By stewartb
I don’t doubt that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) does important work on a crucial matter, poverty. But I agree with the thrust of the main blog post that sometimes its communications on matters in Scotland can be – let’s say, ‘problematic’.
The JRF is certainly ‘interested’ in Scotland. Searching its website reveals a series of ‘Poverty in Scotland’ reports, dating from 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017! A similar search reveals ‘Poverty in Wales’ reports only from 2020 and 2018; we find ‘Poverty in Northern Ireland’ reports from 2022 and before that 2018. Why does Scotland get this attention? Is it because the situation in Scotland is exceptionally dire or for some other reason?
As best as we can ascertain, there are no ‘Poverty in England’ reports from the JRF. It does however publish UK poverty reports, the most recent being: JRF (26 January 2023) UK Poverty 2023: The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK.
There are bits of this UK report about Scotland that seem to be underplayed or just plain missing in media coverage, continuing the context- and perspective-free journalism of the BBC and most other news organisations that ‘serve’ Scotland. Here are some examples.
On poverty rate by region (the JRF has a tendency to refer to Scotland as a ‘region’) – ‘Scotland has a lower rate of poverty (18%) than England (22%) and Wales (24%) and around the same rate as Northern Ireland (17%) (based on three-year averages of data).’
On poverty rate amongst those in work based on ‘Households Below Average Income, 2020/21’ data from the DWP, the JRF’s UK report notes that Scotland, with a poverty rate for this group of c. 13%, has the second lowest rate of all UK nations and regions: NI is just a little lower. Labour-run Wales at c. 16% has the fourth highest rate: NE England just across the Scotland-England border has at c. 19% the highest rate.
At least in its most recent UK report – but missed by media reporting in Scotland? – the JRF states (with my emphasis):
‘‘Divergence in policy across nations will PROBABLY DRIVE GREATER DISPARITY IN POVERTY RATES across the country. SCOTLAND HAS TAKEN DECISIVE ACTION in defining child poverty targets in legislation and ENHANCING THE BENEFITS SYSTEM with a Scottish child payment for those receiving qualifying benefits; this was introduced in February 2021 at £10 a week per child under the age of six; the value doubled in April 2022 to £20 a child and increased again in November 2022 to £25 when it was also rolled out to all eligible children under 16.
‘In response to both the pandemic and cost of living crisis, both Scotland and Northern Ireland haven taken STEPS TO LIMIT RENT INCREASES FOR SOCIAL RENTERS, while the Scottish Government is introducing MORE PROTECTIONS FOR PRIVATE RENTERS INCLUDING GREATER RENT CONTROLS AND EVICTION BANS.’
Positive acknowledgement in the JRF’s UK report: anyone spotted such positivity in reporting on the JRF’s latest Scotland report?
Given the nature of the JRF’s framing in its latest Poverty in Scotland report and the nature of the coverage of this report in the media, what level of awareness of the JRF’s RECENT POSITIVE MESSAGES about Scotland will the majority of voters in Scotland acquire? My concern is too few!
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
I would hope that all those in receipt of the Scottish Child Payment in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West constituency will be encouraging friends and family and neighbours to vote against Sir Kid Starver’s puppet on Thursday .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes
LikeLike
JRF what a joke they are , you’ve exposed their nonsense , England the country with the most poverty doesn’t get any reporting by JRF another example of Englands propaganda war on Scotland
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it possible that the Foundation has been commissioned in good faith to make these reports in Scotland, but less often in England? As someone who has worked in the charities sector, I know how vital money from interested organisations is to funding such work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Two possible lines of enquiry:
1. Those in charge of the JRF could subconsciously be applying the England/UK equivalence so that by providing the UK data they are, they think, providing the data for England. This is a charitable explanation.
