International Longevity Centre - UK

Earlier this month, the ILC-UK published research about how patterns of inheritance are changing. The research, which was undertaken in partnership with NatCen and made possible by a grant from Norwich Union, shows what many people would suspect: average bequests received are increasing. What perhaps is unexpected, and certainly suprised us, is the rate of increase: an increase of over 100% in less than a decade.

The clear driver of this trend is rates of property ownership among those at the peak age for mortality. With each cohort that reaches this age, the rate of property ownership increases, meaning more big inheritances to pass on. The research suggests this trend will continue for another decade or so. The highest rate of property ownership within any age-group is around 85%: this is the ownership plateau observable for the ages 35-70. So, even though property prices seem to be falling after a long period above-trend inflation, we can still reasonably hypothesise that the average value of inheritances received will continue to increase.

This trend has been a long-time coming and ultimately represents a side-effect of a ‘property-owning democracy’ and the UK’s obsession with house-ownership. Up till now, nobody has really considered the implications of so many people dying with such considerable levels of property wealth. These transfers of wealth will have dramatic effects on social policy, life-chances for all age groups, and equality of opportunity. Although undoubtedly good for a lucky recipient, transfers create real headaches for policymakers.

A further important implication of these trends is how to pay for an ageing population, and the extent to which individuals can rely on the state in retirement. Traditionally, many from a social policy background have looked to emphasise the role of the state, thereby preserving older people’s assets. But the side-effect of this approach, identified in the Age of Inheritance research, is to amplify societal inequality.

Already, commentators are questioning what the findings of the Age of Inheritance mean for debates on long-term care funding, and there is a thoughtful article about the research by David Brindle of the Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/14/socialcare.society

However, this commentary and the discussion paper published simultaneously by the ILC-UK called Navigating the Age of Inheritance can only scratch the surface of what this trend around assets and inheritance mean for society. We would be interested to know the thoughts of others on what they see as the crucial policy challenges created by the Age of Inheritance.

James Lloyd

The issue of how to fund older people’s long-term care is one of the trickiest problems confronting policymakers. The only agreement is that reform is needed, and that demand for care will increase in coming decades.  Models of state-funded universal free care for older people have usually dominated debate.

However, after a decade of rising property prices, which has created by far the wealthiest older cohort in history, forcing younger taxpayers to fund universal free care now seems like a strikingly unfair proposal.   

As an alternative, a National Care Fund would also achieve universal coverage and social minimums of provision, but limit the risk-pool for long-term care to older people only. Auto-enrolment would achieve higher levels of insurance provision than the private sector on its own could achieve.  Within this framework, there any many details that would need to be addressed, not least how much individuals would have to pay to be enrolled in a National Care Fund.  The ILC-UK is keen for feedback on this model from all stakeholders, and would welcome comments, which can be posted here by clicking on the above title and writing in the box that appears at the bottom of the page. 

James Lloyd 

At last night’s event, research findings which show that even the ‘older old’ (those 75 years and older) can age successful were presented. But what was meant by successful aging? Those indivdiuals who were found to be aging successfully had high mental quality of life but low physical quality of life.  That is, the ‘older old’ were able to have a positive outlook on life despite poor physical health. This was particularly true in individuals who had increased social interactions. Other research supports these findings. Older people who consider themselves to be aging successfully have a sense of ‘self-efficacy’ and feel they have control over their lives while they may be physically frail.

What are some of the factors that inhibit social interaction older people?  Lack of mobility is a key limiting factor.  As people get older, they drive less and so getting around becomes more difficult. This particularly impacts on older people in rural and remote areas.  In urban areas, public transport systems are not always easily accessible for older people. Lack of disposable income among older people limits their ability to go out and participate in activities; losing a spouse or friends; depression; lack of appropriate lifelong learning educational opportunities. These are but a few of the factors which make it difficult for older people to interact with others.

It is recognized there is a need to foster social interactions between older and younger people. But how can this be accomplished when there is evidence to suggest that older people ‘fear’ younger people (particularly teenagers) and find them threatening?

