1. family and parenting

Farming Families in Crisis
A profile of the recipients of RABI and ARC-Addington Fund grants
during the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic
S P Carruthers
April 2002
Copyright  2002 S P Carruthers
i
Preamble
Acknowledgements
This study reported here was commissioned and sponsored by the ARC-Addington Fund, Farm
Crisis Network (FCN), the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RABI) and the Rural
Stress Information Network (RSIN). The financial support of the Ernest Cook Trust is also
gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are to staff of ARC-Addington Fund and RABI for extracting
data. Special thanks are due to Katherine Doggrell who both extracted much of the data used in
this study and conducted much of the basic data analysis; and to Richard Tranter, Deputy
Director of the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, The University of Reading, for critical comment
and review of the first draft of the report.
The author
Dr Peter Carruthers is Executive Director of the John Ray Initiative, an educational charity
promoting environmental stewardship and sustainability in accordance with Christian principles
and the responsible use of science and technology. He also serves as Chairman of the
Agricultural Christian Fellowship and as a member of the national committee of Farm Crisis
Network. He was formerly a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, The
University of Reading.
ARC-Addington Fund (ARC-Addington)
The Archbishop of Canterbury challenged the Churches to establish a fund to provide financial
help to those affected by FMD. The Arthur Rank Centre responded by establishing a new
national charity (ARC-Addington) to work alongside RABI and RSABI.
The objects are “the relief of poverty suffered by those employed in the agricultural and kindred
industries brought about by the effects of the foot and mouth disease epidemic”.
Applications for help are dealt with at a local level by a team of volunteers from church, farming
and support organisations, thus ensuring that applicants receive pastoral as well as financial
support.
Farm Crisis Network (FCN)
Farm Crisis Network is a network of volunteers existing to support farming families, spiritually,
emotionally and practically. The aim is to bring suitably prepared farming people alongside
farming families in difficulties, to ‘walk with’ them as they struggle to find their way through
their trouble. Volunteers are men and women recruited through churches, chaplains, the
Agricultural Christian Fellowship and from responses to publicity. They have to have referees
and each has a one-to-one interview. They include farm consultants, sales people, college staff
and clergy, as well as farming men and women, many of whom have considerable experience of
telephone helplines.
ii
Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RABI)
The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution is the national charity in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland dedicated to helping members of the farming community suffering hardship.
The emergency funds are normally restricted to helping with domestic expenses, but during the
FMD crisis this was extended to include other essential expenditure resulting from the epidemic.
Rural Stress Information Network (RSIN)
The Rural Stress Information Network is the umbrella charity for the rural stress sector. Its aim is
to work in partnership to develop an effective network to support those in distress in rural areas.
The role of the charity is to support the development of local initiatives to tackle rural stress,
raise awareness of the help available, work with those active in rural areas to encourage them to
‘stress-proof’ their approach and to support relevant research into the causes and alleviation of
rural stress.
The RSIN operated a 24 hour helpline from the start of the outbreak for five months and
supported many to access the help available, both financial and practical, working closely with
the other ‘Farming Help’ charities.
iii
Executive Summary
Introduction
The foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) epidemic of 2001 resulted in the slaughter of more than six
million livestock on nearly 10,000 farms – equivalent to about 5% of all UK farms and 10% of
livestock farms. The strict controls on the movement of animals and the prevention or delaying
of sales impacted much more widely, affecting nearly all livestock businesses and bringing some
into severe financial crisis.
The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RABI) and the ARC-Addington Fund (ARCAddington) provided financial assistance to farming families experiencing hardship as a result of
the epidemic. The remits of the two donors are complementary. RABI provides assistance with
domestic bills; ARC-Addington has a wider remit and assists businesses, and is, hence, able to
help in situations where RABI cannot. The Farm Crisis Network (FCN) and the Rural Stress
Information Network (RSIN) not only assisted applicants to access grants, but also supported
many others affected by the crisis.
The RABI and ARC-Addington application forms, together with the knowledge and experience
of the support organisations’ personnel, provide a unique insight into a part of the farming
community. These families represent the main client group of the four organisations. They may
also be representative of a larger group of farmers, which has yet to ‘break cover’. In order both
to guide their own future strategies and to inform farming organisations and government, the
four organisations commissioned an investigation of the characteristics and condition of
recipients of RABI and ARC-Addington Fund grants during the 2001 FMD epidemic.
Objective
The objective of the study was to analyse and provide an account of the characteristics and
condition of recipients of RABI and ARC-Addington grants during the FMD epidemic, using the
information contained in samples of application forms. The analysis examined regional variation
and, where possible, made comparisons between grant recipients and the farming population as a
whole.
Analysis
Regionally structured samples were drawn from those who had received grants from RABI and
ARC-Addington between February and August 2001 and February and October 2001
respectively. Samples represented, overall, 7% and 9.4% of the recipient populations of 7,710
and 10,923. Data were extracted from the forms and analysed, and key statistics derived for a
range of variables. It should be noted that as a number of families received grants from both
donors, the two populations are not mutually exclusive. However, it was not possible to crosscheck between the two data sets.
iv
Regional distribution of recipients
The regional distribution of grant recipients was related strongly to the regional
distribution of livestock farms and less strongly to the distribution of FMD cases. Highest
concentrations were in the predominantly livestock regions of the North West, the South
West, Wales and Northern Ireland. This emphasises that it was the measures to control FMD
(notably livestock movement restrictions), which affected all livestock producers, rather than the
specific occurrence of the disease that determined the regional pattern of grant recipients. The
distribution of recipients to some extent also reflected the wider pattern of rural
deprivation (as indicated by average national ranks of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000
for the rural wards within each region of England).
RABI recipients represented 3.7% and Addington recipients 4.6% of all holdings in the UK, but
the proportions were much higher in the predominantly livestock regions listed above and in the
North East. This, together with the fact that holding number over-estimates the number of farm
businesses, suggests that in some regions more than 10% of all farms were in receipt of
grants.
Family characteristics
Analysis of recipients’ family characteristics (ie recipients ages, household sizes and numbers of
dependent children) suggests that many of those in receipt of grants were younger families
with children at home. Grant recipients were, on average, younger than UK farmers as a
whole.
There were no significant regional differences in recipients’ ages or household sizes, but there
were significant regional differences in the numbers of dependent children, with the highest
average number in Northern Ireland and the lowest in Yorkshire and the Humber.
However, there were also appreciable numbers of recipients of retirement age, particularly
among ARC-Addington recipients and in certain regions. This suggests that appreciable
numbers of farmers of retirement age who are still farming are experiencing financial
hardship.
Household finances
Off-farm income
Some 58% of RABI recipients stated that they had income other than from farming, with
the proportions lowest in Northern Ireland (31%) and the East of England (38%) and highest in
the North West (85%). Comparison with values derived from the Farm Business Survey (FBS)
revealed that grant recipients in England and Wales were more likely to have some off-farm
income than farmers as a whole, but the reverse was true in Northern Ireland.
Comparison with FBS data also showed that on average in England off-farm incomes of grant
recipients were higher than those of farmers as a whole, but in Wales, and, especially,
Northern Ireland, they were markedly lower. The most commonly stated source of off-farm
v
income was spouse/partner’s employment, followed by applicant’s employment. Low frequency
of off-farm income and low amounts of off-farm income, combined with very low incomes from
farming in general (as evident from FBS data) suggests that the situation in Northern Ireland
is particularly critical.
State benefits
Receipt of state benefits, notably child benefit and working families tax credit, among grant
recipients appeared somewhat low, especially in comparison with numbers of dependent children
and in the light of the fact that grant recipients are, by definition, those suffering domestic
hardship. This merits further investigation. Certainly, it seems likely that some farming families
that may qualify for working families tax credit may not be taking it up, a conclusion
backed by anecdotal evidence from the experience of caring organisations.
Savings and investments
Many grant recipients appear to have very limited domestic financial back up, with the
problem again, appearing most acute in Northern Ireland. Proportions of RABI recipients stating
they had savings averaged 46% and ranged from 4% in Northern Ireland to 81% in the North
West. Estimated values of savings averaged £1,594 and ranged from £259 in Northern Ireland to
£4,325 in the North East.
Farm structure
Farm area
The average area farmed by grant recipients was about 78 ha. There was much variation both
within and between regions. Average areas of recipients farms were similar or greater than
regional average holding sizes for all farms.
Tenure
Comparison of proportions of owned and tenanted land on recipients’ farms with national
averages and examination of data on their stated tenure, revealed that there is a higher
proportion of wholly tenanted and mixed-tenure farms among grant recipients than in the
regions and countries of the UK as a whole.
