Call for proposals: Recurrent Poverty

Call for proposals:

Recurrent Poverty

Project summary: Understanding the reasons why recurrent poverty remains an enduring problem in the UK.

Deadline:	2pm on Tuesday 2 October 2007
JRF Committee:	Poverty and Disadvantage
Timescale:	Up to 24 months (negotiable)
Budget:	£250,000
Key contacts:	Chris Goulden (Principal Research Manager) chris.goulden@jrf.org.uk Louise Ross (Secretary) 01904 615942 \| louise.ross@jrf.org.uk

Supporting documents:

Project summary

A dynamic approach to poverty has many advantages to a point-in-time definition. JRF funded a systematic review of research on poverty dynamics in the UK. This highlighted the differences between persistent, recurrent and transient poverty. This call is for research that helps understand the nature of recurrent poverty and particularly the role of the ‘low-pay-no-pay’ cycle. The function of household change in this context is also of interest. This call is not necessarily for new longitudinal research but proposals should address the questions that have been set out with appropriate methods. They should also be set within the current UK policy context surrounding job retention and progression.

Background / context

In the UK, poverty is officially measured using household income at a single point in time. This means that fluctuations in income over time are not captured and it gives the impression of there being a clear distinction between a group who is ‘poor’ and a group who is not. In contrast, longitudinal data allows us to track the real changes in income among individuals and between generations over time to reveal the dynamics of poverty. This shows us that most people who experience poverty move out of it and that many more people experience poverty over time than at a single point. Policies to combat poverty need to be set within this context.

A systematic review of longitudinal research on poverty was commissioned by the Foundation in 2004 to highlight gaps in the evidence as the basis for this new programme. This review synthesised, in the UK context, over one hundred separate projects. It was published in June 2007. The summary and the main report (PDF, 365KB) are available from the Foundation website.

The review highlights three archetypes of poverty over time:

more or less permanent poverty (persistent poverty)
brief entries into poverty (transient poverty)
repeated moves in and out of poverty (recurrent poverty)

In practice, of course, all possible combinations of movements in and out of poverty are possible. There is also a ‘grey area’ between transient and recurrent poverty (i.e. where brief entries into poverty start to become more common). The focus of this call is on income poverty, but we are also interested in the interactions between recurrent poverty and assets, expenditure, deprivation and the costs of living for people.

Other areas highlighted in the review include the importance of how far households are below the poverty line at different stages (severity of poverty) as well as households who resist falling into poverty despite ongoing exposure to known risk factors (poverty resilience). It is anticipated that all of these issues – bar transient poverty – will be the focus of research within the poverty dynamics programme. However, this initial call for proposals is for research addressing just those cycling in and out of poverty over time, namely recurrent poverty.

Recurrent poverty reflects the fact that income mobility is often short-range. Nearly a third of those leaving poverty become poor again within a year and a similar proportion of the ‘pool’ of people in poverty over a six-year period are the same households moving in and out of poverty.

The review indicates that a strong ‘low pay, no pay’ cycle is in operation where those on low pay are more likely lack work in the future and those out of work are more likely to be low paid when they get a job. A history of unemployment is a strong predicator for future unemployment. Tackling this is currently the focus of a ‘demonstration’ government initiative known as ERA (Employment Retention and Advancement). This is being evaluated through a large-scale randomised controlled trial. One-year results are available from the DWP website and are promising in some aspects (see links section).

Gaining paid employment and getting a pay increase are the most common routes out of poverty overall but one in five poverty exits are associated with household change. This is especially important for lone-parents (but still not as important as gaining employment). However, understanding the contribution of household change to poverty and the interaction with employment has not often been the subject of research. The interaction between these aspects and changes in health – physical and mental – is also an under-researched area.

Aims

The aim of this call is for research that helps to better understand the reasons for recurrent poverty and why it remains a problem in the UK despite a growing number of policy and practice initiatives seeking to tackle it. Proposals should clearly position the research within current policy and practice activity and explain how the work would take forward this agenda, building on what is already known and highlighted in the review.

The research questions that should be addressed in proposals should be drawn from:

(1) In terms of the interaction between welfare and work

How can we better understand the mechanisms behind the dynamics of the low-pay-no-pay cycle, from the perspective of people in and at risk of poverty, of their employers, employment agencies and other agents? How big a contribution does the low-pay-no-pay cycle make to recurrent poverty overall? Research here could help with the expansion of current job retention and advancement strategies and the focus on sustained, longer-term employment.
Why do some people repeatedly go in and out of formal paid employment, and, in particular, why do some people not retain low paid jobs? What factors prevent similar people from getting stuck in the cycle? How does recurrent poverty impact on the benefits that people are entitled to and take-up?
What are the characteristics of low paid jobs that lead to people not wanting to or being unable to keep doing them? How do people doing these jobs feel about them and their prospects? What is it about these jobs and people’s attitudes towards them that prevent progression to better paid employment? This should build on recent research by DWP, which indicated that the temporary nature of much low paid work was clearly an issue, as well as health/ disability issues and qualifications/ skills of workers.
How do people make choices about taking up work or not – and then leaving it – and what is their view of the social and economic context in which they make these decisions? What is their view of the importance of different factors and how does this relate to other members of the family and household?
How is this experience different according to gender, ethnicity, age and for disabled people? How important are these factors to individuals themselves and how do they interact with the impressions of employers? How can policy respond to these differences?
To what extent is the instability of some low-paid employment an inevitable consequence of the role these jobs play in the labour market? To what extent could employers benefit from investing more in these jobs and providing those who perform them with more stability?