Given that there is convincing evidence that social interaction is key to successful aging and improves the quality of life of older people, two other key questions were raised:

Should promoting social interaction be a legitimate policy concern? 
If social interaction is a legitimate policy concern, what should be done about it? That is, what should the roles of government, the voluntary sector and individuals be in promoting social interaction among older people?
You can download a copy of the policy-brief from our website: www.ilcuk.org.uk
We invite comments/answers to some of the issues and questions raised here.

[TO POST A RESPONSE,CLICK ON THE TITLE AND WRITE IN THE BOX AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE]

Primrose Musingarimi
 

Last night’s launch of a new ILC-UK/CLG discussion paper saw a debate on how the built environment should be planned to better anticipate the demands of population ageing. The launch was very much intended to start a discussion; the issue is still surprisingly absent in many policy discussions, and the concept of ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’ itself is still emerging.

Put simply, we have largely adapted to the language of environment sustainability in planning. It is rare, for example, to plan our houses and neighbourhoods in flagrant disregard of the likely impact of climate change over the next few decades.

However, we do not think twice about regularly putting up new housing and building new neighbourhoods that have made very little effort to plan lifetime neighbourhoods that will offer all of us the best chances of a high quality of life regardless of age. And yet an ageing population could not be a more certain reality for our future: the over 75s will grow by 75% between 2008-2031, a much larger proportional increase than any other group.

As we age, we are more likely to need an environment that caters for our changing levels of physical and cognitive functioning. Beginning with the home, and extending into streets, neighbourhoods, and public and civic space, we need access to the spaces, services, amenities and opportunities to participate that make our lives human and meaningful. And when we access these spaces and social networks, we wish to do so with dignity.

What will happens if we carry on as we have done before? We risk the burden of ill-health and dependency, (not to mention lost social, civic and economic productivity) that comes with social exclusion and the associated ill-health and withdrawal of older populations. We pay in many ways - we pay for the services needed to manage ill-health, we pay with less cohesive neighbourhoods in which we all live, and we pay in our own lack of confidence in how our communities will suit us when we are older.

I would like to encourage anyone reading this blog to download the report itself to get a much more balanced picture of how we could define and plan for lifetime neighbourhoods. However, in short summary, some of the points made at the launch were as follows:

· Lifetime neighbourhoods do not simply tolerate a much greater range of individual capabilities. Rather, they anticipate this variation and plan for it accordingly. If we build communities to last for hundreds of years, why don’t we plan them for the people that will use them?

· The social, civic and economic contribution of older people is enormous. For example, the 50+ represent half of all consumer spending in the UK, and five million older people take part in voluntary work, ‘the glue that binds society together.’

· Lifetime neighbourhoods promote social inclusion, which in turn promotes wellbeing, which in turn promotes health, which in turn promotes economic prosperity and ’social capital’. This in turn can promote social inclusion, and so on.

· Our desire to participate does not change as we age. However our ability to do so does.

· It is not merely the built environment which must be planned for appropriately. Neighbourhoods require social networks, volunteering and sense of place to function in a cohesive and effective way. When we plan neighbourhoods, we must plan the spaces, services and resources that encourage this interaction.

Some interesting points were made in the discussion that followed:

· Lifetime neighbourhoods must also be a vision for our existing communities, not just new ones. These will present significantly different challenges to new ones, for example they will have existing social networks and local identitiy, but may not have many opportunities for developing new social spaces and services in a crowded built environment. Work is needed to demonstrate best practice in ‘retro-fitting’ these communities to lifetime neighbourhoods.

· Better planning for minorities is essential. How can we plan for the community needs of BME groups? What best practice exists to guide the way?

· One of the greatest problems we face is dealing with intergenerational relations. Older people report fear of younger people as a major factor in quality of life and confidence in accessing public space. How can we maximise the potential for harmonious cooperation, and minimise conflict? Should we demarcate public space to different ages, or seek to provide spaces for all ages? Aside from what feel sounds best, what do people really want?

· Consulting older people can be a useful way of developing better planning, especially considering the diversity of older populations. However it is common for such undertakings to be token offerings and/or ignored.

· How can a variety of different voices crucial to ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’, such as healthcare, social care, the voluntary sector and older people themselves get their voices heard in Local Strategic Partnerships and the Local Area Agreements they put forward? Is there still time for the current round, or will it have to wait until the next one?

