A recent item on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme generated an unusually high number of responses from listeners. A man who had lost his job in the financial services sector at the age of 57 described his difficulty in trying to find work. Having submitted hundreds of job applications – mostly without response – the man had decided to retire at the age of 62. Although he is still healthy and open to offers of work, his view is that employers see him as ‘too old and too expensive.’
Large numbers of radio listeners responded, many of them echoing the man’s experience of trying to find work later in life. The programme followed this up, airing the views of an older woman who suggested that employers were not only being ageist, but also sexist when recruiting.
An ageing workforce: challenges and opportunities
The issue of older workers is important for a number of reasons. In most developed countries people are living longer, and in many cases they want to continue working long after what was once thought of as the natural age of retirement.
An ageing workforce and fewer school leavers presents problems for the world’s economies. An international survey by the Manpower Group has found that the percentage of organisations struggling to fill vacancies rose from 36% in 2014 to 75% in 2024.
Many older people are fit and healthy enough to continue working. But even though age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, too many employers are discriminating against older workers.
A 2018 report by the Centre for Ageing Better (CAB) found that age is the least scrutinised and most widely accepted form of discrimination in the UK. A more recent CAB survey reported that more than a third of 50-70 year-olds felt that at every stage of the recruiting process they were at a disadvantage when applying for jobs due to their age.
Challenging the misconceptions
Few employers will openly admit to discriminating against older people, but a 2018 survey by Human Resource magazine did find some evidence of ageism. The article also challenged five common misconceptions held by employers about workers over the age of fifty:
They can’t learn new things: when it comes to learning something new, there is no age limit; every day, older workers demonstrate that they can adapt well to changes in working practices.
They are less productive: the evidence shows that older workers are just as productive as their younger colleagues.
They take more time off sick: while some surveys do suggest that some older workers are living with long-term conditions, most are managing these, and still able to work effectively.
They will retire and leave the organisation: after the Covid-19 pandemic, a greater-than-usual number of older workers took early retirement. But the cost-of-living crisis has prompted increasing numbers of people to rethink their plans. Many have now returned to the labour market, either out of financial necessity, or because they’ve realised that working is good for their wellbeing and gives them a sense of purpose.
They are overqualified: certainly, older workers have a wealth of experience and skills, but many are now looking for greater flexibility because they want to pursue personal interests, engage in voluntary work, or because of a need to balance work and care. Rather than leaving the labour market altogether, they may be interested in working part-time.
Good practice: age-friendly employment in action
More than 200 public and private sector organisations have signed up to the Centre for Ageing Better’s Age-friendly Employer Pledge, which recognises the value and importance of older workers. The signatories represent a wide range of activities, including Natural England, the National Trust for Scotland and the Greater London Authority, as well as EY, Aviva and Imperial London Hotels.
The CAB’s website features case studies showing how employers are rising to the challenge of becoming age-friendly employers, and the benefits they are experiencing. Examples include:
Social care provider Home Instead Senior Care actively targets older workers approaching or shortly after retirement.
Aviva appointed a Recruitment Champion for older workers internally and incentivised their older employees to act as ambassadors to help recruit other older workers.
Barclays Bolder Apprenticeship programme targets a pool of recruits older than traditional apprentices – including those who have retired early and faced redundancy.
Domestic and General Group’s multi-generational teams in their call centres reduced turnover and absenteeism and improved customer service by better matching the age profiles of employees with service users.
Next steps: what can employers do?
There is no shortage of advice for employers who want to reap the benefits of recruiting and retaining older people. From creating more inclusive job advertisements to talking about flexible working at interview stage, there are some key steps that can help employers become more age-friendly.
A recent issue of Harvard Business Review also made some suggestions to employers who want to adapt to ‘the new age of ageing’:
preserve experience through phased retirement and new skills training;
replenish experience by rehiring retirees and updating skills;
share experience through mentoring and instructor roles;
offer flexibility through schedules, locations and benefits; and
leverage age diversity through multigenerational teams and diversity, equality and inclusion programmes.
Flexible working is an important way of attracting and retaining older workers. This was underlined in a recent report supported by a number of organisations, including CIPD, British Chambers of Commerce and Business in the Community, which made recommendations for government and business on enhancing flexible working provisions for people over fifty.
Final thoughts
There is no escaping the demographic realities of the new employment landscape. The myths surrounding older workers may persist, but more and more employers are discovering the benefits of a diverse workforce that includes people from a variety of age groups.
Older workers are productive and versatile, with the skills, knowledge, experience and emotional intelligence that employers and colleagues value in a variety of workplace situations.
With information now so accessible, it’s easy to assume that whenever you have a question you can simply tap it into a search engine. But, while the internet and digital search tools are undoubtedly useful for checking basic facts, when it comes to serious research, “just Googling it” is not enough.
Bringing different sources of information together, for a project or to prepare for a meeting, takes time, persistence and skill. Which is where the experience of information professionals really counts.
The Knowledge Exchange
For over fifty years, the Idox information service – today known as The Knowledge Exchange – has been gathering, processing, storing, retrieving and delivering information for public and private organisations across the UK.
Policy makers and practitioners from local authorities, devolved administrations, central government, universities, think tanks, consultancies and charities rely on our services to keep themselves up-to-date with ever-changing developments in public and social policy and practice.
Our team of researchers is a successful mix of experienced public policy specialists and qualified librarians, together with our invaluable support staff. We collect, categorise, store and distribute information on a wide range of subjects, from education and health to economic development and housing.
From times past to the here-and-now
Our database contains thousands of journal articles and reports. Some of these date back to the 1990s, but they also include the most recently published research. This means it’s possible to chart changes in policies under different administrations, from the past right up to the present day, and to take a longer view of significant developments. For example, from the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, we’ve gathered reports and articles that describe its continuing impact on health, education, work and the economy.
In addition to bibliographic details, each of our database records includes an abstract that succinctly and accurately encapsulates the content of the full text, which can often help the reader decide if they’d like to know more.
