ArticlePDF Available

Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty

Authors:

Abstract

There is limited evidence that explicitly considers the relationship between fuel poverty and disabled people. Additionally, within English policy, disabled people are treated as a single group with homogenous needs, despite both highly varied needs and eligibility for fuel poverty or welfare support. Given this gap in knowledge the paper investigates the relationship between fuel poverty and disabled people in the context of policy change. The paper reports research on: the extent of fuel poverty among households containing disabled people; the relationship between tenure, disability and fuel poverty; and the relationship between fuel poverty policy support and disabled people.
1
Journal of Poverty and Social Justice • vol x • no x • xx–xx • © Policy Press 2015 • #JPSJ
Print ISSN 1759 8273 • Online ISSN 1759 8281 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/175982715X14349632097764
article
Welfare reform, disabled people
and fuel poverty
Carolyn Snell, University of York, UK
carolyn.snell@york.ac.uk
Mark Bevan, University of York, UK
Harriet Thomson, University of York, UK
There is limited evidence that explicitly considers the relationship between fuel poverty and
disabled people. Additionally, within English policy, disabled people are treated as a single group
with homogenous needs, despite both highly varied needs and eligibility for fuel poverty or welfare
support. Given this gap in knowledge the paper investigates the relationship between fuel poverty
and disabled people in the context of policy change. The paper reports research on: the extent of fuel
poverty among households containing disabled people; the relationship between tenure, disability
and fuel poverty; and the relationship between fuel poverty policy support and disabled people.
key words welfare reform • disability • fuel poverty • austerity • energy
Introduction
Fuel poverty is understood to be an interaction between low income, energy
ineciency and energy prices (DECC, 2012; Boardman, 2012). In addition to rising
energy costs, the consequences of the global nancial crisis during the rst decade of
the twenty-rst century, and cuts to public sector budgets and welfare benets have
all been linked – at least in passing – to an increase in fuel poverty (CAB, 2012; Kaye
et al, 2012; Wood et al, 2011). Disabled people are recognised within research and
policy as being vulnerable to fuel poverty (Fahmy et al, 2011; DECC, 2012), however,
there is very limited evidence that explicitly considers the relationship between fuel
poverty and disabled people (see Laxton and Parckar, 2009 for a discussion of this
issue). Additionally, within policy, disabled people are typically treated as a single group
with homogenous needs, despite highly varied needs and eligibility for fuel poverty
or welfare support (Walker and Day, 2012). Given this gap in knowledge this paper
investigates the relationship between fuel poverty and disabled people in the context
of policy change. Reporting research ndings from a larger project, this paper focuses
on: the extent of fuel poverty among households containing disabled people; the
relationship between tenure, disability and fuel poverty; and the relationship between
fuel poverty policy support and disabled people.
Carolyn Snell et al
2
Background
In Britain there are generally considered to be three main contributing factors to
fuel poverty: low household income, housing conditions/poor energy eciency and
increased energy prices (Boardman, 2012; DECC, 2012). This section rst considers
the relationship between disability and these three factors, before briey outlining
current fuel poverty policy.
Low income/poverty
There is a well-documented relationship between poverty and disability (see, for
example, She and Livermore, 2009; Oliver and Barnes, 2012). On the one hand,
disabled people are less likely to be employed than non-disabled people, and where
they are employed they are more likely to work part-time, and for lower wages
(Berthoud, 2011; Meager and Hill, 2005). At the same time, disabled people are also
less likely to have savings (Parckar, 2008). On the other hand, disabled people often
face increased living costs (Wood et al, 2011) suggested by some to be as much as an
additional 25 per cent compared to non-disabled people of working age (Parckar,
2008, 14). The combination of these two factors means that disabled people may
be less resilient to nancial shocks, or meeting unexpected bills (Wood et al, 2011).
In terms of the British policy context there have been substantial changes to
both direct and indirect forms of welfare support since 2010. The most high prole
changes include the transition from Incapacity Benet (IB) to Employment Support
Allowance (ESA), the introduction of Universal Credit (and corresponding changes
to tax credits including those aecting disabled children), abolition of the Severe
Disability Premium (SDP), the transition from Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
to Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) (with 20 per cent of the ‘caseload’ losing
this benet), changes in Council Tax Benet (where local authorities have more
discretion over who is able to apply) and Housing Benet size criteria restrictions
for working age people (the so-called ‘bedroom tax’). This is alongside other general
cuts to local authority budgets and a real terms cut in benets through the use of
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than Retail Price Index (RPI) to determine
benet increases. The changes have raised numerous concerns around increased levels
of poverty (Kaye et al, 2012), and particular problems around having to cut back on
food and warmth (CAB, 2012; Disability Rights UK, 2012).
Housing/energy efficiency
The relationship between poverty and disability extends to housing conditions and
tenure type (Papworth Trust, 2014; Parckar, 2008); for example, the Department for
Work and Pensions found that in 2008 ‘one in three households containing disabled
people were situated in non-decent housing conditions’ (DWP, 2013). Similarly,
Beresford and Rhodes found that
families with a disabled child have a dierent tenure prole to families with
non-disabled children and, on all generic measures of house condition,
emerge as more disadvantaged than families with non-disabled children.
They are also much less likely to be satised with their housing. Disabled
Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty
3
children also appear to be disadvantaged compared to other groups of
disabled people. Among those needing specially adapted housing, they are
least likely to be living in suitable housing compared to all other age groups
of disabled people. (2008, 11)
Emerson and Hatton (2005) also found that families with disabled children were more
than twice as likely as other families to live in a house that could not be kept warm
enough, or to keep the child’s bedroom warm enough in winter. At the other end of
the age spectrum Goodman et al (2011) found that older people with chronic illness
and/or disability were more likely to be in fuel poverty. While they attribute this in
part to the increased risk of poverty and deprivation experienced by this group, they
also found that poor housing conditions played a role (2011, 46).
Data from the English Housing Survey suggest that disabled people are more
likely to be in rented accommodation than non-disabled people (DCLG, 2013).
Williams et al (2008) identied that disabled people were more likely to live in social
rented accommodation than the general population, and that disabled people were
under-represented in the private rented sector in comparison with the population
at large. However, disabled people who rent privately are likely to face particular
challenges. The English Housing Survey showed that the average Standard Assessment
Procedure rating – a measure of the energy eciency of homes – for social rented
accommodation was higher than the average found in the private rented sector (PRS)
(DCLG, 2013). Indeed, there is extensive evidence to suggest that energy eciency
and housing quality is poorest in the PRS (UN, 2009; Marmott Review Team, 2011;
DECC, 2012), and in England it is where the highest fuel poverty rates are found
(DECC, 2012). An analysis of the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating for
the PRS by Energy Eciency Partnership for Homes (2009) showed that while just
over 10 per cent of the stock was good (rated band B or C), a high proportion was
rated as bad (27 per cent rated F or G); 55 per cent of the PRS was composed of Hard
to Treat housing compared with an average of 38 per cent of the housing stock in
England as a whole (Centre for Sustainable Energy, 2011). Energy eciency is poor
in the PRS in part because it is dicult to address and as a result energy eciency
regulation in the UK is still in its infancy (Stewart and Habgood, 2008; Walker and
Day, 2012), and landlords may have little motivation to improve energy eciency
(Harrington et al, 2004).
