Rural

Building a long-term vision for the countryside – what can we take from #Rural2040?

Building a long-term vision for the countryside – what can we take from #Rural2040?

On 30 June 2021, the European Commission published a long-term vision for rural areas. What does the vision contain, will it help rural communities and businesses reach their full potential in the coming decades, and will it raise the profile of the countryside amongst policy makers? Jessica Sellick investigates.   

Under the strapline of ‘a vibrant tapestry of life and landscapes, Europe’s rural areas provide us with our food, homes, jobs, and essential ecosystem services’, the European Commission recently published a long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas up to 2040. Why and how has the European Commission developed this vision, what does it contain, how will it be implemented, and what can rural areas outside of the EU take from it?  

Why develop a vision? 

In 2018, rural areas represented 83% of the total EU areas and were home to 30.6% of the EU’s population. Rural areas in the EU are defined by a wide range of social, economic and environmental qualities: 

  • The percentage of the population at risk of poverty and social exclusion is higher in rural areas than in towns and cities. 
  • In cities, the average road distance to the nearest doctor is 3.5km whilst for remote rural areas the average distance is some 21.5km. 
  • 60% of households in rural areas have access to fast broadband compared to 86% of the EU population as a whole. 
  • Since 2012, the employment rate in rural areas for people aged 20-64 years has increased across the EU from 68% to 73%. However, the total number of employed persons has not increased, suggesting that the increase in the employment rate is due to the decrease of the active population.
  • In 2018, the average GDP per capita in rural regions was only three quarters of the EU average.
  • In 2018 and 2019, 50% of rural residents tended to trust the EU compared to 55% of the city residents, while only 37% of rural residents tended to trust their national government (compared to 41% in cities). Rural residents are more likely to trust local and regional authorities (57%) than their national government or the EU.
  • Rural residents were more likely to participate in formal and informal voluntary activities (20% and 24% respectively) compared to urban residents (17% formal and 22% informal).  

While some rural areas are the most prosperous and well performing in their countries, others are experiencing demographic ageing, depopulation and poverty. These figures illuminate some of the opportunities and challenges facing Europe’s rural areas – including territorial governance, social sustainability, community health and wellbeing and infrastructure development. The vision has therefore been developed to address regional and territorial disparities between rural areas which have continued to persist. 

According to the Communication issued by the European Commission, the long-term vision is intended to build upon ‘the emerging opportunities of the EU’s green and digital transitions and the lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic’ and  identify ‘the means to improve rural quality of life, achieve balanced territorial development and stimulate economic growth in rural areas’. 

To develop the vision, a foresight exercise ‘EU Rural Areas 2040’ took place in 2020 to develop future scenarios describing different pathways towards 2040. Four scenarios were produced in collaboration with the European Network Rural Development (ENRD) thematic group on Long Term Rural Vision:  

  1. Rurbanities scenario – people turn to rural areas looking for a higher quality of life. Rural communities subsequently benefit from a diversity of economic activities and job opportunities. However, there is limited coordination between different governance levels, little sense for ‘local community’ and a ‘not-in-my-backyard’ attitude contributing to tensions between residents and policy-makers. 
  2. Rural renewal scenario – increasing numbers of people move to rural areas wanting more sustainable living. Nature-based solutions, circular economy and sustainable pathways have been implemented and there is a conscious effort in building and maintaining communities. 
  3. Rural connections scenario – as population numbers and economic activity decline in rural areas it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain smaller villages, so people start to concentrate around rural hubs. To manage this transition, priority is given to digital infrastructure to facilitate connection and networking, e-services (e.g. health, education), and agriculture (e.g. precision farming, automation). 
  4. Rural specialisation scenario – most people have moved to urban centres due to lower economic and social opportunities and minimal public support in rural areas. Land management is left in the hands of a few actors, resulting in large-scale automated facilities (e.g. farms, renewable energy installations). 

These scenarios were tested through a series of participatory workshops. These sessions also took account of internal and external factors that could cause change, including multilevel governance: the extent to which actors coordinate, collaborate and make collective decisions; and demography: the extent to which the rural population increases due to in-migration from urban centres [expansion], or decreases due to out-migration to urban centres and an ageing population [shrinkage]. Workshop attendees also considered other issues in the sessions such as environmental drivers (e.g. climate change and availability and quality of natural resources); socio-economic drivers (e.g. sense of community, availability and access to services, globalisation); technological drivers (e.g. digitalisation, new mobility); and drivers related to land use and the future of the agricultural sector. 

Some general observations emerged from this foresight work: 

  • All of the scenarios place an emphasis on the central role that digital infrastructure and services have for future activities in rural places. 
  • While rural areas will continue to play an essential role for food, energy, environmental services/protection and leisure; the social importance of rural areas differs depending on demographic developments.
  • Whether the population increases or decreases in rural places, this change needs to be carefully managed – with active community building needed to integrate a more diverse rural population. 
  • Land use management will require more attention as climate change mitigation and adaptation become more important – from tackling rural sprawl through to the abandonment of land.  

In addition to this visioning work, the ENRD undertook an extensive consultation which is summarised in the diagram below:  

Between September and November 2020, the European Commission ran a public consultation on the vision. 2,326 responses were received with the analysis finding: 

  • More than 50% of respondents stated that infrastructure is the most pressing need for rural areas, specifically in terms of establishing a better public transport system. 
  • More than two-thirds of respondents (67%) indicated that ‘quality job opportunities’ are not sufficiently available for people living in rural areas (52% rarely available and 15% unavailable). 
  • The two most important reasons for deciding to live in a rural area were ‘better quality of life’ (72% very important and 22% important) and ‘less polluted environment, less heat stress, proximity to nature’ (75% very important and 20% important). 
  • ‘Farming/agriculture’ is perceived as the most important sector by 93% of the respondents (74% rated it as very important and 19% as important). ‘The agri-food sector (including processing of primary products)’ is considered the second most important sector (61% viewed it as very important and 29% as important). 
  • Respondents suggested the attractiveness of rural areas in 20 years’ time depends on the availability of digital connectivity and basic services/E-services: 93% of the replies highlighted digital connectivity (71% much more attractive and 22% more attractive) and 94% basic services/E-services (69% much more attractive and 25% attractive). 
  • The reduction of the impact of farming on climate and environment was also seen as influencing the attractiveness of rural areas for 92% of the respondents (with 66% stating this would make a rural area much more attractive and 26% more attractive). 

In early 2021, the ERND thematic group on Long Term Rural Vision undertook a ‘rural voices’ consultation – with 170 contributions from 19 Member States and 3,000 people participating in workshops. The following overarching points emerged from the consultation: 

  • Rural Europe is highly differentiated and that differentiation is important in shaping local people’s vision of the future. 
  • Demographic change providers a barometer of possible opportunities – from attracting diaspora back to welcoming new residents; and this all requires more emphasis on viable public infrastructure and decent jobs to create a ‘more equal playing field’ with urban areas. 
  • COVID-19 has made it hard to detect a vision of rural Europe 20 years into the future – whilst the challenges of the ‘here and now’ predominate, the vision should take practical steps towards the longer view. 
  • The importance of available, affordable and accessible high-quality digital infrastructure. 
  • The need to put in place basic services and appropriate infrastructure to achieve the long-term vision. 
  • The strength of community spirit, volunteering and social support in rural communities – but the need for capacity building to maintain these activities. 
  • Concerns were expressed about climate change, environmental degradation and pressure from unsustainable agricultural practices. 
  • The need to develop holistic, place-based strategies with local communities. 

In March 2021, a Rural Vision Week conference was held by the ENRD to triangulate the findings from all of the workshops and public consultations. In April 2021, a Eurobarometer survey was carried out to assess the priorities for the vision. The survey found 79% of respondents supported the European Commission giving consideration to rural areas in public spending decisions; 65% of those surveyed thought that local areas or provinces should be able to decide how European rural investment is spent; and 44% cited transport infrastructure and connections as key needs in rural Europe. 

All of these consultation activities informed the final vision which was published by the European Commission on 30 June 2021. 

What does the vision contain? 

The vision is intended to drive stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040: 

a) Stronger rural areas 

“Innovation in rural areas is not led by big corporates. It is community-led”

This driver aims to ensure rural areas are home to empowered and vibrant local communities – where every individual can take an active part in policy and decision-making processes. The vision calls for the development of place-based and integrated policy solutions and investments. To ensure rural areas are attractive places to live and work, the vision calls for innovative solutions for the provision of services such as water, health care, transport, energy and digital communications. 

b) Connected rural areas 

“Broadband needs to be an essential service. It is a means to an end, not the end itself”

This driver is focused around maintaining and improving affordable transport services and infrastructure such as roads, railways and waterways. The potential for rural areas to act as hubs for the development, testing and deployment of sustainable and innovative mobility solutions should be further explored. Digital infrastructure is regarded as an enabler for rural areas to improve community capacity and their attractiveness  

c) Resilient rural areas that foster well-being 

This driver calls for rural areas to play a central role in the European Green Deal – preserving natural resources, restoring landscapes, greening farming and shortening supply chains to make rural places more resilient to climate change, natural hazards and economic crises. Different sustainable activities should be able to coexist (e.g. family agricultural activities should be carried out in harmony with other economic activities). This driver also seeks to strengthen the social resilience of rural areas – by tapping into the full breadth of talents and diversity in societies: from opening up good quality job opportunities in rural areas to paying particular attention to marginalised, disadvantaged and under-represented groups.  

d) Prosperous rural areas    

“Continue the commitment to support the diversification of activities and functions of rural areas…providing greater support for small and micro scale projects, especially promoted by young people and unemployed, avoiding their leaving for the cities”

This driver calls for the diversification of economic activities based on sustainable local economic strategies. This should provide rural communities with access to digital infrastructure, skills and support entrepreneurial mindsets. The important role played by agriculture, forestry and fisheries should be preserved – labelling schemes and advertising campaigns should acknowledge the quality and variety of local and traditional food products. 

Taken as a collective, these four drivers are intended to deliver the following common aspirations of rural communities and stakeholders by 2040: 

  1. Rural areas are attractive spaces, developed in harmonious territorial development, unlocking their specific potential, making them places of opportunity and providing local solutions to help tackle the local effects of global challenges. 
  2. Rural communities are engaged in multi-level and place-based governance, developing integrated strategies using collaborative and participatory approaches, benefitting from tailor-made policy mixes and interdependencies between urban and rural areas. 
  3. Rural areas are providers of food security, economic opportunities, goods and services for wider society, such as bio-based materials and energy but also local, community-based high-quality products, renewable energy, retaining a fair share of the value generated. 
  4. Rural dwellers make up dynamic communities focusing on well-being, including livelihoods, fairness, prosperity and quality of life, where all people live and work well together, with adequate capacity for mutual support.
  5. Rural communities are inclusive of inter-generational solidarity fairness and renewal, open to newcomers and foster equal opportunities for all. 
  6. Rural areas are flourishing sources of nature, enhanced by and contributing to the objectives of the Green Deal, including climate neutrality, as well as sustainable management of natural resources. 
  7. Rural residents and businesses fully benefit from digital innovation with equal access to emerging technologies, widespread digital literacy and opportunities to acquire more advanced skills.
  8. Rural communities comprise entrepreneurial, innovative and skilled people, co-creating technological, ecological and social progress. 
  9. Rural areas are lively places equipped with efficient, accessible and affordable public and private services, including cross border services, providing tailored solutions (such as transport, education, training, health and care, including long-term care, social life and retail business). 
  10. Rural areas are places of diversity, where communities make the most out of their unique assets, talents and potential.

These 10 shared goals are intended to endorse the vision. 

How will the vision be implemented? 

The European Commission has embedded the vision under ‘priority 6 – a new push for European democracy for 2019-2024’ – which is set against a backdrop of digital transition, green transition, and COVID recovery.   

The European Commission has published an EU Rural Action Plan and is developing a Rural Pact. 

The Action Plan sets out tangible projects and initiatives. It is based around the four drivers of activity, targeted at bringing together different EU policy areas: 

The European Commission intends to monitor and regularly update its Action Plan. Significantly, the development of the vision has led to a renewed focus from stakeholders on assessing EU policies through a rural lens. As part of the Better Regulation Agenda, the European Commission intends to put a rural proofing mechanism into place – this is intended to assess the anticipated impact of major EU legislative initiatives on rural areas and will include regular rural proofing monitoring reports.

The vision requires more and better data to be made available to better understand the social, economic and environmental conditions on rural areas. To deliver this, the European Commission is setting up a Rural Observatory to improve data collection and analysis on rural areas. The Observatory is tasked with centralising and analysing data [through a rural data portal], informing on relevant EU initiatives for rural areas, and analysing the achievements of the Rural Action Plan.

To improve synergies and complementarities between funds that contribute to rural development, the European Commission is developing a toolkit on access to and optimal combination of EU funding opportunities for rural areas. This will present all funding opportunities in one document and be accessible to Local Authorities, stakeholders, project holders and managing authorities. The toolkit is intended to support rural areas to take up new opportunities offered in the 2021-2027 budget.

Throughout 2021 the European Commission is developing a Rural Pact. This is intended to set out the path to achieving the goals of the vision. In mid-2023, the European Commission intends to take stock of the actions carried out so far, programme in support schemes to 2027, and highlight any gaps to address beyond the current funding period. These findings will be publicly available in early 2024 and feed into preparations for the 2028-2034 programming period.       

Supporting much of this work, the ENRD thematic group on the Long Term Rural Vision workplan [covering the period July 2020-July 2021] is focussed around facilitating discussions with National Rural Networks and other national, regional and local stakeholders. 

What does the vision offer to rural areas outside of Europe? 

While there can be drawbacks from looking at visions from elsewhere – not least because these documents are always context, place and community specific; how might we exchange ideas and practice around #Rural2040? I offer eight reflections. 