2. This is less likely – there are two foundations with ‘Rowntree’ in the title. One is the sincerely humanitarian organisation based on Quaker ideas. The other is a fund operated by a few wealthy individuals and is supportive of things which are in the interests of the LibDems and pro-Union. It is administered by a couple of members of the House of Lords. For example it paid all the expenses for the admitted and proven liar, Mr Alistair Carmichael MP, in his defence against constituents who had mounted a legal challenge regarding his veracity. The court upheld two of the three allegations and denied the third on the basis that politicians are sometimes untruthful. The judge admitted that this was a less than suitable criterion, but that as the law stood it was an accepted criterion. However, because of the shaky basis of Carmichael’s case the judge did not award him expenses and these costs were very high. So, his LibDem cronies stepped in and paid his expenses. Both funds are entirely separate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the past week or so this story about the positive effect of the Scottish Child payment has been highlighted on Twitter and various other places such as the FT below. It makes the timing JRF’s take on Scottish poverty somewhat suspect
https://archive.ph/RkHLB
LikeLike
The reasons why the JRF has such a relatively high level of interest in Scotland are not known: I could speculate but without evidence this would have no merit. However, there is information in the JRF’s 2022 Annual Report that does touch on the point made earlier about it simply responding to ‘commissions’ from third parties. I don’t think this applies here for reasons that should become obvious..
See https://www.jrf.org.uk/legal/annual-report-and-accounts
On the Foundation’s financial assets, the report states: ‘The endowment, which is the value of the investment portfolio less outstanding liabilities, REDUCED FROM £498.1 MILLION TO £423.1 MILLION BETWEEN 31 DECEMBER 2021 AND 31 DECEMBER 2022. This is a 15% decrease over the year, but REMAINS 28% AHEAD OF JRF’S INTERNAL TARGET. This is the primary key performance indicator for financial performance.’ That’s a lot of ‘asset’!
The financial statement shows: (a) at the end of 2022, the charity had investments of £434.4 million compared with its annual expenditure of £31.3 million; (b) the vast majority of the investment portfolio (92%) is invested in ‘easily tradeable assets’ and are therefore ‘relatively easy to access’; and (c) the charity has no debt.
The Annual Report also records that in 2022 income from investments was £11,699,000! By (staggeringly marked) contrast, income from other sources is reported as just £120,000! In short, the JRF is a grant giver and is NOT in the market for commissioned project funding.
On its positioning towards Scotland, in a section of the Annual Report entitled ‘Plans for the future’ there is this (with my emphasis):
‘There will be a Westminster election in the next two years, with a change of government looking distinctly possible. We therefore need to FOCUS ON WESTMINSTER IN 2023 AND 2024 MORE THAN WE NORMALLY WOULD, as there is a critical opportunity to shape elements of the national policy debate. We need to produce propositional insight and policy work in our areas of focus and engage closely with political parties.
It goes on: ‘Alongside this, through our Scotland team, we will keep a DELIBERATELY TAILORED FOCUS ON THE MOST POLITICALLY CHARGED ELEMENTS IN HOLYROOD.’ Only on the ‘most politically charged’? Why expressed in this rather odd way: why not just a focus on the ‘most relevant elements’ to the JRF’s interests?
Is this an indication, at least by implication, that the JRF’s norm is ‘tailored focus on Scotland’ but NOT a similarly ‘tailored focus’ on Westminster, not on England, not on NI, not on Wales? And if so, why just Scotland? Is there more ‘politically charged’ stuff here and it’s that which attracts the JRF?
And why Scotland and not ‘politically charged elements’ in Westminster and England, especially given that so much of the power to eliminate poverty lies in Westminster, the source of government with unlimited levers and unlimited agency over what is required for poverty elimination in England and which would, upon success, have major spillover benefits in the nations with only limited, devolved powers?
I started out mildly curious about the JRF’s relatively high level of interest in Scotland. Remarks in the 2022 Annual Report have simply heightened my curiosity!
(The organisation that provided funds to Alistair Carmichael MP was the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, a separate organisation from the JRF.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
If it looks like bullsh.t and smells like bullsh.t then it probably IS bullsh.t.
Just another English based group doing its best to do-down Scotland, it’s government and people. Yoon propaganda.
LikeLike