Webinar summary: Poverty Dimensions of the Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Communities

Bristol Poverty Institute COVID-19 Webinars

Poverty Dimensions of the Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Communities

Thursday 30 July, 14:00-16:00 (online)

On Thursday 30 July the Bristol Poverty Institute (BPI) held the second webinar in our ‘Poverty Dimensions of COVID-19’ series: Poverty Dimensions of the Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Communities.

The webinar had over 60 attendees representing a range of sectors and organisations including civil sector, local and national government, national and international NGOs, consultants, and academics from around the world. This diverse audience was deliberate: the series has been designed to bring together a variety of participants representing different sectors, with a range of theoretical, methodological, and disciplinary approaches. We recognise that different professional, academic, and civic communities will have access to different sources of information, datasets, and tools for analysis, and may also have different immediate priorities. We are, however, all driven by the ultimate aim of reducing the negative impacts of this global pandemic on all aspects of society, and particularly on those communities and individuals who are already experiencing disadvantages. By bringing together a range of perspectives we sought to improve our understanding of the poverty dimensions of this pandemic, and by extension our ability to influence policy and practice in order to mitigate its negative impacts.

Our webinar on the ethnic inequalities associated with COVID-19 featured four fantastic speakers who explored different dimensions from different perspectives. Each talk lasted 15minutes, with opportunity for a short Q&A following each presentation. The slides from these presentations will be available shortly on the BPI website, and in due course we will also be uploading recordings of the presentations.

Before launching into the presentations I (Lauren Winch, BPI Manager) alerted the audience to the fact that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) have launched a highlight notice on their COVID research funding call, with a specific focus on understanding the reasons for vulnerability to COVID-19 and differentials social, cultural, and economic impacts of the pandemic on minority ethnic groups.


Dr Saffron Karlsen, Understanding ethnic inequalities in COVID-19

The first speaker was Dr Saffron Karlsen, Senior Lecturer at the School for Sociology, Politics, and International Studies at the University of Bristol.

Saffron’s presentation gave an overview of the evidence of the presence and explanations for ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 in the UK, rather than focusing solely on the poverty aspect. She began by highlighting how the first deaths in the UK were BAME doctors and nurses and data showed that BAME groups were more at risk of contracting and ultimately dying from COVID-19. The results were unsurprising for those looking at health and ethnic inequalities, as they are similar to patterns for other health conditions. Her presentation highlighted the various dimensions of inequality which contributed to the increased risk and impact of COVID-19 in these communities. For example, individuals from BAME backgrounds are more likely to be in key worker roles and therefore more at risk of contracting the virus, as well as relying heavily on public transport.

Ethnic variations and occupational position and employment status have persisted since the 1970’s, and for some groups are getting worse. Saffron noted how these structural inequalities are not only important because of the impact of COVID-19 but have also led to other problems which disproportionately affect ethnic minority communities in lockdown. For example, overcrowding in BAME households has been found to be a factor for impact and is often presented as cultural preference rather than a financial problem. Poverty has a huge impact on food choices and obesity, which links to susceptibility and severity of infections such as COVID-19. Saffron closed by emphasising that those with privilege must use it to hold people to account, to make change happen and to elevate unheard voices.

At the end of the webinar Saffron also encouraged participants to engage with a survey being run by the University of Bristol and Black South West Network to find out more about the pandemic experiences of BAME people in the South West. The survey can be accessed via this link. For more information please contact Rosie Nelson rosie.nelson@bristol.ac.uk.

Saffron’s presentation is available here.


Dr Andrea Barry, The coronavirus storm: exposing pre-existing racial inequalities and poverty in the UK

The second speaker was Dr Andrea Barry, a Senior Analyst at Joseph Rowntree Foundation leading analysis for their work outcome group. Andrea began by talking about pre-existing racial inequalities and factors which mean that certain people will be affected by COVID-19 more than others. Andrea’s approach looked at the pre-COVID-19 picture around poverty, housing, income, and ethnic inequalities, and how this has been impacted by the Coronavirus ‘storm’.