  1. Drivers: there are lots of competing demands in rural areas – is a vision or strategy about ensuring residents have equal, equitable and/or fair access to services? Is it about producing food, protecting the environment and/or public goods? Growing the green economy and adapting to climate change? Preserving settlements and landscapes for visitors to enjoy? All of the above or something else? Should rural strategies focus on broad issues (e.g. population growth or decline), target specific issues (e.g. access to health or education services) or both? #Rural2040 was developed in response to public consultations that found the role and importance of rural areas is under-appreciated and that many residents feel left behind by society and policy-makers. The vision was developed to address their challenges and concerns and to identify ways of improving rural quality of life. #Rural2040 is both strategic in the topics it encompasses (e.g. demographic change, digital infrastructure, access to services) but also translatable into practical actions (e.g. a training centre on rural innovation, digital innovation hubs to roll out digital infrastructure, the carbon-farming initiative).  
  2. Places – the recently adopted Territorial Agenda is a strategic document for spatial planning in the European Union. It is anchored in place-based approaches and the involvement of stakeholders at all governance levels in order to make the most of the potential of rural areas. This approach begins to move away from administrative definitions to more functional definitions of rural that capture the realities, complexities and interconnectivity of rural places. Visions or strategies need to be ‘place appropriate’ in recognising the heterogeneity of rural areas. 
  3. Deliverability: the European Commission intends to monitor the implementation of the EU Rural Action Plan and liaise with Member States, stakeholders, bodies and institutions on a regular basis to offer a platform for exchanges on rural issues. The Action Plan contains flagship projects and initiatives that the European Commission and Member States wish to implement. As per #Rural2040, how can we ensure rural visions and strategies are shared across national, regional and local stakeholders – whilst being clear on who is responsible and accountable for their implementation?  
  4. Resources – the European Commission is developing a toolkit on access to funding opportunities for rural areas, seeking to make full use of the 2021-2027 budget and programming in investment for the budget in 2028 and beyond. In addition, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and InvestEU, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is also able to contribute to existing investment gaps in rural areas. More widely, policy and decision making is often driven by a ‘worst first’ approach in that public funding is targeted at those communities deemed the most challenged or deprived. This can often divert attention away from other rural communities that, with a bit of resource, could thrive. Moreover, some visions or strategies are not accompanied by any mandatory funding at all. They can also be time-limited and provide uncertainty rather than stability.  How much public funding is being invested in rural areas – and what methodology or approach is being used to estimate the figures (e.g. population, need, geography). How much does it cost to deliver projects and initiatives in rural areas and how much money is being spent and by whom? Rural visions or strategies need to recognise the strong relationships between residents, businesses, the voluntary and community sector and local groups who often form the basis of action. With less access to services than their urban counterparts, many rural communities set up or run a service on their own account because of public sector funding reductions and/or market failure – what do we actually need to invest in our rural areas to help them thrive?    
  5. Rural lens –the European Commission will be introducing a new rural proofing mechanism to assess the anticipated impact of major legislative initiatives on rural areas. This will draw upon ‘territorial impact assessments’ and better monitoring of the situation of rural areas. In March 2021, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published its first cross-government rural proofing report. This is intended to provide a baseline for evaluating performance over time – and includes sections on economy, infrastructure, services and the natural environment. Notwithstanding how rural and urban areas are intertwined, all too often the starting point for rural documents is urban based i.e., policy makers seek to understand how rural areas are different from urban areas by concentrating on built up areas – defined according to their population size, density, access to services or type of land use etc. Applying a rural lens should seek to ensure that rural places and communities are able to take advantage of policies, programmes and practice.  
  6. Bottom-up: over the last 30 years communities within the EU have been empowered to develop local strategies with CAP funding under the LEADER approach. Since 2007 local development has also been used within the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to support the sustainable development of coastal communities. More recently, the European Union’s cohesion policy has also seen Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) and the development of a Smart Villages approach. #Rural2040 builds on LEADER and CLLD in setting out how local communities are best placed to assess the relative strengths of their territories and to build upon them. This highlights the importance of taking a flexible and bottom-up approach in ways that fit the grain of different rural places and communities (e.g. terrior, eat the view). 
  7. Data: #Rural2040 includes a commitment from the European Commission to establish a Rural Observatory which will work alongside EUROSTAT, the Joint Research Centre’s Knowledge Centre for Territorial Policies, ESPON and Horizon Europe.  Data is often scattered across different platforms, in different formats, with different indicators. It is often collected for a specific purpose without thinking through its wider applicability and significance. How can / will the Observatory bring together, process and present information about what it is like to live and work in rural areas? And, if you project data between now and 2040: does it become easier, stay about the same, or become more difficult to live in a rural area? This underlines the need to have a better understanding on what data we already have, how it can be interrogated, where the gaps are – and how these might be filled. We need to be able to use data in a more holistic way to better develop a picture of different rural places.  
  8. Diversity: #Rural2040 aims to tap into the full breadth of talents in society, paying particular attention to young people, older people, people with disabilities, LGBTQI+, migrants and Roma communities. How can we work to ensure all voices in our rural communities are heard, ensuring the visions and strategies we develop are fair, inclusive and present opportunities for all?    

From the fair deal for rural communities published back in November 2000 and the Rural Strategy Defra published in 2004,  through to the Government-wide Rural Statement in 2012; all have sought to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to rural communities. And yet while some of these documents contained a vision for thriving rural communities in a living, working, countryside and stimulated discussions; they have not necessarily provided a platform or roadmap for change. Since 2019 the Rural Services Network (RSN) has been calling on Government to take the lead and work with interested organisations to produce a long-term and funded Rural Strategy for England. 

In a speech in July 2019, the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen described rural areas as being “the fabric of our society and the heartbeat of our economy. They are a core part of our identity and our economic potential. We will cherish and preserve our rural areas and invest in the future”. Will #Rural2040 lead to a new and reinvigorated agenda for change or fail to address the different opportunities, challenges an barriers affecting European rural communities? Watch this space… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; and evaluating two employability programmes helping people furthest from the labour market. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older and vulnerable people. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Rural retirement

Are rural residents ‘retirement-ready’?

Although the idea of offering a State Pension was first proposed in the eighteenth century it was not until the Government established two committees in the 1890s (the Rothschild Committee on Old Age Pensions in 1896 and a Select Committee on the Aged Deserving Poor in 1899) that the matter was fully explored. This led to the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 which resulted in the Government providing 5 shillings to those over 70 who had an income of less than 10 shillings a week. The first pension system was therefore a means of averting poverty in older age. Since then successive Governments have made many changes to pension provision – resulting in a system today which is both complex and multi-layered. What does the current pension landscape look like and what might future reforms mean? Jessica Sellick investigates.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is a pension? A pension is a form of income you can use in later life. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is responsible for ‘providing a decent income for people of pension age and promoting saving for retirement’. DWP provides pensions, benefits and retirement information for current and future older people in the UK and abroad. The services they currently deliver include State Pension and Pension Credit, as well as Winter Fuel Payments, Cold Weather Payments, Carer’s Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Visiting Service. In 2018-2019 DWP spent some £182.5 billion on benefit payments from its Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) – with the majority of these payments, £101.1 billion, to older people. Of the £110.1 billion – £96.6 billion was spent on State Pension, £5.6 billion on Housing Benefit, £5.1 billion on Pension Credit, £2 billion on Winter Fuel Payments and £0.8 billion on other benefits (e.g. free TV licences for the over 75s). 

Today there are several different types of pension schemes available to help people save money for their future. These schemes vary according to an individual’s circumstances – including how much they have or want to pay into them, and in how they operate. The amount an individual receives is dependent upon how much money they have contributed into their pension pot during their working life.  

What is the pensions system in the UK like? According to The Pensions Policy Institute (PPI), the UK pension system has three tiers:

  • Tier 1 is provided by the state and consists of a basic level of pension to which almost everyone either contributes or has access. This provides every citizen with a minimum level of retirement income.
  • Tier 2 is also administered by the state and aims to provide pension income that is more closely related to employees’ earnings levels. Tier 2 is less redistributive (from higher-income to lower income) than Tier 1. Tier 1 and Tier 2 operate on a ‘pay-as-you-go’ contributory basis, through the National Insurance (NI) system. 
  • Tier 3 is voluntary (private) pension arrangements that are not directly funded by the state. Private pension contributions can come from employers and/or employees and funds provide designated pensions for the individual. The primary aim of private pensions is to redistribute income across an individual’s lifetime, and not to redistribute income from higher-income to lower-income people. Tier 3 includes pensions arising from automatic enrolment, a policy requiring employers to enrol eligible employees into a qualifying workplace pension scheme.

These tiers are summarised in the diagram below:

PPI, pensions guide primer, 2019, page 2

For tier 1, State Pension entitlement is based on an individual’s NI contribution record. Any tax year in which an individual makes, or is credited with making, sufficient NI contributions is known as a qualifying year. There are 27 activities that can credit someone into the State Pension without them having to pay contributions (e.g. if an individual is receiving Statutory Sick Pay, Statutory Paternity or Adoption Pay, Carers Allowance, Jobseeker’s Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance). People can also make voluntary contributions to fill gaps in their contribution record. For people applying for State Pension on or after 6 April 2016, thirty-five years of NI contributions are necessary to qualify for a full State Pension – with a minimum of ten qualifying years necessary to get any new State Pension.  

The Pensions Act 2014 includes a review of the State Pension Age (SPA) at least once every 5 years and is underpinned by an assumption that people should expect to spend a third or less of their adult life in retirement; where adult life is defined as starting at aged 20 years. The SPA – the minimum legal age at which State Pension can be claimed – has been increasing incrementally from age 65 to reach age 66 in October 2020. The SPA was scheduled to increase to 67 years between 2034 and 2036 and to 68 years between 2044 and 2046. However, Government brought forward the rise to age 67 years to take place between 2026 and 2028.  In March 2017 the Independent State Pension Age Review was published. The Review recommended that the SPA increase to 68 years over a two-year period starting in 2037 and ending in 2039, to reflect changes in life expectancy. 

There are three strands to tier 2 provision, which like tier 1 is also provided by the state: (i) Graduated Retirement Benefit; (ii) State Earnings Related Pension Schemes; and (iii) Second State Pension. These schemes are historic and people have not been able to build up entitlement for an Additional State Pension since 2016. 

The third tier of provision is private pensions, including workplace pensions and individual pension schemes. These are not directly funded by the state. These schemes tend to be Defined Benefit (DB) or Defined Contribution (DC). With DB, contributions are varied in order to ensure that the level of promised benefits is reached; whereas with DC contributions are usually expressed as a percentage of salary or total earnings [where the DC could be a flat rate or tiered by age or length of service].  The Pensions Schemes Act 2015 introduced legislation to facilitate shared risk and collective benefit schemes and are based on the level or amount of pension benefits, with elements of DB, DC and/or Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) schemes.

Automatic Enrolment (AR) has resulted in more employees joining pension schemes. Employees aged between 22 years and SPA are eligible for automatic enrolment into a scheme chosen by their employer, with employees having the right to opt-out. AR began in October 2012 when larger employers (with 250+ employees) were required to auto-enrol eligible employees between October 2012 and February 2014. Medium employers (those with 50-249 employees) were required to auto-enrol eligible employees between April 2014 and April 2015 and small employers (those with fewer than 50 employees) to do so between June 2015 and April 2017. For employees who opt in to AR a minimum of 8% of their band earnings must be paid in – of this 3% is contributed by the employer and 5% is paid in by the employee. Employees have the right to opt out – and must revisit their decision every 3 years. A review of AR published by DWP in December 2017 made a number of recommendations from the mid-2020s including removing the lower limit on the salary for contributions [currently £10,000]; reducing the minimum age from 22 years to 18 years; and finding new ways to improve pension saving for self-employed people. 

How much state pension do people receive? Between 1974 and 1979 the State Pension (tier 1) was increased annually by the greater of the increase in National Average Earnings (NAE) or the increase in the Retail Prices Index (RPI). Since 1979 annual increases have generally been linked to RPI. While the value of the State Pension increased in real terms, when compared to NAE its value has actually declined since 1979. From April 2011 State Pension has been uprated by the higher of the increase in earnings (Consumer Prices Index, CPI) or 2.5%. The full new State Pension is currently £168.60 per week – with the actual amount dependent upon your National Insurance record. 

Are we paying ‘enough’ into our pensions?  According to HM Revenue & Customs, £28.2 billion was contributed to personal pensions in 2017-2018; with the total value of contributions rising from £27.4 billion in 2016-2017. While the number of individuals contributing to a personal pension increased – from 9.4 million in 2016-2017 to 10.4 million in 2017-2018 [part of a sustained increase attributed to the introduction of AR in 2012]; the annual average contribution per individual has fallen – from £2,900 in 2016-2017 to £2,700 in 2017-2018. Annual average contributions per individual grew between 2006 and 2012 (peaking at £3,690 per individual). Gross pension tax relief for 2017-2018 is projected to be £37.8 billion, up from £37.1 billion in 2016-2017. Tax on private pensions has also increased, from £17.8 billion in 2016-2017 to £18.3 billion in 2017-2018. This data reveals how the net cost of pension tax relief is increasing. Indeed, over the past five years pension tax relief has increased by 30%. 

As the pension system has become increasingly expensive commentators have discussed a need to reform the existing structure in order to control costs and free up cash for Government to use to deliver public services. It has also opened up debate on who benefits most from the current system – with opponents suggesting the current system favours wealthy individuals as higher rate taxpayers gain the biggest tax relief on contributions and proponents pointing out how some high earners have spent years on low incomes with little spare household income – and now they are earning more they are prohibited from saving more than £10,000 a year into a pension even though their time earning a higher income may be a small part of their overall working life. 

Numerous studies have suggested millions of us are not saving enough to give us the standard of living we are hoping for when we retire. A survey in 2019 carried out by Willis Owen found just over one-third of women do not have a pension plan compared to 17% of men. Of the female respondents, 17% said they had no intention of saving into a pension scheme until they reach 40 years, and 9% intended to delay saving into a pension until they are at least 50. In the same survey 35% of respondents said they had stopped paying into a pension scheme during the past year citing how they were no longer afford to make contributions.  

A survey of 1,500 millennials (25-35 year olds) from Royal London reveals how the amounts young people are saving towards their pension are less than 5% of their income (an average of 4.6%). This is below the level of pension contribution Royal London recommends (which is 12-15% of your income) to help achieve a reasonable income amount in retirement.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that 4.2 million self-employed workers are not saving into a pension scheme. At the same time the number of people estimated to be self-employed has increased by 162,000 a year to almost 5 million. 

What is clear from many of these surveys is that some people need money for now to meet their financial responsibilities – from trying to get on the property ladder, through to paying for education and caring responsibilities. Indeed, many of us are putting off paying into a pension because the amount we can afford to pay in is deemed too small to be worthwhile; or because these savings are inaccessible until we retire.   

On the other hand, some older people already have enough to live on – either because they carry on working or have other income to live on – leading them to delay accessing their pension pot beyond their selected retirement date or their pension scheme’s normal retirement date. A Freedom of Information request (FOI) submitted by Canada Life revealed not only how more than 14,000 opted to stop receiving their State Pension (tier 1) in the 2018-2019 tax year, but also how people can only opt to suspend and re-start their pension on one occasion after it is in payment. Andrew Tully from Canada Life explained how “This [opting not to receive State Pension] could be for a number of reasons, most likely is the simple fact they didn’t need the income and were looking to manage their tax liability, either because they returned to work or continued in paid work, or possibly because they received an inheritance. This sort of flexibility is common in the private pension sector, where people are able to turn income on and off from pensions using the right products, but is not a well understood part of the State Pension system.”   

To help you consider how much you should be saving into a pension, the Money Advice Service has a pension calculator. This works out your SPA and State Pension income amount, asks you about the amount of income you’d like in retirement, looks at your current contributions and other sources of income and identifies any shortfall and suggests ways to improve this.  The Money and Pensions Service is delivering a pensions dashboards programme which, in the future, will enable people to see all their lifetime pension savings in one place. The programme is currently working on designing, testing and building a consumer facing dashboard. 

For me, whether or not we are paying enough into our pensions highlights four issues: 

  1. We are living longer, some of us will want to continue working full-time or part-time or begin a new career, some of us may retire early because of health issues; some of us may face redundancy and struggle to find another job. 
  2. When we retire some of us may want to increase our spending (e.g. to travel or start a new hobby) while others of us will want to reduce our spending (e.g. moving to a smaller property).  
  3. For some RSN readers retirement feels some way in the distance and you have more pressing financial goals (mortgage, saving for your children’s education).  
  4. Some of us are not sure how pensions work and that the benefits of saving sooner could mean a larger pension pot when we eventually retire.

All of this makes it difficult to identify how much money we need to save for retirement let alone coming up with an actual plan to do it!  

Are people living in rural areas paying enough into their pension pot(s)?  According to Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England: 

  • Rural areas have a higher proportion of older people compared with urban areas. In 2018, the peak age group in rural areas was 50-54 years (8% of the rural population), while the peak age group in urban areas was 25- 29 years (comprising 7.3% of the urban population).
  • The percentage of people living in relative and absolute low income is lower in rural areas than in urban areas. The percentage of working-age people in rural areas in relative low income was 13% before housing costs and 16% after housing costs. In comparison, the percentage of working-age people in urban areas in relative low income was 15% before housing costs and 21% after housing costs. The percentage of pensioners in rural areas in relative low income was 17% before housing costs, and 14% after housing costs. In comparison, the percentage of pensioners in urban areas in relative low income was 19% before housing costs and 18% after housing costs. The dashboard shows that in rural areas, between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, relative income for children, working-age people and pensioners increased; and absolute low income for working-age people and children also increased before housing costs. These figures reveal how many thousands of people living in rural areas are in households below average income (HBAI) and how these numbers may be increasing.  
  • In 2018 there were 1,031,000 home workers in rural areas, accounting for 21% of all workers living in rural areas. This compares to 31% of all workers living in urban areas (some 2,888,000 home workers). Home workers are defined as those who usually spend at least half of their work time using their home, either within their grounds or in different places or using it as a base. Home workers will include both those who are employees of organisations and those who are self-employed.
  • In 2018 median workplace earning in predominantly urban areas (excluding London) were £23,300 – for predominantly rural areas this figure was lower at £21,900. In 2018 median residence-based earning in predominantly urban areas (excluding London) were £23,500 and slightly higher in rural areas at £23,700.  Average residence based earnings differ from workplace based earnings because people living in rural areas sometimes work in urban areas in higher paid jobs.