A further diculty for disabled people living in the PRS is that the range of
properties that are ‘accessible’ is often limited (Pro-Housing Alliance, 2012) and as
such, disabled people who live with limited mobility cannot readily ‘shop around’ for
alternatives. Given the links between fuel poverty and poverty, the health consequences
of living in poor quality accommodation (described below), and limited property
choices available, disabled people in the PRS may be particularly vulnerable to fuel
poverty.
Energy prices and expenditure
The rise in energy prices has been well documented over the last decade (DECC,
2014a). However, this problem may be exacerbated for some disabled people as a
result of increased energy needs. Indeed, research indicates that one area of additional
expenditure among disabled people is household energy (Palmer, 2011; Peate, 2008;
Carolyn Snell et al
4
Walker and Day, 2012; Anderson et al, 2012, Fuel Poverty Action, 2012; Disability
Rights UK, 2012). Certain conditions or impairments may require higher temperatures
or longer periods of heat, and an absence of this may prove harmful or indeed fatal.
The need for longer periods of heating is largely attributed to the greater lengths of
time that disabled people or those with life limiting illnesses may spend in the home
(Adams and White, 2006; Hamza and Gilroy, 2011). There are additional factors that
may also increase energy use, for example the cost of energy intensive equipment
such as breathing apparatus.
Fuel poverty policy and disabled people
Until 2013 fuel poverty in the UK was measured according to whether or not a
household would need to spend more than 10 per cent of its income to meet a
satisfactory heating regime (referred to hereafter as the ‘10 per cent measure’). As
of 2013, the Low Income High Cost (referred to hereafter as ‘the LIHC measure’)
indicator of fuel poverty was introduced in England. Under the LIHC measure
households are considered fuel poor if ‘they have required fuel costs that are above
average (the national median level); were they to spend that amount, they would be
left with a residual income below the ocial poverty line (DECC, 2013, 3). There
are several criticisms associated with these denitions of fuel poverty and their impact
on disabled people. First, disabled people may have increased energy needs (Laxton
and Parckar, 2009; Walker and Day, 2012; Anderson et al, 2012; Carers UK, 2011; Fuel
Poverty Action, 2012), however, these are not considered under current fuel poverty
calculations (the denition can account for people who are in the home during the
day, but it does not account for increased temperatures, specic heating regimes, or
other forms of additional energy use) (Baker, 2011; Hills, 2012; Laxton and Parckar,
2009). Second, despite recommendations by Sir John Hills who developed the LIHC
measure, disability benets such as DLA and Attendance Allowance (AA) have been
treated as general income within fuel poverty calculations. This articially elevates
household income, and in the case of fuel poverty measurements makes the assumption
that these benets could be used to pay for energy costs (Laxton and Parckar, 2009;
Fuel Poverty Action, 2012; Hills, 2012).
There are currently three main forms of nancial relief oered to households for
energy payments (the rst are two state funded, and the third is funded through energy
bills). First, Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) are made to householders on low income
benets, and payments of £25 are made if and when outdoor temperatures are at or
below zero degrees Celsius for seven consecutive days between 1 November and 31
March (Gov.uk, 2014). Second, the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) is automatically
paid to all pensioners regardless of income. Third, the Warm Home Discount Scheme
(WHDS) was introduced in 2011 and replaced the Social Taris previously oered
by the ‘big six’ energy companies. Those in the ‘core’ group (determined by being of
retirement age and on certain low income benets) should automatically receive a
discount of £140 for the 2014/2015 winter period as a result of DWP data matching.
Those considered to be in the ‘broader’ group (determined by the energy companies
themselves but usually related to low income, and being in receipt of certain benets)
must apply for the scheme themselves and will only be successful if 1) they meet the
energy company’s criteria, and 2) there are sucient funds left (there is a rst come
rst serve process for those in the broader group).
Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty
5
The provision of energy eciency measures has been extensively reformed by
the coalition government (for a full account, see Snell and Thomson, 2013), and the
state funded Warm Front scheme which oversaw energy eciency improvements in
low income households has been replaced with the Energy Companies Obligation
(ECO). The ECO scheme aims to improve the energy eciency of houses that are
either considered ‘hard to treat’ or occupied by those on low incomes, and is funded
through energy bills. Access to ECO is far more complex than Warm Front and
eligibility is often determined by particular partnerships or schemes in a local area.
At the time of this research vulnerable households such as those on low incomes
and in receipt of disability related benets were able to apply for energy eciency
measures through ECO. In addition to this ECO providers were obliged to install
15 per cent of support measures to low income and vulnerable households in rural
areas (Ofgem, 2014a).1
The government has also introduced the ‘Green Deal’, which is a scheme where
householders can access a commercial loan to fund energy eciency measures, the
cost of which is then oset against energy savings. These policy changes have been
criticised for 1) reductions in overall funds targeted at the fuel poor (Guertler, 2012),
and 2) being regressive given that they are now funded through energy bills rather
than through general taxation (Boardman, 2012).
Research rationale and methodology
The need for empirical research
The existing body of knowledge identies a link between poverty and disability and
concerns about the detrimental impact of the extensive welfare reforms implemented
in the period since 2010. It highlights the link between housing conditions, tenure,
fuel poverty and disabled people, and identies the increased energy costs associated
with some conditions and impairments and the increased vulnerability to the eects
of fuel poverty (such as low temperatures or damp). Despite this, there is an extremely
limited evidence base that fully explores the relationship between fuel poverty and
disabled people (with the exception of Laxton and Parckar, 2009). This paper reports
ndings from a research project that aimed to investigate the relationship between
disabled people and fuel poverty within the context of policy change (both welfare
reform and fuel poverty). Specically this paper explores three key dimensions:
1. the extent and experience of fuel poverty among households containing disabled
people;
2. the relationship between tenure, households containing disabled people and
fuel poverty;
3. the eectiveness of policy support for households containing disabled people
with regards to fuel poverty.
Methodology
A statistical analysis of the 2010–11 English Housing Survey was undertaken in
order to assess fuel poverty rates among households containing disabled people. This
replicates DECC’s fuel poverty methodology (DECC, 2010), and the results are
Carolyn Snell et al
6
generalisable to the English population, and national estimates are also given (a full
account of the methodology including a full assessment of strengths and weaknesses
can be found in the project report available at www.eagacharitabletrust.org). The
analysis presented in this paper uses the two measures of fuel poverty used by DECC,
the 10 per cent and the LIHC measures. Given the criticisms associated with treating
DLA and AA as general income described above, further analysis has been conducted
to assess levels of fuel poverty with these benets removed. For the purposes of this
analysis, disability is measured on the basis of the household reference person stating
someone in the household has a long-term illness or disability.
In addition to the statistical analysis, semi-structured qualitative interviews were
undertaken with 18 households, 14 of the interviews were with disabled people
of working age included nine single people, two lone parents, and four couples
(in the case of two of the couples, both partners lived with impairments and/or
a chronic condition). A further four interviews were with the parents of disabled
children. Seventeen households were in receipt of DLA. Thirteen respondents lived
in social rented accommodation; ve rented privately (although three of the social
rented tenants also discussed previous experiences of renting from private landlords).