Farm business
Overdrafts
The overdraft on the farm business account of RABI recipients averaged nearly £24,000, and
ranged from as high as £790,000 to a credit of £15,715. There were no significant differences
between regions. In most cases regional average overdrafts were lower than the average
stated limits of recipients’ overdraft facilities. Average stated and overdraft and overdraft
facility reflected farm sized.
vi
External liabilities
Stated total farm business liabilities averaged £135,837 among RABI recipients and stated total
debt among ARC-Addington recipients averaged £57,452. Average region total farm business
liabilities were less closely related to farm size than were overdrafts, suggesting that for some
non-bank debt has extended beyond the value of assets. Examination of debt per unit area on
a farm-by-farm basis for ARC-Addington recipients, however, did suggest that farm debt
among grant recipients is most acute on smaller farms.
Comparisons with farming population as a whole
Comparison of grant recipients farm business overdrafts and debts with data derived from the
Farm Business Survey 1999/00 revealed that there was, on average, a higher level of debt
among grant recipients than among farmers as a whole, particularly to creditors other than
the bank and particularly in certain regions. There was much regional variation, with higher
than average liabilities in Wales and Scotland.
Applying for other grants
Some 25% of RABI recipients stated that they were in receipt of other grants. The
proportion varied between regions, from just 11% in Northern Ireland to 39% in Yorkshire and
the Humber.
Conclusions
Characteristics of grant recipients
The characteristics of grant recipients evident from this study can be summarised as follows.
• Younger on average than UK farmers as a whole, many younger families with children at
home.
• An appreciable proportion in some regions were farmers who were past retirement age, but
still farming.
• Less likely than farmers in general to have off-farm income if in Northern Ireland, but more
likely in England and Wales.
• Lower off-farm incomes than farmers in general if in Wales and Northern Ireland, but higher
if in England; possibly few opportunities for non-farming income.
• Possible low uptake of working families tax credit.
• Little domestic financial back up, but much regional variation.
• Likely to be in the small-to-medium farm size categories.
• More likely to be tenants and mixed-tenure farmers than is the case overall.
• Slightly higher overdrafts than farmers in general.
• Higher debts to creditors other than the bank than is the case in the farming population in
general, but with much regional variation.
• Farm debt likely to be more acute on smaller farms.
vii
Regional effects
As might be expected, grant recipients were concentrated in the predominantly livestock
production regions of the UK - the North West, the South West, Wales, Northern Ireland, and to a
lesser extent, the West Midlands. The distribution of grant recipients in England also showed
some relationship to wider pattern of rural deprivation, as indicated by the IMD 2000. These
factors are, in fact, related as rural deprivation is higher in regions containing more remote rural
areas and, often by association, a predominance of livestock rearing.
There were smaller numbers of grant recipients in the East, the South East, Yorkshire and the
Humber, the North East and the East Midlands. Livestock production is less frequent in these
regions. They are also relatively prosperous, at least the first three. In these eastern regions,
grant recipients are likely to represent a ‘residue’ of small livestock producers, who are
also suffering financial hardship. With the exception of the North East, the proportion of
tenanted land among grant recipients was higher than average for grant recipients. In some ways,
these farmers are likely to be even more ‘hidden’ or ‘forgotten’ than those in western England,
Wales and Northern Ireland. This mirrors the pockets of rural deprivation in these otherwise
affluent regions identified by the Countryside Agency (2000). Key aspects of individual regions
of the UK are profiled below (comparisons are internal to the RABI and ARC-Addington data
sets).
Recommendations for further research
Possible avenues of further enquiry include the following.
• Further analysis of the existing sample in order to examine the relationship between assets
and debt and between key variables and farm area and farm business size, and to
identify those recipients that appear in both data sets.
• Examining a wider range of other survey and census data to address with greater precision
the extent to which recipients are indicative of a larger community.
• Drawing a larger sample of RABI recipients who applied using the second, more detailed,
version of the form in order to provide a more robust account of certain aspects of farm
business and household finances.
• A postal, telephone or interview survey of a sub-sample of recipients to establish, more
precisely, the condition of recipients’ farm businesses and their wider financial
circumstances.
• Follow-up enquiries to establish how grants were spent, whether or not recipients felt
they made a significant impact on their circumstances, and the present state of
recipients.
• Further research to validate the (tentative) conclusion that many recipients qualify for
certain state benefits, but are not claiming them.
viii
Contents
Preamble .........................................................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................iv
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................2
FMD 2001...................................................................................................................................2
Helping farming families ............................................................................................................2
Unique insight.............................................................................................................................2
Tip of the iceberg? ......................................................................................................................2
Rationale for investigation..........................................................................................................3
Objective .........................................................................................................................................3
Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................3
Grant recipients...........................................................................................................................3
The data.......................................................................................................................................4
Samples .......................................................................................................................................5
Data extraction and calculation of statistics ...............................................................................5
Regional distribution of recipients..................................................................................................6
Family characteristics .....................................................................................................................8
Household finances.........................................................................................................................9
Off-farm income .........................................................................................................................9
State benefits............................................................................................................................. 11
Savings and investments ...........................................................................................................12
Farm structure ...............................................................................................................................13
Farm area ..................................................................................................................................13
Tenure .......................................................................................................................................14
Farm business................................................................................................................................15
Farming income ........................................................................................................................15
Overdrafts .................................................................................................................................16
External liabilities .....................................................................................................................16
Comparisons with farming population as a whole....................................................................17
Farm debt in relation to farm area ............................................................................................18
Applying for other grants..............................................................................................................19
Conclusions...................................................................................................................................19
Characteristics of grant recipients.............................................................................................19
Regional effects ........................................................................................................................21
Recommendations for further research.........................................................................................25
Further analysis.........................................................................................................................25
Increasing the sample................................................................................................................25
Filling the gaps..........................................................................................................................25
Validation and follow-up ..........................................................................................................25
References.....................................................................................................................................27
Appendix.......................................................................................................................................29
Supplementary tables ................................................................................................................29
RABI application form – Version 1 ..........................................................................................31
RABI application form – Version 2 ..........................................................................................35
RABI application form – Version 3 ..........................................................................................36
ARC-Addington application form ............................................................................................42
Introduction
FMD 2001
On the 19th of February 2001, a case of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) was clinically diagnosed
at an abattoir near Brentwood, Essex, and confirmed by laboratory tests on the following day.
This marked the start of an epidemic that ran for more than seven months, and spread to 32
counties of Great Britain and to Northern Ireland. More than six million livestock were
slaughtered on clinical evidence of infection, on ‘suspicion’, as a precautionary measure or
under the livestock welfare disposal scheme (LWDS) (DEFRA, 2002a, 2002b). The cull directly
affected 9,867 farms (DEFRA, 2002a, 2002c), equivalent to 7.7% of UK livestock holdings and
4.1% of all UK holdings1. However, the strict controls on the movement of animals and the
prevention or delaying of sales impacted much more widely,2 affecting nearly all livestock
businesses and bringing some into severe financial crisis.
Helping farming families
The Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RABI) and the ARC-Addington Fund (ARCAddington) have offered financial assistance to farming households experiencing hardship as a
result of the epidemic. By January 2002, RABI had helped more than 8,130 families (a number
with multiple grants), while by early February 2002, the ARC-Addington Fund had made 21,403
grants to 11,706 recipients. The two charities between them have disbursed nearly £20 million to
more than 15,000 families. The remits of the two donors are complementary. RABI provides
assistance with domestic bills; ARC-Addington has a wider remit and assists businesses, and is,
hence, able to help in situations where RABI cannot. The Farm Crisis Network (FCN) and the
Rural Stress Information Network (RSIN) have not only assisted applicants to access grants, but
also supported many others affected by the crisis.
Unique insight
The RABI and ARC-Addington application forms, together with the knowledge and experience
of the support organisations’ personnel, provide a unique insight into the characteristics and
condition of a part of the farming community. Early indications were that most of those helped
by both RABI and ARC-Addington had already exhausted all other sources of finance and credit
and a majority were tenants, while a preliminary analysis of a sample of ARC-Addington
recipients revealed a preponderance of small farms (ie of less that 40 ha) and a low level of
diversification (ARC-Addington Fund, 2001).
Tip of the iceberg?
These families represent the main client group of both the grant awarding and farmer support
charities. It is possible, also, that they are themselves representative of a larger population of
farming families, farming at the margins of viability or in severe domestic debt, but yet to ‘break
1
This refers to the total “number of premises recorded on which livestock have been or were due to be
slaughtered” on the 13th January 2002. The number of ‘infected premises’ totalled 2030 (equivalent to 1.6% of UK
livestock holdings and 0.85% of all holdings) (DEFRA, 2002a, 2002c). The number of registered holdings tends to
under-estimate the number of farm businesses (Burrell et al, 1990), suggesting that the number of farms affected
was in excess of 5% of all UK farms and more than 10% of predominantly livestock farms.
2
Problems arising from the FMD epidemic noted by applicants to the RABI additional feed and fertiliser costs;
increased travel costs (ie to distant livestock); lower or no income from sales of livestock; reduced or nil income
from off-farm work (eg due to Form D restrictions); and increased livestock mortality (eg due to foxes).
2
cover’. Many, if not most, of these are unlikely to belong to any farming organisation; many are,
in effect, voiceless and unrepresented. Were it not for the activities of voluntary organisations
they would be largely unnoticed and unknown.