Researchers in the United States looked at how working age residents in Michigan’s rural Upper Peninsula were engaging in retirement planning. The researchers found rural residents were less likely to make maximum contributions compared to their urban counterparts – which they attributed to rural areas having smaller populations, lower medium incomes, higher unemployment rates, and seasonal and short term work.  The researchers called for easier retirement plan participation and public service campaigns to notify individuals of the tax and personal advantages. 

In comparison, work in the UK has tended to focus on looking at people growing old in or retiring into rural communities – from housing and access to services, to transport, health and care and community activities – rather than focused on when, why and how much they are saving for their retirement. In low-income households, and those living and working in rural areas (including self-employed), how much are they contributing into a pension and saving for their retirement?

For those who have retired or are looking to retire figures from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and The Pensions Regulator (TPR) suggest that 42% of pension savers, equating to some 5 million people, could be at risk of falling victim to pension scammers. The likelihood of being drawn into one of more scams increased to 60% among those who said they were actively looking for ways to boost their retirement income. The FCA and TPR believe pension cold-calls, free pension reviews, claims of guaranteed high returns, exotic investments, time-limited offers and early access to cash before the age of 55 years could all tempt savers into risking their retirement income.

While the principal focus of this briefing has been on the pension arrangements of individuals, there has been much discussion around the deficits of some schemes: this is the gap between how much a pension is required to pay out versus how much money is available to pay out and occurs when there isn’t enough money to pay. For example, in February 2020 BAE systems agreed a deficit recovery plan with The Pensions Regulator after a valuation revealed a deficit of £1.9 billion. At the same time, analysis of Councils in London found a combined total pension deficit of £17.98 billion for the period 2018-2019, representing a 7% rise on the previous 12-months. According to analysts, the situation has been exacerbated by legal rulings against the Government including the McCloud case, relating to the shift from final salary schemes to less generous pension arrangements based on average salaries. The Government announced a pause to the cost control part of the valuations of public service pension schemes and has estimated that the ruling could add up to £4 billion a year to the cost of funding public sector pensions. 

RSN readers will be aware that sometimes changes to pension arrangements have unforeseen consequences. According to research from UCU a typical member of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) will pay £40,000 more into their pension pot but receive £200,000 less in retirement. In the NHS, for example, we have seen how fewer clinical and non-clinical staff are seeking promotion, taking on leadership roles or doing additional shifts as a result of pension taxation rules – while Government announced an interim solution for clinical staff in December 2019 this does not apply to non-clinical staff. 

Many of us want to save enough money to be able to retire but struggle to understand what, when and how we can become ‘retirement-ready’.  For people in rural areas this has particular implications around job security, wage levels, housing and living costs and access to services (e.g. transport, care). The next independent pension review is due in 2022 – what should our ‘rural asks’ be?    

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating an employability programme; and reviewing a project that supports parents committed to recovering from drug and/or alcohol addictions. She is also a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC).  

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Wind farm

How far do Community Benefit Schemes reach into rural areas?

Much of our renewable energy infrastructure is located in rural communities. From wind farms, and nuclear power stations, to tidal and solar, all have wide ranging implications for host localities. It has become increasingly common for renewable energy projects to make financial or in-kind payments to local communities. Often described as “benefits payments”, “compensation schemes” “incentive payments” or “added value”; the level of payment made and how it is used for ‘community’ ‘benefit’ varies greatly. What do renewable energy community benefit schemes offer rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

On 1 April 2012 the Planning Inspectorate became the Government agency responsible for operating the planning process for what are known as ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’ (NSIP). NSIPs are projects such as new roads, power generating stations or harbours which require a type of consent known as ‘development consents’ under the Planning Act 2008. 

A search of energy projects on the National Infrastructure Planning (PINS) website on 2 December 2019 revealed 99 projects. Of these, 31 were at the pre-application stage; 3 at the pre-examination stage; 5 at examination stage; 2 at recommendation stage; 4 at decision stage; 52 at the decided stage and 1 project had been withdrawn. 

The Planning Act 2008 streamlined the decision-making process for these major infrastructure projects; with the purposes of making it a fairer and faster process for both communities and applicants. In March 2016 Government published its first National Infrastructure Delivery Plan – setting out plans for economic infrastructure, housing and social infrastructure over a 5-year period.  This 2016-2021 plan focuses on ensuring the right projects are delivered well; determines the proprieties and project/programme milestones that Government should focus upon; and aims to get the right (public and private) investment in place. The delivery plan sets out a range of policy mechanisms to support the transition to an affordable, clean energy system – with the priorities to 2020-2021 centred around new nuclear investment, gas power stations, large-scale offshore wind; as well as projects relating to interconnectors, smart meters and transmission and distribution.  

Of the projects currently listed on the PINS site the majority of entries (23 projects) are related to wind, followed by grid lines (11 projects), gas (6 projects), nuclear (5 projects), tidal lagoons (4 projects), biomass and solar (2 projects respectively). While in a policy context this move to improve the planning and delivery of infrastructure by increasing investment and accelerating project delivery is gearing us towards a more productive economy; these large projects can sometimes be controversial because they have wide ranging implications for the communities hosting them. In response, a range of new procedures, processes and methods for their assessment and management, including widening impact assessment and the use of Community Benefit Schemes (CBS) have emerged. 

Impact Assessments – such as EIA, SIA, SEA, SA, HIA, HRA sometimes include special procedures for subsets of major projects through the examination system operated by PINS. Community Benefit Schemes (CBSs) refer to agreements between the various stakeholders involved in a project – in particular, between the developer and the host community. The schemes can include financial incentives, infrastructure and community empowerment measures and are drawn up in recognition of a community’s participation in an activity that is perceived as being in the ‘national interest’. 

CBSs are different from project designed-in measures which seek to minimise adverse local impacts at the early stage of planning; and they are also different from mitigation and enhancement measures which may evolve during the assessment and decision making process. 

Why have Community Benefit Schemes? Views range from developer philanthropy and corporate social responsibility through to mitigating the anticipated and/or adverse impacts of construction or operations [through preventive or ameliorative actions]; compensation for actual damage; rewarding communities for assuming non-local cost or risk; and participating in an activity which is deemed to be in the national interest. 

The United States has been a long history of CBSs. Here CBSs are legally enforceable contracts signed by community groups and developers in which the developer agrees to shape the development in a certain way or to provide specified community benefits. Examples include: the Lakers Stadium and Los Angeles Airport expansion. Of the $500 million community benefits for LAX expansion, $230 million was allocated to soundproofing local schools and homes. 

In France, the Government pays compensation as part of its Grand Channtiers programme. Here the level of CBA funding varies from 1-10% of project value and is used to fund a wide range of activities, particularly affordable housing. 

Back in the UK, the wind energy industry has been at the forefront of the development of CBSs. A toolkit published by the Centre for Sustainable Energy back in 2009 aimed to make meaningful community benefits such as being a good neighbour; paying compensation for impacts on local amenity and the inconvenience caused by the construction process; and sharing the rewards from wind as a ‘common’ which nobody owns more routine and systematic in UK wind energy projects. 

The completion of Sizewell B nuclear power station back in 1995 led to a package of ‘ameliorative measures’ such as village hall improvement projects in recognition of the pressure placed on local facilities by the project. More recent examples include the Copeland Community Fund (CCF), an agreement negotiated with the Government to recognise the service Copeland provides to the nation by hosting the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) close to the village of Drigg; and EDF energy’s £20 million Community Fund to improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities affected by the development of Hinkley Point C. 

While the justification for CBSs varies considerably between countries, project types and over time; the benefits of large energy projects tend to contribute to national and sometimes global objectives. 

How is the payment calculated? Payments can be linked to the capacity of the development – with a one-off payment made by a company during the construction period (e.g. £5,000/MW); they can be related to the profitability of the development (i.e., the surplus profit that a project will generate); or they can be at the discretion of the developer (drawn from the Corporate Social Responsibility budget or described as a ‘goodwill contribution’). Payments can be ad hoc and discretionary or are guaranteed by Government using statutory powers on behalf of communities.  They can comprise single donations or annual contributions and they may have conditions attached (such as the money has to be spent over a set period of time or returned to the company). 

Local Authorities often play a vital role in negotiating the level of payment; often acting on behalf of the community in liaising with developers and/or in collecting and distributing the payments. In the case of the Copeland Community Fund, the Low Level Waste Repository provides the Fund with £1.5 million a year for every year that the repository is operating; in addition to an initial endowment of £10 million. The CCF is supported by Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria County Council [which acts as the Accountable Body for the funding]. East Riding of Yorkshire Council is responsible for a number of community funds linked to energy related developments – the Burton Pidsea Community Wind Farm Fund, for example, receives an annual donation from the wind farm owner EnergieKontor UK Limited. The amount of the donation is based on a formula of £2,000 per megawatt of the wind farm to a maximum of £20,400 per annum.

While early examples of CBSs for energy projects in the UK were relatively small – the number, their scale and size of payments has increased over time.  

In Scotland, over the last 15 years the scale of benefits has increased from £1,000 per MW size of the project over the working lifetime of the project (normally 25 years) for early projects to at least £5,000 per MW for more recent projects. For a wind farm of 20 MW, the annual benefit is estimated at £100,000. 

In England in 2011 the renewable energy industry (Renewables UK) agreed a protocol to provide community benefits in connection with eligible on-shore wind schemes of no less than £5,000 per MW per year or benefits in kind to an equivalent value [the protocol was updated in 2013]. The annual contribution is index linked and commences within 12 months of a project making its first commercial export of power and applies for the operational lifetime of the scheme.  

For solar, the benefits are often less than for wind; with some community benefit negotiations based on a minimum of £1,000 per MW of installed capacity for a period of 20 years, linked to the Retail Price Index (or a pro-rota single upfront community benefit payment). In Dorset, for example, the majority of solar farm developments in Dorset have offered a community benefit fund to host communities, often through the local Parish or Town Council. 

The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) provides a Community Fund for communities at Drigg in Copeland (West Cumbria) and at Dounreay in Caithness (Scotland) which have storage facilities for low level nuclear waste. 

For shale, the energy industry provides community benefits of £100,000 per swell site when a test well is drilled plus a 1% share of revenues from any resultant gas production. This is in addition to provisions for Local Authorities to retain all business rates paid by developers and for energy firms to make direct payments to local residents and/or set up trust funds to be managed by local communities. 

For remote off-shore locations, until recently community benefit payments have been more ad hoc and pro rota compared to on-shore locations. However a recent £10 million CBS initiative by the Danish energy company Dong, in relation to its Hornsea One and Race Bank wind farms, will distribute approximately £0.5 million pounds a year to help local initiatives over the next 20 years through the East Coast Community Fund. 

In March 2019, Cumbria County Council (CCC) formally granted planning approval for the development of the Cumbrian Metallurgical Coal Project – to be known as Woodhouse Colliery. It is anticipated that site work will commence in Spring 2020, with coal production commencing around 24-months from the start of construction. Once in production, WCM will create a Community Fund to support local charities and organisations with projects that echo our desire to promote health and well-being, local amenities such as footpaths and cycle ways, as well as a plan to secure the future of the old Haig Mining Museum building.

Across these examples, community benefits for energy projects can broadly be divided into three  categories: (1) financial incentives – either an annual payment or lump sum or both; a share in local tax revenues, reduced utility fees and/or paying shares into a local community organisation. (2) Social benefits in kind where a developer may provide for a community facility or local environmental improvements. (3) Community empowerment measures – with local participation in decision making. In practice, community benefits can often be an integrated package across all three categories – and these can be shaped by local community preferences (e.g. for reduced utility bills), or technical and regulatory factors. 

At a local level community benefits can be very sensitive issues. Some residents perceive it to be providing a means for developers to take forward a project that is not wanted by the local community while other people view it as a means of sharing in the rewards of a development. 

How do rural communities benefit from the payments? Information on individual CBSs on the PINS website is limited because these agreements are not a material consideration in the planning process. This also makes understand the relationship between community benefits, the planning process, environmental assessment procedures and a series of impact assessments difficult.

On a practical note, a nationally negotiated scheme usually takes a legal approach meaning the scale, type and preconditions of benefits are largely determined beforehand in legislation. In contrast, a locally-negotiated approach involves discussions between developers, local communities and other stakeholders (e.g. Local Authorities) with the agreement reached usually followed by some form of formal written agreement. 

A key issue that often emerges in negotiations is how to define the ‘community’ that will ‘benefit’ from a scheme. Is the relevant community determined spatially (i.e., by geography and locality) or by interest? Should the community that benefits be nearest to the site or the area affected most by disturbance or nuisance? What happens if a scheme covers more than one Local Authority area – is it decided by population on a pro rata basis? How is the community defined for off-shore projects – do coastal communities benefit? In 2005 Dumfries and Galloway Council developed a Wind Farms Community Benefit Governance Framework which established two tiers of benefit: (i) 60% of the community benefit funds from any one wind farm would go to communities 15km from the outer edge of the wind farm with the remaining 40% ring fenced for a region-wide fund for renewable energy or energy efficiency projects. The framework was superseded in 2015 by Windfarm Community Benefit Guidelines which removed the 60:40 split and the 15km measurement of host communities. In Northern Ireland and Wales there have also been discussions around whether the purpose of having a community benefit scheme is to recompense the impacts on the nearest communities or should apply to communities over a much wider area.   

Back in 2014 the then Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published best practice guidance  to showcase good practice and sets out expectations for developers, Local Authorities and communities in the provision of onshore wind developments. The document brought together a set of principles (i.e., timely, transparent, constructive, inclusive, fair, unconditional), with a process for establishing community benefits through the wind development process (preparation phase, planning phase, post-consent phase and operational phase). 

A further issue that emerges is the timing of community benefits – should it come early as part of the planning and development processes or staged, perhaps related to project milestones? For financial payments, should a lump sum be paid (up front or at the end) with smaller sums paid on an annual or quarterly basis? 

More recently, there have been discussions around the types of communities that are benefitting from CBSs. In April 2018, for example, the Centre for Sustainable Energy published its research into community renewable energy projects in low income areas. The researchers found that the skills, knowledge, time, resources and links to useful people and organisations were not as readily available in low-income communities compared to their more affluent neighbours. They often lacked existing community development and regeneration organisations and Local Authorities had reduced capacity to engage in community energy. As community energy projects in low-income areas seldom emerge directly from the grassroots, with intermediary organisations – locally based and with a community development focus – often acting as the catalyst for energy activity to benefit the community – the authors highlighted the need to bolster the community’s project capacity and resilience (through funds, mentoring and capacity building).  

In relation to energy projects, CBSs have become increasingly commonplace over the last 20 years. While CBSs initially focused on on-shore wind projects; they have since expanded to include nuclear, solar, tidal, and shale gas. However, to date, little work has been undertaken to collate the different types of CBs and the community benefits that arise from individual schemes. Mapping what community benefit schemes they are, where they are located, the scale of payments, a description of the benefits they provide (types of initiatives) and measuring the outcomes and impact they achieve for local communities (legacy and sustainability) would provide a better understanding of the collective. And while current attention around CBSs is focused on renewable energy, could it be applied to other types of infrastructure (e.g. flood defences, broadband/mobile connectivity, roads or airports)? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and reviewing a project that supports parents recovering from drugs or alcohol addictions. She is also a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC).  

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Apprenticeships

Apprenticeships – training people for (rural) jobs of the future?