· Better evidence will always be needed to support effective policy. It is important to build on the raft of imaginative work joining of health, social care and voluntary sector underway in the Partnerships for Older People’s Projects and the Link Age Plus projects. Where we can prove the value of these programmes to health and wellbeing, we can justify expenditure.

· Government commitment is essential to promoting awareness and acceptance of the issue at a regional and local level. Without adequate attention in statutory guidance, such as the regional spatial strategy, issues of population will simply languish on the back-shelf, and opportunities for imaginative new developments will be lost.

Given the wide-ranging nature of any paper that seeks to promote a discussion of what lifetime neighbourhoods could be and how we work towards them, there are certain to be many more points that should be added. Please feel free to respond to this posting and join the debate.

Lastly, our considerable thanks to all who attended the event and all have supported the development of this paper. This works brings together a number of expert studies and commentaries on social inclusion, accesibility, health, wellbeing and planning and we are indebted to them for making this paper possible.

You can download a copy of this report for free from our website: www.ilcuk.org.uk

Ed Harding

[To post a response, click on the title, and write in the box at the bottom of the page]

Many observers might ask, what is the relevance of human rights to an ageing population? The view that exclusion and poverty are inevitable facets of ageing may indeed obscure the obvious, that it is exactly as we become more frail and vulnerable that our human rights are most at risk.  A series of different questions were tackled at the ILC-UK Global Conference ‘Human Rights in an Ageing World’. Presentations were made by a variety of different speakers, including Michael Wills MP, Dr Robert Butler - Chief Executive of the ILC-USA, Dr Alex Kalache - Director of the World Health Organisation’s Ageing and Lifecourse Programme and Trevor Phillips - Chair of the Commission on Equality and Human Rights. Topics included the human rights situation of older people around the world, practical perspectives on the use of human rights in tackling discrimination and poverty, and the risks and opportunties presented by ongoing developments in the field.  In summary, older populations around the world face vastly different living circumstances. It is worth remembering that 80% of the world’s population do not have any social security. Human rights in this situation may be dominated less by concepts of dignity and inclusion but by the hard reality of day-to-day survival. Yet the problems that all older people experience in their daily lives are likely to share common themes: social exclusion, difficulty accessing services, discrimination in the public sphere and a perception that they are somehow second class citizens. 

Most countries are signatories to the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which proclaim that the ‘inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. Yet no where does it say that our rights change as we age. 

How can we summarise what human rights might look like for older people?  Baroness Greengross summarised that the acronym FREDA provides five key points: Fairness, Respect, Equality, Dignity and Autonomy. 

Yet the reality for most older people around the world is that human rights are most relevant to the issue of poverty and access to services. After all ‘what use is freedom without bread, or the right to free speech without education?’ Organisational barriers to services, for example preventing access to healthcare and social security, form the most tangible, daily infringements of older people’s human rights. These can take several forms: whether they are direct discrimination, such as refusing services to older people or indirect discrimination, for example confusing and inaccessible bureaucracy that older people find the hardest to navigate, or even engage with at all, if offices are not located  nearby.  

Adopting a human rights approach could be a crucial foundation to reform. This approach dictates that access to key services are an inalienable right for all people, not a welfare need. Where services work to deliver rights, they may operate with consideration for the dignity and diversity of older people. Where services meet welfare needs, we may see the older person as an unwanted burden, to be fitted in at the convenience of the system, not the other way around. 

A human rights approach to older people’s needs therefore helps us to plan for the diversity of older people’s circumstances. After all, we are not all the same, but rather we are equal in our difference. It also helps us to overturn the prejudice that many older people experience in trying to meet their needs for education, health, community, leisure, work and overall wellbeing. 

Older people in the UK enjoy much better rights than many around the world, but the situation is far from perfect. There are gaps in our discrimination legislation, for example gender, sexual orientation and race are grounds for discrimination in access to goods and services, a huge part of our daily lives, but age is not. Private care homes are not covered by the 2004 Human Rights Act, although most homes are in this sector. Interestingly, the Joint Commission for Equality and Human Rights has recommended that a Human Rights approach was the correct legal avenue through which to challenge examples of care home abuse. 