To illustrate this Andrea provided statistics on home ownership vs. rental and how this intersects with poverty, the rise of in-work poverty over the last twenty years, and how different groups have been disproportionally affected by poverty.

She also explored how both rates of poverty and proportions of the population classified as ethnic minorities were higher in certain areas and the potential correlations between these, highlighting London and the West Midlands as particular examples.

Andrea went on to explore the multiple factors that influence it citing the fact that being in low paid work makes it difficult to escape poverty, and that if you are a BAME household you are disproportionately more likely to be private renting and more likely to be in social housing accommodation. In addition, the pre-COVID picture for BAME communities in poverty looks very different which is partly down to peoples work and work status, for example whether they work full time, part time or are self-employed. Those working in food, accommodation and retail sectors were at greatest risk of in work poverty. Andrea also explored a range of other factors including pay inequalities, wealth gap comparisons, poverty-linked health issues, and debt, all of which are disproportionally impacting on BAME communities and exacerbated by COVID-19.

Andrea concluded with some recommendations which would help tackle some of these issues:

  • An increase to the local housing allowance to cover median rents in areas and access to affordable housing.
  • Relaxing labour market constraints and removing barriers and inequities to alleviate in work poverty.
  • Strengthen the support for self-employed people in Universal Credit by removing the minimum income floor rule.

Andrea’s presentation is available here.


Ms Chiara Lodi, Economic impact of COVID-19 on black, Asian and minority ethnic businesses and communities

The next speaker was Chiara Lodi, a Policy and Research Officer at Black South West Network (BSWN) and the lead author on their recent report on the Impact of COVID-19 on BAME Led Businesses, Organisations and Communities.

Chiara opened by introducing the fact that BAME communities are mathematically over exposed to COVID-19 due to being overrepresented in food industries and the retail sector, as well as being overrepresented in low income and insecure employment such as taxi driving and takeaways, echoing points made by Andrea previously. Financial insecurity, low quality housing and mental health all interconnects making this a socio-economic picture and not just about economics. She highlighted how structural inequalities are not only placing BAME groups at much higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 but also creating conditions for them to experience harsher economic impact from the government measures to slow the spread of the virus.

Chiara explained that BSWN knew from the beginning that there would be a disproportionate impact on BAME, and their response was therefore immediate. They issued a survey straight after lockdown to access the impact on BAME led businesses, social enterprises, voluntary organisations, and self-employed ethnic individuals. National financial support packages were available from the start, but BSWN wanted to identify systematic barriers that communities had with trying to access support. The research found that sectors where BAME people were overrepresented, those working low income jobs, the self-employed, and the charity events and voluntary sector are the hardest hit by the economic environment of COVID-19 and the government’s response to it. At the same time structural barriers hinder the sectors access to the national financial support packages. Self-employed people were the most worrying sector for analysis as there was no support for low income self-employed workers or people on zero-hour contracts who were unable to work.

Chiara concluded by highlighting that BSWN continues to monitor the impact and collect key evidence for a recovery strategy for the sector. They are also working with Saffron Karlsen and others at the University of Bristol to identify the impact of COVID-19 on health. BSNW are continuing their work with business and voluntary community networks with webinar sessions and have also launched the ‘Back Her’ business programme which focuses on black female entrepreneurs. More information is available on their website.

Chiara’s presentation is available here.


Dr Soumya Chattopadhyay, COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on the global poor: Pathways, patterns and concerns

The final speaker was Dr Soumya Chattopadhyay, a Senior Research Fellow in the Equity and Social Policy Programme at Overseas Development Institute (ODI) who was previously in the Poverty and Equity Global Practice at the World Bank.