Back in 2012, the Richard Review of Apprenticeships explored what apprenticeships should be like in the future, and how they could meet the needs of a changing economy. Upon finding an extraordinary number of qualifications, which could be stitched together in an infinite number of combinations leading to any number of possible outcomes Richard’s called for turning the system on its head by having fewer, clearer standards (preferable one per occupation), that covered what employers required for an apprentice to be competent in that occupation. In Vision 2020 Government set out its programme for the reform and growth of apprenticeships. As part of a concerted attempt to address skills shortages and meet employers’ needs Government was aiming to increase the number of apprenticeships significantly. What are apprenticeships, how does the current system work and what needs to be done to ensure more are on offer in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.   

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What are apprenticeships? 

According to Government, an apprenticeship is ‘a real job, with hands-on experience, a salary and the chance to train while you work. You’re treated just like all the other employees, with a contract of employment and holiday leave.’  Apprenticeships combine practical training in a job with study (the equivalent of one day a week). Apprentices have the same rights as other employees and are entitled to be paid at least the apprentice rate of the national minimum wage and may receive a nationally recognised qualification on completion of their apprenticeship. 

Apprenticeships are available to anyone over 16 years living in England [separate schemes operate in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales]. Apprenticeships take between one and four years to complete and cover some 1,500 occupations across 170+ industries. 

Apprenticeships can be studied at different levels. From intermediate (Level 2) which is equivalent to an educational level of 5 GCSE passes at grade A*-C or 9-4; to advanced (Level 3) which is equivalent to 2 A Level passes /level 3 Diploma or International Baccalaureate; to higher (Levels 4, 5, 6 and 7) which is equivalent to foundation degree and above; and degree (levels 6 and 7) which is equivalent to a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree.  

There are two different types of apprenticeships: Frameworks and Standards. Government is aiming to move from Frameworks [which were established by sector bodies to assess apprenticeships and are qualification led] to Standards [which are employer driven and occupation-focused] by 2020. Standards were first introduced in September 2014 and are developed by trailblazer groups representing groups of employers and sector organisations.  As of 25 March 2019, there were 421 Standards approved for delivery, 166 Standards in development, and a further 73 proposals in development.  

How many apprentices are there? 

According to the Department for Education (DfE), there were 192,100 apprenticeship starts recorded between August 2018 and December 2018 for the 2018-2019 academic year. This compares to 175,100 reported in the equivalent period in 2017-2018; 230,400 in 2016-2017; and 224,400 in 2015-2016. Of the 192,100 apprenticeship starts reported so far in 2018-2019, 59.1% (or 113,500 people) were on apprenticeship standards. 

In the 2017-2018 period, there were 48,150 higher level (Level 4+) apprenticeship starts, compared to 3,700 in 2011-2012. Between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 higher level starts rose by 31.7%. In contrast, both intermediate (Level 2) and advanced (Level 3) apprenticeships declined between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 – by 38.1% and 15.9% respectively.  The average expected duration of an apprenticeship has increased from 529 to 612 days in the first half of 2017-2018; with the expected off-the-job training hours also increasing from 560 to 700 hours.

83% of apprenticeship starts in 2017-2018 were concentrated in four sectors: business, administration & law (30% of all starts); health, public services & care (24%); engineering & manufacturing technologies (16%); and retail & commercial enterprise (14%). 

814,800 people completed an apprenticeship in 2017-2018 – down 1,600 on the previous year. All regions saw a fall in apprenticeship starts between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018: with apprenticeship starts in the North East falling from 34,000 in 2016-2017 to 23,000 in 2017-2018 (down 33%); the West Midlands falling from 60,000 in 2016-2017 to 43,000 in 2017-2018 (down 29%) and the East Midlands falling from 48,000 in 2016-2017 to 34,000 in 2017-2018 (down 29%). The lowest falls were recorded in London and the South East (both down by 17%). 

Since March 2017, public bodies with a headcount of 250 or more employees in England in each year from 2017 to 2020 are required to meet a minimum target set by Government of 2.3% apprenticeship starts each year [this can be applied to new recruits or existing staff]. This means Government expects public bodies to ‘have regard’ to this target in their workforce planning decisions and use the Apprenticeship Activity Return to demonstrate how they have had regard to the target.  

In March 2019, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report looking at whether apprenticeships are providing value for money.  According to the report, for the period 2017-2018 public bodies reported that 1.4% of their workforce had started an apprenticeship. This figure was based on returns from 676 bodies and equated to 45,300 starts in total. 

While there was an increase in starts in April 2017 the NAO suggests it is unlikely that the Government will meet its target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. In 2017-2018 there were some 375,800 starts – 26% lower than the 509,400 starts in 2015-2016, with falls marked at Level 2. To achieve its own target, this means the Government would need new starts to double for the remainder of the period. Indeed in May 2019, The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (the Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills) suggested not only will Government miss its own target but it will have to rethink its strategy next year. 

The NAO further described the DfE metrics for measuring performance – with a focus on starts rather than the 32% of people who completed their apprenticeship in 2016-2017 who did not achieve it. There is also insufficient data to determine whether people remain with an employer at the end of their apprenticeship and reap financial gains (what are the financial earnings gained according to level, sector). Further, the NAO identified an oversight gap in how the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) ensures apprentices spend at least 20% of their time on off-the-job-training. 

How are they funded? 

Since April 2017 Government has been implementing changes in the way apprenticeship funding works – much of this can be traced back to the Government’s Industrial Strategy. In April 2017 the apprenticeship levy came into effect for all UK employers with a pay bill of more than £3 million and/or employers connected to other companies or charities which have in total an annual pay bill of more than £3 million. The levy is set at 0.5% of the value of the employer’s pay bill, minus an apprenticeship levy allowance of £15,000 per financial year. The levy is paid into an apprenticeship service account with funds in it then spent on apprenticeship training and assessment. Employers pay their levy to HMRC each month through the PAYE process – with the amounts paid dependent upon each month’s pay bill. The Government applies a 10% top-up to the funds paid by an employer through the levy.  Levy-paying employers register for an apprenticeship service account which is then used to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment.  The funding expires 24 months after it enters to service account – employers are able to transfer 10% of their funds to other employers (capped at a maximum of 10% of their annual funds). 

Since May 2017, employers paying the Apprenticeship Levy have been able to select a provider from the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers. The Register lists: (1) main providers: organisations that be selected by levy paying employers to deliver apprenticeship training; (2) employer providers: levy paying employers that can provide training to their own staff and/or apprentices in connected companies; and (3) supporting providers: organisations that can only deliver as part of a subcontractor for contract values of between £100,000 and £500,000 per year. Organisations that would like to deliver apprenticeship training but at a value of less than £100,000 are not required to register.

In April 2018, the OECD carried out a review of Apprenticeship programs in England. The OECD found English apprentices receive 50-100 hours of general education over the course of their apprenticeships, with general education only mandatory for those not meeting the minimum requirements in mathematics and English. This compares to around 400 hours of general education covering a range of subjects in German and Swiss apprenticeships, and nearly 600 hours in Norwegian apprenticeships.   The report also found apprenticeship workplace training in England was not systematic and subject to little quality assurance. Lack of standards with regard to training in workplaces increases the risk that employers will substitute apprentices for unskilled workers, the OECD argues. The reviewers recommended increasing the amount of education in apprenticeships for young people; supporting the development of systematic training provision; keeping apprenticeship qualifications broad and few in number; reviewing the assessment market; providing pre-apprenticeship programmes for disadvantaged young people to progress into full apprenticeship programmes; and ensuring that all apprenticeships include a substantial element of work-based learning with an employer. 

According to the NAO report, £1.6 billion of public money was spent on the apprenticeships programme in 2017-2018 alongside the £2 billion contributed by levy paying employers. While these seem large sums, the average cost of training an apprentice on a standard is double what was expected; raising concerns that the programme will overspend in the future. This is because employers are now choosing more expensive and higher level standards than the DfE expected. The average cost of training an apprenticeship in 2017-2018 was approximately £9,000. Projections show that, even if starts remain at current levels, spending could rise to more than £3 billion a year once frameworks are withdrawn and all apprenticeships are on standards. 

Back in October 2018, the House of Commons Education Committee recommended increasing the top funding band, doubling the time employers have to spend their funds, allowing more levy transfers and providing greater flexibility to the 20% off-the-job training requirement. 

What do employers and apprentices think? 

The Open University commissioned independent market research among 750 senior business leaders from small, medium and large employers across the UK. 84% of respondents supported the apprenticeship levy in principle. 4 in 5 businesses in England either already employ apprentices or plan to do so in the future; and are using apprenticeships to build up skills amongst their existing staff (27%) or to train new staff (54%). Some business leaders have found apprentices make the rest of their workforce more productive and that they pass on what they learn leading to a more motivated and satisfied workforce. From an employer perspective, 34% believe apprentices bring a fresh approach and positive attitude to the workplace; 23% that apprentices are more loyal and easier to retain than other staff members; and 20% that apprentices are more productive than other members of staff. 51% of employers agreed that apprenticeships were less disruptive to their business than other forms of training. In the words of one employer “in my experience, people have a natural desire to pay you back if you invest in them. Apprentices may stay with you for longer, as they feel appreciated and well recognised. Longer-serving employees see apprenticeships as a great opportunity to leave a legacy and get benefit from developing their potential.” Employers suggested greater flexibility in apprenticeship content, including modular apprenticeships (modelled in a similar way to The Open University’s open degrees), would be beneficial going forward.  

Some employer groups have called on some of the levy to be spent on pre-employment engagement with schools, parents/carers and pupils – which takes up much time and requires additional resourcing.   

Other organisations query if the apprenticeship changes have diminished the quality of apprenticeships – with the list of roles covered often offering minimal training and representing low wage jobs that do not constitute skilled occupations? The suggestion here is that some employers may rebadge existing training courses as apprenticeships to shift the training costs onto Government.  

In 2017 Investors in People conducted research into how young people perceived apprenticeships. Of the 1,000 young people surveyed, 45% had considered an apprenticeship. Of the 53% who said they had never considered one: 62% of them said they wanted to do A Levels and go to university; 28% that the industry they want to work in does not offer apprenticeships, 26% thought apprenticeships were known for giving low pay; 16% said their school or college didn’t provide them with information about apprenticeships and 11% thought apprenticeships were for low skilled occupations. The research reveals that while young people have heard of apprenticeships, many are not aware of what they are in practice (e.g. career opportunities, pay) leaving many unsure ‘what’s in it for me?’ 

The Social Mobility Commission 2018 barometer found respondents were more likely to think an apprenticeship offers the best opportunity for young people to progress in life and career than other routes – with 30% thinking apprenticeships offer the best route compared to higher education (26%), further education (14%) and just starting work (8%). However these figures differ by age with those aged 65+ years more likely to suggest apprenticeships than those aged 18-24 years – in the younger cohort 20% would choose an apprenticeship compared to 34% wanting to go into higher education.  

In November 2018, the Government commissioned a learners and apprentices survey. The findings, based on 12.872 interviews (2,287 online and 10,585 by telephone), reveal that while half of all apprentices are young people (aged 19-24 years), the apprenticeship sector is serving people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. Typically apprentices are already working for their apprenticeship employer (62%) or had started their apprenticeship straight after finishing full-time education (18%). The main reason for starting an apprenticeship was because their employer had offered it to them or had made it a requirement of their job. Three-quarters of apprentices that had never worked before completing their apprenticeship had moved into and remained in paid work at the time of the survey. Nearly three-quarters of apprentices who completed or were still working towards an apprenticeship agreed their chances of earning a higher wage in the future had increased; with 8 in 10 agreeing their chances of going on to higher levels of training had increased. There was some evidence that where apprentices had left it was for other employment or training. 

According to Government, the monetary benefits of completing an apprenticeship to an individual over their working life are estimated to be £48,000-£74,000 for Level 2; £77,000-£117,000 for Level 3 and £150,000 for Level 4 or above.  

In a series of blogs, young people have described their positive experiences of apprenticeships – see Hyo, an apprentice in the Cabinet Office; Hugh Gaffney, an apprentice at The Careers & Enterprise Company; Rob O’Connor, an apprentice at Accenture, Dominic and John, apprentices at RSA; and Joanna, an apprentice at Argies Coffee.   

What about apprenticeships in rural areas? 

According to Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England (March 2019), the proportion of working age population with at least one qualification, with an NVQ2 and/or an NVQ4 has been consistently higher for the total rural category than for those living in the all urban category. But the proportion of people with NVQ4 or equivalent is much higher for people working in rural areas – 44.7% compared to predominantly rural areas (35.4%). A higher percentage of people working in urban areas receive on-the-job training than people working in rural areas – 12.9% in predominantly rural areas compared to 13.3% in urban areas. However, some people who live in rural areas will travel to urban areas for work so these skills will not necessarily be used in rural areas. 

If you do a key word search on apprenticeship standards entering the word ‘rural’, generates 1 result (for highways maintenance skilled operative); countryside generates 1 result (countryside worker – this standard is in development), agriculture generates 3 results (professional advisor in agriculture/horticulture – in development, land-based service engineer, land-based service engineer technician); and there are 20 results for natural environment (including crop technician, forest operative and poultry worker). Aside from the apprenticeship standards; many RSN members will be familiar with apprenticeships offered in their own areas – from those in national parks (e.g. the Lake District, North York Moors); to those across England – from Cornwall to Cumbria; from Hampshire to Hertfordshire; and from Leicestershire to Worcestershire. The search facilities on existing platforms do not always reveal the geographical and sectoral diversity of opportunities available in rural areas. 

While there is often little difference in the sectors between rural and urban areas, the context is very different and this can bring additional challenges when providing apprenticeships. 

Jo Maher, principal and chief executive at Boston College, highlights some of the rural challenges and opportunities facing colleges, apprentices and employers.  For apprentices living in rural areas the greatest challenge is the time and distance it can take to access an apprenticeship. The greatest challenge for rural college leaders is that assessors have the same time and distance issues as the apprentices they need to assess – compounded by the fact that many employers in rural areas are micro-businesses and only employ one apprentice. Colleges have to model delivery on an assessor spending an hour with a maximum of four apprentices a day to allow for this travel time whereas in an urban area an assessor might be able to train up to seven apprentices in a day. The challenges for employers in rural areas include size, scale and breadth. Maher’s recommendations to better support apprenticeships in rural areas include: providing an uplift [calculated in a similar way to the disadvantage uplift in full-time FE funding]; setting up an apprenticeship loan system – where a larger company is able to loan an apprentice to an SME with a view to bringing them back a year later to progress their employment and leaving the rural SME with a regular supply of apprentices; and establishing a ‘quality mark’ to enable apprentices to select employers in the same way as they can look at a college’s Ofsted grade and feedback score; this means employers could better able evidence their role in providing high quality training.  

These insights chime with witness testimony provided to the Select Committee on the Rural Economy. For example, the Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) described how an apprenticeship criterion often favours larger firms, making it harder for rural SMEs to host apprentices. With a higher proportion of older people living in rural areas CRE advocated changing the age limits to attract people of working age at later stages of their careers. Countryside Alliance  identified that ‘affordability’ and time can be real barriers for land-based SMEs wanting to offer apprenticeships. On a more positive note, National Parks England noted that the Government’s 8 Point Plan for National Parks had led to a 91% increase in apprenticeships in National Park Authorities and that hosting an apprenticeship had doubled since April 2018.  

For me, what these findings reveal is the need to focus on rural communities and places rather than apply a one-size-fits-all approach to apprenticeships. This means communities thinking through how they can attract and retain employers and apprenticeships (e.g. Rock the Cotswolds): what rural assets and aspirations can be built upon and what locally defined rural apprenticeship priorities emerge? We also need to provide training and development opportunities for SMEs that works well in rural places; and ensure that adequate funding; support and assessment processes are in place. 

Where next? 