Michael Wills MP led the conference to understand that the UK Government is committed to a swift resolution of this problem, although a timetable has not yet been set. 

There are limits to how human rights can be used, but it is helpful to remember the core principles of the UN declaration, formed after the abuses of WWII, is not simply about protecting criminals from punishment, despite what many newspapers would have us believe. 

Despite the overly negative perception of the role of human rights in some sections of the media, the conference made it clear that transnational treaties led by transnational bodies, such as the European Union and the United Nations, have a vital role to play in rallying nations to a higher standard of human rights protection as standard. We must continue to press intergovernmental bodies to ensure that that all human rights are improved across the world, not just those of older people. For many countries the first step must be some form of social pension as standard, and some form of access to education and healthcare, without with further rights are meaningless. 

The Prime Minister has commented in recent months that he was going to reform policy in this area – this must include protection against discrimination in areas that are not covered by the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, we urgently need a review of discrimination laws in the UK. These should include positive duty to promote age equality, including access to goods and services.   In summary, full and equal human rights for older people are not just a means to close legal gaps in human rights legislation, although in theory no other form of discrimination should receive more public interest given that we must all one day achieve senior citizenship. They are also a means to ensure timely and appropriate services, later life employment, and active and inclusive citizenship, meaning the best chance of enhanced wellbeing, and good mental and physical health as we age. In an ageing society, where more people are over 65+ than under-16, what could be a higher priority for the national interest?

Ed Harding

Today sees the publication of some new research from the ILC-UK called ‘Asset Accumulation across the Life Course’, made possible by the support of Prudential, and Partnership.

During the last few years, a lot of time and attention has focused on pension reform. But, as everyone knows, there have also been lots of changes to other kinds of retirement saving and household assets. To provide a detailed picture of these changes, the ILC-UK decided to undertake the Asset Accumulation research. We wanted to understand how the experiences of different cohorts are varying. We also wanted the research to be fairly simple and descriptive so that it could be accessible to a wide audience.

Measuring what has happened to non-pension household assets isn’t easy. Over the life course, people pass through different stages. At some points, they hold their assets individually, but other at stages, with a partner. By focusing on changes to household wealth using data from the British Household Panel Survey, we think we are publishing one of the most detailed pictures of how trends in life course asset accumulation are changing.

This is pretty ‘big picture’ research, that is potentially relevant to a whole range of different areas of public policy. In the accompanying discussion paper, ‘Asset Accumulation in Focus’, we focus on a few that are particularly relevant. Inevitably, the major change in non-pension household assets has been in housing wealth. By comparing what has happened to younger and older cohorts, it is clear that their experiences of asset accumulation during the life course will be very different. The findings relate to some of the key interests of the ILC-UK: How do we ensure people provide for their retirement income? How should we pay for the costs of an ageing population?

We look forward to hearing other people’s thoughts on trends in life course asset accumulation, and what they mean for public policy.

James Lloyd

[To post or read comments on this article, click on the title and use the form at the bottom of the page]

Retirees in the UK are fitter and healthier than ever before. However, loneliness, isolation, disengagement and depression continue to stalk the lives of many in retirement. How can we access and use the latent capacity that exists in the retired population to organise local community groups, activities and networks that could help to prevent these conditions and improve quality of life? 

We hope that the launch of ‘Unlocking the Community’ by Simon Goodenough provides some inspiration and perspective on these issues. As well as being a great example of what can be achieved by social entrepreneurship, the ‘Healthy Living Community’ that Simon has helped to develop in Devon is a brave attempt to dissolve the walls between those working in the statutory sector and those in the voluntary sector. 

As the UK prepares for the ageing of its population, it is a case-study that provides ideas and important lessons. The ILC-UK is keen to know what others think of the model pioneered in Devon. Could it work elsewhere? What are the risks? What further research is required?

The ILC-UK organised an event today on the sensitive topic of so-called ‘under-occupancy’ by older people. This is a topic we’ve been interested in for a while - we felt that our work on housing and planning had lead us to a contradiction between everyday industry talk of the need to ‘free up’ the ‘under-occupied’ homes of older people and Government agenda of keeping people independent at home for as long as possible.