Rationale for investigation
In view of the above, and in order both to guide their own future strategies and to inform
farming organisations and government, ARC-Addington, FCN, RABI and RSIN commissioned a
study of the characteristics and condition of recipients of RABI and ARC-Addington grants
during the 2001 FMD epidemic. This document reports the results of that investigation.
Objective
The objective of the study was to analyse and provide an account of the characteristics and
condition of recipients of RABI and ARC-Addington grants during the FMD epidemic, using the
information contained in samples of application forms. The analysis examined regional variation
and, where possible, made comparisons between grant recipients and the farming population as a
whole. In the light of the results of the analysis, the study also aimed to establish the need and
scope for further analysis of the participant organisations' data, and for further data collection.
By increasing awareness and understanding of their main client groups, it was anticipated that
the work would inform and influence many aspects of the future strategy of the four charities.
Although not a specific objective of this study, the study also provided for ARC-Addington and
RABI, in effect, a retrospective evaluation and critique of their application and data management
procedures, and a stimulus to future ‘streamlining’. Along with the practical experience of the
charities, the analysis also provided a basis on which to inform and make recommendations to
farming organisations, other voluntary bodies and government.
Analysis
Grant recipients
The analysis focused on those families that had received grants from RABI and ARC-Addington
during the FMD epidemic. RABI awarded grants to applicants in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland3. ARC-Addington awards grants to applicants in all four countries of the UK. The value
of individual RABI grants ranged from £100 to £2,250; individual ARC-Addington grants
ranged from £50 to £2,000.
RABI awards grants on the following criteria: farming the main source of income, genuine
financial hardship, savings less than £8,000, proof of unpaid domestic bills or standing orders,
and verification by nominated referee. ARC-Addington’s charitable object is “the relief of
poverty suffered by those employed in the agricultural and kindred industries brought about by
the effects of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic” (ARC-Addington Fund, 2000). While the
3
RABI’s counterpart in Scotland is the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RSABI), but this
organisation was not part of the sponsoring group for this study.
3
majority were farming families, ARC-Addington recipients also included relief milkers, stone
wallers, milking machine engineers, agricultural mechanics, craft workers and those running
small rural businesses (eg B&B, livery stables, rural crafts).
The populations of grant recipients are the result of a process of application and award - of
applicants’ decisions to apply and the charities’ assessors’ decisions to award, in accordance
with its charitable objects, as above.
In both cases, very few applications were rejected (some 5% of RABI and less than 1% of ARCAddington applications were turned down), suggesting that the vast majority of applicants were
cases of legitimate need in accordance with the donors’ criteria. Some 62% of RABI recipients
received more than one grant; ARC-Addington recipients each received an average of 1.8
grants.4
The data
The data that provided the basis of the analysis were contained in the donors’ grant application
forms (see Appendix). These forms were not designed for research, but to provide a basis for
assessing need and delivering help in an objective and accountable way. Some questions were
formulated somewhat imprecisely (eg regarding farm income).
From a research viewpoint, however, the main problem was not so much the design of the forms,
but the fact that they were not always fully completed. Neither donor imposed any requirement
to complete forms in full, and in many cases, answers to some questions were simply left blank.
This is more significant for this investigation than for the charities’ assessments of need, as
decisions to award grants were informed not only by the data supplied in the application forms,
but also by applicants’ written statements, referees’ reports and, in some cases, further enquiries.
As this study only investigated grant recipients, these checks help to justify the assumption made
throughout that all forms sampled were completed correctly and truthfully. No other checks on
veracity were feasible. There does remain, however, the possibility that certain questions may
have been left blank if it was perceived that answering them would not help the applicant’s case.
In the case of yes/no answers (see below), where the sample consists of the total of those who
answer either yes or no, this would result in a biased sample.
Despite these shortcomings, however, it was considered that both sets of forms contained
sufficient objective and quantitative data to enable a meaningful analysis.
The RABI form was relatively detailed compared to the ARC-Addington form. Further, partway through the epidemic, RABI updated its application form incorporating a number of
additional questions. The relatively simple form used by ARC-Addington reflected the great
reliance placed by the charity on referees’ reports. Copies of the application forms are appended
to this report. From these forms, a number of variables were extracted and analysed.
4
A number of recipients received grants from both donors, but it was not possible to establish how many there were
in total or to identify which recipients appeared in both the RABI and ARC-Addington samples.
4
Samples
Samples were drawn from those who had received RABI and ARC-Addington grants between
the start of the FMD epidemic and the end of August 2001. The ARC-Addington sample was
later updated on the 17th October, and this sample formed the basis of the analysis. It was not,
however, possible to update the RABI sample.
Samples were drawn from randomised lists of recipients for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
and each region of England. For each region a target of between 5% and 10% of the regional
total was set, with a target minimum of 30 per region. As a sample of ARC-Addington recipients
had already been drawn and analysed for some regions (ARC-Addington Fund, 2001), these new
records were appended to earlier records.
The samples represented, overall, 7% and 9.4% respectively of the RABI and ARC-Addington
grant recipient populations of 7,710 and 10,923, but there was considerable variation between
regions, mostly reflecting the effect of the 30-recipient minimum on regions with few recipients
(see Appendix, Tables A1 & A2). As not all questions set on later RABI forms appeared on the
earlier version and as not all forms were completed in full, the sample sizes for individual
variables were smaller, in some cases considerably smaller, than the overall number of recipients
sampled (Appendix, Tables A3 & A4).
Data extraction and calculation of statistics
Variables were extracted from application forms to Excel workbooks. Variables were either
binary (ie Yes or No) or numerical values (eg years, £, ha). For the former, the proportions in
each category within each region were calculated. For the quantitative variables, various
statistics were derived, notably means, lower and upper quartiles5 and 95% confidence
intervals6. In most cases, means for England and the UK were derived from regional means,
weighted according to regional recipient populations. For variables with very small sample
sizes, however, means were unweighted.
Differences between regions were explored by comparisons of means and confidence intervals,
and, for some quantitative variables, via analysis of variance. Differences were considered
‘significant’ if the confidence coefficient was more than 95% (P<0.05) (ie there was a less than
1 in 20 chance that a difference as large as that observed could have occurred by chance if there
was really no true difference). Comparisons with the farming population as whole were made,
where possible, using published data mostly derived from the June Agricultural Census or the
5
Lower and upper quartile values define the range in which falls the middle 50% of all observations.
Confidence intervals provide a measure of how precise an estimated effect is – in this case providing an indication
of how much confidence that can be placed in the sample mean as an indication of the population mean. The 95%
confidence interval is the range computed from the sample data which, were the study repeated multiple times,
would contain the true effect (ie the population mean) 95% of the time (ACP/ASIM, 2002; NIST/SEMATECH,
2002). Other statistics calculated in the process of analysis included: median, minimum, maximum, skewness and
standard deviation.
6
5
Farm Business Survey. In both cases, correlation coefficients7 were used to explore the
relationships between certain variables.
Regional distribution of recipients
The regional distribution of grant recipients was strongly related to the regional
distribution of livestock farms. Highest concentrations were in the North West, the South
West, Wales and Northern Ireland (Tables 1 & 2). Coefficients of correlation between regional
RABI and ARC-Addington recipient numbers and numbers of livestock holdings8 were 0.92 and
0.66 respectively (comparable values for recipients against numbers of all holdings were 0.72
and 0.54).
The distribution of recipients was also positively, though more weakly, related to the regional
distribution of FMD cases. Correlation coefficients between regional recipient numbers and
FMD cases were 0.37 and 0.48 for RABI and ARC-Addington recipients respectively. The
relative weakness of the correlation is explained largely by the high ratio of recipients to FMD
cases in regions with relatively low FMD case loads – the East Midlands, the South East, Wales
and, most notably, Northern Ireland (Tables 1 & 2). This suggests that the distribution of grant
recipients related not so much to the occurrence of FMD, but to the measures to control it
(most notably livestock movement restrictions). The former was concentrated in certain
regions; the latter were applied across the country.
Table 1
Numbers of recipients of RABI grants in relation to holding numbers and FMD cases, by
region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
Number of
recipients
230
61
332
1329
128
1322
666
344
4412
1641
1657
7710
As % livestock
holdings (1999)
4.49
2.29
12.40
12.15
1.97
6.69
7.16
5.10
6.93
7.95
6.02
6.89
As % all
holdings (1999)
1.46
0.36
6.29
7.55
0.66
3.59
3.48
2.12
3.00
5.86
5.32
3.74
FMD
Cases
15
11
191
962
7
270
130
140
1726
113
4
1843
Recipients:
Cases
15.3
5.5
1.7
1.4
18.3
4.9
5.1
2.5
2.6
14.5
414.3
4.2
Sources: DEFRA (2002d, 2002e).