Our weekly bulletin provides a snapshot of new additions to the database, and the fortnightly Topic Updates package the information into helpful categories for clients who want to focus on, for example, planning, rural development, children and young people, or transport. The Topic Updates also reflect political, economic, social and environmental changes; in recent years we’ve introduced additional updates on Brexit, Covid-19, mental health and net zero.
Question time
While our subscribers have direct access to the database to perform their own searches, they can also ask our team of Research Officers to conduct a search for them. The following examples demonstrate just how varied are the enquiries we receive:
Designing pedestrianised zones to improve the safety of women
Biometric data retention schemes
Evidence on how regional skills systems can support local economic growth
Impacts of housing issues on employment
Policies for addressing economic inactivity in the UK and Europe
Effects of maternity leave on maternal health, employment, childhood development
Effective examples of kindness and wellbeing interventions in large organisations
Impact of parental engagement on children’s learning or attainment
Examples of transformation in the public sector
Social impacts of offshore wind
These are just a fraction of the searches we’ve been asked to conduct over the past twelve months. In 2023, we responded to almost 600 enquiries, and 2024 is already shaping up to be another busy year.
Final thoughts
It’s fair to say that The Knowledge Exchange is unique, which perhaps explains why so many of our subscribers have renewed their subscriptions, year after year – even in the face of challenging budgetary pressures. They know the value of reliable evidence in making informed decisions, some of which will affect millions of people.
We’d like to thank our loyal subscribers for making good use of our services, and we look forward to welcoming more organisations who are keen to harness the power of information.
If you’d like to find out more about subscribing to The Knowledge Exchange, please contact us at: iu@idoxgroup.com
The recent spikes in energy costs have thrown into sharp focus the challenge of heating our homes. Domestic heating is important, not just for our comfort and wellbeing, but to reduce humidity and prevent condensation. But because traditional heating systems rely on fossil fuels, such as natural gas and oil, heating is a significant contributor to carbon emissions. In 2019, 17% of heating emissions from buildings came from housing. This has to change if the UK and other countries are to meet their targets in achieving net zero emissions by the middle of the century.
A recent online event, hosted by Unlock Net Zero, took stock of how the heating industry is making the transition to low carbon heating systems, notably through the installation of heat networks and heat pumps.
The webinar also highlighted work by housing associations to decarbonise domestic heating systems, and considered the role of government policy and funding in persuading more people that decarbonisation of domestic heating is good for them and for the planet.
Decarbonising social housing: gathering data and preparing for change
Among the speakers at the event was Kara Tomes-Meek, head of sustainability at Southern Housing, a social housing association formed in 2022 after a merger between Optivo and Southern Housing Group. The association has over 80,000 homes across the Midlands, London, Kent, Sussex and the Isle of Wight.
Kara described Southern Housing’s decarbonisation journey, which has heat networks at its heart. These networks generate heat centrally, which is then transported through a network of pipes to provide space heating, hot water, and sometimes cooling to connected buildings. By supplying multiple buildings, they avoid the need for individual boilers or electric heaters in every building. And by utilizing renewable and low-carbon heat sources, heat networks help reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with heating.
Southern Housing has conducted a number of heat network surveys, covering 65% of its homes, to assess current assets and to consider the potential for low carbon heating. Pulling the data together from these surveys, Southern has identified quick wins for efficiencies (such as improving insulation) and challenges, such as identifying small spaces that are not feasible for the size of decarbonisation equipment required. Once all the data has been collated, Southern can complete the process of mapping out its decarbonisation strategy.
Kara also outlined how Southern Housing is preparing for upcoming regulatory changes that will impact the social housing and heating sectors. Under the 2023 Energy Security Act, a new Heat Network Market Framework has been established with the aim of giving consumers greater protection and making the construction and maintenance of heat networks easier. In 2025, Ofgem’s remit as energy regulator will be expanded to cover heat networks. As part of its preparations for these changes, Southern Housing has been working with a consultant on a gap analysis to assure a well-defined route to compliance.
One project in Dagenham was part-funded by the Heat Network Efficiency Scheme (HNES), with match funding from Southern. The project involved the installation of a heat network serving 82 residents, and resulted in increased heating efficiency of 50%, and annual carbon reductions of 55%.
Heat pumps: growing interest, but a long way to go
Charlotte Lee, chief executive of the Heat Pump Association (the trade association for the heat pump sector), highlighted the important role of heat pumps in decarbonisation. She outlined the various options, noting that air-to-water source heat pumps remains the most popular and cost-effective option. This type of heat pump transfers heat from the outside air to water, which in turn efficiently heats buildings via radiators or underfloor heating.
Consumer interest in heat pumps has been rising. Around 60,000 heat pumps were sold in the UK in 2022, nearly doubling sales from the previous year. However, this is still much lower than other European countries – France, for example, sold over 600,000 heat pumps in 2022 – a figure that the UK government hopes to achieve by 2028.
Costs for heat pump installations are higher than gas boilers, but Charlotte underlined the importance of government funding schemes in persuading consumers that replacing their old gas boiler with a new one is no longer a sensible option.
Among the schemes highlighted by Charlotte:
Boiler Upgrade Schemeoffering a grant to cover part of the cost of replacing fossil fuel heating systems with a heat pump or biomass boiler. Launched in May 2023, the grant was increased in October from £5,000 to £7,500 per installation, prompting a big jump in installations.
Energy Company Obligationaims to assist householders living in fuel poverty. The latest version of the scheme supports the rollout of heat pumps, making it more appealing for energy companies to leverage carbon savings.
Heat Network Efficiency Scheme supports performance improvements to existing district heating or communal heating projects.
Skills: qualified workers needed for future challenges
Charlotte also highlighted the importance of ensuring that enough qualified heating engineers are available to meet the growing demand for low carbon heating installations. She reported an encouraging 166% increase in the number of engineers taking heat pump qualifications in 2022-23. In addition, a new Low Carbon Heating Technician Apprenticeship, launched in 2023, is expected to generate further interest.
The need for a new generation of qualified workers is clear. Currently there are about 3,000 qualified heat pump installers in the UK. But the country will require 27,000 qualified installers by the end of the decade if it is to meet the government’s target of installing 600,000 heat pumps a year.