In September 2018, the House of Commons Education Committee called for ‘stronger, clearer oversight of apprenticeship training and assessment. New providers should get a monitoring visit from Ofsted in the first year….Ofqual should be given responsibility for the external quality assurance of all end-point assessments….we found enthusiasm for the opportunities apprenticeships can offer and commitment to seizing them. There can be no doubt that apprenticeships work. However, we think they could work even better and on a greater scale.’ Many of the Committee’s recommendations chime with rural areas, including: providing more bursaries, increased incentives for small and medium sized businesses and a new social justice fund to support organisations that help the hardest to reach.  

In January 2019 the Department for Education (DfE) launched a new campaign to promote apprenticeships among young people, parents, schools and employers. ‘Fire it up’ aims to shift deeply held views and drive more people towards an apprenticeship. With an increasing variety of apprenticeship options available for people of all ages and backgrounds, if we need to improve both productivity and social mobility; for Government apprenticeships will continue to play a central role in maintaining our skills base. 

In March 2019 the Skills Commission, Policy Connect and the Learning and Work Institute embarked on a new project to map the blueprint for an ecosystem that can adapt to current and future economic and social priorities. In asking whether the national skills system [including apprenticeships] is serving different communities and businesses across the UK; the project inquiry team is visiting Spalding (Lincolnshire), Middlesbrough and Bristol and are running a call for evidence until 27 May 2019. 

More recently, in April 2019 the House of Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy published its report. Seeing apprenticeships as a route to addressing skills shortages in rural areas, the report contained a series of recommendations, including: (i) reviewing apprenticeship criteria to make it easier for rural SMEs to host apprentices and provide new land based apprenticeships; (ii) reviewing funding arrangements for apprenticeships to make it easier for smaller businesses to engage; (iii) increasing the amount of apprenticeship levy that can be transferred from large to small firms should be considered; and (iv) with local industrial strategies focusing on skills there could be a renewed focus and improvements made to support rural apprenticeships.  

In 2020 the Government has plans to refresh its apprenticeship strategy as part of attempts to increase the number of apprenticeships. 

How can we ensure that rural communities and businesses are ‘fired up’ and part of this policy conversation? Will the House of Lords select committee recommendations be taken into account?  And, ultimately, what more can be done to deliver apprenticeships in rural areas and what metrics do we have or can we develop to measure success?   

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects. She was recently part of the team that successfully bid to create an Institute of Technology in Lincolnshire.   

She is also a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (https://www.ncrhc.org/). 

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Income inequality

How can we develop a picture of income [in]equality in the countryside?

Some people have higher incomes and wealth than others. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), average household income in 2018 contracted by 1.6% for the poorest fifth of the nation and rose by 4.7% for the richest fifth. ONS’s statistical bulletin also reveals how median household disposable income growth plateaued at £28,400 in 2018, ending four years of previous growth. The gap between the poorest and richest households appears to be growing; thus reversing a downward trend over the previous 10 years. What is income inequality and how prevalent is it in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.  

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What do we mean by ‘income’? 

This is money received on a regular basis. It can come from earnings (employment), benefits (pension, tax credits), investments and other income sources (e.g. private pension). From a policy perspective, there are four main categories of income: (1) original income: this is the amount of money you receive before taxes and benefits; (2) gross income: this is your total income after benefits but before tax; (3) disposable income: this is the amount of money left over after direct taxes are deducted from your gross income; and (4) post tax income: the amount of money remaining after direct and indirect taxes and benefits are deducted. There are two measures of income: (i) household living standards [money shared amongst household members]; and (ii) individual incomes [money kept at an individual level]. 

What is a ‘high’ or ‘low’ income level? 

The term ‘income inequality’is used to describe the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner within a given population. A range of income and income distribution metrics are used by academics and policy makers to measure inequality.  

In the UK, statistics on household incomes are ‘equivalised’: adjusted for household size and composition to enable better comparisons and to identify trends in living standards over time.This is because a larger household is likely to need a higher income to enjoy the same standard of living as a smaller household. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) publishes incomes data from the Family Resources Survey.  

The Households Below Average Income (HBAI) dataset reveals how an individual was in the top 10% of the distribution in 2016-2017 if his or her disposable weekly household income before housing costs was: 

  • £962 for a couple with no children.
  • £645 for a single person with no children.
  • £1,029 for a single person with two children under 14 years. 
  • £1,247 for a couple with two children under 14 years. 

An individual is in the bottom 10% if she or he had household income of less than: 

  • £248 for a couple with no children, £166 for a single person with no children. 
  • £265 for a single person with two children under 14 years. 
  • £347 for a couple with two children under 14 years. 

For gross income before housing costs, an individual is in the top 10% if he or she had a household income greater than:

  • £1,321 for a couple with no children.
  • £885 for a single person with no children.
  • £1,413 for a single person with two children under 14 years.
  • £1,849 for a couple with two children under 14 years. 

An individual is in the bottom 10% if he or she had a household income of less than: 

  • £287 for a couple with no children.
  • £192 for a single person with no children.
  • £307 for a single person with two children under 14 years.
  • £402 for a couple with two children under 14 years. 

The OECD uses the Gini coefficient [based on the comparison of cumulative proportions of the population against cumulative proportions of income they receive – ranging between 0 in the case of perfect equality and 1 in the case of perfect inequality]; and the Palma ratio [the share of all income received by the 10% people with highest disposable income divided by the share of all income received by the 40% people with the lowest disposable income]. According to the Gini coefficient, the UK has some of the highest levels of income inequality in the European Union. The UK is 11th on a list of 28 countries – with Bulgaria, Lithuania and Romania having the highest levels of income inequality; and Slovenia, Slovakia and Iceland the lowest levels.  The OECD ‘Better Life Index’ reveals the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita in the UK is $28,408 per year (compared to an OCED average of $30,562); and describes how the top 20% of the UK population earn nearly six times more than the bottom 20%. 

The London School of Economics (LSE) Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) has explored income inequality and wealth, from 1961 to 2016. Their report, ‘Double Trouble’, which was commissioned by Oxfam, shows a positive correlation between income inequality and income poverty in the UK. The analysis shows that, on average, during the last 50 years a one point increase in income inequality – as measured using the Gini coefficient – was associated with an increase in relative poverty of 0.6 percentage points.

In March 2017, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) published its findings on changes in inequalities between and within regions, by examining data that follows the same people over time. The IFS found that while income inequality remains highest in London, the rate here is falling. Average income in the highest-income region of Great Britain (South East) is around 25% more than that in the poorest region (West Midlands). Incomes in the West Midlands (and in fact the East Midlands, Wales and the North of England) are no higher than incomes were in the South East in the late 1990s. According to the IFS, 13% of the population saw their real household income fall by less than 5% or rise by less than 5% between 2010–2011 and 2014–2015. Over this time period, 87% of people saw their household income change by at least 5%; with 37% experiencing a fall in income of 5% or more and 50% seeing a rise of 5% or more.

In Scotland, Oxfam has produced an income inequality calculator This shows the distribution of the Scottish population by equivalised household net income for 2015-2016 – dividing the population into equally sized groups known as percentiles to identify the poorest and richest households. Users enter basic information about their household and council tax to then view which percentile they fit into.  

At a global level, there are various measures for comparing standards of living across countries. The World Bank’s World Development Indicators (WDI) builds measures of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to identify high, middle and low income countries. ‘Basic needs’ data [e.g. income, consumption, wellbeing, education, health care, security] is collated from which the World Bank defines the ‘extreme poor’ as those low-income countries where people are living on less than $1.90 a day and those middle-income countries where people are living on $3.20 – $5.50 a day. The Penn World Table (PWT) is a set of national accounts data that includes information on capital, productivity, employment and population – the table allows comparisons of relative GDP per capita as a measure of standard of living. The Maddison Historical Statistics Project gathers historical economic statistics including GDP and GDP per capita. 

To overcome the differences in economic variables in various countries (i.e., how exchange rates may distort comparisons); the European Commission uses GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) in allocating structural funds. Interestingly, the Economist has used PPP to construct ‘The Big Mac index’: a burger exchange rate [i.e., the dollars needed to buy a Big Mac in different countries]. 

Looking at data about income inequality opens up discussions about the relationship between gross income and disposable income; the relationship between individual income and household income – and what this comprises (where housing costs fit); how the flow of money into an individual or household is built up or retained over time; and the tax and benefits systems in different countries (and whether/how these redistribute income). This opens up further discussions around how data about income inequality is collected and analysed – and where/how distribution is segmented (i.e., where the line gets drawn between low, middle and high percentiles). 

Can we measure income inequality in rural England? 

Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England (March 2019) includes information on household expenditure and its relationship to disposable income. Households in rural hamlets & isolated dwellings have both the highest disposable incomes and the highest levels of expenditure – compared to households in urban areas which have the lowest levels of expenditure and disposable income. On average, households in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings have a weekly expenditure of £643 (£170 higher than urban households) and a weekly disposable income of £870 (£177 more than the urban average). When looking at the proportion of average weekly disposable income left over after weekly expenditure (excluding mortgage payments), this is higher in urban areas at 32% compared to 26% in rural areas. Rural households spend a higher proportion of their disposable income on ‘transport’ and ‘recreation’ than they do on housing and utilities. In the year ending March 2017, average weekly transport costs for those living in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings was £132 – or 15.1% of their total weekly disposable income and £58 higher than urban areas. 

In rural areas the proportion of disposable income left over once average weekly expenditure has been deducted (excluding mortgage payments) had also declined – from 29% in December 2013 to 26% in March 2017. 

Using the HBAI statistics, the proportion of rural households in relative low income was 16% before housing costs and 17% after housing costs – in urban areas these figures are 18% and 24% respectively. 13% of households in rural areas are in absolute low income before housing costs and 15% after housing costs – this compares to 15% and 22% in urban areas respectively. The dashboard in the Statistical Digest showing relative and absolute income (on page 142) therefore suggests that the percentage of people living in relative low income [before and after housing costs] has decreased compared to urban areas where these figures are increasing. 

In 2018, median workplace based earnings in predominantly rural areas were £21,900 compared to £23,300 in predominantly urban areas. Between 2009 and 2018 median workplace earnings increased by 15.1% for mainly rural areas and by 13.7% for largely rural areas. 

The ratio between the lowest quartile (25% of house prices and the lowest quartile earnings) reveals in 2017 in predominantly rural areas the average lower quartile house price was 8.6 times the average lower quartile earnings – compared with 7.4 times in urban areas excluding London. 

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has developed a Minimum Household Income (MIS). MIS is based on the items that members of the public think UK households need to be able to afford in order to meet material needs (e.g. food, shelter, clothing) as well as opportunities and choices to participate in society (e.g. transport, communication and computing, to be able to take part in activities). The amount that households need to earn in order to reach MIS in 2018 was £18,400 for a single adult and £20,000 for a dual-earner couple with two children. Back in 2010 JRF did a specific piece of work on a MIS for rural households. Researchers found people living in rural areas typically spent 10-20% more on meeting their everyday requirements compared to their urban counterparts. In 2010 it was suggested that single working adults in rural towns needed to earn at least £15,600, in villages £17,900 and £18,600 in hamlets – compared to £14,400 in urban areas. For couple with two children the annual earning requirement increased to £33,000-£42,000. 

Where next? 

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life—Adam Smith

Geographer Danny Dorling uses the term ‘peak inequality’ to describe circumstances under which the places that we live in have become so segregated that the best-off do not mix with the less well-off. Dorling describes how equality of the bottom 90% of UK citizens peaked in 1978 when they took home 72.2% of the income that there was to take that year. Since then there has been rising inequality. The income share of the next 9% above the 90% peaked in 1993 (at 28% of all income) but fell to 25% in 2014. By 2013 the income of the top 0.1% peaked at 5.8% or 58 times average incomes. 

In the United States, the MIT Media Lab project is mapping income inequality not just according to where people live, but also where they shop, eat and spend their free time in Boston. The researchers have identified ‘place inequality’ and ‘income segregation’ to describe how the places where people live and the people around them can be radically different. i.e., at one coffee shop visitors come from a variety of household income levels but at a second coffee shop, a 2 minute walk away, people are mainly from the lowest income bracket. 

Living Standards research by The Resolution Foundation explores the prospects for household incomes and inequalities over the next five years. The researchers found that typical incomes stagnated in 2017-2018 and are projected to grow slowly over the next five years – reaching only 1.3% by 2022-2023. For the ‘just about managing’ low to middle income working age households, this means three years of falling or flat incomes (reflecting weak real term pay growth, cuts to working age benefits and housing costs). These findings suggest income inequality in the UK is likely to increase over the next 4-5 years without public policy interventions. 

What more can be done to understand income and income inequality in rural areas? 

We need to (re)think how we measure ‘money received on a regular basis’ (for rural residents and households) and determine the ‘disposable income’ left over. For some people living in rural areas their income can fluctuate on a regular basis. I am thinking here of  job jugglers – people who have more than one type of work (some of it seasonal, temporary or part time leading to low pay); people out of work and trying to get by without seeking support from the state; and people barely scraping a living or workers accepting lower wages or working fewer hours. We also need to take into account where people work and the kinds of work that they do. People do not necessarily work in the same place as where they live, workplace and residence based average earnings differ – with average residence based earnings in rural areas typically higher than workplace earnings because people living in rural settlements may commute to work in urban areas for higher paid jobs. 

We also need to understand how much it costs to live in rural England (and different types of rural areas – from the sparse/dispersed to town and fringe) i.e., expenditure on housing, utilities, transport, access to services, food and so on. And not merely the expenditure required to meet ‘basic needs’ but those that enable an individual to live a fulfilling life in rural areas. How much does it cost, on a regular basis, to live in the countryside? 

Both strands of information would then provide a means of measuring the dispersion of incomes and benchmarking them (across different types of places and areas). This may further provide a means of forecasting how changes in income will affect different individuals and households in rural England. It may also be possible then to see how public policy may further be harnessed to reduce the gap between the richest and poorest households in our rural areas.  

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Reference:   Smith, Adam. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Edwin Cannan ed., 1904. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a series of community safety projects; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. 

She is also a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (https://www.ncrhc.org/). 

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Rural Healthcare

What more can be done to address the “unavoidable smallness due to remoteness” of delivering health care in rural areas?

That it costs more to deliver health and care in rural areas is well-rehearsed among RSN members. But how much more does it actually cost to deliver in rural areas and are these costs recognised in current funding formulae? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

How much funding is available for the NHS and where does it come from? 

The vast majority of funding for the NHS comes from taxation, with a small amount from National Insurance contributions. Some funding is also generated from charges from prescriptions, dental treatment and spectacles – although these user charges amount to less than 1.1% of the budget. The NHS also generates some income itself (e.g. through parking charges). 

The Government publishes a Mandate for NHS England before the start of each financial year. This document  sets out what the Government wants NHS England to deliver over a given year with the money it receives. In 2018-2019 NHS England is receiving some £114 billion mandate funding. Of this total, £75.6 billion is being allocated to Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG), £17.7 billion to specialised services, £8.1 billion to General Practice, £6.7 billion to other direct commissioning, £2.5 billion to the Provider Sustainability Fund, £1.1 billion to transformation, £0.7 billion to NHS England programmes, £0.5 billion to NHS England running costs, £0.4 billion to a Commissioner Sustainability Fund, £0.4 billion for drawdown and £0.3 billion for other services/activities. 

The running costs for NHS England for 2018-2019 have been set at £508 million. From this figure, £215 million is being allocated to operations and information, £73 million to transformation and corporate operations, £64 million to primary care support, £43 million to depreciation, £30 million to finance, £18 million to NHSE Core Contracts, £17 million to specialised commissioning, £11 million to strategy and innovation, £8 million to nursing, £6 million to medical, £1 million to board and chief executive and £22 million to other activities.  