7
The correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the extent to which two series of numbers move together. It
is defined such that it always varies between +1 (moving perfectly together) and -1 (moving perfectly inversely to
one another). A value of zero means that there is no tendency to move either together or in opposite directions
(Lexecon, 1994).
8
Ie ‘dairy’, ‘cattle and sheep’ and ‘pigs and poultry’ holdings.
6
Recipient numbers were negatively, though very weakly, correlated with average national ranks
of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 (IMD 2000)9 for the rural wards within each region of
England. Correlation coefficients were -0.21 and -0.20 for RABI and ARC-Addington recipients
respectively. The IMD 2000 enables wards to be ranked according to their levels of deprivation,
with the most deprived ward in England having a rank of 1 and the least deprived ranked at
8,414. Hence, the existence of a negative, be it a weak, correlation suggests that the
distribution of grant recipients reflects, at least in part, the wider pattern of rural
deprivation.
Table 2
Numbers of recipients of ARC-Addington Fund grants in relation to holding numbers and
FMD cases, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
UK
Number of
recipients
292
97
398
1932
125
2478
991
581
6894
2439
440
1150
10923
As % livestock
holdings (1999)
5.71
3.65
14.86
17.66
1.93
12.53
10.66
8.62
10.82
11.81
2.77
4.18
8.55
As % all
holdings (1999)
1.86
0.57
7.54
10.97
0.65
6.72
5.17
3.59
4.68
8.71
1.32
3.69
4.56
FMD
cases
15
11
191
962
7
270
130
140
1712
113
187
4
2016
Recipients:
Cases
19
9
2
2
18
9
8
4
4
22
2
288
5
Sources: DEFRA (2002d, 2002e).
RABI recipients represented 3.7% and ARC-Addington recipients 4.6% of all holdings in the
UK, but the proportions were higher in the North West (7.6% & 10.9%), the North East (6.29%
& 7.54%), Wales (5.86% & 8.71%), Northern Ireland (5.32% & 3.69%) and the South West
(3.59% & 6.72%) (Tables 1 & 2). As some recipients received grants from both RABI and ARCAddington, the total number of recipients is somewhere between the larger number and the sum
of the two. Given this, and the fact that holding numbers tend to over-represent the numbers of
farm businesses, it seems likely that in some regions more than 10% (and perhaps as many
as 15%) of all farms were in receipt of grants.
9
The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 is constructed from six separate indices reflecting different aspects of
deprivation (ie income, employment, health deprivation and disability, education, skills and training, housing and
geographical access to services) (Countryside Agency, 2000).
7
Family characteristics
Analysis of recipients’ family characteristics suggests that many of those in receipt of grants
were younger families with children at home. This is not, perhaps, too surprising. Families
with children are likely to feel financial pressures more quickly; while concern for one’s
children may overcome ‘pride’ and an unwillingness to accept ‘charity’.
Some 30% of ARC-Addington recipients had children of primary school age (Table 3), while
RABI recipients had an average of 2.15 dependent children (Table 4) and households averaging
3.53. There were no significant regional differences in household size, but there were
significant regional differences in the numbers of dependent children. The average number
of dependent children was significantly higher in Northern Ireland than in Yorkshire and the
Humber, and significantly lower in Yorkshire and the Humber compared with Northern Ireland,
the West Midlands, the North West and Wales (Table 4).
RABI recipients averaged 48.4 years old. Regional averages ranged from 45.6 years in the West
Midlands and 45.7 in Yorkshire and the Humber to 52.1 in Northern Ireland and 52.3 in the
South East, but analysis of variance revealed no significant regional effects. The EC Farm
Structure Survey estimated the average age of holders of main holdings in the UK in 1997 at 53
years (House of Commons, 2000); Farmers’ Weekly (2001) stated that the average age of UK
farmers was 58 years; while according to NFU (2000), the average age of Britain’s tenant
farmers was 58 years. While grant recipients were not necessarily the main holders or principal
farmers, these data suggest that RABI recipients were, on average, younger than UK farmers
as a whole.
In the case of ARC-Addington recipients, although nearly 35% had children of primary school
age, some 13% overall were of pensionable age, with the proportion increasing to more than
18% in the South West and nearly 25% in the North West (Table 3). Just under 3% of RABI
recipients in the UK were over 65 years, ranging from 0% in Northern Ireland, 2% in the South
West and the West Midlands, and 3% in the North West to 10% in Wales, 13% on the North
East, 22% in Yorkshire and the Humber, and 27% in the South East.10 This suggests that,
particularly in some regions, there are appreciable numbers of farmers of retirement age
who are still farming.
10
The apparent difference in the age profiles of RABI and ARC-Addington recipients may be partly explained by
the donors respective emphases on helping with domestic bills and assisting farm businesses. Hence, RABI is likely
to have attracted younger families with children concerned with immediate domestic needs; ARC-Addington is
likely to have drawn older farmers struggling to maintain their businesses.
8
Table 3
Estimated age categories of recipients of ARC-Addington grants, by region
Region
% undefined % pensionable % primary11
East Midlands
61.3
3.2
35.5
East
70
3.3
26.7
North East
60
5
35
North West
44.7
24.6
30.7
South East
63.3
3.3
33.3
South West
43.1
18.2
38.7
West Midlands
74.2
3.4
21.3
Yorkshire & the Humber
59.6
5.8
34.6
51.9
14.9
33.0
England
46.8
11.4
40.9
Wales
57.5
7.5
30
Scotland
57.7
8.7
32.7
Northern Ireland
UK
51.6
13.2
34.6
Table 4
Average numbers of dependent children of recipients of RABI grants, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
Mean
1.78
1.56
1.80
2.16
1.61
1.92
2.31
1.27
1.97
2.05
2.71
2.15
95% CI
1.29
2.27
1.03
2.10
1.39
2.21
1.83
2.48
1.08
2.14
1.62
2.22
1.91
2.72
0.86
1.68
1.79
2.07
2.31
3.36
Household finances
Off-farm income
The proportion of the total income of farming families derived from farming has decreased over
the last few years, and many are increasingly dependent on off-farm income (MAFF, 1999). An
estimated 58% of RABI recipients stated they had income other than from farming, with
the proportions lowest in Northern Ireland (31%) and the East of England (38%) and
highest in the North West (85%)12 (Table 5). The average proportions of RABI recipients
receiving off-farm income in England (65%) and Wales (52%) were higher than the
corresponding values of 52% and 47% for farmers (and spouses) derived from the Farm
11
The proportion of recipients with children of primary school age.
As with all findings derived from yes/no answers, these results need to be treated with some caution. As the
proportion returning a no or yes value represents one observation per region, the statistical significance between
regions cannot be tested. Also, as stated earlier, the possibility of selective answering cannot be totally excluded.
12
9
Business Survey (FBS) for 1999/00 (DEFRA, 2002f). But, the proportion of RABI recipients
with off-farm income in Northern Ireland (31%) was much lower than the FBS value of 58%.
Stated weekly amounts for RABI recipients with other income averaged £141; there were no
significant regional differences. Estimated average weekly amount for all recipients (ie including
those who stated they had no other income) was £81, ranging from £46 in Northern Ireland to
£119 in the North West (Table 5). Values, based on the FBS (DEFRA, 2002f), for average offfarm income for all types of farm approximate to £88 per week in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland (Table 6). Corresponding values for RABI recipients were £99, £66 and £46. This
suggests that in England off-farm incomes of grant recipients were, on average, higher than
the estimated national average, but in Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, they were
markedly lower13 (Tables 5 & 6). The low level of average income from farming on farms in
Northern Ireland (Table 6) combined with the low proportion of RABI recipients with off-farm
income and its relatively low value suggests that the situation of the RABI/ARC-Addington
client group in Northern Ireland may be particularly critical.
Table 5
Proportions of recipients of RABI grants stating that they had income other than from
farming14 and estimated weekly amounts15, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
With other income
(%)
67
38
65
85
67
66
59
59
65
52
31
58
Weekly amount (£)
Mean
79
59
72
119
92
95
98
86
99
66
46
81
13
Lower quartile Upper quartile
38
102
26
85
36
98
60
128
45
133
40
111
47
118
48
119
47
117
33
84
30
60
40
97
FBS values include state benefits. RABI recipients were asked simply to state ‘earned or unearned income’ and
there answers may or may not include state benefits. That they were also asked to declare whether they were in
receipt of state benefits (and in the later version of the form state the amounts) may have prompted some to exclude
state benefits from their stated off-farm income.
14
Ie. the number of recipients answering ‘yes’ as a percentage of the total of those replying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the
question “do you or your spouse/partner have any other earned or unearned income apart from the farm business?”.
The proportion of recipients sampled within each region who answered the question at all ranged from 36% to 97%
, while the proportion stating the amount ranged from 15% to 48%.
15
The means and quartiles for the population estimated from stated weekly amounts and implied weekly amounts
(ie £0 for those stating they had no ‘other income’), adjusted for variations in rates of response to the two questions.