Final thoughts
Decarbonising Britain’s housing stock is a monumental challenge. Some 29 million homes need to be upgraded to low carbon heating systems by 2050. Heat networks and heat pumps will have a vital role to play, but as the webinar underlined, different factors, including regional geography, house type and existing heating systems mean there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
The heating sector and the further education sector will play their part in preparing for these challenges, but there is a need for greater clarity about the future of decarbonisation. This was underlined in a 2022 report from the House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee:
“The Government should work with industry, consumers, and affected workers to
produce an effective road map detailing how the transition to low carbon heating will
take place, and to include what this will mean for different households in different parts
of the country and for workers whose jobs might be affected in existing carbon intensive
parts of the heating sector.”
Heating choices are often driven by policy, and once governments start making it clear that decarbonisation of housing is an imperative – and providing the necessary funding for installations and training – consumers can start making informed decisions about replacing their existing heating systems with low-carbon alternatives.
As this article highlights, funding is available for organisations operating across the public, private and third sectors in the UK for upgrading existing heat networks to reduce emissions and energy costs. Our colleagues in GrantFinder monitor, digest, verify and report daily on thousands of funding sources, including support for establishing heat networks. Further information is available from the GrantFinder website.
Further reading: more on decarbonising buildings from The Knowledge Exchange Blog
While free school meals (FSM) have been available in England on a means-tested basis since 1944, recent years have seen a renewed focus upon the potential benefits of providing free school meals to all school-aged children.
Currently, Scotland are in the process of rolling out a programme of universal free school meals (UFSM) to primary school children on a phased basis: at present, all children in P1-P5 are eligible; this will be expanded to include P6 and P7 pupils later this year. In England, all children in their first three years of primary school are eligible for UFSM. Some individual councils have also chosen to expand this UFSM offering to older age groups.
The expansion of the free school meals programme is based on the premise that it will positively benefit both children and young people, and their wider families.
At a recent event hosted by ISER, Dr Angus Holford and Professor Birgitta Rabe (University of Essex) discussed the findings of their newly published research, which focused on the impacts of the expansion of the UFSM programme in Newham, Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets since 2009.
The researchers explored several potential impacts of UFSM provision, including:
Take up of free school meals
The research found that the provision of UFSMs led to increased take up among those who were not currently eligible (1 in 3 newly eligible children took up the FSM offer). They also found a small increase in take up among those who had already been FSM eligible (means-tested), which they suggest may be due to UFSM provision making school meals more attractive to this group.
Educational attainment
They also found evidence that the provision of UFSM has a positive impact on reading attainment – in this case, equivalent to an additional two weeks’ progress by the end of primary school.
Interestingly however, the improvement in reading attainment was noted across both newly eligible and previously eligible FSM groups. The researchers therefore hypothesise that the provision of UFSM has wider whole-school advantages, although the specific nature of these is yet unknown.
Obesity levels
The research also found that the provision of UFSM helped to reduce levels of obesity overall. This effect was strongest among Reception aged children (7-11% reduction in obesity rates), although older children (Year 6) also benefited (2-5% reduction in obesity rates).
For older children, the effect was strongest among those children for whom UFSM had been provided since the start of primary school, suggesting that the earlier free school meals are provided, the better.
Among schools with higher starting rates of obesity, UFSM provision had less of an obesity-reducing effect. This suggests that for these more challenging environments, additional support would be necessary.
Household finances
Across all children, the research found that UFSM saved families £20.98 per four weeks – comprised of a £11.53 reduction in expenditure on supermarket food, and £9.46 reduction in expenditure on eating out. This was based on 2020 prices.
The research indicates that there are also likely to be time saving for households no longer shopping for, and assembling, packed lunches.
School absence
This study found that the provision of UFSM had no notable impact upon school attendance levels – either in terms of days missed or levels of persistent absence.
Future investment required
In summary, the research has found that
“…universal provision of FSM throughout primary school helps ensure that all children have access to a meal of high nutritional standards, yielding health and educational benefits for these children, while also providing cost-of-living support to families with school-age children.”
Reducing childhood obesity is also likely to have wider impacts, including improved individual health, increased productivity, and reduced healthcare spending.
Dr Holford and Professor Rabe concluded that longer-term benefits of UFSM will rely on the continued take-up of high quality school lunches in an attractive and social school setting. This in turn will require funding for school food to be maintained at levels which meet nutritional standards, and cover utility and staff costs.
School food study
The event also featured a presentation by Dr Jennie Parnham (Imperial College London) and Dr Marie Murphy (University of Birmingham) on what is known about children’s nutritional intake in school hours.
The Enhancing Policy In sChool food (EPIC) study is working with people connected to secondary schools to understand what improvements can be made to school food policy and systems in England. This is important because of existing diet-related issues concerning young people:
Nearly a third of adolescents have excess weight
Almost half of 15-year-olds have dental caries
Excess sugar consumption is a major contributor to increased energy intake, obesity, and poor dental health
Adolescents aged 11-18 years in the UK consume three times the recommended amount of their total energy intake from free sugars
Pupils consume a large proportion of their daily dietary intake within the school day. However, secondary schools find it challenging to put some of these school food standards in place.
The EPIC study has found that schools are struggling to adhere to school food standards – only 65% of schools studied were compliant. Some standards also appear to be easier for schools to comply with than others: while over 80% of schools were compliant with school food standards around making healthier options available, only around 40% were successfully complying with guidance around restricting ‘unhealthy’ foods high in salt, sugar and fat.
Panel discussion
Following the presentation, participants took part in a discussion which raised several other issues pertinent to the UFSM debate.
The panel was largely in agreement that the provision of FSM is both desirable and beneficial from an equality perspective – universal access to nutritious food for all children was accepted as a laudable aim.
However, several challenges were identified. Questions were raised around whether UFSM is the most cost-effective method of achieving the stated health and educational outcomes.
The discussion also considered issues of food wastage – were children eating the new, ‘healthy’ food provided, or putting it in the bin? Concern about increased levels of food waste had been raised by some school canteen staff during the research.
The need to increase the capacity of schools to provide more school meals was also raised. As well as additional staff, some schools may need investment to create larger canteens and dining rooms to cope with the additional demand.