Respondents were recruited through a variety of means, including invitations to
participate in the research on two websites, an invitation to parents of disabled
children at a specialist school for cognition and learning, and also via an advice
and advocacy organisation run by and for disabled people in a London borough.
Respondents reported a range of impairments and conditions that gave rise to a
variety of disabilities. These included cerebral palsy, hypermobility, Sjogren’s syndrome,
muscular dystrophy and hyperthyroidism. Three respondents reported bromyalgia
and a further three the impact of strokes. Several participants described concurrent
conditions and impairments, including cancer and arthritis, hearing loss and learning
diculties, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and osteoarthritis, severe
asthma, peripheral neuropathy and reactive depression. Additionally, 16 semi-structured
interviews were undertaken with a range of agencies that deal with fuel poverty issues
with vulnerable people on a day-to-day basis. These agencies included representatives
of the energy sector, local authorities, not for prot companies acting as delivery
agents, and third sector organisations. The interviews aimed to explore the needs of
disabled people in relation to managing energy costs, as well as identifying barriers
and opportunities for alleviating fuel poverty among disabled people in the current
policy context. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was undertaken.
Ethical approval was sought from and granted by the University of York’s Department
of Social Policy and Social Work ethics committee in October 2012. All research was
conducted in line with the British Sociological Association’s code of ethical conduct.
Findings
Fuel poverty among households containing disabled people
The statistics show that in general there are elevated levels of fuel poverty among
households containing people with disabilities or long-term illnesses. These rates
vary by the measure used, whether or not disability benets such as AA and DLA are
included or excluded, and reduce substantially under the LIHC denition.
Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty
7
Respondents within the household interviews discussed their energy requirements
and the costs of this in the context of their household budgets. These participants
fell into two main groups. For the rst group, managing the costs of energy appeared
fairly stable within the context of a regular income from employment, either by
the disabled person themselves or another member of the household. In the second
group, respondents who were reliant on benets noted that managing the costs of
energy as part of total outgoings was becoming increasingly problematic. The latter
participants discussed greater problems relating to energy costs and highlighted how
they rationed energy, cut back on food, wore extra clothing to lower energy costs,
and sold possessions in order to pay energy bills. While many of these activities are
typically associated with general experiences of fuel poverty, a key dierence was
the signicantly increased energy needs associated with certain impairments and
conditions. these were discussed throughout the household and agency interviews,
with examples including: an interviewee with muscular dystrophy who needed
regular heat to prevent further muscular stiening; a participant who required the
use of an energy intensive nebuliser; and several householders reporting the need to
wash clothes and bed linen on a daily basis as a result of incontinence. Of particular
importance, and often neglected in discussions of fuel poverty was the relationship
between excess warmth and disability. One participant commented:
‘One of the symptoms of the cancer I have is a hormone imbalance which
produces hot, sweaty ushes. That’s not helped by the morphine, so the
biggest thing I use is the water cooled air conditioner unit in the bedroom.
(Respondent, male)
Table 1a: Fuel poverty, disabled people and government definitions
Full income LIHC
Household
contains
someone
with illness
or disability
Number in
fuel poverty
(millions)
% in fuel
poverty
% of overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Number in
fuel poverty
(millions)
% in fuel
poverty
% of overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Yes 1.29 20.4% 36.9% 0.84 13.2% 34.4%
No 2.21 14.6% 63.1% 1.59 10.5% 65.6%
Table 1b: Fuel poverty, disabled people and government definitions (DLA and AA
excluded)
Full income LIHC
Household
contains
someone
with illness
or disability
Number in
fuel poverty
(millions)
% in fuel
poverty
% of overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Number in
fuel poverty
(millions)
% in fuel
poverty
% of overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Yes 1.42 22.4 39.3 0.91 14.4 36.7
No 2.18 14.4 60.7 1.57 10.4 63.3
Carolyn Snell et al
8
The diversity of experience was exacerbated by the increasingly discretionary and
localised nature of support. The majority of participants interviewed were in receipt
of DLA. In addition to ocial denitions of fuel poverty treating DLA and AA
as disposable income, uses to which these benets were put meant that incomes
were being increasingly stretched. For example, when Housing Benet size criteria
restrictions were introduced in 2013 disabled people were recognised as a group
that might be unfairly aected by such changes (given the need for additional
space associated with the particular disability or impairment). The government
recommended that local councils used Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) to
address this issue (DWP, 2014a), however, the implementation of this has been patchy.
As with other research (Wilcox, 2014; Papworth Trust, 2013), the qualitative ndings
here suggest that some local authorities are counting DLA as income within the size
restriction calculations (thus reducing the number of households eligible for support):
‘it’s no longer protected money…the payments for the council tax and the
bedroom tax…come out of my DLA. (Respondent, female)
Indeed, the combination of changes to benefit entitlements, including both
Council Tax Benet (now ‘Reduction’) and Housing Benet, have had signicant
consequences on the ability of these respondents to pay for fuel. One participant
commented on the changes to the Council Tax:
‘I looked and thought “Well, I’m on illness benets, they can’t ask me to
pay all that. But they’re going to [laughs]. And there’s nothing you can do
about it. It’s not like with the gas or electric – you can sort of, to a small
amount, you can try and save it. But with that [council tax], there’s nothing
I can do about it. It’s the things that you’re powerless to change, that’s the
hardest things to deal with.’ (Respondent, female)
Furthermore, the participants of the agency interviews discussed the variability of crisis
support oered in emergency cases, highlighting the abolition of Community Care
Grants and Crisis Loans in favour of locally derived schemes. Royston and Rodrigues
(2013) have highlighted the extent to which support varies between local authorities.
For example, some local authorities provide vouchers for gas or electricity payments,
whereas others have explicitly stated that such support will not be considered.
A key implication of the points discussed above is the interaction between
welfare reforms and current approaches to measuring fuel poverty. On the one
hand the current levels of fuel poverty (highlighted in Tables 1a and 1b) are likely to
underestimate the energy needs (and spending) of some disabled people, given that
they are based on modelled usage rather than actual need. On the other hand, incomes
for those in receipt of benets such as DLA/AA (or PIP as it gradually replaces DLA)
will be exaggerated for the purposes of fuel poverty calculations. While the overall
impact of removing DLA and AA from the calculation of income may appear low (a
2 per cent increase under the 10 per cent measure, compared to a 1 per cent increase
under the LIHC measure) this is in the context of multiple claims being made on
these benets by a range of policy initiatives.
Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty
9
Tenure and fuel poverty
Fuel poverty rates in the PRS are consistently high, with fuel poverty rates of 23 per
cent (10 per cent measure) and 29.5 per cent (LIHC measure) among households
containing disabled people. Rates increase with the removal of disability benets from
the calculation of income, and are substantially higher than fuel poverty rates among
households that do not contain disabled people. Equally, among owner occupiers
rates of fuel poverty are higher among households containing someone who is ill
or disabled compared to households without. This trend cannot be observed in the
housing association sector or within local authority housing where the dierences
are less apparent (see Tables 2a and 2b).