10
Table 6
Average net farm income and off-farm income16 for all types of farm according to the Farm
Business Survey, by country, 1999/00
Country
Occupier's net income
and other farm income
(£ per week)
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
183
129
6
Off-farm income (£ per week)
Total
Employment and
self-employment
88
52
88
58
88
65
Investment, pensions
and other
48
25
23
Source: DEFRA (2002f)
The most commonly stated source of off-farm income was spouse/partner’s employment,
followed by applicant’s employment (Table 7).
Table 7
Stated sources of income other than from farming of recipients of RABI grants
Source
Number stating source
Spouse/partner's employment
66
Applicant's employment
55
Property rent
5
Other
5
Contracting
4
Investments
1
Land rent
0
Non-agricultural enterprise
0
State benefits
The average proportions of RABI recipients in receipt of child benefit (57%) and state pension
(22%) (Table 8) broadly reflects the preponderance of younger families with dependent children
among the recipient population, as discussed earlier. However, the average proportion of
recipients in receipt of child benefit is negatively, though weakly (-0.22), correlated with the
average number of dependent children. The weakness of the correlations arises from two outliers
(the North West and Yorkshire & The Humber) – removing these increases the correlation
coefficient to -0.95. Although the two variables are not directly related (ie only one child is
necessary to claim child benefit), this is still a somewhat anomalous result, and merits further
investigation.
The proportion in receipt of working families tax credit averaged 29%, ranging from 12% in
Northern Ireland to 70% in the North West (Table 8). Given that grant recipients are, by
16
Published annual values converted to weekly incomes by dividing by 52.
11
definition, those suffering domestic financial hardship, it can be tentatively concluded that some,
perhaps many, farming families that may qualify for working families tax credit may not
be taking it up, a conclusion backed by anecdotal evidence from the experience of caring
organisations.
Table 8
Proportions17 of recipients of RABI grants in receipt of state benefits18, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
Recipients in receipt of state benefits (%)
Working families tax credit
Child benefit State pension Other state benefit
43
71
44
38
31
67
38
42
12
65
18
27
70
84
67
55
36
69
27
18
40
63
16
20
23
53
13
8
16
38
9
13
42
67
32
30
29
57
21
11
12
31
16
16
33
57
26
23
Savings and investments
Many grant recipients appear to have very limited domestic financial back up. The
proportions of RABI recipients stating that they had savings and investments averaged 46%, and
ranged from 4% in Northern Ireland to 81% in the North West. The stated values of savings of
those who had savings averaged £4,455 and ranged from £1,757 in the South East to £11,120 in
the North East, although no regional differences were significant. Estimated savings for all
recipients averaged £1,594, ranging from £259 in Northern Ireland to £4,325 in the North East
(Table 9).
The stated value of outstanding household bills of RABI recipients in England and Wales
averaged £1,796 (Table 10). This is slightly greater than the estimated average value of savings
17
Ie. the number of recipients answering ‘yes’ as a percentage of the total of those replying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the
question “are you in receipt of state benefits’, followed by the four categories of benefit (earlier RABI forms) or
those supplying weekly amounts against categories of state benefits (later RABI forms). The proportion of
recipients sampled within each region who answered the questions at all ranged from 15% to 97% . The proportions
stating the amount were much lower as this question was only asked on the later version of the RABI form. As with
all findings derived from yes/no answers, these results need to be treated with some caution. As the proportion
returning a no or yes value represents one observation per region, the statistical significance between regions cannot
be tested. Also, as stated earlier, the possibility of selective answering cannot be totally excluded. This is borne out
by comparison of the high proportions of RABI recipients in receipt of state pension with the relatively small
proportions of over 60s and over 65s evident from examining age profiles.
18
A question about the amount of state benefits was only asked on the later version of the RABI form, so the
sample sizes are small. Average stated weekly amounts of working families tax credit ranged from £72 to £134,
child benefit from £28 to £70, state pension from £68 to £142 and other state benefits from £34 to £116.
12
and investments, but such a comparison of averages is of limited value in establishing the
condition of individuals.19
Table 9
RABI recipients stating that they had savings/investments20, and stated and estimated
values, by region
Region
Proportion (%) with
savings and investments
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
Stated value (£)
Estimated value (£) (all
(recipients with savings) recipients)21
Mean
Maximum22
Mean
4,821
25,000
3,045
2,927
20,000
1,722
11,120
30,000
4,325
2,374
5,881
1,918
1,757
5,000
769
3,330
25,000
1,742
2,081
9,000
1,334
5,069
20,000
2,611
3,602
30,000
2,035
4,581
16,000
1,756
6,600
6,600
259
4,455
30,000
1,594
63
59
39
81
44
52
64
52
57
38
4
46
Table 10
Stated value of outstanding household bills of recipients of RABI grants, EW
England
Wales
EW
Sample
41
7
48
Mean
1,911
1,121
1,796
Minimum
48
177
48
Maximum
14,294
3,200
14,294
Farm structure
Farm area
The average areas farmed by RABI and ARC-Addington recipients were 77 ha and 80 ha
respectively (Table 11). There was considerable variation both within and between regions. As
19
Information about the value of household debts was only requested in the later RABI form, and the sample size
is small. Recipient by recipient analysis was not attempted.
20
Ie. the number of recipients answering ‘yes’ as a percentage of the total of those replying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the
question “do you or your partner have any savings or investments” (earlier RABI forms) or those supplying weekly
amounts against categories of savings (later RABI forms). The proportion of recipients sampled within each region
who answered the questions at all ranged from 2% to 28% . The proportions stating the amount were much lower,
ranging from 1% to 15% , as this question was only asked explicitly on the later version of the RABI form. As with
all findings derived from yes/no answers, these results need to be treated with some caution. As the proportion
returning a no or yes value represents one observation per region, the statistical significance between regions cannot
be tested. Also, as stated earlier, the possibility of selective answering cannot be totally excluded.
21
Estimated from stated weekly amounts and implied weekly amounts (ie £0 for those stating they had no savings
and investments), adjusted for variations in rates of response to the two questions.
22
The stated minimum in all cases was zero.
13
might be expected, analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of region on area farmed,
with significant differences between some, but not all regions.23
Areas farmed by both RABI and ARC-Addington recipients were similar to or greater than
average holding sizes in most regions, and in the UK as a whole. Such comparisons, however,
are of limited value, as holding sizes tend to under-estimate farm sizes (Burrell et al, 1990), and
June Census holding sizes are averages for all types of farm, while recipients were livestock
farmers.
Table 11
Average holding size according to June Census 1999, and total area (ha) farmed by
recipients of RABI and ARC-Addington grants, by region
Region
June Census RABI recipients
1999
Mean
Mean
Lower
quartile
East Midlands
22
78
65
East
14
86
117
North East
37
109
114
North West
49
50
133
South East
31
62
51
South West
24
49
69
West Midlands
23
49
55
Yorkshire & the Humber
26
67
110
32
England
62
92
32
Wales
53
77
N/A
N/A
Scotland
156
23
Northern Ireland
34
39
30
UK
71
77
ARC-Addington recipients
Upper
quartile
108
77
132
121
60
81
65
98
96
93
N/A
49
86
Mean
74
116
103
109
72
66
57
112
101
82
406
36
80
Lower
quartile
26
8
33
49
23
28
23
23
33
37
66
18
34
Upper
quartile
106
57
124
121
93
81
71
142
99
97
617
47
114
Source: DEFRA (2002i)
Tenure
Comparison of proportions of owned and tenanted land on RABI and ARC-Addington
recipients’ farms with national averages (Table 12), and examination of data on their stated
tenure (Table 13), suggest that there is a higher proportion of wholly tenanted and mixedtenure farms among grant recipients than in the regions and countries of the UK as a
whole.
23
RABI recipients’ farms in Northern Ireland were significantly smaller than they were in Wales, Yorkshire and the
Humber, the South West, the North West and the North East; in addition, recipients’ farms in Yorkshire and the
Humber were significantly larger than farms in the West Midlands, while recipients’ farms in the North West and
the North East were significantly larger than farms in the South East and the West Midlands. Farms of ARCAddington recipients in Scotland were significantly larger than farms in all other regions, except the East of
England; farms in Northern Ireland were significantly smaller than farms in Wales, Yorkshire and the Humber, the
North East and the North West, and farms in the North West were significantly larger than farms in the West
Midlands.