Providing greater numbers of school meals may result in increased noise levels and queueing times withing school dining rooms, which may negatively impact some pupils, and reduce the time available to eat and play. Staggering lunchtimes was put forward as one way to potentially address these issues.
The impact of introducing UFSMs on the number of parents registering as eligible for means-tested FSM was also raised. Means-tested FSM status is used to determine schools’ pupil premium payments – if eligible families choose not to register as they will receive a free meal regardless, then it may result in schools missing out on their ‘pupil premium’ for that child. It may also have implications for data collection and research – means-tested FSM eligibility has commonly been used as a proxy for poverty/disadvantage.
In this context, a recently published report reviews and discusses the existing evidence on the evolution of the Free School Meals (FSM) measure, over the past two decades, and on its uses, including in Pupil Premium (PP).
Final thoughts
The event provided a helpful snapshot of the impacts of UFSM policy. It also highlighted some of the challenges of putting UFSM into practice – including the need to support schools to comply with current school food standards, and assess the capacity of schools to provide increased numbers of school meals.
The recent expansion of UFSM schemes is an opportunity to further assess its benefits. To do this, more and better data on the take up of free school meals is required. The ISER have called upon the Department for Education to increase data collection and publication regarding the take up of free school meals, as at present, this only covers infants, and does not differentiate between those who are eligible for means-tested FSM and those who are not. This lack of data makes the true impact of UFSM provision more difficult to assess.
Tackling geographical inequalities is critical for ensuring that all parts of the country have the potential to prosper. When the UK was a member of the European Union, it was entitled to a share of funding from the EU’s structural and investment programmes. The UK government and devolved administrations used these pots of funding to support communities in the country’s most deprived regions.
Now that the UK has left the EU, the government has replaced these European funds with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) , which provides combined authorities, districts, and unitary authorities (collectively known as lead authorities) with funding for communities, places, business, people and skills.
Targeting ‘left-behind’ areas
One of the key aims of the UKSPF is to target those places most in need. These ‘left-behind’ areas have deep-seated and long-standing high levels of deprivation. Their residents have lower skills levels, higher unemployment, longer public transport journey times, lower pay and poorer physical and mental health outcomes than the national average, and even than other deprived areas.
In addition, left-behind areas have insufficient social infrastructure – the connections, organisations and spaces to meet that enable communities to make positive changes for themselves. And many people living in these neighbourhoods feel disconnected or excluded from decisions that are made about how investment is directed in their communities.
Analysing the UKSPF’s performance
The UKSPF was launched in 2022, and was regarded as a major opportunity to overcome these issues. At the start of 2024, a report from the All Party Parliamentary Group for Left Behind Neighbourhoods presented its findings on how the UKSPF has affected England’s most deprived neighbourhoods.
Funding for left-behind areas
The analysis, published by Local Trust, finds that, while the UKSPF allocation formula does take deprivation into account, the spread of national distributions does not appropriately account for levels of community need – or deprivation, across the board. As a result, neighbourhoods that are in greatest need have not received the levels of funding required to tackle disparities in life outcomes and improve pride in place.
Tight bidding turnarounds
The report explains that lead authorities were given just over three months to submit their investment plans for a share of UKSPF funding. It suggests that this tight timeline put pressure on lead authorities to prioritise speed rather than need in their development. It also gave lead authorities little time to encourage genuine community engagement and consultation, or to build new networks with local organisations that might not otherwise become involved.
Funding town centres and responding to crises
Many left-behind areas feel that they have been neglected, in contrast to the funding of social and community projects for town centres and high streets. This report finds that several local authorities used UKSPF funding to top up existing town centre projects. While the report acknowledges the need to fund the regeneration of high streets, it underlines the importance of improving the outcomes of residents in places that are most in need, in line with the UKSPF’s aims.
The research also found that some lead authorities were using UKSPF funding to support people experiencing hardship because of the cost-of-living crisis. One local authority, for example, directed the funding to boost its community food pantry provision for local residents. The report’s authors are not critical of using UKSPF funds to support vulnerable people, but it notes that diverting funds in this way will not achieve genuine community transformation in left-behind neighbourhoods.
Community involvement
Embedding more meaningful community involvement in local levelling up investment is a key part of the new approach proposed for the UKSPF. However, the Local Trust report finds that many of the lead authorities containing left-behind neighbourhoods made no provision for community engagement in their investment plans:
“Local Trust heard from people who are working in communities, delivering UKSPF funded programmes. They reported that there had been very limited consultation by lead authorities, including consultation only with those voluntary and community organisations they already had an established relationship with; other community organisations had made efforts to find out more, but were finding it difficult to get information or to receive a hearing.”
Examples of good practice
Despite these disappointing findings, the report also highlights examples where lead authorities have played an effective part in the UKSPF process. Boston in Lincolnshire and North Northamptonshire ran extensive public consultations to encourage local engagement with their UKSPF bids. Kingston upon Hull, which contains eight left-behind areas, saw UKSPF is an opportunity to push funding to these neighbourhoods, rather than focusing on the city centre. And six of the lead authority investment plans or executive reports analysed by the research identified the unique and intersecting challenges specifically faced by residents of left-behind neighbourhoods.
A blueprint for a better UKSPF
The report concludes with a call for a reinvented funding model for the UKSPF, based on five recommendations:
Target hyper-local investment at ‘left-behind’ neighbourhoods
Confirm UKSPF funding over the long-term
Delegate UKSPF down to the community level
Build in a ring-fenced capacity-building budget to the communities and place strand
Make community involvement in ‘local partnership groups’ mandatory, in the absence of devolution
Final thoughts
The need to fund improvements for areas that for too long have been regarded as left-behind has never been greater. This report underlines the potential for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to make a real difference to these neighbourhoods, and highlights some examples where local authorities are developing communities most in need.
However, the report also points to the missed opportunities which have resulted in many of the most deprived areas yet again being neglected. It remains to be seen whether the recommendations in the report are adopted, and if this new approach to investment and the empowerment of local communities is given the chance to realise its full potential.