One reason for the high fuel poverty rates in the PRS may relate to the combination
of the age and condition of the housing stock (leading to poor energy eciency) and
increased likelihood of poverty among disabled people. Within this research several
agencies noted barriers to installing energy eciency measures in the PRS including:
associated costs such as replastering and decorating, remedial works before energy
eciency measures can be put in, and an unwillingness on the part of landlords to
install heating systems that rely on gas (given the risks and additional layer of safety
requirements). While these issues are fairly typical explanations as to why the sector
has the poorest energy eciency ratings and highest fuel poverty rates, there are a
Table 2a: Tenure, household contains someone with a disability or long term illness,
including DLA/AA
Full income LIHC
Household
contains
someone
with illness
or disability
Tenure
type
Number in
fuel poverty
(millions)
% in
fuel
poverty
% of
overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Number
in fuel
poverty
(millions)
% in
fuel
poverty
% of overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Yes
Owner
occupied
0.84 21.8 65.0 0.43 11.2 51.4
Private
rented
0.16 23.5 12.5 0.20 29.5 24.2
Local
authority
0.17 19.6 13.2 0.11 12.8 13.3
Social
landlord
0.12 13.1 9.4 0.09 10.0 11.1
No
Owner
occupied
1.45 13.7 65.7 0.88 8.3 55.3
Private
rented
0.45 17.0 20.4 0.47 17.9 29.7
Local
authority
0.16 18.1 7.3 0.12 13.7 7.6
Social
landlord
0.14 14.4 6.5 0.12 11.8 7.4
Carolyn Snell et al
10
number of factors that exacerbate the situation for disabled people. As described
previously, people with particular conditions or impairments may be more vulnerable
to the eects of fuel poverty, for example, muscular dystrophy is likely to be worsened
by the cold or damp (Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, 2010). Given the high fuel
poverty rates among households containing disabled people in the PRS and the
evidence to suggest that the sector is hard to treat, disabled people in the sector may
be both extremely vulnerable to the eects of fuel poverty, and may be the hardest
to support through policy. This sits within the broader policy context, where disabled
people of working age are most likely to be adversely aected by welfare reforms
and least likely to be eligible for fuel poverty support. Once again, it should also be
noted that the gures presented here are likely to underestimate energy needs among
many disabled people, and thus undercount the number of fuel poor.
The willingness and ability of tenants to seek help or support was highlighted by
both sets of interview respondents. Depending on the relationship that they had
with their landlord some householders were willing to ask for energy eciency
improvements, whereas others were not:
‘It tends to be quite a cold at. But the boiler is very old...in winter you’re
not really getting any hot water out of the taps...what they should do is
replace the boiler but they’re never going to do it. They’re just going to wait
until it dies completely, or if they did, they’d jack the rent up enormously.’
(Respondent, male)
Table 2b: Tenure, household contains someone with a disability or long term illness,
excluding DLA/AA
Full income LIHC
Household
contains
someone
with illness or
disability
Tenure
type
Number
in fuel
poverty
(millions)
% in
fuel
poverty
% of overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Number
in fuel
poverty
(millions)
% in
fuel
poverty
% of overall
fuel poor
households
in each
group
Yes
Owner
occupied
0.91 23.8 64.5 0.47 12.3 52.0
Private
rented
0.17 25.4 12.3 0.22 31.6 23.9
Local
authority
0.19 21.8 13.3 0.12 13.7 13.0
Social
landlord
0.14 15.3 9.9 0.10 10.9 11.1
No
Owner
occupied
1.44 13.6 65.9 0.87 8.2 55.5
Private
rented
0.44 16.7 20.2 0.46 17.5 29.5
Local
authority
0.16 18.1 7.4 0.12 13.5 7.7
Social
landlord
0.14 14.4 6.6 0.12 11.5 7.3
Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty
11
Several agencies noted the reluctance of tenants to engage with proposed enforcement
actions by local authorities, due to perceived fears over eviction or rent increases.
Older disabled people on regulated tenancies were viewed as a particularly vulnerable
group in this regard. An agency noted that this barrier could be overcome if local
authorities could be more proactive in identifying particular cases where people
are living in very poor conditions linked with cold homes and instigating action
themselves. However, while local authorities can address excess cold hazards through
the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a key issue remains the
level of resourcing available to local authorities to carry out this task. Such perceived
fears raise questions over the veracity of the introduction via the Energy Act 2011 of
the right for tenants to request energy eciency improvements that a landlord will
be unable to unreasonably refuse from April 2016.
Effectiveness of fuel poverty support
Table 3 shows fuel poverty rates by household composition, demonstrating elevated
levels of fuel poverty among households containing disabled people. While not
presented here, the increases in fuel poverty rates following the removal of DLA/AA
from the calculation of income follow the same trend as previous results. These gures
give an insight into eligibility for fuel poverty schemes. While some of the highest
fuel poverty rates are among single disabled people of working age, it is actually this
group that has been least protected by welfare reforms (Beatty and Fothergill, 2013)
and are less likely to be eligible for the main forms of fuel poverty support. Of existing
nancial support two of the three schemes available focus on those of pensionable
age (WHDS and WFA), and the third, CWPs by nature only, support households
during periods of excessive cold, rather than excessive heat.
Within the qualitative research, one key criticism made by agencies was a lack of
data matching for those under retirement age (something which has enabled automatic
payments of the WHDS to those on qualifying benets and of retirement age). Agencies
also suggested that the WHDS core group should be extended to include disabled
people, using the eligibility criteria currently applied for CWPs. The impact of these
criteria mean that eligibility for the WHDS for those under retirement age was far
more varied and unpredictable, and also relied on householder take-up rather than
automatic payments, something that is notoriously problematic (for example, see
DWP take-up gures from 2009–10 (DWP, 2014b)).
As described previously, energy eciency schemes have also changed substantially
since 2010. The state funded Warm Front scheme enabled householders on qualifying
benets in a range of housing sectors to apply for energy eciency improvements.
The scheme that has replaced this, ‘ECO’, is funded through energy bills and eligibility
criteria varies signicantly by area and scheme. For example, within this research one
agency commented: ‘There are safeguards for rural areas in ECO, but they are not
very helpful…there are few [eligible] people, a minority, in any one area’ (Agency).
This highlights the diculties of targeting vulnerable rural households that have since
been recognised within ECO policy.