14
Table 12
Comparison of estimated proportions of owned and rented land farmed by recipients of
RABI and ARC-Addington grants with proportions for all farms, by region
Region
RABI recipients
ARC-Addington recipients All farms (2000)24
Owned (%) Rented (%) Owned (%) Rented (%) Owned (%)
Rented (%)
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
UK
45
26
47
37
39
54
55
29
42
63
N/A
69
50
55
74
53
63
61
46
45
71
58
37
N/A
31
50
23
19
46
51
19
52
43
23
45
68
17
65
45
78
81
54
49
81
48
57
77
55
32
83
35
55
63
68
48
62
68
69
70
63
66
78
N/A
N/A
N/A
37
32
52
38
32
31
30
37
34
22
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source: DEFRA (2002g)
Table 13
Stated tenure of farms of recipients of RABI grants, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
Wholly owned (%)
28
33
41
51
36
30
47
16
37
34
46
37
Wholly rented (%) Mixed tenure (%)
38
34
48
19
41
19
27
23
43
21
27
42
31
22
66
19
36
27
20
46
0
54
29
33
Farm business
Farming income
Farming income has declined steadily since the 1970s. In 2000, at £1.88 billion, total income
from farming (TIFF) in the UK reached its lowest level for more than 25 years (DEFRA, 2002h;
Countryside Agency, 2001). Estimated average farming income per head in the same year was
£7,800 (Countryside Agency, 2001). It might be expected that RABI and ARC-Addington
24
Based on analysis of the June Census 2000 (DEFRA, 2002g). Data appear only to be available in this form for
England and Wales.
15
recipients would fall into the lowest farm-income categories. However, it was not possible to
draw any conclusions from the data available due to the small sample sizes and the way in which
the data were collected. Questions about farming income and subsidies were only asked in the
later version of the RABI form, and the former was framed in terms of income from sales of
grain, livestock, milk and machinery. Stated average income in these terms was £107,058,
ranging from £0 to £2,053,790. Subsidies averaged £10,514 and ranged from £0 to £102,491.
Table 14
Total overdraft in farm business account25 and limit of overdraft facility declared by RABI
recipients, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the
Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
Overdraft (£)
23,476
30,295
65,109
27,406
7,781
21,117
17,542
35,641
26,777
26,389
13,336
23,806
Stated total overdraft facility (£)
Mean
Lower quartile Upper quartile
25,359
775
32,500
37,758
1,000
45,250
71,946
9,000
95,000
54,341
13,000
50,000
12,122
1,300
13,500
30,317
6,500
37,625
31,983
2,875
36,250
36,558
188
31,750
40,741
41,503
12,033
34,733
7,081
5,250
500
5,277
44,143
60,000
15,500
41,362
Overdrafts
The stated overdraft in the farm business account of RABI recipients averaged nearly £24,000,
ranging from £7,781 in the South East to £65,109 in the North East (Table 14). There was a great
deal of variation between individual recipients, with the stated condition of farm business
accounts ranging from an overdraft of £790,000 to a small credit, but there were no significant
differences between regions. In most cases regional average overdrafts were lower than the
average stated limits of recipients’ overdraft facilities (although such a comparison is only a
weak indicator of the state of individual recipients). Average stated overdraft facility was
significantly lower in Northern Ireland than in Wales, the West Midlands, the South West, the
North West and the North East, while that in the South East was significantly lower than in
Wales, the South West and the North West. There were positive correlations between regional
average area farmed and regional average overdraft (0.69) and overdraft facility (0.80).
External liabilities
Stated total farm business liabilities averaged £135,837 among RABI recipients and stated total
debt among ARC-Addington recipients averaged £57,452 (Tables 15 & 16) (although the
questions were worded differently and may not, therefore, be equivalent). Total debt of ARCAddington recipients was significantly lower in Northern Ireland compared with Scotland,
25
Response to the question ‘how much money is there in the farm business account?’.
16
Wales, the South West and the North West, significantly higher in the North West than in the
West Midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber, and in the South West than in Yorkshire and the
Humber. Regional average total farm debt of ARC-Addington recipients was positively, though
weakly correlated (0.30) with regional average area farmed. This suggests that total farm
business liabilities are less closely related to farm size than overdrafts. As bank lending is
related to assets, a close correlation between overdraft facility and overdrafts is to be expected.
The weaker relationship between total liabilities and farmed area suggests that for some, nonbank debt has extended beyond the value of assets.
Table 15
Total farm business liabilities as declared by recipients of RABI grants, by country
Country
Sample Mean Minimum Maximum
England
46
117,907 1,500 1,909,000
Wales
9
257,329
373
1,950,000
Northern Ireland
2
1,500
1,000
2,000
UK
57 135,837
373
1,909,000
Table 16
Stated value of total debt of ARC-Addington grant recipients, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
UK
Value of total debt (£)
Mean
Lower quartile
46,654
19,000
41,767
5,750
110,678
1,000
74,251
5,000
53,509
6,625
59,649
5,600
41,145
7,283
28,221
2,773
60,465
5,758
62,719
9,000
71,973
9,750
22,661
1,008
57,452
6,143
Upper quartile
52,500
49,400
55,000
92,000
56,000
82,500
45,000
42,500
72,596
88,000
110,000
27,000
72,742
Comparisons with farming population as a whole
Comparison of grant recipients’ farm business overdrafts and debts with data derived from the
Farm Business Survey 1999/00 (DEFRA, 2002f) revealed a varying pattern. The overall
indication was that there was, on average, a higher level of debt among grant recipients than
among farmers as a whole, particularly to creditors other than the bank and particularly
in certain regions.
• At nearly £27,000, the average overdraft among RABI recipients in England was a little
higher than the average value of £24,000 for bank borrowings for all types of farm
business (DEFRA, 2002f).
17
•
•
Total external liabilities among RABI recipients in England and Wales were appreciably
higher than published averages - £117,907 compared with £83,800 in England, £257,329
compared with £43,900 in Wales (Tables 15 & 17).
Total liabilities among ARC-Addington recipients were lower than published averages in
England (£60,465 compared with £83,800), very similar in Northern Ireland (£22,661
compared with £22,400), and higher in Wales (£62,719 compared with £43,900) and
Scotland (£71,973 compared with £62,700) (Tables 16 & 17).
Farm debt in relation to farm area
Farm business debt per ha among ARC-Addington recipients averaged £1,057 overall, ranging
from £719 in Scotland to £3,588 in the East of England, suggesting at least an approximate
relationship to land values (Table 18). Total farm debt was positively, but weakly correlated with
farm area (0.39) and debt per ha was negatively, but very weakly, correlated with total farm area
(-0.15) (Table 18). In both cases, correlations were markedly stronger in some regions than in
others, suggesting that in at least some regions farm debt among grant recipients is most
acute on smaller farms.
Table 17
Average total external liabilities (£) of farm businesses in the UK, by tenure and country,
1999/00
Owner occupied
Tenanted
Mixed tenure
All types of tenure
England
78,100
54,000
110,100
83,800
Wales
41,800
26,800
57,300
43,900
Scotland
72,600
25,800
83,300
62,700
N Ireland
22,400
Source: DEFRA (2002g)
Table 18
Declared farm business debt per ha and correlations between stated farm area and total
debt and debt per ha of recipients of ARC-Addington grants, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
Mean debt (£) per ha
1150
3588
812
1047
1202
1404
Total area vs total debt
0.37
0.35
0.79
0.21
0.35
0.51
18
Total area vs debt per ha
-0.44
-0.15
0.11
-0.15
-0.25
-0.12
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
UK
974
866
1179
944
719
696
1057
0.51
0.32
0.42
0.39
0.16
0.35
0.39
-0.17
-0.24
-0.15
-0.16
-0.35
-0.04
-0.15
Applying for other grants
The data enabled some investigation of whether or not farmers had sought help by applying for
grants from another donor. Some 25% of RABI recipients stated that they were in receipt of
other grants. The proportion varied between regions, from just 11% in Northern Ireland to 39%
in Yorkshire and the Humber (Table 19).
Table 19
Proportions of recipients of RABI grants declaring that they were in receipt of other
grants, by region
Region
% declaring 'other grants'
East Midlands
30
East
22
North East
25
North West
25
South East
18
South West
29
West Midlands
23
Yorkshire & the Humber
39
27
England
25
Wales
11
Northern Ireland
UK
25
Conclusions
Characteristics of grant recipients
Prior to, and during, this study, a number of questions were raised or hypotheses proposed
regarding the characteristics of grant recipients. These arose particularly from the direct
experience of the sponsoring organisations or from an early analysis of ARC-Addington
recipients (ARC-Addington Fund, 2001). These hypotheses are addressed below.
Grant recipients are on average older than farmers in general.
No. RABI recipients were on average younger than UK farmers as a whole and there was good
evidence that many of those in receipt of grants from both RABI and ARC-Addington were
19
younger families with children at home. However, there were also appreciable numbers of
recipients of pensionable age, particularly among ARC-Addington recipients and in certain
regions, suggesting that many farmers of retirement age who are still farming are experiencing
financial hardship.
Older farmers are more likely to be tenants.
This hypothesis arose from the observation that tenant farmers in particular will continue
farming after reaching retirement age as they cannot afford to move to alternative
accommodation. Comparisons between age and tenure at regional level provide little evidence
for this. This is only a very coarse indicator, however. A case-by-case analysis was not
attempted, but could be the subject of further research.
Grant recipients were less likely to have off-farm income than farmers in general.
This was only true in Northern Ireland where the proportion of RABI recipients stating they had
off-farm income (31%) was appreciably lower than the proportion estimated by the FBS (58%).