In March 2018, NHS England and NHS Improvement announced some key steps to bring the two organisations closer together. While the statutory framework prevents these organisations from formally merging, functional integration (i.e., of regional teams led by a single Regional Director) and increased alignment of national programmes and activities will be undertaken to improve integrated working. These charts illustrate the new national and regional management structure. In May 2018, NHS England and NHS Improvement held their first joint board meeting. The financial changes presented and discussed included both bodies introducing a single financial and operational planning process for the health system and the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer to ensure ‘effective use of national resources at areas of need.’

In  Budget 2018, the Government set out its commitment to increase NHS England’s budget by £20.5 billion by 2023-2024. This equates to a 3.4% increase per year, on average. This figure includes an additional recurrent £1.25 billion on top of a core revenue increase to cover NHS employer pension contributions. All of this means, in practice, that NHS England’s 2018-2019 budget of £114 billion will rise to £149 billion by 2023-2024.  

On 7 January 2019 Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of NHS England launched The NHS long-term plan. Over the next 10 years, the plan aims to save half a million more lives through taking practical action on major physical health conditions (e.g. heart attacks, strokes, respiratory conditions, cardiac care, and cancer) alongside investment in mental health services. The plan includes a renewed focus on using the latest technology and ‘prevention’ to help people live healthier lives so that they do not develop life threatening or limiting conditions. 

While the NHS is expected to be in balance in 2018-2019 [by this Government means health providers and commissioners will have eliminated deficits]; the long-term plan contains a commitment for NHS providers to be in balance by 2020-2021 and for all NHS organisations to be in balance by 2023-2024. To achieve this, the plan sets out proposals for NHS Improvement to ‘deploy an accelerated turnaround process in the 30 worst financially performing trusts’, the creation of a new financial recovery fund, and initially £1.05 billion provided to trusts in deficit that sign up to control totals with NHS Improvement. The joint board meeting between NHS England and NHS Improvement in September 2018 included a work stream on ‘finance and efficiency’ to ensure a shared 20% efficiency commitment and establishing a finance operating system for both organisations.  

From looking at all of these figures what is emerging here is a shift in financial support for the NHS – with a focus on annual efficiency gains, improvements in productivity, of meeting (population) demand more appropriately through prevention and providing care closer to home (freeing up hospital beds) and integrated working (across and within organisations at local, regional and national levels). 

(How) is ‘rural’ taken into account in funding formulae? 

The Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) is an independent committee that ‘makes recommendations on the preferred, relative, geographical distribution of resources for health services.’ Set up in September 1997, ACRA is a successor body to the Resources Allocations Working Group (RAWP) which dates back to 1976. ACRA makes recommendations to both the Secretary of State and the Chief Executive of NHS England. This includes making recommendations on the ‘weighted capitation formulae’ which sets target shares of the national budgets for local areas – focusing on reflecting the best estimates of (i) the relative need for health services and (ii) the relative unavoidable differences in the costs of providing these services. ACRA also seeks to review evidence and develop statistical models of need for health care. ACRA does not advise on the size of health budgets, which is determined by Government. 

In 2015, ACRA analysed the potentially higher costs faced by hospitals which are ‘unavoidably too small to achieve full economies of scale.’  The technical term ‘unavoidable smallness due to remoteness’ applies to hospitals which serve a population of under 200,000 people [the minimum population required to achieve economies of scale]; and for these hospitals, the proportion of the population they serve for whom the next nearest hospital is more than 60 minutes driving time away [the maximum travel time for clinical safety reasons for emergency care].  The analysis identified 12 hospitals which fitted the unavoidable smallness criteria: St Mary’s Hospital (Isle of Wight), North Devon District Hospital (Barnstaple), Furness General Hospital (Barrow), West Cumberland Hospital (Whitehaven), Pilgrim Hospital (Boston), Hereford County Hospital (Hereford), Cumberland Infirmary (Carlisle), Scarborough General Hospital (Scarborough), Hexham General Hospital (Hexham), Dorset County Hospital (Dorchester), Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (Shrewsbury) and Friarage Hospital (Northallerton). Cornwall and North Norfolk did not feature in this list and ACRA undertook further analysis of these two areas. North Norfolk has providers located in Norwich and Kings Lynn (served by Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Kings Lynn); and in Cornwall the majority of the 420,000 population are able to access Treliske Hospital in Truro or Derriford Hospital in Plymouth in less than one hour. However, if the ‘unavoidable smallness due to remoteness’ reduced this journey time from 60 minutes to 45 minutes, while it has relatively little effect on which providers serve a remote population it does have a significant impact on the proportion of the population that is remote. ACRA cite Furness Hospital where the proportion of the population considered remote would increase from 60% at 60 minutes to 90% at 45 minutes and 100% at 30 minutes.  

In 2016-2017 seven CCGs covering eight remote hospital areas received an additional £31.2 million to take into account their unavoidable smallness. This figure will increase by 6% to £33.1 million in 2018-2019. The allocation of this funding amongst the eight remote areas ranges from £2.8 million in Scarborough and Ryedale CCG to £8.9 million in North Cumbria CCG. The largest single adjustment is a 2.8% increase for the Isle of Wight. 

In October 2018 NHS England and NHS Improvement set out proposals to change the payment system in 2019-2020. This included proposals to update the Market Forces Factor (MFF). The MFF estimates the ‘unavoidable cost differences between healthcare providers based on their geographical location’ and has not been updated in 10 years. The main changes in the MFF relate to: using travel to work areas (TTWA) rather than primary care trust (PCT) areas to estimate the non-medical-and-dental staff component; introducing business rates as a new component; and using a more consistent method to combine components into a single index. However, MFF is not seen as the most appropriate mechanism for costs relating to ‘rurality/remoteness’. Instead the recommendation is that “these costs should be compensated via local arrangements to reflect the existing national rurality adjustment to CCG allocations” (page 30). 

In autumn 2018 the Nuffield Trust was commissioned by the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) to explore the impact of rurality and sparsity on the costs of delivering rural health care. This review looked at the key factors for calculating health allocations to local areas: with adjustments in funding made for population need, unmet need/inequalities, costs and financial stability. The key determinant here is population and demographic needs within a given area. A further adjustment is made for the higher costs of running hospitals with 24-hour A&E departments in remote areas. Funding from CCGs to rural areas makes adjustments for (i) the extra cost of ambulance provision and (ii) an allowance for remoteness. However, these two factors are outweighed by a further two factors (iii) market forces and (iv) health inequalities. The impact of iii and iv sees the total budget for core services move around £600 million of funding from predominantly rural areas to urban and less rural areas. Nuffield’s analysis further reveals how six rural hospital trusts carry a quarter of England’s health service’s funding deficit. 

Data provided to the Nuffield Trust by NHS Improvement suggests that, to November 2018, 17 trusts had applied for local modifications. Of these applications, the majority (11 applications) are for rurality (or sparsity/economies of scale); with the remainder consisting of rationale relating to case-mix complications (2), Private Finance Initiatives or estates (2), A&E services (2), and clinical negligence scheme costs (1). To date, only one trust, Morecambe Bay, has been successful in its request for formal compensation for higher costs due to rurality. 

Indeed, when CCGs make any adjustments for the actual amount of funding an area receives they follow a ‘pace of change policy’ in their allocation formulae. This is a determinant of how far CCG areas are moved closer to their target allocation each year through differential growth – and it intended to provide stability in funding for all organisations with those moving furthest under target closer towards their target. This policy is set by NHS England for NHS allocations. While the policy is intended to support a place based approach to commissioning, in practice it can also lead funding to be moved from rural to urban areas.  

The NHS Long-Term Plan contains one reference to  ‘rural’ on page 23. Section 1.32 states: “we will develop a standard model of delivery in smaller acute hospitals who serve rural populations. Smaller hospitals have significant challenges around a number of areas including workforce and many of the national standards and policies were not appropriately tailored to meet their needs. We will work with trusts to develop a new operating model for these sorts of organisations, and how they work more effectively with other parts of the local healthcare system.” 

The implications of the long-term plan for rural communities highlights trade-offs between the centralisation and/or localisation of services; having a health and care workforce and meeting required safe staffing levels; specialist versus generalist staff; and face to face provision and the use of technology.  

The authors of the Nuffield Trust review conclude that “the way the NHS distributes funding between local health services is unclear, unfair and fails to fully compensate remote and rural areas for the extra costs they face”. 

Moving from (acute) hospital settings to (preventive) community care?

For me, in trying to unpack and understand the funding formulae’s for NHS services what remains missing is: (1) a joined-up dialogue about funding for social care in rural areas, and (ii) a joined-up dialogue about prevention in rural areas. 

In March 2017 the Government stated its intention to publish a Green Paper on social care in order to allow a public consultation to be held. Since then, the publication of the Green Paper has been delayed several times – most recently following the announcement of the NHS long-term plan. 

The purpose of the Green Paper is to look at the sustainability of the care support system in its broadest sense (taking into account workforce, technology, health and other services). In December 2018 the Rural Services All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) published the findings of its inquiry into the future funding of adult social care in rural areas. This reveals how there are 4,615 requests per 100,000 residents for new support from clients aged 18 years and over: 16.5% greater than in urban areas (3,960 requests per 100,000 population). The gross current expenditure on support in predominantly rural areas is £210,982 per 100,000 adult population: 20% greater than urban areas (£175,877 per 100,000 adult population). The hourly rate for home care in predominantly rural areas is £16.43 per hour, 11% greater than the hourly cost in urban areas of £14.81. For many rural Local Authorities the current care support system is not sustainable. 

These figures, provided by RSN members, suggests ‘unavoidable smallness due to remoteness’ is also an issue that affects the provision of audit social care. 

However, these figures – and the Government’s Green Paper – do not include requests, expenditure or the costs of providing children’s services. According to the Local Government Association (LGA), in 2017-2018 there was a £816 million overspend in Council’s children’s social care budgets – with the largest overspends in the areas of looked after children and child protection. While overall spending by Local Authorities was down by £447 million on the previous year (2017-2018), spending on children’s social care increased by £368 million; meaning authorities have to divert money from other services to meet the costs of providing vital services to children and young people. The LGA estimates that children’s services are facing a funding gap of approximately £3 billion by 2025 just to maintain services at their current level. 

For me this work underlines the need to have a dialogue about how much it costs to meet social care needs in rural areas (for children, young people and adults), where integration happens in delivering health and care in rural areas, and how to pay for it (before provision collapses). 

The NHS long-term plan contains a substantive section on strengthening the NHS’s contribution to prevention – including programmes to cut smoking, reduce obesity, limit alcohol-related A&E admissions and to lower air pollution. In 2019, the Government will also be publishing a Green Paper on prevention. This will seek to shift health services from acute settings to community and primary care settings. Currently, £97 billion of public money is spent on treating disease and £8 billion on preventing it. The Green Paper will set out how this shift from treating single acute illnesses to promoting the health of the whole individual will be undertaken – with a mission to improve health life expectancy so that by 2035, people enjoy at least five extra years of healthy, independent life. Of particular interest to RSN members, the plans are thought to include reducing loneliness and social isolation as well as the provision of specialist mental health services. At the same time, many RSN members will be familiar with reductions in the public health grant given to Local Authorities (averaging 3.9% a year to 2020-2021) which may lead to a reduction in the quantity and quality of services available and place increased demand on treatment services.  For me, this underlines the need for a dialogue about what kinds of public health intervention are needed in rural areas, how they integrate with health and care, and where any future investment will come from. 

Where next? 

In April 2019 NHS England will be reviewing how allocations are made to local areas in line with its next mandate from Government. This may include seeing if the needs of rural areas are better captured through estimating the need for community services and using population data which better reflects seasonal workers. Will this result in additional allocations for rural areas? 

At some point in 2019, HM Treasury will be carrying out Spending Reviews for public services. This will, ultimately, set the level of NHS funding provided by Government. This will set health funding for the 2020-2021 financial year and may possibly extend over the two following financial years as well.  

We also eagerly await the Green Papers on social care and prevention. 

While there is a clear thread emerging here for providing more integrated, place-based and holistic/whole person health and care – and to getting all NHS organisations into balance – what will the resultant financial allocations mean for rural residents? Will future funding formulae offer equal access to everyone or will the financial costs of doing so in rural areas mean the same economies of scale for which we are judged against cannot be achieved? Watch this space…   

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The term ‘unavoidable smallness due to remoteness’ derives from NHS England’s Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) and provides estimates on the unavoidable costs associated with providing health care services in remote areas.  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Nuffield Trust research report – Palmer B, Appleby J and Spencer J (2019) Rural health care: A rapid review of the impact of rurality on the costs of delivering health care – can be downloaded from the NCRHC website here. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Jessica is a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (https://www.ncrhc.org/) which commissioned the research from the Nuffield Trust.  

The NCRHC has joined with the Rural Services Network (RSN) to launch the affiliated Rural Health & Care Alliance – a membership organisation dedicated to providing news, information, innovation and best practice to those delivering and interested in rural health and care across England. More information about the RHCA – and how to join – can be found here: https://www.rsnonline.org.uk/page/about-the-rhca 

Jessica is also a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a hospital avoidance service; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. 

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

UK Veterans

Making a transition from military to civilian life – how can we (better) support veterans in rural areas?

There are some 2.5 million UK armed forces veterans living in households across Great Britain. The Armed Forces Covenant was introduced in 2011 to influence support and policies directed at the veteran community. The Government published a new Veterans Strategy in November 2018. Alongside this, a consultation on ways to implement the strategy is open until 21 February 2019. What support is available to former members of the armed forces – and how does this operate in rural areas?    Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

How many armed forces veterans are there? For statistical purposes a veteran is defined as ‘individuals aged 16+ years in households in Great Britain and have previously served at least one day in the UK Armed Forces’. According to the annual population survey, compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in 2016 there were an estimated 2.5 million UK armed forces veterans residing in households across Great Britain. Veterans were predominantly white (98%), male (90%), and aged 65 years and over (63%). The veteran profile is heavily influenced by those who served in the Second Wold War and subsequent National Service. Veterans are estimated to make up 5% of all household residents aged 16+ years in England. Data on armed forces veterans looks at their region of residence. This reveals how over a quarter of veterans (28%) were estimated to be living in South East and South West England. 

What support is available to armed forces veterans in England? Government policy is centred on the Armed Forces Covenant. This is a statement of the moral obligation which exists between the nation, the Government and the Armed Forces in return for the sacrifices they make/made. Published in May 2011, and enshrined in the Armed Forces Act 2011 (AFA), it applies to those who served in the army, air force and navy. The Covenant contains two core principles: (1) no disadvantage: that current or former members of the armed forces, or their families, should not be at a disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. (2) Special consideration: this is appropriate in some cases, particularly for those who have been injured or bereaved. The Ministry of Defence also coordinates a cross-Government Armed Forces Covenant and Veterans Board. The AFA requires the Secretary of State for Defence to report to Parliament annually on the progress made with the Covenant – and specifically in 4 main areas: healthcare, education, housing and the operation of inquests. 

The Armed Forces Covenant is supported by the Community Covenant and the Corporate Covenant. The Community Covenant encourages local communities to support the armed forces community in their area. Every Local Authority in England has signed a Community Covenant Partnership with their local armed forces. The Corporate Covenant is a voluntary pledge from businesses and other organisations who wish to demonstrate their support for the armed forces community (e.g. employment support for veterans). 

The Ministry of Defence also provides a £10 million annual Covenant Fund and a five-year £30 million Aged Veterans Fund. 

In November 2018 the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Office published ‘the strategy for our veterans.’ Under the strapline ‘valued, contributing, supported’, the strategy is a UK-wide document endorsed by UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments. The document focuses on delivering public services to veterans over the next 10 years so that ‘by 2028 every veteran feels more valued, supported and empowered.’ The strategy contains three key themes: (1) veterans are first and foremost civilians and continue to be of benefit to wider society; (2) veterans are encouraged and enabled to maximise their potential as civilians; and (3) veterans are able to access support that meets their needs through public and voluntary sectors. The strategy contains five cross-cutting themes (i.e., collaboration, coordination, data, perception and recognition); and focuses its attention on six areas that affect veterans’ lives: (a) community and relationships; (b) employment, education and skills; (c) finance and debt; (d) health and wellbeing; (e) making a home in civilian life; and (f) veterans and the law. 