(2) In terms of household change

How can we better understand the role of household change in repeated movements in and out of poverty? It will be useful for proposers to address this aspect whether or not it is the primary focus of the project, for example, the interactions between household change and movements in and out of paid employment.
More specifically, what are the various relevant types of household change in the context of recurrent poverty and how do they lead to entries and exits?

The systematic review that was commissioned suggests that much recurrent poverty is associated with movements between poverty and ‘near poverty’ (however the boundary is defined). A key contextual issue is therefore whether distinctions between poverty and non-poverty are best made using the present relative income thresholds. Whilst this will be partly answered through our project ‘A minimum income standard for Britain’, proposals in this call should also be mindful of the issues from a dynamic perspective.

Another important subject is the importance of examining poverty dynamics within wider social contexts, such as people’s perceptions of ‘cultures’ of welfare and low paid work and of their peers’ attitudes and experiences. The interactions between recurrent poverty and other aspects of social exclusion are also of interest.

Methods

Of the 100+ projects meeting the selection and quality criteria for inclusion in the review, only one was qualitative. Therefore, it may be that some of the gaps as set out above could best be met through new qualitative research. However, new quantitative research that – crucially – understands and builds on that which has already been identified is also sought. We expect to fund a number of projects in this call using a range of methods. However, we do not expect all projects to address all of the questions set out under the aims.

Identifying appropriate samples for prospective research studies will be challenging and strategies should be clearly outlined in proposals. Whilst it is not possible to predict the future poverty status of individuals with complete certainty, the review highlights some of the risk factors for recurrent poverty. For instance, we know that nearly half of men, and a third of women, who make a new claim for Jobseekers Allowance were last claiming less than six months ago.

Even though the review was specifically about research into changes in poverty over time, it does not follow that addressing gaps that have been identified necessarily needs to be done through further longitudinal research. The key issue is that the methods are shown to be appropriate to the stated aims of the proposal.

Expected outputs

Typically, the expected outputs are a 15,000 word report, detailing the methods, results and policy and practice implications, and a 2,000 word summary. However, we are open to other ideas about effective outputs beyond or instead of these usual ones. Given the dynamic nature of this call, interim reports on preliminary phases of research may be necessary for prospective studies. If, as is expected, more than one project is funded in this programme, contributions to eventual joint publication(s) and activities may be required.

Previous outputs

Other recent research funded by the JRF that may be of relevance to this call for proposals includes:

Blanden & Gibbons (2005) The persistence of poverty across generations
Dickens (2007 forthcoming) Not enough rungs? Welfare to work transitions
Furlong & Cartmel (2004) Vulnerable young men in fragile labour markets
Kemp et al. (2004) Routes out of poverty
Millar & Gardiner (2004) Low pay, household resources and poverty

These other documents and links may also be useful:

Research and information (published after the JRF review)

Carpenter (2006) Repeat Jobseekers’ Allowance spells, DWP Research Report No 394 (PDF, 435KB)
Dorsett et al. (2007) Implementation and first-year impacts of the UK Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) demonstration (PDF, 3.4MB)
Kellard et al. (2007) Supporting sustained entry to work: An evaluation of the wise group 'Next Steps' and One Plus 'Sustainable Employment' Projects, Scottish Executive (PDF 836KB)
The Centre for Longitudinal Studies (home of the British Cohort, National Child Development and the Millennium Cohort Studies)

Policy

DWP Welfare Reform page
The Freud report (PDF, 2.5MB)

Submitting a full proposal

It is essential that you read the How to apply for funding section of our website before submitting your proposal, together with the Application guidelines containing the necessary forms for completing your application. There are also details available on what makes a good proposal and projects the Foundation does not support, which proposers should read, as well as some other useful information.

Three unbound, hard copies of all documents are required. Please also e-mail a Word version of the complete proposal, summary and budget forms to Louise Ross by the deadline below.

Proposals should be submitted to:

Louise Ross
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
The Homestead, 40 Water End
YORK YO30 6WP

Timetable

The deadline for receipt of email and hard copies of full proposals will be 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 October 2007.

Unfortunately, late submissions cannot be accepted. Following review by JRF staff and advisers, proposals that meet the required standards will be submitted to the Poverty and Disadvantage Committee on Tuesday 30 October 2007 for their consideration. Each proposal is reviewed by two external members of the Committee. The Trustees of the Foundation will meet to give final approval for funding on 3-4 December 2007. In the event that Trustees do not approve the project, preliminary costs of up to £2,000 will be reimbursed.

Budget

The maximum budget for this call overall is £250,000. It is expected that individual projects should not take longer than 24 months and, where appropriate, cover several waves of interviews, but this is negotiable. Again, where appropriate, further interview waves may be considered for funding at a later stage, depending on how projects progress.

How we make funding decisions (full proposals)

The following criteria will be used in coming to a decision on full proposals:

How far the work will offer new insights or developments.
The soundness and appropriateness of how the work will be done (i.e. design, methods and analysis).
Whether partnerships with relevant other organisations are in place, where these are important.
The ability of the proposers to carry out the work and complete on time.
An understanding of the policy and practice dimensions.
A thorough approach to dissemination.

Other issues that will be considered include: whether the proposal pays attention to diversity where appropriate (i.e. attending to gender, ethnicity, class, disability etc.) and whether it is written in accessible, lay language. A full yet accessible explanation of the proposed methods to be used is essential, as is full consideration of the ethical implications of the project and the implications for policy and practice across different nations of the UK.

Key contacts

For queries about the research, including the methods, please contact:

Chris Goulden
PAD Principal Research Manager
(01904 615942; chris.goulden@jrf.org.uk)

For queries about the application process, deadlines and so on, please contact:

Louise Ross
PAD Team Administrator
(01904 615942; louise.ross@jrf.org.uk).