Carolyn Snell et al
12
Table 3: Fuel poverty rates by household composition, in households containing someone with a long-term illness or disability
Full income LIHC
Household
contains
someone
with illness
or disability
Household type Number in
fuel poverty
(millions)
% in fuel
poverty
% of overall fuel
poor households
in each group
Number in
fuel poverty
(millions)
% in fuel
poverty
% of overall fuel
poor households
in each group
Yes
Couple, no dependent child(ren) under 60 0.11 12.6 8.4 0.09 10.3 10.5
Couple, no dependent child(ren) aged 60 or over 0.31 18.6 24.0 0.20 11.9 23.8
Couple with dependent child(ren) 0.06 6.9 4.9 0.14 14.9 16.5
Lone parent with dependent child(ren) 0.06 15.6 4.9 0.08 18.8 9.1
Other multi-person households 0.09 17.2 7.0 0.08 16.0 10.1
One person under 60 0.24 36.6 18.4 0.14 21.1 16.4
One person aged 60 or over 0.42 32.4 32.4 0.11 8.8 13.6
No
Couple, no dependent child(ren) under 60 0.12 3.9 5.2 0.13 4.4 8.1
Couple, no dependent child(ren) aged 60 or over 0.35 16.9 16.1 0.20 9.5 12.6
Couple with dependent child(ren) 0.23 5.9 10.3 0.43 11.2 26.9
Lone parent with dependent child(ren) 0.25 19.0 11.3 0.28 21.7 17.7
Other multi-person households 0.12 13.1 5.6 0.12 12.3 7.3
One person under 60 0.46 21.4 20.7 0.25 11.7 15.6
One person aged 60 or over 0.68 36.7 30.8 0.19 10.2 11.8
Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty
13
Conclusion
This paper has begun to address the limited evidence concerning fuel poverty
and disabled people, demonstrating that a relationship does exist between the two.
However, this relationship is complex, nuanced and may not remain constant. At
present ocial statistics are unlikely to present an accurate picture of fuel poverty
rates as they do not cater for additional energy needs/use and exaggerate the incomes
of those on key disability benets.
The ndings demonstrate the diculty of reaching some disabled people at risk
of fuel poverty. The high rates within the PRS, while unsurprising, point to a highly
vulnerable population that may also struggle to access energy eciency measures
or other forms of protection currently in place. The ndings presented here also
demonstrate the need to consider the connections between policy agendas. Disabled
people of working age who are reliant on benets have increasingly volatile incomes,
which may in part be determined by discretionary payments, or be postcode specic.
At the same time, disabled people of working age are less likely to be able to access
fuel poverty support than before.
This paper began with the premise that disabled people have the potential to be
more vulnerable to the eects of fuel poverty than non-disabled people. At present,
the evidence presented in this paper suggests that changes in fuel poverty policy
and welfare policy that aect those of working age are likely to increase rather than
decrease such vulnerability. As such, the combination of welfare reforms and fuel
poverty policy changes may result in some disabled people being unable to aord
sucient energy to protect their health or maintain a decent quality of life.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by Eaga Charitable Trust between 2012–14
Note
1 However, the ECO eligibility criteria changed in late 2014 following a DECC review
(DECC, 2014b) given concerns that too few households were being supported. As of
December 2014 any household living in the 20 per cent most deprived rural areas can
access support measures (Ofgem, 2014b).
References
Adams, S, White, K, 2006, Older people, decent homes and fuel poverty: An analysis based
on the English House Conditions Survey, London: Help the Aged
Anderson, W, White, V, Finney, A, 2012, Coping with low incomes and cold homes,
Energy Policy 49, 40–52
Baker, W, 2011, Reaching the fuel poor: Making the Warm Home Discount work, Consumer
Focus
Beatty, C, Fothergill, S, 2013, Hitting poorest places hardest, www.shu.ac.uk/research/
cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/les/hitting-poorest-places-hardest_0.pdf
Beresford, B, Rhodes, D, 2008, Housing and disabled children, York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation
Berthoud, R, 2011, Trends in the employment of disabled people in Britain, University of
Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research.
Carolyn Snell et al
14
Boardman, B, 2012, Fuel poverty synthesis: Lessons learnt, actions needed, Energy
Policy 49, 143–8
CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau), 2012, Holes in the safety net: The impact on disabled
people of the abolition of the severe disability premium within Universal Credit REPORT
2, London: Citizens Advice
Carers UK, 2011, The cost of caring: How money worries are pushing carers to breaking
point, London: Carers UK
Centre for Sustainable Energy, 2011, Analysis of hard-to-treat housing in England,
Internal Research Paper, Bristol: Centre for Sustainable Energy
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government), 2013, English
Housing Survey: Households Report 2011–2012, www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/le/212496/EHS_HOUSEHOLDS_
REPORT_2011-12.pdf
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2010, Fuel poverty methodology
handbook, London: DECC
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2012, Annual Report on Fuel
Poverty Statistics 2012, London: DECC
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2013, Fuel Poverty Report –
Updated, London: DECC
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2014a, Domestic Energy Prices,
www.gov.uk/government/collections/domestic-energy-prices
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2014b, The future of the energy
company obligation, London: DECC
Disability Rights UK, 2012, Disability Rights UK signs up to the energy revolution, www.
disabilityrightsuk.org/energyrevolution.htm
DWP (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2013, Disability facts and gures,
http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-facts-and-gures.
php#4
DWP (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2014a, Local authorities and
advisers: Removal of the spare room subsidy, www.gov.uk/government/collections/
local-authorities-removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy
DWP (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 2014b, Income related benets:
estimates of take-up, www.gov.uk/government/collections/income-related-benets-
estimates-of-take-up--2
Emerson, E, Hatton, C, 2005, The socio-economic circumstances of families supporting a
child at risk of disability in Britain in 2002, Lancaster: Institute for Health Research
Energy Eciency Partnership for Homes, 2009, Improving energy eciency in
private rented housing: issues and opportunities accessed at http://eepb.org.uk/
KB/SH_and_PRS/PRS/2009-03-10_SAVE_ENERGY,_SAVE_MONEY_-_
Improving_energy_eciency_in_private_rented_housing_-_Event_Report.pdf
Fahmy, E, Gordon, D, Patsios, D, 2011, Predicting fuel poverty at a small-area level in
England, Energy Policy 39, 4370–7
Fuel Poverty Action, 2012, Taking action on fuel poverty, www.dpac.uk/net/2012/06/
taking-action-on-fuel-poverty
Goodman, P, McAvoy, H, Cotter, N, Monahan, E, Barrett, E, Browne, S, Zeke, A,
2011, Fuel poverty, older people and cold weather: An all-island analysis, Dublin: Dublin
Institute of Technology
Gov.uk, 2014, Cold weather payments, www.gov.uk/cold-weather-payment/overview
Welfare reform, disabled people and fuel poverty
15
Guertler, P, 2012, Can the Green Deal be fair too? Exploring new possibilities for
alleviating fuel poverty, Energy Policy 49, 91–7
Hamza, N, Gilroy, R, 2011, The challenge to UK energy policy: An ageing population
perspective on energy saving measures and consumption, Energy Policy 39, 782–9
Harrington, B, Heyman, B, Merleau-Ponty, N, Stockton, H, Ritchie, N, Heyman, A,
2004, Keeping warm and staying well: Findings from the qualitative arm of the
Warm Homes Project, Health and Social Care in the Community 13, 3, 259–67
Healy, J, Clinch, P, 2004, Quantifying the severity of fuel poverty, its relationship with
poor housing and reasons for non investment in energy saving measures in Ireland,
Energy Policy 32, 207–20
Hills, J, 2012, Getting the measure of fuel poverty: Final Report of the Fuel Poverty Review,
CASE Report 72
Kaye, A, Jordan, H, Baker, M, 2012, The tipping point: The human and economic cost of
cutting disabled people’s support, A report from the Hardest Hit coalition bringing
together over 90 disabled people’s organisations and charities that are members of
the UK Disabled People’s Council and the Disability Benets Consortium, London:
UK Disabled People’s Council and the Disability Benets Consortium
Laxton, C, Parckar, G, 2009, Fuel poverty and disability, London: Leonard Cheshire
Disability
Marmott Review Team, 2011, The health impacts of cold homes and fuel poverty, London:
Friends of the Earth/Marmot Review Team
Meager, N, Hill, D, 2005, The labour market participation and employment of disabled people
in the UK, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, 2010, Building on the Foundations: Living with Muscular
Dystrophy, www.muscular-dystrophy.org/assets/0002/0463/Cost_of_Living_with_
Muscle_Disease.pdf
Ofgem, 2014a, Energy companies obligation, www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-
programmes/energy-companies-obligation-eco
Ofgem, 2014b, Changes to ECO, www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/
changes-eco-ofgem-publications
Oliver, M, Barnes, C, 2012, The New Politics of Disablement, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan
Palmer, M, 2011, Disability and poverty: A conceptual Review, Journal of Disability
Policy Studies 21, 210
Papworth Trust, 2014, Disability in the United Kingdom, http://www.papworthtrust.