Alongside the strategy, the Government published a consultation paper to gather information and seek views on how to implement the strategy [the consultation closes on 21 February 2019] as well as a document summarising provision available in the UK Armed Forces charity sector. This sits alongside the Veterans Gateway. Established in June 2017, the Gateway provides a single point of contact for veterans and is convened by a consortium of organisations and Armed Forces charities, including The Royal British Legion, SSAFA – the Armed Forces charity, Poppyscotland, Combat Stress and Connect Assist.  

Each Armed Forces Service provides both individual services information and collective tri-service guidance to service personnel on leaving and transitioning to civilian life. 

In England, employment support is available through the Career Transition Partnership [a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and Right Management Ltd] and Jobcentre Plus which has an armed forces champion in every district. The Forces in Mind Trust (FiMT) has commissioned the Universities of Salford and York to undertake a two-year project (2017-2019) looking at how service leavers and their families experience mainstream social security benefits as part of their transition to civilian life. 

Housing support is available through the Joint Service Housing Advice Office (JSHAO) and Forces Help to Buy pilot. 

Veterans UK, part of the Ministry of Defence, administers armed forces pension schemes and compensation payments.  

Veterans in England, Scotland and Wales are entitled to priority access to secondary healthcare for conditions suspected to be due to their services in the Armed Forces. The NHS Constitution states that ‘the NHS will ensure that in line with the Armed Forces Covenant, those in the armed forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing health services in the area they reside’ (pages 3-4). While service personnel are able to access community mental health services from the Defence Medical Services (DMS) up to 6 months after leaving; in April 2017 the NHS launched a ‘veterans mental health transition, intervention and liaison service’ and a ‘veterans mental health complex treatment service’ – both are intended to provide enhanced local community based services for veterans. Mental health support is also available from The Royal British Legion (RBL) and Combat Stress. 

Other organisations that provide services and support to veterans include (but are not limited to): Citizens Advice, Cobseo, SSAFA, Turn2us, Help for Heroes, and The Not Forgotten Association.  The Veterans & Families Research Hub (VFR) was set up in 2017 by the FiMT, Lord Ashcroft and Anglia Ruskin University to act as a repository for UK and international research and resources on military veterans and their families so as to inform policy development and service delivery. The hub contains research on a number of themes including training, employment, finance, housing, health, legal and relationships/communication.  The Hub contains reports and studies of initiatives in rural areas – all of these are currently based in the United States.

Taken as a collective, there are an array of policies and initiatives. How do veterans, their family members and carers navigate this to find the right support – and when they need it? 

How is this support available to veterans living in rural areas? There are two main sources of statistics about veterans: the Annual Population Survey and the Census. While these provide estimates on the size of the UK Armed Forces veteran population, and the characteristics of veterans (e.g. their age, location, health status, employment) – they both look at one point in time (for the Census this is 2011 and for the APS 2016). While the Census looks at location (by county, Local Authority and clinical commissioning group) this information is not presented according to the Rural Urban Classification. In practice, this means there is no spatial or geographical component to the data analysis so we do not know how precisely many veterans live in rural communities. Similarly, many of the statistics collect data on veterans of ‘working age’; how many older veterans (aged 65 years and over) are living in rural areas?  In the United States, for example, the Department of Veterans Affairs has an Office of Rural Health as part of attempts to provide accessible care. Almost one-quarter of all veterans in the United States, some 4.7 million people, leaving active military careers now reside in rural communities. 

While in the UK there is some momentum in transition for those leaving the Armed Forces, what support is available for those who left their military career long ago?  For older veterans (born before 1 January 1950) some of the projects funded by the Aged Veterans Fund are operating in rural areas (e.g. in North Yorkshire, Cornwall):  what learning is emerging around ensuring coverage and accessibility in rural, coastal and urban settings? How do older veterans living in rural areas move into, through and out of the projects? How does the support they offer align with other forms of mainstream support for older veterans? Do older veterans supported by these projects go on to access support from service charities and/or mainstream providers? The work of the Aged Veterans projects may also provide new insights into any similarities and differences between the health and care needs of older veterans and those of the general population in rural areas.The data tends to show that there are no differences between veterans’ and non-veterans’ self-reported general health, and health conditions. For example, 35% of veterans and 36% of non-veterans aged 16-64 years – and 18% of veterans and 19% of non-veterans aged 65+ years – reported their general health to be very good. 

With Government committed to meeting the needs of older veterans as well as the wider veteran community; what more can now be done to understand and better support the physical, social and emotional needs of all veterans [their families and carers] in rural communities? 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a hospital avoidance service; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. She is also a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (https://www.ncrhc.org/). In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Rural NHS

How can we build a rural health and care workforce?

The NHS tuned 70 on 5 July 2018. This year has seen celebrations and appreciation of the vital role that the service plays. As the NHS ages the pressures and demands it faces are very different to those of 1948 – with the workforce under considerable strain to provide services. How can we plan, fund, recruit, train and retain health and care workers in rural areas that meet people’s (clinical and wellbeing) needs and the (professional/lifestyle) aspirations of staff? Jessica Sellick investigates.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

NHS England employs some 1.2 million people – in more than 350 different roles: from 140,000 doctors and 300,000 nurses and midwives through to physiotherapists and dieticians. Despite these numbers it is apparent to all that the NHS just doesn’t have enough staff. There are some 50,000 vacancies in different clinical areas, with a 5.9% shortfall between the staff needed and the staff in post. 

In November 2018 the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) prepared a report for the Cavendish Coalition on the health and social care workforce (H&SC) in all parts of the UK – highlighting trends over time and across regions and job roles – and providing a number of simulations on the workforce in the next few years. By examining the pattern of leavers and joiners to the NHS over the year prior to June 2016 and the year post June 2016 the model suggests the UK may have an additional shortage of around 2,700 nurses. Projecting this shortfall over the remaining period of Brexit transition to 2021 suggest there may be a shortfall of 5,000-10,000 nurses in addition to current vacancies. While challenges around developing a sufficient workforce supply pre-date the Brexit referendum, and Government reforms to education and training routes, the report calls on Governments to urgently review their workforce planning approach.

What do these shortages mean for rural health and care staffing?

In July 2018 I was part of a research team commissioned by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (ULHT), funded by Health Education England (HEE), to apply a rural lens to the workforce challenges facing the NHS in England.  The research involved: 

  • Applying the Rural Urban Classification – an official statistic used by Government to distinguish rural and urban areas – to the different units that health and care as a system is organised into.    
  • Analysis of economic and labour market data: using the Rural Urban Classification to produce a demographic profile for different rural areas, their trends in employment and unemployment, qualifications, occupations and earnings data.
  • An evidence review of academic, health and care charities, national and professional bodies that made reference(s) to rural health and care workforce matters.
  • Analysis of a survey about adult social care involving 13 rural first tier Local Authorities commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Rural Services.
  • A series of one-to-one interviews and focus groups with 20+ NHS staff in Cumbria, Northumberland, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Kent and Cornwall.

The findings of the research were triangulated with a reference group. The group comprised individuals with different perspectives on workforce development at local, regional and national levels (e.g. representatives from rural general practice, acute care, clinical commissioning groups, professional clinical bodies, Local Authorities, charities and community groups). 

The golden thread running through the research is that securing staff to deliver high quality health and care in rural areas (now and in the future) is crucial.  The research identified the following 9 challenges around recruiting and retaining staff in rural areas:

  1. Rural areas are characterised by the disproportionate out-migration of young adults and in-migration of families and older adults.
  2. This means that the population is older than average in rural areas – this has implications for demand on health and care services and for labour supply.
  3. Relatively high employment rates and low rates of unemployment and economic inactivity mean that the labour market in rural areas is relatively tight.
  4. There are fewer NHS staff per head in rural areas than in urban areas.
  5. A rural component in workforce planning is lacking.
  6. The universalism at the heart of the NHS can have negative implications for provision of adequate, but different, services in rural areas.
  7. The conventional health service delivery model is one of a pyramid of services with fully-staffed specialist services in central (generally urban) locations – which are particularly attractive to workers who wish to specialise and advance their careers.
  8. Rural residents need access to general services locally and to specialist services in central locations to provide the best health and care outcomes.
  9. Examples of innovation and good practice are not routinely mapped and analysed which hinders sharing and learning across rural (and urban) areas.

The research also identified 9 opportunities to maximise the supply of staff in rural areas: 

  1. Realising the status and attractiveness of the NHS as a large employer in rural areas (especially in areas where there are few other large employers). 
  2. This means highlighting the varied job roles, opportunities for career development and need for generalist clinical skills in rural areas. 
  3. This means developing ‘centres of excellence’ in particular specialities or ways of working in rural areas that are attractive to workers.
  4. This requires developing innovative solutions to service delivery and staff recruitment and retention. 
  5. This may provide opportunities for people who need or want a ‘second chance’ – perhaps because the educational system has failed them, or because they want to change direction; their ‘life experiences’ should be seen as an asset.
  6. Finding new ways to inspire young people about possible job roles and careers in health and care.
  7. Drawing on the voluntary and community sector, including local community groups, to play a role in the design and delivery of services.
  8. Promoting local solutions to foster prevention and early intervention.
  9. Using technology so face-to-face staff resources are concentrated where they are most effective and needed.

Inherent in addressing these challenges and realising these opportunities are a number of trade-offs. These concern balancing centralisation and localisation (in the way health and care are organised); balancing the flexibility that the workforce desires with filling rotas (to meet required safety standards); balancing the number of clinical specialists with expert generalists; and balancing the use of technology with face-to-face provision.

The research report was published in October 2018. A copy of the report is available from the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) here.  There are three overarching points emerging from the research that may be of particular interest to RSN members: (1) spatial component, (2) staffing and (3) funding.

Firstly, the research highlights the lack of a spatial component in workforce planning. In 2016 the NHS and Local Authorities came together in 44 areas covering all of England to develop proposals to improve health and care. Called ‘Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships ‘(STPs) they have been set up to run services in a more coordinated way, agree system-wide priorities, and to plan collectively how to improve residents’ day-to-day health. NHS Shared Planning Guidance led to the publication of a document setting out how these 44 STP footprints should be formed. This highlighted five factors: (i) geography, (ii) scale, (iii) fit with existing footprints of change programmes, (iv) the financial sustainability of organisations in the area, and (v) leadership capacity and capability to support change. Since 2016 STPs have been publishing plans setting out proposals for how they will achieve these aims – with some STPs evolving into Integrated Care Systems (ICS).

The rural workforce research found 22 of the 44 STPs have a population share equal to, or greater than, the England average (of 17%). The research analysed 10 STP plans in detail – with these areas chosen because they have at least double the share of rural population than England as a whole. Across these 10 plans there are fewer than 50 references to ‘rural’. None of the plans makes a clear link between the rural area they cover and the workforce challenges that they face. That said, some of the plans do highlight how rurality impacts more generically on service delivery (e.g. time, cost and distance) – but these tend to be introductory and contextual remarks rather than integral to the documents. While RSN members recognise and champion the heterogeneity of rural areas– geographically and socioeconomically – this spatial component is not always taken into account in health workforce planning.

Secondly, the research highlights how there are fewer NHS workers per head of population in rural areas compared to urban areas. NHS Workforce Statistics publish monthly numbers of NHS Hospital and Community Service (HCHS) staff groups working in Trusts and CCGs in England (excluding primary care staff). This data on headcounts is compiled and published by NHS Digital. The research looked at the statistical bulletin published in April 2018 which included monthly headcount figures from January 2018. The headline figures show: 

  • The headcount was 1,205,949 in January 2018. This is 7,711 (0.6 per cent) more than the previous month (1,198,238) and 21,068 (1.8 per cent) more than in January 2017 (1,184,881).
  • The full time equivalent (FTE) total was 1,064,810 in January 2018. This is 6,910 (0.7 per cent) more than the previous month (1,057,900) and 19,252 (1.8 per cent) more than in January 2017 (1,045,559).
  • Professionally qualified staff make up over half (54.0 per cent) of the HCHS workforce (based on FTE).

Analysis of this data reveals an overall difference in the ratio of NHS staff per head of population (excluding regional ambulance services) in the 11 most rural STP areas compared to England as a whole of 45%. This means compared to the national average rural areas have 45% fewer workers per head of population. And this picture does not appear to be improving despite the increase in headcount in some staff groups. In rural areas there are 10 key staff groups with shortages. They are: professionally qualified clinical staff, doctors, consultants (including Directors of Public Health), staff grade, specialty registrar, core training, foundation doctor year 1, midwives, scientific/technical and property/estates.

The research found recruitment poses a greater challenge than retention in many (but not all) rural areas. Achieving an optimal balance between mobility and immobility is important – some churn is valuable in stimulating new ideas, but too much churn is problematic. A segmented approach to recruitment is needed to focus on what makes rural areas attractive to different staff groups.

The research also highlights the need (in rural and urban areas) to think of workforce development in terms of an employment pathway: get in, get on and go further. For rural areas this could mean “grow your own”, i.e., finding ways to recruit, develop, cultivate and retain individuals from the local community to enter healthcare careers to help provide a long-term solution to addressing workforce challenges. For rural areas it could also mean thinking about health and care careers in terms of a ‘climbing frame’ rather than a ‘ladder’ because a career could include side-steps, changes in direction, entry into related or new specialisms and/or working for longer. For rural areas it could mean developing more innovative health and care service delivery models. For example, The Buurtzorg Nederland (home care provider) Model is based on small, self-managing teams of community nurses who have access to coaches for ongoing support and spend at least 60% of their time with patients – could a similar approach work in rural England? 

Thirdly, health and care funding formulas do not take into account the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas. From speaking with clinical and non-clinical staff the research identified additional costs associated with: staff joining towards the end of their clinical career rather than towards the start or middle (leading to higher wage bills); a lack of nearby acute centres to divert patients to if your own centre is full;  staff distance from training and continuing professional development and higher education opportunities; and poor road network (affecting ambulance response times, staff travel time).  In October 2018 The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) commissioned the Nuffield Trust to carry out ‘a rapid review of the impact of rurality on the costs of delivering healthcare’.  The review is considering how the NHS takes account of rurality in its funding allocations (e.g. unavoidable smallness due to remoteness). The Nuffield funding review will be available on the NCRHC website in December 2018. Given the announcement of an extra £2 billion for mental health services and £650 million grant for Local Authorities struggling to cope with rising care bills for 2019/2020 contained in Budget 2018 [NB: the budget for day-to-day running costs for NHS England is £114.6 billion for 2018-19]; it will be interesting to consider how the findings of the workforce research and the Nuffield review can be harnessed to inform future funding allocations to improve the ‘provider to population’ ratio?

Perhaps what this research reveals is the need for rural proofing in the funding, planning and delivery of health and care services. I am aware that Defra is looking at the guidance it provides to policymakers. There is also interest in rural proofing health and care policies in Northern Ireland and Wales. This also means understanding, in some detail, the character of rural populations and the health issues facing them (which are often masked by official statistics); and thinking through how we promote rural [as offering professionally fulfilling and rewarding careers with high quality of life] to health and care professionals. Can we do this? Watch this space…

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). The NCRHC is a Community Interest Company, national in scope and with a Headquarters in Lincolnshire, and focuses on four principal activities: data, research, technology and workforce.

The NCRHC is providing the secretariat for a new Parliamentary Inquiry into Rural Health and Care.  The Inquiry is being led by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Health and Social care and is co-chaired by Ann Marie Morris MP and The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally. Eight key issues will be considered by the Inquiry over the next two years:

1) What are the needs of rural communities and how are they different from their urban counterparts?

2) How are rural health and social care needs currently met?

3) What is not working in rural communities and why?