Soumya’s focus and analysis was more about the impact of COVID-19 from a global perspective. He explained that direct linkages to BAME might not translate directly; however, every country has its own group of vulnerable and marginalised communities and these would be his focus. He began by explaining how COVID-19 infection, recovery and health economics vary by country. He also noted that the more affluent countries are more mobile, so the pandemic transferred quickly across borders whereas other countries may not yet have hit their peak of the virus. Soumya noted that COVID-19 has been called a ‘disease of poverty’ and there is a vicious cycle between poverty and health vulnerability. He reported that World Bank predicts 70-100 million people will enter extreme poverty in 2020, which is classified as living on less than $1.90USD per day.

Echoing comments made in previous presentations Soumya explained how poor people are more exposed to the pandemic due to factors including the nature of their work and their health conditions. For example, only 26% of people living in rural Bangladesh have access to running water with soap, and most developing countries do not have access to reliable and affordable healthcare systems. Soumya did note, however, that some developed countries also suffer from this problem as health insurance is often linked to jobs meaning that if you lose work; you lose health cover.

Soumya explained that the economic channels for increased vulnerability are loss of employment from sickness or caregiving, loss of earnings and employment in lockdown, Inability to work from home, low wages, and the lack of a social protection system. Anyone working informally or seasonally does not exist in a universal database so in many cases are ineligible for any financial support from government. He also reported that as countries ease restrictions there has been some re-emergence’s of COVID-19. Lockdowns in some cases (particularly India) led to people trying to migrate and people lost lives trying to get back to their native place. Soumya questioned how governments, policy makers and individuals could respond to the risk involved, noting that most governments have utilised any surplus and borrowed heavily to meet the crisis so their ability to keep giving social protection is hampered. Soumya concluded by emphasising that data driven policy interventions and disaggregated data is needed now more than ever.

Soumya’s presentation is available here.


 

Slides from all presentations are available on the BPI website, and we hope to upload recordings of the presentations shortly.

Poverty dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (BPI Webinar)

Bristol Poverty Institute COVID-19 Webinars

Poverty dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK

On Thursday 11 June the Bristol Poverty Institute (BPI) held the first webinar in our new COVID-19 series: Poverty Dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. The webinar had around 60 attendees on the day representing a range of sectors and organisations including local governance, international NGOs, independent journalists and consultants, and academics from around the world. This diverse audience was deliberate: the series has been designed to bring together a variety of participants representing different sectors, with a range of theoretical, methodological, and disciplinary approaches. We recognise that different professional, academic, and civic communities will have access to different sources of information, datasets, and tools for analysis, and may also have different immediate priorities. We are, however, all driven by the ultimate aim of reducing the negative impacts of this global pandemic on all aspects of society, and particularly on those communities and individuals who are already experiencing disadvantages. By bringing together a range of perspectives we sought to improve our understanding of the poverty dimensions of this pandemic, and by extension our ability to influence policy and practice in order to mitigate its negative impacts.

Our Poverty Dimensions of COVID-19 in the UK webinar featured four fantastic speakers who explored different dimensions from different perspectives. Each talk lasted 15minutes, with opportunity for a short Q&A following each presentation. The slides from these presentations are available on the BPI website, and in due course we will also be uploading recordings of the presentations.

Professor David Gordon

COVID-19 and Poverty in the UK

The first speaker was Professor David Gordon, Professor of Social Justice and the Director of the Bristol Poverty Institute and Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research at the University of Bristol.

Professor Gordon’s talk highlighted how marginalised people are usually those at greatest risk during a pandemic, sharing figures from the Office for National Statistics which showed that death rates from COVID-19 infections in March and April were twice as high in the poorest areas of the UK compared to the richest areas. He identified several reasons why people in poor areas are more likely to contract COVID-19 including the facts that:

  • They are more likely to be key workers, many of whom are low paid and often live in deprived areas.
  • They are more likely to have worse internet connections and not be able to afford the premium for online grocery shopping and therefore need to shop more often, putting themselves at risk.
  • Deprived areas tend to have higher population densities, meaning increased contact with a potentially infected person.