org.uk/sites/default/files/UK%20Disability%20facts%20and%20figures%20
report%202014.pdf
Papworth Trust, 2013, Nowhere to go, no way to pay: Applying the bedroom tax with
discretion, Cambridge: Papworth Trust
Parckar, G, 2008, Disability poverty in the UK, London: Leonard Cheshire Disability
Peate, I, 2008, Keeping warm: Health risks and vulnerable people, Nursing and
Residential Care 10, 12, 606–10
Pro-Housing Alliance, 2012, Poor homes, poor health – to heat or eat? Private sector
tenant choices in 2012, http://www.prohousingalliance.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/11/GLHS-report-nal4-11-12W2007NoLogo.pdf
Royston, S, Rodrigues, L, 2013, Nowhere to turn? Changes to emergency support, London:
The Children’s Society
Carolyn Snell et al
16
She, P, Livermore, G, 2009, Long-term poverty and disability among working-age
adults, Journal of Disability Policy Studies 19, 4, 244–56
Snell, C, Thomson, H, 2013, Reconciling fuel poverty and climate change policy
under the Coalition government: Green deal or no deal? in Ramia, G, Farnsworth,
K, eds, Social Policy Review 25: Analysis and debate in social policy, Bristol: Policy Press
Stewart, J, Habgood, V, 2008, Benets of a health impact assessment in relation to fuel
poverty, The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 128, 3, 123–9
UN (United Nations), 2009, Green homes: Towards energy-ecient housing in the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe region, www.unece.org/leadmin/DAM/
publications/oes/greenhomes.e.pdf
Walker, G, Day, R, 2012, Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition
and procedure in the struggle for aordable warmth, Energy Policy 49, 69–75
Wilcox, S, 2014, Housing benet size criteria: Impacts for social sector tenants and options
for reform, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Williams, B, Copestake, P, Eversley, J, Staord, B, 2008, Experiences and expectations of
disabled people, London: Oce for Disability Issues
Wood, C, Cheetham, P, Gregory, T, 2011, Coping with the cuts, Demos/Scope, www.
demos.co.uk/publications/copingwiththecuts
... Beyond this, a small but important body of work has brought focus on low income and disabled people (e.g. Gillard et al., 2017;Snell et al., 2015) as groups that are inadequately recognised and addressed through existing fuel poverty policy. ...
... Though there are a small number of studies that look at the impact of welfare reform on fuel poverty (e.g. Snell et al., 2015), these tend not to engage with the wider practice theory literature in which the invisible energy policy agenda is grounded. This means that though they identify areas of impact, they do not bring focus on the conceptual insights afforded by working with practice theory and energy poverty together. ...
... The linkages to areas outside of energy policy for understanding energy poverty challenges and issues have begun to be addressed in the academic literature with analysts such as Middlemiss (2016) and Snell et al. (2015) looking at welfare policy in particular. With the focus of the research in this book on welfare policy as an area of so-called invisible energy policy (i.e. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter builds from the previous one to develop a focused analysis that explores the value of key ideas from practice theory-based energy research for analyses of energy poverty. The chapter uses examples from in-depth qualitative research to give attention to the constitution of need in terms of implications for energy deprivation, as well as examining the ways that power relations shape processes of recruitment and defection from practices. In this, it offers distinctive research trajectories for energy poverty research by extending beyond concern with people’s abilities to meet needs or achieve capabilities. And it offers a basis for response to critiques of practice-informed analyses of energy demand that highlight the limited attention given to inequalities within such work.
... Beyond this, a small but important body of work has brought focus on low income and disabled people (e.g. Gillard et al., 2017;Snell et al., 2015) as groups that are inadequately recognised and addressed through existing fuel poverty policy. ...
... Though there are a small number of studies that look at the impact of welfare reform on fuel poverty (e.g. Snell et al., 2015), these tend not to engage with the wider practice theory literature in which the invisible energy policy agenda is grounded. This means that though they identify areas of impact, they do not bring focus on the conceptual insights afforded by working with practice theory and energy poverty together. ...
... The linkages to areas outside of energy policy for understanding energy poverty challenges and issues have begun to be addressed in the academic literature with analysts such as Middlemiss (2016) and Snell et al. (2015) looking at welfare policy in particular. With the focus of the research in this book on welfare policy as an area of so-called invisible energy policy (i.e. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter introduces practice theory-inspired energy demand research focusing on key concepts and insights that speak to issues of inequality. The discussion explicates core ideas that have relevance in this respect, while also engaging with existing works that have sought to address questions of inequality from within practice-based energy research. The chapter then examines an important frontier in practice theory-inspired energy research of key relevance, I argue, for energy poverty—that of invisible energy policy. Finally, I move to draw together the different conceptual threads that have been laid out through the book thus far and raise key questions that emerge for analysis of energy poverty.
... Beyond this, a small but important body of work has brought focus on low income and disabled people (e.g. Gillard et al., 2017;Snell et al., 2015) as groups that are inadequately recognised and addressed through existing fuel poverty policy. ...
... Though there are a small number of studies that look at the impact of welfare reform on fuel poverty (e.g. Snell et al., 2015), these tend not to engage with the wider practice theory literature in which the invisible energy policy agenda is grounded. This means that though they identify areas of impact, they do not bring focus on the conceptual insights afforded by working with practice theory and energy poverty together. ...
... The linkages to areas outside of energy policy for understanding energy poverty challenges and issues have begun to be addressed in the academic literature with analysts such as Middlemiss (2016) and Snell et al. (2015) looking at welfare policy in particular. With the focus of the research in this book on welfare policy as an area of so-called invisible energy policy (i.e. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter explores the value of bringing thought about invisible energy policy together with key analytic endeavours in the field of energy poverty. It uses empirical material to develop understanding of how capabilities that are linked to experiences of energy deprivation are shaped by (non-energy) policy. Within this, the chapter explores the potential for the invisible energy policy orientation to advance existing work related to the ways that wider discourses and framings shape experiences of energy poverty issues. The chapter gives particular focus to the implications of relations between discourses of fuel poverty and those of broader poverty, arising from energy and welfare policy, respectively, extending analysis by exploring how such discourses act upon subjects in ways that affect possibilities for challenging conditions of energy poverty.