Clearly, this recognition that the housing circumstances of the older population in mainstream housing must be taken seriously by Government policy is welcome. The home is a key defining environment in which - as we age - design and condition of our housing can come to hugely influence our chances of enjoying ‘active ageing’ in good health. Given future demographic trends, there has never been a more timely opportunity to invest in preventative, housing-based solutions to promote wellbeing.  But what is the right balance between encouraging people to stay at home, and encouraging downsizing?  The evidence was clear that ‘under-occupancy’ exists. Or better put, based on our current definitions (usually 2 or more bedrooms per household than ‘necessary’) 46% of households fell into that category. For older households (65+) this was 56%. Not a huge difference. ‘Under-occupancy’ is not really an age issue at all – it is a wealth issue. If we are going to hold a moral standpoint on using up too much space, it’s going to have to include all ages (i.e., the wealthy.) Talk of under-occupancy that focuses solely on older people is simply ageist.  For ‘under-occupancy’ to exist as a concern, over crowding must also exist. And it does: in the UK today, 500,000 households live in over-crowded conditions. The impact of this on families is thought to be increased risk of ill-health, stress, family breakdowns and poor educational performance. 

So what can we do about it? We could build more homes, but we are already losing the battle to meet grow in demand, to the tune of 40,000 households per year. The public is not yet ready to build on green field sites, and there simply aren’t enough brown field ones to meet demand. Furthermore, we could make sure those houses we do build are family sized homes, i.e. 3 or 4 bedrooms. But provision of these has fallen recent years, and the majority of new housing is now 1 or 2 bed flats. Affordable housing is such a dominant issue, (by which we usually mean affordable housing for young people) that this is unlikely to change much in the new future.  What are our chances of encouraging downsizing? Fairly low, seemingly. Mobility is lowest in older age groups (around 2% per year) and most older people want to remain in their own homes, and rightly so.   

But there is a margin – about 45% of people 50+ indicate they are open to the idea of a pre or post retirement move. Few actually do, but homeowners are most likely to consider it. This is good news as they are the majority of older people. Housing markets that offer the kind of suitable, downsized housing that will meet the aspirations of the relatively wealthy baby boomers are more likely to be successful. This means local authorities giving priority to older people’s specialist housing, earmarking suitable sites and defending them from competing concerns.  No one should be coerced into moving. We all aspire to own our home, and live free from insecurity in later life. But positive measures to encourage downsizing would not interfere with that. Impartial advice and information services acting in the interests of older people could ensure those who want to move are helped to do so. Even small movements at the top of a housing chain will impact all the way down to the first time buyer.  If nothing else, today’s debate showed that this is complex topic with competing view-points. The ILC-UK is keen to promote debate on the topic, so if you are keen to make a point, please do post a comment in response to my posting. 

This weeks’ call from Government advisor Lord Layard that schools should teach happiness touches on an interesting aspect of individual health, wellbeing, and ultimately longevity. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6618431.stm )

We have known for many years that mental health is closely linked to physical health. Quite how much so took many people by surprise when studies such as the famous Whitehall longitudinal survey of civil servants began to report back in the 70s. Previously, people had assumed that the more stressed a person was, or the more responsibility they had to cope with, the worse their health. Not so, according to Whitehall. Rather, the higher the status of the individual, the more likely they were to report good health in later life. This held true for an astonishing range of conditions, from cancer through to heart disease, even for back pain and gastrointestinal diseases.
 
In short, you’d rather your chances of living to 90 as the busy executive than the cleaner, and for each step up or down the ladder, you can expect fairly a linear upgrade or downgrade in terms of health. A 1997 to 1999 study showed the life expectancy gap between professionals and unskilled manual workers was about 7.5 years for men, and 6 years for women.
 
What has all this got to do with happiness? In essence, our experience of life (through work and socializing, together with your early life influences and lifestyle factors), comes to dominate your health characteristics whether you like it or not. We know that the self-reported degree of control over work is closely linked to incidence of coronary heart disease. The less you have, the more strain you appear put on you heart. We know that people in insecure employment, prone to worrying and stress, show worse health than either those either fully employment, or unemployed.