Our colleagues in GrantFinder continually monitor for new open calls for projects to be funded under UKSPF allocations. There are also thousands of alternative funding opportunities on the GrantFinder database for local communities and the VCSE sector across the country, as well as small businesses.
In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on ensuring people with ‘lived experience’ are involved in co-producing research and policy-making at practical, local level. However, there has been little discussion around what the people with lived experience themselves think about getting involved.
A recent webinar run by Transforming Evidence – a community that shares research and expertise about how evidence is made and used, across policy and practice domains – asked that very question: how can we make lived experience a genuine part of evidence informed policy?
So, it was especially refreshing to hear the views of Lynn Laidlaw during the Transforming Evidence webinar. Because of her experience as a patient with multiple health conditions, Lynn has had the opportunity to use her own lived experience to become a public contributor and peer researcher, and to influence policy-making in the field of health.
Lynn gave a personal, reflective account of the issues raised by her own lived experience. She admitted that the process of becoming involved in research caused her to reflect on how she fit into the process, raising questions concerning imposter syndrome and identity:
“Who was I? A researcher, or a person of lived experience? Could I be both? Did one negate the other?”
Lynn also underlined that involving people with lived experience in an equitable and ethical way requires time and resources and they should be offered remuneration for their time and effort.
She went on to discuss some of the key questions surrounding the involvement of people with lived experience:
Power
The phrase ‘lived experience’ holds power and weight in these ‘new’ political landscapes but what power do the people with the lived experience hold? And who decides the criteria for lived experience – can you really say to someone who has possibly been though a traumatic event that their trauma isn’t ‘lived experience enough’ to participate?
Culture
One of the biggest questions raised by Lynn was are you, as a person with lived experience, just a ‘tick box’ for the people who are organising a research study? This raises further questions as to how can we make people with lived experience feel valued in their opinions and their experience, how do we give them a value equal to those that are conducting the research, or the policy makers that will implement the research?
Emotions
Lynn also considered questions relating to emotional issues that are faced while being consulted to work on different projects. The biggest of these is: “does one person’s lived experience speak for all people with lived experience”? The answer would logically be no. However, this distinction is rarely made when consulting people with lived experiences as the panels are generally small. The fear of not being ‘representative enough’ of all people with lived experience is something that is continually at the back of their mind when going forward to give views and experiences and try and help inform policy for the better.
Intentions
Lynn’s final observations concerned the power participants have to ensure that their experiences and views make it into policy. The intentions behind a consultation of views is crucial for ensuring that a person with lived experience feels less of a charlatan. They will feel increasingly more valued members of society if the policies they are consulted on make it off the shelf and into mainstream politics. It is not enough to ask people for their time, views, and opinions to appease society and then do nothing with the information they have given you. It, again, raises interesting questions about making people feel valued and not just used as a token or to ‘tick a box.’
Final thoughts
Lynn very clearly demonstrated the importance and value of showing respect for people with lived experience. Because by listening to and learning from people with relevant lived experiences, policy makers are more likely to make decisions that make a positive difference.
“Are we there yet?” Parents may patiently nod to their children’s insistent nudges on a 20-minute journey to… somewhere. Quite rightly, researchers have asked: twenty minutes to what? The answer may well lie in the question.
At its core, the 20-minute neighbourhood provides practical design principles for placemaking. In a discussion of the perceived benefits and inconveniences of 20-minute neighbourhoods being consulted upon by the Scottish Government under the National Planning Framework (NPF4), Stefano Smith presents the approach as follows in the June 2023 issue of the SPEL journal:
“Local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods are urban planning concepts that aim to create communities where residents can access their daily needs within a 20-minute walk or bicycle ride from their homes”.
Easier said than done. 20-minute neighbourhoods, and their 15-minute siblings, have come under sharp scrutiny and criticism, even as they have been pursued as an opportunity to promote healthy post-lockdown recovery.
Related efforts have encouraged more green infrastructure, among which Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework, launched in January 2023. Quite ironically, regeneration, pedestrianisation, and gentrification have been some of the real or imagined woes associated with the intention to provide access to essential amenities and infrastructure to residents, wherever they may live. Reducing the need to travel and improving convenience could be unaffordable and increase traffic congestion. Fears have even been voiced over Big Brother-style surveillance that echo with traumatic memories of Covid-related lockdowns, standing in sharp contrast with the inclusive advocacy undercurrents of walkable neighbourhoods and local quality of life.
Despite the challenges, a survey by YouGov from March 2023 indicates a majority of Britons would be in favour of a 15-minute neighbourhood, citing a shortage in local amenities such as banks and GP surgeries. Challenges also revolve around promoting active mobility in the face of dependence on motorised transport, with related initiatives in Paris having proven contentious for many Parisians despite strong leadership, or the bumpy road that the ambitious Enjoy Waltham Forest programme has had to pedal through to gain traction.
Recent initiatives, such as in Birmingham, begin to reveal tentative recipes to combine the many ingredients that make a place complete in terms of mobility, blue-green infrastructure, food security, diet, public health, care, education, transport, local businesses, finance, well-being, low carbon energy-efficiency and overall resilience. A tall order indeed, and no small feat (all puns intended).
Stepping back, one can see proximity as a timeless set of design principles for complete places. From the city-states of Ancient Greece to the urban village of Montmartre in Paris, the 20-minute neighbourhood has evolved through time(s) and place(s) as a true chameleon. Related concepts have included New Urbanism, urban acupuncture and… placemaking itself.
In many ways, the movement has been a reaction against modernist, blueprint planning that redesigned cities and towns for cars at the relative expense of people and the environment. Precursors to placemaking include William H. Whyte and architect Jan Gehl, or even French thinker Henri Lefebvre who popularised the notion of Right to the City.
In a Swedish context, the design and planning of complete neighbourhoods rests on evidence-based sociotope mapping, which combines expert and resident knowledge about the use of places, as pioneered by Alexander Ståhle and colleagues at the City of Stockholm and planning consultancies.
Rich spatial data is essential to defining and putting 20-neighbourhoods on the map in the most literal sense. In the UK, the former Prince of Wales has also worked to (re)create complete communities and promote high-quality place design for several decades. Countless influences continue to shape the 20-minute neighbourhood principle.