Professor Gordon additionally highlighted that poor people are more likely to die from COVID-19 infection for a number of reasons, including the fact that people in deprived areas are more likely to suffer from underlying health conditions that are associated with higher mortality rates – such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer – because of factors including higher levels of pollution in deprived areas, greater stress levels, and greater risk of H. Piori  infections in childhood. He also highlighted that the ‘Inverse Care Law’ also unfortunately still affected the health service, whereby the quality of health care is often inversely related to the health need, meaning that on average deprived areas have worse health care than richer areas.

Professor Gordon concluded with a worrying statistic from the Food Foundation survey that 4.9million adults are currently food insecure compared with 2million pre lockdown, and 1.7million children live in these households. The pandemic may therefore increase inequality and relative poverty in the UK to levels not seen since before the introduction of the welfare state in 1948.

 

Mr Thomas Croft

Digital exclusion, multidimensional poverty and COVID-19

The second speaker was Mr Thomas Croft, a National Coordinator for ATD Fourth World UK who are an international human-rights focussed anti-poverty organisation.

Mr Croft talked about a research study ATD Fourth World UK had been involved with in partnership with the University of Oxford on Understanding Poverty in All its Forms; A participatory research study into poverty in the UK, and how COVID-19 had added new dimensions and challenges.  He explained the process of the research journey which involved developing research tools, planning, and facilitating groups, holding peer group meetings to discuss what poverty means to them and to identify aspects of poverty and group into dimensions. The themes raised through this study included:

  • Disempowering systems, structures, and policies
  • Financial insecurity, financial exclusion, and debt
  • Damaged health and wellbeing
  • Stigma, blame and judgement
  • Lack of control over choices
  • Unrecognized struggles, skills, and contributions

Mr Croft went on to discuss the core experiences people had highlighted, and the relational dynamics and privations involved. He noted that there were modifying factors in each of these, including cultural beliefs, environment and environmental policy, identity, location and timing and duration. Mr Croft concluded by noting that the social side of people’s relationships and connections with other members of the community was a constant theme; however, this manifested itself in different ways and therefore further highlighted the importance of working with different communities.

 

Professor Sharon Collard

The impact of COVID-19 on financial wellbeing

The third speaker was Professor Sharon Collard, the Research Director of the Personal Finance Research Centre and a Professor of Personal Finance at the University of Bristol.

Professor Collard opened by highlighting that the financial wellbeing of the UK was not in great shape before COVID-19, with events such as the welfare reform having had damaging effects. Professor Collard reported how Standard Life Foundation have commissioned a COVID-19 Financial Impact Tracker, which is a monthly tracker conducted by YouGov where c.6500 people across the UK are asked about how COVID-19 has affected their household finances and its likely impact over the next 12 months. She explained how The University of Bristol team designed the survey and analysed the data and shared findings on the first three weeks of lockdown, including the fact that half of all UK households believe they will struggle to meet their financial commitments and the fact that renters seem to be greater impacted than home-owners.

Professor Collard concluded by identifying key policy gaps and noting that whilst there are furlough schemes and help for self-employed people there is not a great amount of help for people who were struggling before. Rules and regulations make it hard for low income homeowners and middle-income homeowners. Her closing statement re-emphasised how inequalities existed before COVID-19, and that we need to ensure that we do not forget the fact that the old ‘normal’ was not a good normal.

 

Mr Ben Carpenter

Opportunities in South Bristol

The final speaker was Mr Ben Carpenter, a Youth and Community Worker and founder of Grassroot Communities in Bristol, who is also a City Fellow of the University of Bristol, working to ensure that communities at the margins are critical knowledge producers in decision-making around city futures. Grassroot Communities is an organisation that tailors and delivers school, youth and community work projects based on the wants and needs of local people.