Why should this be the case? Quite simply, unhappiness, depression, and stress appear to take a terrible toll in the physiological reactions they cause. And how we rank ourselves on the social gradient is also a factor. A 2001 paper looking at the life-spans of famous actors found that Oscar winners appeared to live about four years longer than comparable peers who hadn’t won anything. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1331401.stm ) The suggestion appears to be that self-esteem, happiness, recognition and status within a social group has a major impact on our health.

For those of us unlikely to win an Oscar, where might we look to boost happiness? As social creatures, it seems clear that humans are happy when they have both company and a social function to play. It is thought to be one of the factors why keeping pets appear to create happiness - the owner has a manageable responsibility of care, and therefore ascribes importance to their actions. In the 2005 TV show ‘Making Slough Happy’ successful strategies included nurturing a plant, smiling at strangers and cutting television viewing by a half. This need for a role is particularly powerful when combined with membership of a group, such as employment, volunteering, or membership of a group of hobby or sport enthusiasts. Studies of centenarians show that, alongside a degree of genetic luck, they are more likely to report good and regular social and family relationships. Furthermore, they tend to be happy people with a degree of emotional resilience and a good sense of humour, with and a zest and delight in life. Many studies also suggest that centenarians tend to be interested in intellectual activities, and hobbies, including playing musical instruments.
 
So, our mental states clearly are worth looking after, even if simply in terms of physical health. So can we teach happiness? To some extent, yes. We can certainly advise people of what we know about what seems to make people happy, without going anywhere near the creation of Happiness Squad at the thought-police. Individuals could be better educated to spot depression and stress, and consider to what extent those factors are environmental and changeable. People can be taught to consider how physical exercise, diet, community, belonging, family, friendship, hobbies, team and/or group membership and a sense of self-worth could enrich life and offer escape routes from unhappiness.
 
It is interesting that the Government’s recent (and possibly since mothballed) ‘Respect Agenda’ was borne out of perceived voter frustration and anger about the simpler aspects of life – vandalised neighbourhoods, incivility, and a desire for freedom from unnecessary anti-social behaviour. In the light of how stress, self-worth and the human tribe affect us, it seems true that such ‘aesthetics’ therefore deserves real, meaningful attention from policy makers, and we should ignore the sceptics.

Lord Layard would also be well advised to consider the key role of early life in shaping the mental and physical health of tomorrow’s adults. Shockingly, the UK came last in a recent UNICEF European survey of child happiness. What was the secret of the winners, the Netherlands, at no.1? A caring a protective environment at home and the school, and putting time with your children first over the office. Not a finding that sits well with the UK’s long hours work culture.

Obviously, we can’t all end up as CEOs or Oscar winners. Someone has to do the less exciting day-to-day tasks that keep our society running. But a more ideal society designed to better respect our innate human need to feel useful and meaningful and better support us when forming relationships, families and groups, would seem to offer everyone the best possible shot. How we do this is, of course, is a big enough question to keep us occupied for several generations to come. And although we are quite some ways from working it out, at least we have the hard facts to make us realise we ought to start.

Ed Harding

Online social networking is one of the most interesting and exciting Internet developments of recent years. Usage of sites such as Facebook and MySpace has exploded. At some point, it would be worth asking: what can online social networking can do for older people? 

The ILC-UK think-piece – Retirement Capital and Online Social Networking – published today, attempts to give one answer to this question. But actually, this publication is about a lot more than that. It would be a mistake to only view the scope of online social networking through its use by younger people. This technology creates startling new possibilities for communication and exchange, and that is what the publication is about. 

Several reviewers of this think-piece have suggested the ILC-UK should start its own online social networking site for older people to engage in intergenerational communication. However, maybe this sort of suggestion misses the point. The infrastructure is already out there on the web; online social networking sites already exist and are free to use. This is what makes it an interesting opportunity: there are no major costs or investments required. The challenge is to make use of what is there. 

James Lloyd 

[To post or read comments on this article, click on the title and use the form at the bottom of the page]