Evidence-based placemaking is also tied to high design quality, architecture, and belonging, as highlighted in Planning for the Future white paper or Planning Policy Wales. Placemaking and design collectives in the UK have included the Place Alliance led by Matthew Carmona. Neighbourhood plans in England and Wales, and place plans in Scotland, have provided ways for communities to be involved in the planning process to help shape places, which may also coincide with establishing complete neighbourhoods.
Benefits also come at a cost and require trade-offs. As Stefano Smith highlights:
“Implementing the 20-minute neighbourhood concept may not be simple, and councils may face several barriers, including differences between urban and rural areas, as well as between new development and existing neighbourhoods.”
Placeholders for transformation
Beyond meeting essential needs, proximity can also enable serendipity and flânerie, where people enjoy places for their own sake. This intangible charm of places partly explains the popularity of touristic cities and towns across the world.
Complete neighbourhoods can also help reduce places’ heavy carbon debt. From strategic policy-making to design codes, town planning can positively shape local quality of life in conjunction with neighbourhood retrofits and health-driven place-based partnerships. As a timeless principle.
Beyond the concept, 20-minute neighbourhoods are like the individuals in John Donne’s 16th Meditation, that postulates that “No man is an island, entire of itself”. Space travels and pervades places via people, goods, infrastructure, and services, where shortages thereof can indicate severe inequalities. The complex interdependencies that underpin inclusive places therefore make it clear that one must also consider the spaces between them to foster collective belonging and resilience.
As a scalable concept, placemaking could help ensure nothing is ever too far for anyone to enjoy as urbanely as possible.
The next post in this series will investigate a handful of 20-minute neighbourhoods as food for practical thought.
At the end of June, GrantFinder attended The Chartered Institute of Housing’s annual conference, Europe’s largest housing festival. The event took centre stage at Manchester Central, bringing together industry experts, policymakers, and housing practitioners from across the UK. Over three days, it showcased best practices, technologies and strategies to address the pressing challenges within the housing sector.
As an exhibitor at this prestigious event, GrantFinder had the opportunity to network with industry experts and demonstrate our funding solutions, showcasing our database of thousands of grants and loans.
The conference sessions and discussions with attendees highlighted some key themes:
Unlocking net zero
Net zero targets and decarbonisation were among the main overarching themes of the event. Delivering liveable, carbon-free places continue to be the primary focus for the sector moving forward. Delegates discussed learnings from how the wider built environment can decarbonise at scale, as well as collaboration on how communities can be involved in delivering greener and healthier places to live and work.
Funding the significant costs of decarbonisation is hindering progress towards achieving net zero. Inside Housing reported that the current cost to retrofit all social homes in the UK is over £100 billion. The cost-of-living crisis has also put additional strain on housing providers. However, it was recognised that investing in carbon reduction now will lead to cost savings in the long-term. Alternative finance options such as retrofit credits and green finance, as well as government funding, were discussed as potential support to providers to ensure net zero remains a top priority.
Cost-of-living and fuel poverty
The rising cost-of-living was a prevalent topic throughout the keynote sessions. Supporting tenants experiencing fuel poverty and addressing its impact on mental and physical health is a growing concern for the sector.
Housing providers are seeking solutions to better track and understand those experiencing or at risk of fuel poverty, and to offer meaningful support. Our GrantFinder team shared their expertise and insights on how we contribute to the solution by enabling quick and easy access to hundreds of fuel grants that help housing providers support their local communities with rising energy costs. Additionally, the team spoke with attendees about the many tenant support grants available, as well as dedicated mental health and wellbeing funding programmes identified through our funding database.
Sustainability and retrofit
Local authorities and housing providers were urged to reframe their understanding of housing within the context of the UN sustainability goals. Providers were encouraged to align their future development plans with the UN sustainability pillars, creating affordable housing that delivers benefits in health, education, and economic opportunities.
Changing behaviours and engaging communities were highlighted as important factors in transitioning to a sustainable future. Discussions centred around implementing education tools to equip tenants and residents with the knowledge to use new home technologies, as well as simplifying climate change communications for harder-to-reach groups. Normalising retrofit work within communities was emphasised as a crucial step forward in advancing sustainable housing.
Inflation and higher interest rates have impacted the sector’s costs in relation to planned capital or infrastructure projects as well as repair and maintenance costs. This includes the increased focus within the sector on addressing issues of damp and mould, which is being addressed by stronger consumer regulation.
Supporting the housing sector across the UK
As a leader in funding solutions, the GrantFinder team shared our expertise on how we contribute to helping housing providers access financial support.
Through live demos, our team demonstrated how GrantFinder offers unique benefits to our customers. With a database of nearly eight thousand funding opportunities, we showed how quick and easy it is to find relevant funds for attendees – whether it was for one of the hundreds of UK Shared Prosperity funds for local communities or dedicated support for the purchase of energy efficient products. Enquiries about equipment support, such as funding for drones, were popular and our team provided live demonstrations of the keyword search function on our dynamic database, which returned an array of funding options within seconds, and received positive feedback.
Housing 2023 was a fantastic opportunity to showcase how GrantFinder can support local authorities and housing providers in addressing the key themes highlighted by the event, shaping the future of the sector.
GrantFinder is the leading funding database in the UK covering local, national, and international sources of funding. Our up-to-the-minute database is supported by a dedicated team of expert researchers who monitor, digest, verify and report daily on thousands of funding sources including charitable trusts, societies, research councils, national government, and corporate sponsors. Our strong relationships with funding administrators and policy managers across all of these organisations mean we can share advanced knowledge of new funding policies and opportunities. If you would like to subscribe to the service, or find out more, please get in touch.
Further reading on housing from The Knowledge Exchange Blog
The recent appointment of Marc Lemaître as the European Commission’s director general for research and innovation (R&I) has returned Europe’s R&I gap to the spotlight. Previously head of DG REGIO, the Commission’s directorate for regional development, Lemaître’s experience and knowledge of regional disparities is widely seen as a welcome boost in addressing the historic disparity in the flow of research funding between eastern and western Europe.