Mr Carpenter began by introducing his own background growing up in a challenging environment, and why his own experience made his goal to become a youth and community worker. He believes that opportunities are the key to supporting people out of poverty. Mr Carpenter highlighted some key statistics around poverty in South Bristol, including the fact that the ten areas identified as having the highest levels of deprivation across the city are all in South Bristol, with some of these areas being rated in the top 1% nationally. He highlighted the difference that having a little bit of money could have on the home environment, particularly in terms of stress, friction, and freedom; however, money alone does not necessarily create opportunity. He noted, for example, how if one parent has been to prison, the child is more likely to go to prison, same with living in poverty or going onto higher education. Mr Carpenter also reported that levels of addiction and violence tend to be higher in more marginalised communities, adding more challenges for young people growing up in these environments.

Framed by these observations and statistics, Mr Carpenter therefore recommended that we look at meaningful, tailored interventions, based on the wants and needs of the community.  He believes that role models, raising aspirations and most important opportunities can provide steppingstones out of poverty and gangs. His projects such as Reconnect, Community Champions and the Grassroot Activators Programme act as engagement tools and interventions and can create opportunities for young people to believe in themselves and give them confidence. He concluded by highlighting that all these situations and challenges will be exacerbated by the effects of COVID-19, and that further cuts will continue to impact those who are most in need.

 

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, the poverty dimensions of this pandemic in the UK are wide-ranging and complex. This first webinar has therefore served to set the scene for the ensuing series, identifying some of the key topics, challenges, and policy issues. Building on this first webinar University of Bristol researchers will be able to apply to host their own webinar within this series in collaboration with external partner(s). Future webinars may have different regional and/or thematic foci, exploring the various dimensions of how this pandemic will impact on lives across the globe.

For more information or to discuss an idea please get in touch with BPI Manager Dr Lauren Winch (lauren.winch@bristol.ac.uk).

Check out our website: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty-institute/

Follow us on Twitter: @bristolpoverty

 

Authored by Lauren Winch and Melanie Tomlin

BPI Director’s reaction to ONS report on deaths involving COVID-19 by local area and socioeconomic deprivation

Earlier today (1 May 2020) the Office for National Statistics (ONS) launched a report on Deaths involving COVID-19 by local area and socioeconomic deprivation: deaths occurring between 1 March and 17 April 2020. The statistican for this report noted that “People living in more deprived areas have experienced COVID-19 mortality rates more than double those living in less deprived areas. General mortality rates are normally higher in more deprived areas, but so far COVID-19 appears to be taking them higher still.

The Director of the Bristol Poverty Institute, Professor David Gordon, has been approached by the media to offer expert opinion on why this may be the case. His response is as follows:

“There are a range of reasons why the death rates in the 30% of the most deprived areas are more than twice as high as in the richest areas.  Firstly, people in poorer areas are more likely to get a Covid-19 infection. They are more likely to be key workers (for example, care assistants, shop assistants, building workers, bus drivers, delivery drivers, etc.) so they are more likely to come into contact with infected people than their peers in richer areas who may be able to work from their homes.  Many key worker jobs are low paid and therefore these key workers often live in deprived areas. People in deprived areas are more likely to have to rely on public transport than people in richer areas and thus come into contact with infectious people. They are also more likely to have worse internet connections and not be able to afford the premium on grocery home delivery services so will need to go out to shop for food more often than people in richer areas. Deprived areas tend to have higher population densities than richer areas; therefore people in these areas are more likely to have contact with an infected person when they leave their homes for exercise, medical care, food shopping, etc.  The higher the population density the more difficult maintaining social distancing is likely to be.

“Secondly, people in poor areas who have a Covid-19 infection are more likely to die. There is a higher risk of severe disease and death from a Covid-19 infection if you have underlying health condition such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease and cancer.  People in deprived areas are more likely to suffer from these particular underlying health conditions than people in richer areas for a range of reasons, such as greater pollution levels, greater stress levels, greater inflammation levels, greater risk of H. Piori infections in childhood, etc. The Inverse Care Law unfortunately still affects the NHS in the UK  – the quality of health care is inversely related to health need, i.e. deprived areas on average have worse health care than richer areas.