... Beyond this, a small but important body of work has brought focus on low income and disabled people (e.g. Gillard et al., 2017;Snell et al., 2015) as groups that are inadequately recognised and addressed through existing fuel poverty policy. ...
... Though there are a small number of studies that look at the impact of welfare reform on fuel poverty (e.g. Snell et al., 2015), these tend not to engage with the wider practice theory literature in which the invisible energy policy agenda is grounded. This means that though they identify areas of impact, they do not bring focus on the conceptual insights afforded by working with practice theory and energy poverty together. ...
... The linkages to areas outside of energy policy for understanding energy poverty challenges and issues have begun to be addressed in the academic literature with analysts such as Middlemiss (2016) and Snell et al. (2015) looking at welfare policy in particular. With the focus of the research in this book on welfare policy as an area of so-called invisible energy policy (i.e. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter presents a detailed discussion of contemporary UK energy demand policy and welfare policy. These two areas of policy form the focus of the empirical research that will be utilised to examine and develop the conceptual ideas discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 . Through this chapter, I first discuss policies relating to fuel poverty, contextualising them in relation to wider energy demand strategies, before going on to address welfare policy with focus on contemporary reforms. In concluding the chapter, I explore existing forms of interconnection for these different policy areas and issues, explicating some of the key challenges that arise for thinking across different domains.
... Beyond this, a small but important body of work has brought focus on low income and disabled people (e.g. Gillard et al., 2017;Snell et al., 2015) as groups that are inadequately recognised and addressed through existing fuel poverty policy. ...
... Though there are a small number of studies that look at the impact of welfare reform on fuel poverty (e.g. Snell et al., 2015), these tend not to engage with the wider practice theory literature in which the invisible energy policy agenda is grounded. This means that though they identify areas of impact, they do not bring focus on the conceptual insights afforded by working with practice theory and energy poverty together. ...
... The linkages to areas outside of energy policy for understanding energy poverty challenges and issues have begun to be addressed in the academic literature with analysts such as Middlemiss (2016) and Snell et al. (2015) looking at welfare policy in particular. With the focus of the research in this book on welfare policy as an area of so-called invisible energy policy (i.e. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This concluding chapter discusses the key contributions of the book reflecting on the insights produced through the analysis and the wider implications for research, policy, and practice. The significance of the analysis for energy poverty research is discussed, as is the relevance for practice theory-based scholarship on energy. Discussion reflects on the use of the capabilities approach within the analysis and how ideas about invisible energy policy and the constitution of need can be important for understanding energy poverty, but also explores the potential for bringing inequality more firmly into practice theory-based analyses.
... Beyond this, a small but important body of work has brought focus on low income and disabled people (e.g. Gillard et al., 2017;Snell et al., 2015) as groups that are inadequately recognised and addressed through existing fuel poverty policy. ...
... Though there are a small number of studies that look at the impact of welfare reform on fuel poverty (e.g. Snell et al., 2015), these tend not to engage with the wider practice theory literature in which the invisible energy policy agenda is grounded. This means that though they identify areas of impact, they do not bring focus on the conceptual insights afforded by working with practice theory and energy poverty together. ...
... The linkages to areas outside of energy policy for understanding energy poverty challenges and issues have begun to be addressed in the academic literature with analysts such as Middlemiss (2016) and Snell et al. (2015) looking at welfare policy in particular. With the focus of the research in this book on welfare policy as an area of so-called invisible energy policy (i.e. ...
... Limiting doctor visits for financial reasons can result in worsening health conditions. Those can also increase the household energy needs, such as increased need for heating and cooling or electricity-powered equipment for dependent users [55][56][57]. Low funds leading can make households accumulate debt in their energy bills and eventually get disconnected by their providers. ...
Article
Full-text available
Energy hardship affects over 6% of households in New Zealand, defined as the inability to afford and obtain energy services. In late 2021, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment proposed 26 indicators to identify energy hardship. However, this study aimed to explore the leading causes and consequences of energy hardship in the following year, including relevant variables not included in the proposed indicators. A survey of 1278 Kiwi respondents was conducted to understand their demographic and energy consumption patterns. Using 17 of the proposed indicators, the severity of energy hardship was measured and related to other important variables. Results showed that energy unaffordability, poor housing quality, and choosing between food expenses or energy bills were the main drivers of energy hardship. Consequences included feeling cold due to restricted energy consumption and accumulating energy debt. This study provides valuable insights to simplify the identification of households experiencing energy hardship and highlights the main areas of focus for policy development aimed at eradicating this problem.
... We agree with Snell et al. [66] that studies on the extent of fuel poverty among households with disabled children are needed to explore the relationship between support for fuel poverty policies and people with disabilities. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article examines the costs for families raising disabled children, who, in world social policy, belong to socially vulnerable groups of the population. The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of energy consumption on the ability of a family to provide rehabilitation for a disabled child in the present and the possibility of his independent life in the future. A sociological survey was administered to respondents in five regions of Kazakhstan, with subsequent processing of the results obtained by statistical methods. The survey was based on a methodological approach in accordance with the identification of four types of restrictions: direct childcare costs; indirect family costs, i.e., losses (household energy consumption aspect); assessment of the opportunity to work; and assessment of the parents’ ability to stay healthy. The PLS–PM model-based structural modeling was carried out. In the model, four types of constraints as dependent variables were accepted. In the course of the model application, three hypotheses regarding energy costs were confirmed. The significance of energy costs in the system of restrictions for families with disabled children was determined. In conclusion, the qualitative characteristics of the relationships allowed identification of the problems in the current support system for families with disabled children in Kazakhstan, which is focused on the partial compensation of direct costs. Energy consumption was determined to be sufficiently important. This results in the misuse of benefits for the rehabilitation of a child because parents, especially from incomplete and low-income families, are forced to choose between paying utility bills and rehabilitating a child. Energy costs also limit the family’s ability to meet the direct costs of the child and long-term savings related to the child’s future. We propose the subsidization of energy utilities for families with disabled children, partially replacing targeted social assistance with vouchers for the purchase of household electrical appliances and rehabilitation equipment with energy-saving characteristics. In further studies, issues regarding the use of tax deductions and tax credits as an alternative support measure, which is currently not used in Kazakhstan, will be investigated.
