Guest blog written by Sarah Campbell - Head of Participation and Advocacy, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)
We know lots about the wide range of issues that people struggling to get by experience on a daily basis but we know much less about what areas would be prioritised for action if those same people got to have a say.
We want to try and change that by creating an evidence bank of priority issues – as decided on by communities who experience it every day.
Introduction
JRF want to support the priorities of people with direct experience of the economic injustice of poverty to be more reflected in the government and in the organisations that seek to address it. Working with GMCVO and Greater Manchester Poverty Action we are collecting examples of participatory/power sharing work to uncover key priority areas. We want to create a bank of evidence for government, funders, policy campaigning organisations and the wider sector to inspire further power sharing action on these areas.
This is part one of a project that aims to support more work to be carried out on the issues that are repeatedly deemed important by people struggling to get by. Read this blog to find out more.
Why are we doing this?
People struggling to get by not only experience financial stress, they are also excluded from taking part in research and the development of solutions to make change.
Whose knowledge is sought out and included in social change work? Whose concerns and priorities are listened to across civil society? At its extreme this knowledge inequity can be seen in tragedies like Grenfell and more recently the Post Office scandal – where people raised their voices but were ignored.
This is the reality that we hear so much of when working in deep participatory ways with people personally affected by economic injustice – the experience of poor systems, how people are treated by services, government, the media and how little their voices seem to be acted upon. This issue of power, agency and voice is often what gets prioritised when people are involved in meaningful ways in social change work.
This has been evidenced in the power sharing and participation work that JRF has done over the past 7 years – where we have worked in power sharing ways with people with experience as knowledge creators and holders to create policy solutions but also funded work led by grassroots organisations that take a power sharing approach. As Lela Kogbura powerfully argues ‘it is clear that the evidence that has been relied on for decades to inform policy, practice and resource utilisation in the UK has not been effective at tackling hardship for racialised communities’ (Kogbura. L, 2024). Racialised communities must be at the heart of tackling hardship | Joseph Rowntree Foundation (jrf.org.uk).
As a response to the learning we have had over the past 7 years, this new strand of work in JRF seeks to create an evidence base of knowledge created by people directly affected by poorly designed policies and services.
Where are we now?
Participatory approaches, co-design, lived experience has become more popular over the past decade or so. The approach is not new but how popular it has been over the years has been inconsistent. Recently it has experienced a lengthy ‘in vogue’ period which is very much welcomed and is good progress. However, the way people with experience are involved still appears to be mainly as people to be researched or people who can tell their stories to add power and colour to other people’s campaigns.
We believe this is detrimental to social change initiatives in 3 ways:
-
Developing effective solutions: we believe we can't develop effective policy and practice without including the deep insight that comes from having experienced the realities of poorly designed and executed policy and practice.
-
Democracy: the lack of connection to the lives whom organisations seek to improve makes us curious about democratic approaches and accountability. This work exists to influence people in power – lots of large charities, think tanks, research institutes have an influential voice. But there remains too little connection to the lives of those who will be affected by these influencing efforts.
-
Diversity: there is still sadly, a lack of diversity within government, parliament and civil service. This is the same in the think tank, campaigning and funding sector as research undertaken by Reclaim reveals. (Harding.R and Graver.K, 2022). With all best intentions in the world, this means that assumptions and biases towards certain forms of knowledge and what is focused on, also happens in the sector.
What are we doing about it?
We have commissioned a thematic review of the work that exists already where people with experience have said what they think the most important issues to address are. We want to create an evidence bank that brings this together, pulls out repeated themes and creates a platform that can be used by JRF and the wider poverty sector.
This is not about uncovering new issues, it is about finding out what issues people with experience have said they think are the priority areas for change.
How are we approaching it?
We have commissioned GMCVO and Greater Manchester Poverty Action to design and deliver this review. The criteria for work to be included are purposefully strict and specific to ensure that people who experience economic injustice have had an equal voice in the work. To find out more about the criteria visit the call for evidence web page.
What is the ultimate aim once the findings have been published?
We want to provide a tool to a) inform the priorities of the organisations that seek to improve our lives, the think tanks, the campaigning charities, the funders, and ultimately the government. And b) a resource that will be useful for grassroots organisations campaigning for change. Phase 2 will seek ideas on how to make the case for a) more work to happen on these priority areas and b) for that work to take a power sharing and knowledge equity approach.
If you would like to add evidence to the review please visit the call for evidence web page.