The experience of successive European Union (EU) R&I framework programmes shows that the ability to successfully conduct transnational research projects often varies dramatically between regions and countries. Despite successive programmes promising equality of opportunity and access, some countries remain distinctly disadvantaged when research excellence is the determining factor.
The EU has recognised that such disadvantage can take a variety of forms. These include a lack of scientific infrastructure, the ability to establish or access networks or to maintain and retain talents, and the capacity to overcome structural barriers at institutional, regional or national level.
Beginning with Horizon 2020 (2014-2020), the EU introduced measures to widen participation and targeted the 13 countries that had joined the Union since 2004, namely, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
This increased focus led to mixed results. The Commission reported that Widening countries gradually increased their participation throughout Horizon 2020. While Widening country participation represented 4.2% of the total budget of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), this had risen to 4.8% of the Horizon 2020 budget by 2018 and 5.1% in February 2021. However, the average investment in R&I in the EU was 2.3% of GDP by 2020 – below the 3% target. Of the 13 Widening countries, only Slovenia and Czech Republic invested more than 2%.
Countries that joined the EU after 2004 continue to have relatively under-developed R&I systems, score lower on the EU’s R&I league tables and crucially, when it comes to framework programmes, are far less successful in securing grant funding compared to their research powerhouse neighbours. If the actions introduced between 2014 and 2020 were insufficient to bridge the research gap, what could be done next?
Widening in Horizon Europe
New Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence actions were introduced as part of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) to provide additional support to Member States, Outermost Regions and Associated Countries with low participation rates in FP7 and Horizon 2020 projects to widen their participation in the current framework programme.
Furthermore, the total budget allocated to Widening actions under Horizon Europe has tripled compared with those supported under Horizon 2020, with these actions representing 3.3% of the total €95.5 million Horizon Europe budget. In 2023-24 alone, more than €900 million has been allocated to actions under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence Work Programme.
All organisations eligible for Horizon Europe may participate in Widening actions, but only those based in Widening countries may act as coordinators. All Member States classed as Widening countries under Horizon 2020 have retained this status under Horizon Europe, except for Luxembourg, which was replaced by Greece. In addition, the following Associated Countries may apply as coordinators: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine.
Calls launched under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence component are divided into two destinations – Destination 1: Improved access to Excellence, to strengthen R&I capacities in Widening countries, and Destination 2: Attracting and mobilising the best talents, to support further progress on the free circulation of knowledge in a more efficient and effective R&I system.
Actions funded under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence programme include:
Teaming for Excellence: Creates new or modernises existing centres of excellence in Widening countries by supporting partnerships between beneficiary institutions in Widening countries and leading scientific institutions elsewhere in Europe.
Twinning: Boosts the networking activities of research institutions of Widening countries by linking them with at least two research institutions from two different EU or Associated Countries.
Pathways to Synergies: New under the 2023-24 Work Programme, this scheme aims to facilitate synergies between Horizon projects and funds under the cohesion policy in Widening countries. The goal is to help formerly isolated single beneficiaries of regional funding programmes to participate in cross-border collaboration in order to prepare for participation in Horizon Europe calls.
Excellence Hubs: Aims to improve innovation by enabling innovation ecosystems in Widening countries (and beyond) to team up and create better linkages between academia, business, government and society.
Hop-on Facility: Introduced for Horizon Europe, this mechanism allows a single participant from a Widening country to join an ongoing project under Horizon Europe Pillar 2 and the European Innovation Council (EIC) Pathfinder topics.
Widening actions are also delivered via the framework of the European Research Area (ERA). ERA Chairs enable research institutions in Widening countries to host a leading researcher for a period of five years. ERA Fellowships enable researchers to undertake their MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship in a Widening country, while ERA Talents support R&I investigators and organisations for cross-sectoral exchange of staff and academia-business collaboration for knowledge transfer with a focus on Widening countries.
Another mechanism by which the Commission supports Widening is through the COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) programme, which enables researchers lacking sufficient access to European and international networks to investigate a topic of their choice for four years. A single COST Action must involve at least seven different COST full or cooperating members, among which a minimum of 50% must be from inclusiveness target countries.
The Commission also encourages applicants to partner with Widening countries throughout its funding channels. For instance, one of the key objectives of the QuantERA ERA-NET Cofund in Quantum Technologies Cofund Call 2023 is to ‘spread excellence throughout Europe by involving partners from the Widening countries participating in the partnership’, while several calls launched under the Horizon Europe Clusters also encourage applicants to involve Widening countries.
Progress under Horizon Europe?
Two years into Horizon Europe, figures from the Commission’s Horizon Dashboard indicate that the average success rate of Widening countries in obtaining funding through Horizon Europe is approximately 20%. This figure is equal to the EU 27 average, suggesting that some progress is being made.
Despite this, signs of progress are tempered by the scale of the remaining gap. During Horizon Europe’s first two years, Germany proportionally received more than all the Widening countries combined. As the top-performing country, Germany received 15.5% of the total net EU contribution, compared to 14.3% shared between the Widening countries.
The scale of this gap at the structural level can be seen in the fifth edition of the EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2.0, published in March 2023, which measures the competitiveness of regions across the EU. While this report noted a ‘clear process of catching up’ in eastern and southern EU Member States between 2019 and 2022, it highlighted that the gap between more and less developed regions was widest on the report’s ‘Innovation’ sub-index of metrics and its pillars.
The report also highlighted the persistence of internal gaps within Member States. Some regions in countries including Romania, Slovakia and parts of Bulgaria were found to be moving away from the EU average, while the capital city regions of the three least competitive EU Member States were significantly more competitive than the other regions in these countries. This is a potential cause for concern as it puts pressure on the capital city region while possibly leaving resources under-utilised in other regions.
In this context, the extent to which central European funding opportunities alone can produce far-reaching results is contested. Published in June 2022, a special European Court of Auditors report argued that a real shift depends largely on national governments making R&I a priority to ramp up investment and reforms. While Widening measures can kick-start progress in Widening countries, on their own they lack enough power to create the changes needed in national R&I ecosystems.