In England and Wales, RABI recipients were more likely to have off-farm income than FBS
samples.
Grant recipients had lower than average off-farm incomes.
This was true in Wales and, particularly, Northern Ireland, where amounts of off-farm income
stated by RABI recipients were markedly lower than FBS averages (£46 per week compared
with £88 per week). In England the reverse was true, where RABI recipients’ average off-farm
income was £99 per week, compared with the FBS value of £88 per week.
There are few opportunities for alternative income.
The data provided very limited evidence for this. Sources of income other than from farming
stated by RABI recipients were almost exclusively the applicant’s or spouse’s employment; none
cited non-agricultural enterprises. As RABI recipients were almost exclusively livestock
farmers, the differences in both occurrence and value of off-farm incomes between RABI
recipients and FBS farmers does seem likely to reflect the paucity of opportunities for off-farm
income and/or the difficulties experienced by livestock farmers in taking them up, particularly in
certain regions. Similarly, ARC-Addington Fund (2001) noted the very low level of
diversification (c 10%) among recipients, and the fragile nature of those enterprises that had
been taken up.
There is poor uptake of state benefits among grant recipients.
The main indication of this study in this respect is the possibility that many farming families that
may qualify for working families tax credit are not taking it up. This conclusion is based on
comparison of the proportions of RABI recipients stating they were in receipt of this benefit and
the level of financial hardship implicit in their being eligible for assistance. Child benefit
presents a somewhat anomalous picture, notably in Northern Ireland. As stated earlier, the
possibility of selective answering of questions means that conclusions about uptake of state
benefits are necessarily tentative. Further investigation is merited.
Grant recipients have little domestic financial back up in terms of savings and investments.
Yes. RABI recipients appeared to have few savings and investments, although there was much
regional variation. Few recipients provided data on the value of household bills, but a national
20
comparison showed household bills as similar to or less than estimated savings. This comparison
is of limited value, however, in establishing the situation of individual families.
Grant recipients have smaller than average farms.
The areas farmed by recipients were on average similar or slightly greater than average holdings
sizes in most regions, and appreciably larger in Scotland. However, published data on holding
size tends to under-estimate farmed area and also refers to all farm types. Examination of lower
and upper quartiles does suggest that recipients farms are clustered towards the smaller end of
the range.
There are more tenant farmers among grant recipients than in the farming population as a
whole.
Yes. The analysis pointed to an appreciably higher than average proportion of wholly tenanted
and mixed tenure farms among both RABI and ARC-Addington recipients. This was true across
all regions.
Grant recipients have lower than average farming incomes.
The application forms did not provide sufficient data to address this question. A question about
farming income was only asked in the later version of the RABI form and in a form that would
make comparison with published data difficult.
Grant recipients have high bank overdrafts.
The average overdraft among RABI recipients in England (£27,000) was a little higher than the
average value for bank borrowings for all types of farm business (£24,000). As might be
expected overdrafts varied greatly between individual recipients, but were on average lower than
stated limits of overdraft facilities. Both overdrafts and overdraft facilities showed a close
relationship to farm size.
Grant recipients have many debts to creditors other than the bank
Yes. The analysis indicated a higher level of debt, on average, among grant recipients than
among farmers as a whole, notably to creditors other than the bank. There was, however,
appreciable variation, regionally and between the two sets of recipients. External liabilities were
less closely related to farm size, suggesting a much weaker relationship between assets and
liabilities than is effective through bank borrowing.
Farm debt is most acute on smaller farms.
Yes. Analysis of debt per unit area among ARC-Addington recipients provided evidence that, at
least in some regions, farm debt in relation to farm assets (ie land) is greater on smaller farms.
This confirms the conclusion of the earlier analysis of ARC-Addington data (ARC-Addington
Fund, 2001). Average debt per ha at regional level followed a pattern that very approximately
reflected land values.
Regional effects
As might be expected, grant recipients were concentrated in the predominantly livestock
production regions of the UK - the North West, the South West, Wales, Northern Ireland, and to
a lesser extent, the West Midlands. The distribution was less related to the incidence of FMD
than to the livestock movement restrictions to control it. The distribution of grant recipients in
21
England also showed some relationship to the wider pattern of rural deprivation, as indicated by
the IMD 2000. These factors are, in fact, related, as rural deprivation is higher in regions
containing more remote rural areas and, often by association, a predominance of livestock
rearing.
There were smaller numbers of grant recipients in the East, the South East, Yorkshire and the
Humber, the North East and the East Midlands. Livestock production is less frequent in these
regions. They are also relatively prosperous, at least the first three. Grant recipients are likely to
represent a ‘residue’ of smaller livestock producers, who are also suffering financial hardship.
With the exception of the North East, the proportion of tenanted land among grant recipients was
higher than average for grant recipients. In some ways, these farmers are likely to be even more
‘hidden’ or ‘forgotten’ than those in western England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This mirrors
the pockets of rural deprivation in these otherwise affluent regions identified by the Countryside
Agency (2000).
The individual regions of the UK are profiled in Tables 20 to 23, in terms of their ranks
according to the key characteristics examined in this study (all ranks are in ascending order with
the region with the smallest value for the variable ranked 1 and the region with the largest value
ranked 10 or 11).
22
Table 20
Rankings of regions according to numbers of grant recipients, and numbers of grant
recipients in relation to regional holding numbers
Region
RABI
ARC-Addington
Number As % livestock As % all
Number of
As % livestock As % all
recipients holdings (1999) holdings (1999) recipients
holdings (1999) holdings (1999)
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
3
1
4
8
2
7
6
5
9
3
2
10
9
1
6
7
4
8
3
1
9
10
2
6
5
4
8
10
5
7
3
1
4
9
2
11
7
6
10
5
8
Table 21
Rankings of regions according to family characteristics
RABI
%>65
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & The Humber
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
5
6
8
4
10
3
2
9
7
1
ARC-Addington
RABI
% pensionable age Dependent children
1
2
5
11
2
10
4
6
9
7
8
4
2
5
8
3
6
9
1
7
10
23
5
3
10
11
1
9
7
6
8
2
4
4
1
9
11
2
8
7
5
10
3
6
Table 22
Rankings of regions according to household financial characteristics of RABI recipients
Off-farm income % receiving state benefit
% with Amount Working families
tax credit
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & The Humber
Wales
Northern Ireland
8
2
6
10
8
7
4
4
3
1
5
2
4
10
7
8
9
6
3
1
Child
benefit
9
6
1
10
7
8
4
3
5
1
State
pension
9
7
6
10
8
5
3
2
4
1
9
8
5
10
7
3
2
1
6
3
Savings and
investments
Other % with
Amount
8
9
7
10
5
6
1
3
2
4
8
7
3
10
4
5
9
5
2
1
7
4
10
3
1
5
2
8
6
9
Table 23
Rankings of regions according to farm structure and farm business characteristics
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & The Humber
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Farm structure
RABI
ARC-Addington RABI
Area farmed Area farmed
% rented
land
4
9
8
10
2
5
3
7
6
1
5
10
7
8
4
3
2
9
6
11
1
6
10
5
8
7
4
3
9
2
1
24
Farm business
ARC-Addington RABI
ARC-Addington ARC-Addington
% rented land Overdraft External
Debt per ha
liabilities
8
9
5
4
9
3
6
7
1
11
2
5
8
10
7
2
4
3
9
6
1
5
4
11
10
6
7
3
2
8
9
1
8
11
3
7
9
10
6
4
5
2
1
Recommendations for further research
Further analysis
The analysis reported here was constrained by the time and resources available. It was not
feasible to follow up every possible line of enquiry. Effort was directed at those characteristics
and relationships, analysis of which was mostly likely to yield reliable and relevant results.
However, further interrogation of the existing sample would be possible. Areas for consideration
might include examining the relationship between assets and debt for individual recipients
and a more detailed exploration of similarities and differences between the two data sets. The
former would also encompass further study of the relationships between key variables and
farm area and farm business size. It may also be possible, though likely to be time consuming,
to identify those recipients that appear in both data sets, in order to establish the total
number of recipients and derive and analyse a unique sample.
Examining a wider range of other survey and census data may enable the characteristics of grant
recipients to be related to the wider farming population in more depth. This would help to
address with greater precision the extent to which recipients are indicative of a larger
community.
Increasing the sample
The samples drawn and data extracted represent, of course, only a small part of the data
available, and a larger sample could be drawn and analysed. A random sample across all
recipients of both charities seems unlikely to be of any great value, but a larger sample of
RABI recipients who applied using the second, more detailed, version of the form may
provide a more robust account of certain aspects of farm business and household finances,
which were only included in this latter form. However, it is uncertain whether or not what are
likely to be modest findings would merit the costs of such an exercise.
Filling the gaps
The application forms were not designed for research and left many gaps in accurately profiling
the recipient population, most notably in relation to household and farm business financial
situations. These gaps would be best filled via a postal and/or telephone questionnaire survey of
a sample of recipients, possibly with an interview follow up of a sub-set. A particular aim would
be to establish, more precisely, the condition of recipients’ farm businesses, as well as their
wider financial circumstances. This exercise could be combined with the validation and follow
up work proposed below.