Article
This paper examines how the structure of existing public assistance, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in the United States, created the current disability poverty trap. SSI creates barriers to saving with the implementation of low asset tests while at the same time establishing disincentives for work. As a result, the program fails to improve the quality of life for disabled people who need the benefits and prevents them from ever transitioning off the program. The inability to achieve a critical mass of income with limited benefits and low asset tests results in a poverty trap. Analyzing this dilemma utilizing behavioral economics, leisure demand and labor supply curves, income and substitution effects, and savings vs. consumption models reveals how public assistance programs systemically reinforce the disability poverty trap. Such reinforcement is done through limits on financial agency and failures to account for the socioeconomic role of disability in someone’s life. This analysis concludes that low monthly benefits and limitations on savings in public assistance programs fail to account for the extra costs of living with a disability and barriers to employment. Future policy solutions should increase the monthly benefits recipients receive on SSI, increase asset test limits, create more robust transitional periods off the program, and expand work opportunities.
Article
Full-text available
The recent polycrises of COVID-19, economic recession, and energy price increases have reinforced the critical importance of energy services – such as heating, information and communications technology, and refrigeration – to everyday societal functioning. Compromising access to these energy services, or energy poverty, limits social and economic development affecting education, health, and social participation. Energy poverty is impacted by climate change and climate-related policies – however, this nexus has been marginalised within social policy. We critically review literature at the intersection of climate change and energy poverty identifying policy approaches, tensions, and solutions of relevance for social policy. While tensions exist between efforts to mitigate climate change and energy poverty, climate-friendly mitigation of energy poverty requires better integration of social perspectives to disrupt current technical biases, recognising the characteristics and needs of individuals in energy poverty, and holistic governance approaches, especially involving the health and housing sectors.
Research
Full-text available
https://www.publichealth.ie/sites/default/files/documents/files/Fuel%20Poverty%20Report%20December%202011.pdf
Article
Full-text available
The relationship of disability to poverty is of increasing interest to policy makers as persons with disabilities are being mainstreamed into national poverty reduction programs. However, previous reviews on disability and poverty have not systematically addressed the concept of poverty. This article examines the conceptual and empirical links of three definitions of poverty to disability: basic needs, capability, and economic resources. It is shown that different definitions of poverty have different implications when applied to disability and that however defined, it is defined, poverty is closely related to disability. By drawing attention to the limitations of existing studies, this article identifies areas for future research and their implications for policy.
Article
Full-text available
Fuel poverty has generally been calculated by quantifying the number of households spending in excess of 10% of income on home heating. This definition has a number of significant practical and scientific limitations. This paper employs self-reported data to calculate the severity of fuel poverty in Ireland to identify chronic fuel-poor households from occasional sufferers. It also assesses domestic energy-efficiency levels. Ireland is a useful case study as it demonstrates the highest variations in seasonal mortality and morbidity in northern Europe, both of which are associated with fuel poverty. Ireland is also experiencing extreme difficulties meeting its environmental emissions targets in light of recent spectacular economic growth. Reducing fuel poverty would lower energy-related emissions, assisting policy makers achieve these challenging targets. Furthermore, little empirical research has been undertaken on fuel poverty in Ireland. This paper identifies key social groups at risk by conducting detailed socio-economic and socio-demographic analyses. The relationship between fuel poverty and adverse housing conditions (damp, condensation) is also examined. Moreover, the reasons behind householders not investing in energy-saving measures are reported. The results show that Ireland suffers from similar levels of fuel poverty as the UK, with low-income households suffering the greatest. The key policy implications are outlined.
Article
Carolyn Snell and Harriet Thomson, authors of Chapter Two, discuss the Coalition government's attempt to reconcile two key dimensions of its energy policy: climate change and fuel poverty. Climate change relates to the ‘use of non-renewable forms of energy’, and fuel poverty is ‘often associated with the underuse or excessive cost of household energy’. As part of their analysis, Snell and Thomson discuss the Energy Act 2011 and its flagship policy, ‘The Green Deal’. For reasons that are explained in the chapter, the authors argue that attempts to deal with climate change can have the undesirable effect of increasing fuel poverty. In their words, ‘one policy outcome may damage the progress of the other’.
Article
Bringing attention to fuel poverty as a distinct manifestation of social inequality has asserted the place of affordable warmth in the profile of contemporary rights and entitlements. As such, fuel poverty can be understood as an expression of injustice, involving the compromised ability to access energy services and thereby to secure a healthful living environment. In this paper, we consider how fuel poverty may be aligned to various alternative concepts of social and environmental justice. Whilst recognising that fuel poverty is fundamentally a complex problem of distributive injustice, we argue that other understandings of injustice are also implicated and play important roles in producing and sustaining inequalities in access to affordable warmth. Addressing fuel poverty has to involve seeking justice in terms of the cultural and political recognition of vulnerable and marginalised social groups and pursuing procedural justice through opening up involvement and influence in decision-making processes. We make this argument both in theoretical terms, and through considering the experience of fuel poverty advocacy and policy development in the UK. Opportunities for future action may be illuminated through such interconnected justice framings as wider awareness of energy, climate and poverty issues emerge.
Article
Energy efficiency and social programmes have failed to stem the dramatic increase in the number of fuel poor households in recent years. As the 2016 deadline for eradicating fuel poverty nears, energy efficiency and fuel poverty programmes are undergoing significant changes. The ambitions for Britain's Green Deal, the overhaul of supplier obligations alongside the winding down of Warm Front, and the introduction of an incentive for renewable heat combine to form a sea change in how energy efficiency and fuel poverty objectives are financed and delivered. Green Deal Finance (GDF) eliminates the up-front capital cost of energy efficiency measures to the household by linking repayments to energy savings and spreading them over many years. This paper asks whether and how GDF could be beneficial to fuel poor households. Using scenarios modelled on the English House Condition Survey, it explores the extent to which fuel poverty could be reduced, allowing for repayments incurred by GDF. It examines how much further fuel poverty could be alleviated were the capital cost subsidised or repayments supported, and concludes that a flexible design for GDF is necessary if it is to contribute to alleviating fuel poverty.
Article
The authors use longitudinal data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation spanning 1996 to 1999 to estimate the prevalence of short- and long-term poverty among working-age people with and without disabilities. Depending on the disability measure used, annual poverty rates are 2 to 5 times higher among people with disabilities compared to those without disabilities. The relative long-term poverty rates among those with disabilities are much higher than the relative short-term poverty rates. People with disabilities represented 47% of those in poverty in 1997 according to an annual measure of poverty and 65% of those in poverty according to a long-term measure. The reasons that disability receives little attention in the poverty literature may be that most statistics are based on short-term measures, which partially mask the strong relationship between long-term poverty and long-term disability, and outdated perceptions of the relationship between disability and the ability to work.
Article
This paper presents findings from the qualitative arm of the Warm Homes Project, a programme of research concerned with the nature of fuel poverty, its alleviation and its relationship to family health. Much of the research into fuel poverty, which results from various combinations of low income and fuel inefficiency, has drawn upon quantitative paradigms. Experiences of, and coping with, fuel poverty have not been well explored. Data for the present study were obtained through qualitative interviews with household members about the above issues. The findings suggest that the expectations of those in fuel poverty about staying warm, and their beliefs about the relationship between warmth and health, vary considerably. Fuel poverty often had wider ramifications, impacting on quality of life in complex ways. The respondents took steps to alleviate cold, but their strategies varied. Coping was affected by informational limitations as well as cost constraints. Measures designed to alleviate fuel poverty should take into account its wider social meaning within the lives of household members.