In response to the European Court of Auditors, the EU Council adopted conclusions on the report in October 2022. The Council took note of the Court’s conclusion that genuine sustainable change requires continuous national investments and reforms in national R&I systems and called on the Commission to monitor participation levels and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole portfolio of Widening measures. If continuous significant imbalances emerge, the need for more tailor-made actions and targeted networking activities to achieve a wider level of participation and address disparities in participation should be assessed.
What are stakeholders saying?
A valuable resource for obtaining sector feedback on the success or otherwise of Widening actions can be observed in responses to a consultation into the past, present and future of the Commission’s Horizon programmes covering 2014-2027. This survey, which ran for 12 weeks from December 2022 to February 2023, enabled stakeholders to share their views on the performance of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe to date, and to identify future priorities for Horizon Europe’s Strategic Plan 2025-2027. From this survey, a number of organisations offered their thoughts on the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence programme.
In its submission, the Coimbra Group of European universities noted that the ambitions of Widening actions are welcome but stated that these dedicated actions risk diverting funds from other essential programmes, such as the ERC and MSCA.
The Group highlighted the potential pitfalls of singling out countries for Widening actions, warning that organisations in higher-performing countries should not see partnering with those in Widening countries as an act out of the ordinary in and of itself; instead, these countries should be regarded as standard partners. As such, the presence of dedicated Widening calls should not discourage organisations in Widening countries from applying to non-Widening actions elsewhere in Horizon Europe.
Coimbra recommended that the Commission reflect on why some Widening countries have such low participation figures, citing the example of Romania receiving no funding for Teaming activities despite submitting 44 such proposals, and to consider the role of national governments in stimulating participation rates. In addition, Horizon Europe applicants should be incentivised to include partners in Widening countries at the very start of the proposal preparation process as an alternative approach to the new Hop-on Facility.
Other recommendations include urging the Commission to issue equally relevant calls for all Widening countries in the future, rather than issuing dedicated calls for sub-groups of countries, and actively involving those countries in the consultation process when designing future funding instruments.
Coimbra’s concerns about the practicalities of Widening actions were echoed by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science, which welcomed the goal of the programme but warned that a shift in the Framework Programme’s focus away from excellence would be ‘detrimental’ to its attractiveness and the overall competitiveness of the EU. The Netherlands house for Education and Research suggested that the ideal end-result of the Widening programme would be to narrow the R&I gap so significantly that the programme’s existence would become ‘superfluous’.
Science Europe, which represents 40 national research funding agencies and research organisations from 30 European countries, noted that while developments under Horizon Europe were positive, challenges remain, with brain circulation below target levels and participation rates remaining imbalanced. While it regarded the Hop-on Facility as ‘interesting’, it noted that existing consortia are often disinclined to add new members once their projects are underway.
Regarding some of the practical challenges facing Widening countries, Science Europe warned that the increased size and budget of Pillar II projects makes it harder for those countries to take leading roles in projects, suggesting that a greater number of smaller projects should be supported to mitigate this. Nevertheless, it concluded that narrowing the gap in participation and R&I capacity across Europe should ‘remain a priority’.
The League of European Research Universities (LERU) offered practical proposals to ensure the programme achieves its desired aims. It noted that the ERA actions are ‘considered useful’ by Widening countries and suggested that these and other mechanisms found to be particularly effective could be prioritised and run more consistently to improve their effectiveness. LERU also advised the Commission to evaluate the success of the Hop-on Facility before dedicating further funding to its operation.
Somewhat contrary to Coimbra’s suggestion to avoid focusing on narrow subsets of countries, LERU hailed the positive impact of previous Twinning activities dedicated solely to countries with the very lowest participation rates in Horizon Europe, describing these actions as ‘crucial’. The Twinning Western Balkans call run in 2021 was cited as a particularly successful example which ‘should be repeated’.
The European Trade Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) noted that measures to strengthen the participation rates of Widening countries have been an ‘important and positive’ development of Horizon Europe but cautioned that they were ‘far from sufficient’. It urged the Commission to take further steps to improve the R&I capabilities of Widening countries, and to specifically support schemes that develop capacity-building of their research institutions, especially those that will improve applied research capabilities.
EARTO also called for ‘attention and reconsideration’ regarding the Hop-on Facility, citing ‘serious hurdles’ to its practical implementation. This was echoed by the Polish Chamber of Commerce for High Tech Technology, which highlighted ‘many bottlenecks’ in the mechanism’s implementation.
The Chamber agreed with LERU that ERA Chairs and Twinning opportunities – in addition to the Teaming for Excellence scheme – have positive impacts for Widening countries and should be continued. However, it noted that research management and administration is ‘one of the weakest link(s)’ of research organisations in Widening countries. It recommended that the Commission establish dedicated calls to facilitate the exchange of best practices, shadow mentoring and knowledge transfer at a large scale to reach a significant number of R&I institutions.
Across these stakeholder submissions, a general consensus can be observed of organisations commending the ambitions of the Widening programme and highlighting successful measures, while urging the EU to go beyond efforts to improve participation rates in Horizon Europe and focus on the root systemic causes of the disparity in the R&I infrastructure of countries across Europe.
Recent developments indicate that the Commission is taking such concerns seriously. In March 2023, the Commission launched a call for expression of interest for Regional Innovation Valleys (RIVs) to strengthen and advance European innovation ecosystems. The RIVs will connect all EU territories and focus on addressing the innovation divide by harnessing deep-tech innovation. The ambition is to identify up to 100 regions committed to better coordinating their R&I investments and policies, and to collaborating on inter-regional innovation projects.
The Commission is also in the process of launching two calls for proposals in May 2023 under the European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE) part of Horizon Europe, and the Interregional Innovative Investments (I3) of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). With a focus on addressing the innovation divide, a total of €170 million is allocated (€100 million and €70 million respectively).
ResearchConnect provides ongoing coverage of research funding and policy developments to support the international research community. We offer a user-friendly database containing a global source of research opportunities, covering a broad range of funders and disciplines. Our news content features the most recent research calls and funder updates, opening a window on the latest funding opportunities and developments to researchers worldwide.
The Knowledge Exchange Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.