changed official understanding and measurement of fuel poverty. High quality work within the Unit examining poverty measurement, specific issues around fuel poverty, impacts of energy efficiency measures for housing, and of the distributional effects of energy price increases, resulted in the Government inviting Professor Hills, in 2011, to lead a review of how fuel poverty is measured. His March 2012 report recommended a new `low income high costs' framework as the indicator for fuel poverty. In September 2012, the Government's consultation paper proposed that this be adopted for future official statistics. The Government confirmed this decision in July 2013 and published a Framework for Future Action on the problem, based on the review's analysis.
In November 2008, Professor Sir Michael Marmot and his team at UCL were asked by the Secretary of State for Health to chair an independent review to propose the most effective evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England. The Marmot Review, published in 2010, has fundamentally shifted discourse on health inequalities in the UK and internationally. It has shaped public health services across England and around the world, guided government and international policy, and has given rise to a new commitment from service providers and health professionals to reducing health inequalities and addressing the social determinants of health.
GCU research into media coverage and public perceptions of poverty, and measures to tackle poverty has had an impact on policy making, policy content and the public discourse of poverty. Deprived communities have been the primary beneficiaries of this impact, e.g. GCU research helped secure pledges from all the main Scottish political parties to avoid stigmatising and socially divisive language in discussing poverty. Secondary beneficiaries have been campaigning organisations whose media engagement strategies have improved. Finally, GCU poverty research has informed the Scottish Government's Child Poverty Strategy and the child poverty measures of Community Planning Partnerships.
Funded by JRF and ESRC, a long-term series of qualitative studies with residents of very deprived neighbourhoods in Teesside has reached important conclusions about the realities of worklessness and poverty. Many of these run counter to prevailing thinking amongst politicians, policy makers and practitioners. Thus, the research has been used to influence the thinking and the practices of organisations (nationally and regionally) that seek to tackle problems of poverty and worklessness. The research has informed political debate in the UK and EU and has been used nationally and regionally to improve the way that problems of worklessness, poverty and `the low-pay cycle' are understood and responded to. Impact has come about as a consequence of the academic profile and reputation of the underpinning research and a subsequent planned and concerted set of dissemination, public engagement and knowledge exchange activities.
Poor people define poverty to include a simultaneous lack of education, health, housing, mployment and income, among other factors. Recognising this, Sabina Alkire and James Foster developed an axiomatic methodology of measurement that incorporates multiple dimensions of poverty — the Alkire Foster method (AF). The AF method provides a robust, `open-source' measurement tool for policy-making. One key impact is an AF index covering 100+ countries, published annually in the UNDP's Human Development Reports. Another is national adoption by three governments and a multidimensional poverty peer network of 22 governments and agencies. The AF method is also incorporated into other internationally recognised well-being measures such as USAID's 19-country Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index, and Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index.
Globally, many health research-funding organisations, public and charitable, felt the need to demonstrate to policymakers and the public how their investments in research were benefitting society. HERG's research on developing techniques for assessing the payback (or impact) from health research tackled this need. The payback stream of research itself has had significant, wide- reaching and cumulative impacts. First, internationally, health research funding bodies adopted the framework in their evaluation strategies, including to provide accountability. Second, many stakeholders made extensive use the findings of payback studies in public debate and private lobbying for public expenditure on health research. Third, governments, public research funding bodies and medical research charities, from the UK to Australia, used the findings from payback studies to inform decisions regarding the levels and distribution of health research funding, with the aim of increasing the health and economic benefits that come from investments in research.
The primary beneficiaries of Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) research into media representations of poverty are people experiencing poverty themselves. Mediating beneficiaries are editors and journalists; television drama producers; politicians and political parties and third-sector organisations. The research has:
In Bangladesh, 50 million people live in poverty and around 28 million live in extreme poverty. To date, development agencies have focussed almost exclusively on the needs of the poor and ignored those of the extreme poor. Building on years of poverty research in Bangladesh, researchers at the University of Bath have played a key role designing and then developing a £65 million programme, which is the country's first national scale initiative focusing exclusively on extreme poverty. Impacts from the programme include improving the livelihoods of one million extreme poor people; helping NGOs design innovative programmes for the extreme poor; and embedding the discourse around extreme poverty in the polity.
Jonathan Bradshaw and colleagues at York influenced UK and international measures of child poverty, child deprivation and child well-being. The multi-dimensional well-being measures have been adopted by UNICEF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Office for National statistics (ONS) is now developing measures of child happiness based on our work.
Our research highlighted how badly children in Britain were doing. Informed by this evidence, a Government strategy was developed after 1999 and investment in children improved at least until 2010. As a result, child poverty and well-being improved in the UK. Our work contributed to moving the national and international discourse beyond a focus on income poverty.