4) Workforce challenges and opportunities

5) Education and training challenges and opportunities

6) Structural challenges of fitting current delivery models into a rural setting with different needs and challenges

7) Technology opportunities and challenges

8) Integration opportunities and threats

The first key issue was considered at a session on 30 October 2018 held in the House of Commons. Updates on the Inquiry and how to participate will be available on the NCRHC website and/or by emailing the Operations Director for the NCRHC Ivan Annibal via enquiries@ncrhc.org    

When Jessica’s not working at the NCRHC she is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a hospital avoidance service; and undertaking a piece of work on migration.

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association.

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Quality work rural area

From quantity to quality – what does ‘good work’ look like in rural areas?

With the age of retirement going up, many people will spend 50+ years in employment. Government policy is seeking ‘to boost the number of jobs and create a flexible labour market…modernising employment law while protecting employee rights…to increase the number of people in employment.’ While the number of jobs available has increased, more recent attention has turned to the quality of that work. In July 2017 Matthew Taylor published his independent review of modern working practices for Government. Titled ‘good work’, the single overriding ambition of the Review was that “all work should be fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment”. In February 2018 Government published its response to the review, including a Good Work Plan for taking forward recommendations on employment policy and legislation. What does good work look like in rural England, why does it matter, and what more can be done to bring it about? Jessica Sellick investigates.

What is good work? The concept can be traced back to the work of Ernst Schumacher in the 1970s – compiled from a series of lectures in the United States delivered to some 60,000 people and culminating in a meeting at The White House with President Carter. For Schumacher the purpose of work was threefold: (i) to produce necessary and useful goods and services; (ii) to enable us to use and perfect our gifts and skills; and (iii) to collaborate with other people so as to liberate ourselves from our inborn egocentricity. A job in which there was no personal satisfaction was said to destroy the soul.

In the UK, in October 2016, the Prime Minister commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out ‘an Independent Review of Employment Practices in the Modern Economy.’ The Review was tasked with focusing on six main areas: (i) security, pay and rights; (ii) progression and training; (iii) the balance of rights and responsibilities; (iv) representation; (v) opportunities for under-represented groups; and (vi) new business models. Alongside this, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) GoodWorkIs campaign sought to test the depth of public commitment to better work.

Supported by a panel of experts, Taylor’s Review was published in July 2017 and called on the Government “to adopt the ambition that all work should be fair and decent with scope for fulfilment and development”. The Review set out seven steps for achieving good quality work for all. Under a strapline ‘think like a system, act like an entrepreneur’, the steps were: 1. Creating a national strategy for work – the British way – that should be explicitly directed towards the goal of good work. 2. Platform based working provides opportunities for those who may not be able to work in conventional ways but fairness must be ensured for those who work through these platforms. 3. The law should help firms make the right choices and individuals to know and exercise their rights. 4. Companies must be seen to take good work seriously, be open about their practices, and ensure all workers are able to be engaged and heard. 5. Workers must feel they have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects. 6. A more proactive approach to workplace health is needed. 7. Ensuring that people – particularly in low paid sectors – are not stuck at the living wage minimum or facing insecurity but can progress in their current and future work. The recommendations made by the Review focused on three broad challenges: (1) tackling exploitation or the potential for exploitation at work; (2) increasing clarity in the law to help people know and exercise their rights; and (3) aligning the labour market with the Industrial Strategy and broader national objectives.

In February 2018 the Government published its response to the Review. It acknowledged the overarching ambition of the Review and accepted all but one of the recommendations [changes to National Insurance Contributions for self-employed workers]. In now taking the Review forward, the Government proposes providing millions of workers with new rights under its Good Work Plan – from taking further action to ensure unpaid interns are not doing the job of paid workers through to asking the Low Pay Commission to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage for workers on zero hour contracts.

The response builds on Government’s previous support of good work outlined in the Industrial Strategy which included a commitment to ‘promote the delivery of better jobs’. The Industrial Strategy contains five principles which Government believes underpins the quality of work: worker satisfaction; good pay; participation and progression; wellbeing, safety and security; and voice and autonomy.

Following Taylor’s Review, the Work and Pensions and Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Committees produced a framework for modern employment. This has led to consultations on the enforcement of employment rights, employment status, increasing transparency in the labour market, and protecting agency workers.

Who does (and does not) enjoy good work? Recent interest in ‘good work’ stems from the rise of in-work poverty or the working poor (these are people in employment but finding it hard to make ends meet), poor employment practices (which undermine individual dignity and autonomy) as well as challenges to future work (e.g. poor real wage growth, poor productivity, getting the skills to match the jobs, new business models and automation).

RSA analysis has found gaps in good work around the pay squeeze (including how many people earn below the Voluntary Living Wage); the time spent on work-related training dropping; the overemployment of workers and/or examples of them carrying out unpaid overtime; an increase in work related stress; a decline in the proportion of workers saying they feel they have a say over changes in their workplace; and the amount of workers struggling persistently with low pay and lack of job security.

The RSA published research in January 2018 containing seven portraits of modern work. Whether a worker is ‘thriving, striving or just about surviving’ depends on a number of variables including their household circumstances (income level and stability of income), job security (the extent to which they feel safeguarded from job loss), levels of personal debt, savings and assets (their ability to meet ends meet), agency (the extent to which they feel able to enter or exit the labour market) and their social support network. Workers identified a ‘job that is interesting’ to be of primary importance, with job security the second most valued aspect, followed by high income, flexibility and autonomy. For those who have yet to build up a high level of economic security they value aspects of a job that can help them feel more secure (e.g. security of their position, wage level).

The RSA and Populus carried out a survey to find out whether what workers value in a good job aligned to their actual experiences of work. The survey found economic worries across four self-defined income groups: (i) those not managing to get by, (ii) those just managing to get by, (iii) those just managing to save and (iv)those comfortably saving. From the 2,083 adults interviewed, four-fifths were worried inflation would outstrip their pay; a third of those ‘just about managing’ had a household income of more than the national average (£34,000); high housing costs were the biggest concern of those not managing; and personal debt worried two-thirds of respondents.

With these findings the RSA is calling for public policy to focus on ‘economic security’ – ‘the degree of confidence that a person can have in maintaining a decent quality of life, now and in the future, given their economic and financial circumstances’. The RSA is asking Government to overhaul health, housing and welfare to fuse economic policy and public services together around economic security.

More recently, WikiJob published an article on the 15 technical skills employers are looking for. Employees with these skills are often better at multitasking in challenging and complex roles and receive higher pay. The article contains job seekers hints and tips on how to give technical skills prominence on CVs and at interview.

For me, two strands of good work analysis missing in this analysis and policy attention. Firstly, detailed mapping to understand which geographies, sectors and job types enjoy good work and which enjoy less good work – and why this is. Secondly, how does the vision of good work (the seven steps) fit with the everyday reality of the workplace – and how might these two aspects be reconciled by employees and employers?

What are the rural dimensions of good work? Rural/urban classifications used for Government statistics indicate the heterogeneity (geographically, socially, economically) of rural areas. There are variations in the relative accessibility/ remoteness of rural areas – with remoter (and especially peripheral/ coastal) rural areas more likely to suffer particular issues concerning connectivity in terms of travel-to-work, travel-to-train and accessibility to other services when compared to more accessible rural areas. There are also variations in the economic position of individuals, in-work poverty, housing affordability, health, etc. The relatively high levels of deprivation in some rural areas tend not to be captured by standard deprivation indices (e.g. English Indices of Deprivation 2015).

From a workforce perspective, rural areas tend to be characterised by an older than average workforce. This has implications for so-called ‘replacement demand’ (i.e. job openings resulting from retirement) and for recruitment strategies and job design. The out-migration of young people to larger urban areas reduces the number of qualified young people for recruitment. The quantity, breadth and depth of different job roles are likely to be greater in urban areas than in rural areas. There are a higher proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), lower than average levels of training, less emphasis on formal qualifications and more emphasis on informal training in rural areas. There are more informal labour market mechanisms operating in rural areas. For example: the number of self-employed people who are barely scrapping a living or workers accepting lower wages or working fewer hours; ‘Job jugglers’: people who have more than one job, some if it seasonal, temporary or part time and low paid; or people out of work and trying to get by not accessing support from [or often on the radar of] Jobcentre Plus and DWP.

The Taylor Review acknowledged how the labour market is changing, self-employment rising and innovative forms of working emerging that current policy and legislative frameworks do not always accommodate. For me, full time employment remains the norm in public policy and the Review fails to fully acknowledge these characteristics of employment in rural areas.

Where next? While studies on the quality of work have been undertaken there is no single, agreed upon metrics for informing national policy (i.e., good work indicators broken down by geography, sector, demography). The Carnegie UK Trust and the RSA are developing metrics for measuring ‘job quality’ while CIPD and the Warwick Institute of Employment Research (IER) have developed an index of job quality.

The seven steps to good work apply to three types of individual in the workplace (employees, workers and those who are self-employed) and the Taylor Review has perhaps less to say on what it means for employers – particularly around issues such as how they might further support career development and progression, or help tackle in-work poverty and low pay. If good work is to be available to all the employer voice is important in achieving this.

Finally, talent for care aims to help people Get Ready, Get In, Get On and Go Further in their careers in the NHS. Developed by Health Education England (HEE) the strategic framework underpinning this employment pathway focuses on providing opportunities for people to start their career in a support role; supporting them to be the best they can be in the job they do; and providing opportunities for career progression. Within the pathway, development and progression are based upon an individual’s merit, ability and motivation and not their social background or social networks. For me, it speaks to some of the means of achieving good work, namely ensuring workers have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects and ensuring workers can progress in work. How could this approach to workforce development (from entry to in-work progression) and the seven steps to achieving good work apply in rural areas?

What kinds of jobs do we want in rural areas and how can we ensure that these jobs are fair and decent with scope for fulfilment and development for employees in ways that are practical for employers? How can we make sure good work reflects rural labour markets and the ways in which people actually live their working lives?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a mental health project supporting young people; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Data visualisation

Building a rural data visualisation community?

While many people are familiar with terms such as data collection, data storage and data analysis, there has often been a gap in how we extract information and present it in meaningful ways for different audiences. ‘Data visualisation’ is changing that, providing an integrated means of letting people explore data. We spend months, years, often decades, collecting data so it makes sense to consider how we process, analyse, present and disseminate our findings. What does data visualisation mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

What is data visualisation? Back in 1987 the National Science Foundation described it as “a method for seeing the unseen. It enriches the process of scientific discovery and fosters profound and unexpected insights…all people with normal perceptual abilities are predominantly visual” (page 7).

This graphic representation of quantitative information can be traced back to the earliest map making (for navigation and exploration) and cartography (I’m thinking here of Charles Booth’s 1889 poverty map); statistics, medicine and other fields. Along the way, developments in technologies (printing), empirical recording (i.e., numbers pertaining to people gathered in large and periodic series) enabled the wider use of graphics. From maps, diagrams and graphs that were initially hand-drawn (piece by piece) then etched onto copper-plate; through to computer software. Different types of sub-fields of data visualisation have emerged. Information visualisation uses tables, graphs, maps through to files and lines of code in software systems to depict large-scale collections of information. Cartographic visualisation concentrates on the spatial domains, tables and graphs on statistical analysis. And scientific visualisation is concerned with the depiction of architectural, meteorological, medical and biological phenomena – presenting volumes, surfaces and other data components such as time and distance. There is of course overlap between all of these strands, for they share a common history.

In essence, data visualisation is a broad term used for presenting information in a visual way; both numerical and non-numerical data in static or interactive graphics. While it is not new, our desire to find new ways to help us make sense of information continues to grow. As technology has developed and moved on it has become easier for anyone to create and/or share data visualisations.

Why use data visualisation? We collect lots of raw data (often called source data, primary data or atomic data); and analysing this data and then presenting it visually can help people interact with the information and understand what is happening in ways that might not be apparent if they were to look at raw data or read a long text. So data visualisation makes data more accessible to people internally within an organisation (e.g. to see patterns or trends) and to external, non-specialist, audiences. It can, for example, help Governments, organisations or businesses to make decisions (e.g. to understand the outcomes of public policy or customer preferences) or to pinpoint emerging trends (i.e., comprehending information quickly, identifying relationships and patterns, and communicating this to others in bitesize chunks). Examples of data visualisation in academic circles includes work undertaken by the LSE library; in policy circles work undertaken by the National Audit Office (NAO) on infographics and interactive data-sets , DWP’s sketchnoting; and Defra’s Data Programme; and in the voluntary & community and charitable sectors such as work by Citizens Advice. All of these examples seek to enhance the ways in which we collect, process, understand, present and disseminate data.

There are lots of advantages to data visualisation and its use has been taken up widely. Indeed the top trends for 2018 include an estimated 39% increase in demand for data scientists and data engineers over the next three-years – but also an expectation among employers that all employees will become familiar and comfortable with data. This points towards a continued growth in tools and resources to make the benefits of data visualisation more accessible to everyone. The top trends also identify how open data provides opportunities for organisations to enhance their own data and draw new insights.

It is also worth noting that many RSN members have not / do not receive any formal training in data visualisation: for many of us presently rely upon statistical packages with limited visualisation capabilities (e.g. spreadsheets, word processing programmes) and/or by the software to which we can access and/or afford. Similarly, the variety of data types that exists means finding the most appropriate means of illustrating this diversity can be a challenge. And because data visualisation only presents snapshots of larger projects/documents it raises doubts about the reliability of findings (i.e., is the purpose to persuade people of a particular point of view and/or represent an entire dataset?) While a range of digital tools are available (and emerging), sometimes external support is required to explore the data and designs.

If data visualisation is becoming increasingly important, where do you start? Answering this question depends on what data you are collecting or hold; how and why you want to present data visually: who are your intended audiences? What are the key points you want the visualisation to raise? How much detail needs to be presented? How can this data be shared in a meaningful way with the audience(s) you want to target? Is the data you are using quantitative or qualitative?

Having responses to these questions can assist in guiding when, what and how to present the data. For example, this may include developing images which show facts and figures; or bar charts showing comparisons or ranks; or line graphs showing changes over time; or maps showing geographical spread; or word clouds showing text analysis. There are numerous good practice guides and examples of how organisations have approached it.

If we were to think about data visualisation in the context of rural England: what data might we want to collect, process and present? For me, it would afford bringing together data about what it is like to live and work in rural England. For example, this could include data about (in no particular order): housing stock, condition and affordability; broadband and mobile connectivity, speed and cost; level of poverty (for individuals, children, people of working age and older people); access to transport (car ownership, public transport, community transport schemes); demographic profile (while the proportion of older people living in rural areas is higher than in urban areas, does it become more difficult to live in a rural place when you are no longer able to drive / need to access health and care services?); stock of jobs, sectors, pay, employment levels, economic inactivity; and/or access to public services (e.g. primary care, secondary care, social care, ambulance, primary school, secondary school, FE college, post office, library, Jobcentre etc.). Within each or all of these data strands it would be interesting to analyse and visualise: (i) funding: how much does it cost to deliver, how much money is being spent and by whom; (ii) sparsity: using the Rural Urban Classification, how does the analysis vary according to whether you are near a town, in a sparse setting or isolated setting – and how does it compare to urban areas? (iii) Projections – what happens if you project the data over 5, 10, 20 years: does it become easier, stay about the same, or more difficult to live in rural England? (iv) Comparators – how does this data compare to rural areas in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I’m sure RSN members will have their own thoughts and perspectives to add to this starting list…

While charts and graphics are powerful tools for communication, many organisations are yet to benefit from them. Their potential for understanding rural England is huge for as we become more exposed to data, visualisation provides a practical means of improving our understanding of what it shows. This presents opportunities to increase the visibility of rural England to Government, policy and decision makers, voluntary and community sector organisations, charities and businesses. How can we use data visualisation to generate further interest in all things rural? Equally, I am mindful that if we are going to use data visualisation to present information about rural England, we need to ask ourselves whose story we are telling and for what purpose…

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a mobile sensory project; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Load More