“It is very disappointing but not surprising that more people are dying of Covid-19 infections in deprived areas, given the reasons listed above.  However, what is a surprise is that the inequality in death rates between richer and poorer areas from Covid-19  are so much greater than deaths from other causes. In the most deprived 30% of areas people are more than twice as likely to die from Covid-19 infections compared with people in the richest 10% of areas in both England and in Wales – so this is not just a ‘London effect’.  So far the Public Health response to the pandemic has not targeted or tried to shelter people living in deprived areas – this is clearly needed given these new ONS statistics.

“These data tell us about death rates from Covid-19 by area deprivation level but they do not tell us who is dying in these ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ areas.  The assumption is that poor people are more likely to die of Covid-19 than rich people but these data do not prove this.  They of course also do not tell us why there are much higher death rates in poorer areas but we can make an educated guess as to the causes.”

 

The full ONS report can be accessed here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19bylocalareasanddeprivation/deathsoccurringbetween1marchand17april 

 

The poor pay more: free ATMs disappearing from deprived neighbourhoods

Tackling the ‘poverty premium’ is a key hurdle to the reduction of poverty in the UK. Indeed, our research at the Personal Finance Research Centre found in 2017 that the average low-income household pays £490 more per year – just because they are poor. While much of this relates to the energy market (for example, being on a pre-payment meter or not being on the best tariff) or the use of high-cost credit, a component that shouldn’t be overlooked is the fact that low-income households often pay more to access cash.

While, in 2019, cash may seem like a thing of the past, we know that many people still depend on it. According to the Financial Conduct Authority (2018), an estimated 2.2 million people report that they only use cash, while UK Finance say that there are 1.3 million who are ‘unbanked’. In our research, we often encounter those who find it difficult to access mainstream banking products, those who find it easier to manage a tight budget in cash, and those who simply lack trust in digital banking. Many of these people are in potentially vulnerable situations; for example, having a disability or a mental health problem.

Given the number of people for whom cash is still king, it’s important that we understand the geography of access to cash and how it is changing over time. In May we therefore published a case study of Bristol, looking at changes in its cash infrastructure between October 2018 and March 2019. Over this period, demand for cash continued to decline and there was a drop in the interchange fees paid by banks when a customer withdraws cash from another company’s ATM, which reduced the revenue of ATM operators.

While we found that most of Bristol – and in particular local economic centres – were relatively well-served in terms of access to cash, we noticed that a considerable number of the city’s ATMs had changed from free to fee-charging during this period. More worrying in terms of the poverty premium, was that most of these ATMs were located in the city’s most deprived neighbourhoods – most likely caused by the fact that non-bank ATM operators seem to be dominant in such areas (since banks have largely retreated from such areas towards economic centres).

Location of ATMs in Bristol that changed from free to fee-charging between October 2018 and March 2019. Deprived areas appear disproportionately affected by these changes.

 

Our research focused only on the city of Bristol and we were therefore pleased that colleagues at Which? published analysis of a national dataset of ATMs in September 2019, looking at differences between January 2018 and May 2019. This confirmed that our findings applied nationally, showing that the 20% most deprived areas had seen 979 (net) conversions from free-to-use to fee-charging, compared with just 223 in the 20% least deprived areas. This is concerning as it risks increasing the poverty premium for those least able to afford it and many of those most likely to depend on cash.

Having identified the problem, however, the challenge now is to identify a solution. We are supporting organisations such as the Payment Systems Regulator, LINK and the Financial Conduct Authority to explore options and are also conducting further research which will consider new ways of identifying areas most in need of cash infrastructure, in rural as well as urban contexts.

The full report is available here.

Authors: Jamie Evans (Senior Research Associate, Personal Finance Research Centre (PFRC), University of Bristol), Sara Davies (Senior Research Fellow, PFRC) and Daniel Tischer (Lecturer in Management, University of Bristol).