Dr Carolyn Snell

Water poverty in England and Wales: Findings from 2 research projects

Dr Carolyn SnellProfessor Jonathan Bradshaw

Gill Main Sarah Wilson

Dr Carolyn Snell

Background to the research

Two research projects:

1) Quantitative study funded by CC Water (May 2008-April 2009)

•Investigated the characteristics of households in water poverty•Investigated whether a passport benefit could be indentified

2) Qualitative pilot study funded through an internal University of York grant (May – August 2009)

•Aimed to add a qualitative dimension to the first project

Dr Carolyn Snell

Defining water poverty

The accepted definition is:

Where a household spends more than 3% of its net income on water and sewerage

Dr Carolyn Snell

Background: why study water poverty in England and Wales?

Cost

• Water poverty is a growing problem as a result of increasing water prices• Increases in the level of water prices coincide with increasing fuel charges

and food prices• Water charges are relatively low compared to other bills, but are inelastic

Variation

• Regional variation in water bills - water companies hold regional monopolies

• Regional variation in bills creates a unique difficulty in arriving at a national policy solution

Dr Carolyn Snell

Dr Carolyn Snell

Social Support

• WaterSure – the only social tariff - has a very low take-up and its eligibility criteria mean that it is limited to a small sub-section of the customer base.

Policy

• Before 1999 it was not illegal to disconnect water supplies, linked to an increase in dysentery and hepatitis in the early 1990s

• The nature of water poverty as a policy problem has changed significantly since 1999, when it became illegal to disconnect household properties.

• Since 1999 the number of households falling into arrears has increased

Dr Carolyn Snell

Background: why study water poverty in England and Wales?

Dr Carolyn Snell

Project 1: quantitative analysis of water poverty in England and Wales

• Data from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) has been used to analyse the socio-economic characteristics of those at risk of water poverty in England and Wales.

• Analysis of the most recent data (2006-7) found that 14.6 per

cent of the population were in water poverty.

• Proposed increases over the next five years could double this in some regions

Dr Carolyn Snell

The water poverty rate is double the average for:

• single pensioners

• households on means tested benefits

• workless households

• the bottom income quintile

Headline figures

Dr Carolyn Snell

Income• Of all those in water poverty, 71.3 per cent are in the lowest income

quintile, and of those in the lowest income quintile, 54.9 per cent are in water poverty.

• Amongst all those defined as water poor, 71.6 per cent are households with no workers

Household Makeup• Of the water poor, 54.4 per cent are single occupancy households. • Of households in water poverty, 30.7 per cent are single pensioners.Age• Of the water poor, 30.7 per cent are single pensioners. Region• Regional variation: at regional level the highest proportion of water poor

households is Wales, with 20.2 per cent of households living in water poverty. This is closely followed by the South West with 19.9 per cent of households living in water poverty.

• BUT these regions DO NOT map onto current water company regions

Findings

Dr Carolyn Snell

Findings: benefits and tax credits % spending over 3% of on water

% of total 2006-07 water poor

Pensioner single on PC 73.0 7.8Pensioner couple on PC 67.2 2.0Single not working 16 hours, on IS/JSA, 16-24 95.5 1.2

Single not working 16 hours, on IS/JSA, 25-64 97.6 6.6

Couple neither working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 97.0 1.0

Lone parent + 1, not working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 85.3 2.8

Lone parent + 2, not working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 81.0 1.5

Lone parent + 3, not working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 52.6 0.4

Lone parent + 4, not working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 44.4 0.1

Couple +1, neither working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 75.4 0.4

Couple +2, neither working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 70.6 0.4

Couple +3, neither working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 42.7 0.2

Couple +4, neither working 16 hours, on IS/JSA 7.9 0.0

Total 78.1 24.2

Dr Carolyn Snell

Project One: Conclusions

• Water poverty is suffered by a range of households in very different circumstances

• A benefits focused policy response is problematic because of the relatively small proportions of the water poor that would be helped

• The regional variation in charges creates a unique difficulty in arriving at a national policy solution

This is a difficult policy problem because:

Dr Carolyn Snell

Further research questions

Our second project set out answer the following research questions:

• What are the effects of being in water poverty?

• How do households prioritise bills and expenses?

• Do households take up current support mechanisms that are available?

Dr Carolyn Snell

Findings:how do households prioritise bills and expenses?

• Bills are prioritised over debts• Fuel is prioritised over water• Water is a mid to low level

priority • Priorities tend to revolve

around the ability to function e.g. Eating, heating, children's

well being• TV licence is often

deprioritised/unpaid

Dr Carolyn Snell

Findings:What are the effects of struggling to pay?

Sacrifices in other areas • Wellbeing

Not being able to socialise Limited activities for children

• Impact on family relationships E.g. can’t buy Xmas gifts

• Impact on other relationships Toping up mobile Buying a round Going out for a coffee

• Health Inadequate food Inadequate heating Mental health

Debt • Wellbeing

Stress, depression etc. Sense of helplessness Fear

• Where families help out there is guilt/resentment/ irritation/control

• Impact of debt recovery methods Bailiffs Disconnection of other

utilities Payment plans

Dr Carolyn Snell

Findings: do households take up current support mechanisms that are available?

Government policy V Experiences

Fuel poverty strategy: • Warm front • Switching tariff• Cold weather payments• Broader social exclusion initiatives• Fuel direct

Water poverty :• Water sure• Water direct

• Limited knowledge of schemes available

• Limited ability to take up schemes

• Unpopularity of switching tariff

• Lack of advice by companies• Lack of advice by agencies

about options • Confusion over eligibility

Dr Carolyn Snell

Project One: Conclusions

• Water poverty tends to affect those already struggling financially

• Water debts are de-prioritised compared to other debts that are associated with a direct consequence

• There is a mismatch between policy and experience