Validation and follow-up
Some of the key findings of this analysis might be validated as part of a follow-up exercise
(possibly combined with the ‘gap plugging’ exercise proposed above). Verification of data and
validation of conclusions may be served by a postal or telephone questionnaire survey, again
with the possibility of interviewing a subset thereafter.
25
Follow-up enquiries designed to establish how grants were spent, whether or not recipients
felt they made a significant impact on their circumstances, and the present state of
recipients would enhance greatly the findings of this study as well as further inform the four
organisations’ future strategies.
A particularly important line of enquiry would be seek to validate the (tentative) conclusion
that many recipients qualify for certain state benefits, but are not claiming them. Were this
to prove the case, a priority for the charities will be to implement a scheme to raise awareness
and provide assistance in claiming state benefits, in collaboration with other agencies.
26
References
ACP/ASIM (2002) Effective Clinical Practice. Primer on 95% Confidence Intervals.
http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/sepoct01/primerci.htm.
ARC-Addington Fund (2001) Review: July 2001. Stoneleigh, Warwickshire: The Arthur Rank
Centre.
Burrell, A; Hill, B & Medland, J (1990) AGRIFACTS. A handbook of UK and EEC agricultural
and food statistics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Countryside Agency (2000) The State of the Countryside 2000. Regional reports (8 volumes).
Cheltenham: Countryside Agency.
Countryside Agency (2001) The State of the Countryside 2001. Cheltenham: Countryside
Agency.
DEFRA (2002a) Foot and Mouth Disease. Statistics on foot and mouth disease.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/cases/statistics/generalstats.asp.
DEFRA (2002b) Foot and Mouth Disease. Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/cases/statistics/lwdsstats.asp.
DEFRA (2002c) Foot and Mouth Disease. http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/.
DEFRA (2002d) Foot and Mouth Disease. Confirmed FMD Cases by County, Metropolitan
District and Unitary Authority Boundaries. http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/newcounties/
county.asp
DEFRA (2002e) Publications. June Agricultural Census. Agricultural Census statistics for the
UK 1999. 2. Regional and county data, 1999. http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/m_publications.htm.
DEFRA (2002f) Farm Incomes in the UK 1999/00. http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/m_
publications.htm.
DEFRA (2002g) June Census Analyses 2000 – England & Wales. http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/
m_ publications.htm.
DEFRA (2002h) Summary of UK food and farming. http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/m_
overview.htm.
DEFRA (2002i) Agricultural Census Statistics for the UK 1999. http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/
m_ publications.htm.
Farmers Weekly (2001) Farm crisis sparks rural brain-drain. Farmers Weekly Interactive, 2
November 2001. http://www.fwi.co.uk/live/news/fwi24698.html.
27
House of Commons (2000) Written answers to questions, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 20 Mar 2000 (pt 1), Column: 385W.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000320/text/0.
Lexecon (1994) Beyond Argument. http://www.lexecon.co.uk/publications/media/1994/beyond_
argument.pdf.
MAFF (1999) Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom, 1998/99. London: The Stationery Office.
NIST/SEMATECH (2002) Engineering statistics handbook. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/
handbook/index.htm.
28
Appendix
Supplementary tables
Table A1
Numbers of recipients of RABI grants and sample sizes, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
UK
Number of
recipients
230
61
332
1329
128
1322
666
344
4412
1641
1657
7710
Sample size
30
27
32
75
28
97
62
33
384
99
53
536
Sample as %
recipients
13.0
44.3
9.6
5.6
21.9
7.3
9.3
9.6
8.7
6.0
3.2
7.0
Table A2
Numbers of recipients of ARC-Addington grants and samples sizes, by region
Region
East Midlands
East
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
UK
Number of recipients
292
97
398
1932
125
2478
991
581
6894
2439
440
1150
10923
Sample size
30
30
36
174
30
223
89
52
664
220
40
104
1028
29
Sample as % recipients
10.3
30.9
9.0
9.0
24.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.6
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.4
Table A3
Samples sizes of individual variables for recipients of RABI grants, by region
Variable
Total recipients
Sample
Age of recipient
Dependent children
Other income
Value of answer EM E NE NW SE SW WM YH E
Years
Number
Declaring income
Y/N
Stating amount
£
State benefits
Working families tax credit Y/N
Child benefit
Y/N
State pension
Y/N
Other
Y/N
Savings
Declaring
Y/N
Stating amount
£
Household bills
£
Area farmed
ha
Stated tenure
Category
Farm business account Credit
£
Overdraft facility
£
Total liabilities
£
230
30
30
18
15
8
14
17
16
13
19
9
2
27
29
21
27
0
61
27
27
16
13
4
13
15
13
12
17
9
4
27
27
20
24
4
332 1329 128 1322 666 344
32
75 28
97 62 33
31
72 26
93 58 32
25
44 18
61 32 22
23
27 15
74 44 32
9
17
9
43 25 16
17
20 11
52 39 32
23
37 16
59 43 32
17
18 11
45 31 32
15
11 11
44 26 32
18
26 16
65 39 33
5
17
6
26 20 15
4
10
4
8
6
3
31
71 26
94 58 32
32
71 28
92 59 32
21
46 23
68 40 28
28
61 18
80 48 32
5
12
5
9
4
7
Table A4
Samples sizes of individual variables for recipients of ARC-Addington grants
Value of answer EM E NE NW SE SW WM YH E W S NI UK
292 97 398 1932 125 2478 991 581 6894 2439 440 1150 10923
Total recipients Number
Number
30 30 36 174 30 223 89 52 664 220 40 104 1028
Sample
30 27 39 179 28 346 89 52 790 220 40 104 1154
Area farmed ha
£
23 15 29 153 22 257 70 47 888 173 20 79 1160
Debt
30
W
NI
4412 1641 1657
384
99
53
369
97
48
236
62
35
243
67
51
131
28
15
198
56
51
242
69
51
183
58
51
164
53
51
233
60
51
107
20
1
41
7
0
366
95
52
370
98
52
267
68
31
318
86
43
46
9
2
UK
7710
536
514
333
361
174
305
362
292
268
344
128
48
513
520
366
447
57
RABI application form – Version 1
CONFIDENTIAL
ROYAL AGRICULTURAL BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION
Shaw House, 27 West Way, Oxford, OX2 0QH
Registered Charity no. 208858
Fax Number: 01865 202025
APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE CRISIS FUND
1.
PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT
Surname…………………………………. First names………………………………………...
Date of birth……………………………… Age on application………………………………...
Address…………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Postcode………………………..
Telephone no……………………………………………….
Have we helped you in the past?.................................................Please give date……………….
2.
PARTICULARS OF SPOUSE/PARTNER (indicate which is applicable)
Surname…………………………………. First names………………………………………...
Date of birth……………………………… Age on application………………………………...
3.
NUMBER OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN WHO NORMALLY LIVE WITH
YOU
Please give ages…………………………………………………………………………….
4.
Please give details of any other people who normally live with you
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
31
5.
FARMING DETAILS
a)
Is the farm owned or rented?....................................................................
b)
If owned, is there a mortgage or loan secured on the property? YES/NO
i) If YES please state how much…………………………..
c)
Please state how many acres are:
i) Rented…………………………………………….
ii) Owned……………………………………………
d)
Please give your holding no……………………………………………………………….
e)
Please give brief details including numbers of all livestock, crops and pasture
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
6.
OTHER INCOME
a)
Do you or your spouse partner have any other earned or unearned income
apart from the farm business?
YES/NO
If yes, please give brief details and approximate weekly amount.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
b)
Are you in receipt of any State Benefits?
Working Families’ Tax Credit
YES/NO
Child Benefit
YES/NO
State Pension
YES/NO
Any other Benefit (please specify)………………………………………………..
7.
SAVINGS
Do you or your partner have any savings or investments?
YES/NO
If yes, please give details…………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
32
8.
FARM BUSINESS ACCOUNT
How much money is there in the account?
£ CR………………………………...
£ DR………………………………...
If you have an overdraft facility, please state limit £……………………………………
9.
Have you contacted any other charitable organisations, e.g. The Addington Fund?
YES/NO
10.
PLEASE GIVE BRIEF DETAILS BELOW OF HOW THE FMD CRISIS IS
AFFECTING YOU PERSONALLY AND ANY OUTSTANDING DEBTS
YOU MAY HAVE:-
33
11.
If we can assist you, who should the cheque be made payable to?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
12.
REFEREE DETAILS
Please give full name, address, telephone number and occupation of someone who
will provide a reference; e.g. Accountant, Bank Manager, Minister of Religion, Vet,
GP, NFU/FUW official or another farmer. THIS MUST NOT BE A RELATIVE.
Please contact the person to ensure they are willing to provide a reference.
Name………………………………………………………………………………………..
Address…………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Postcode………………………..
Telephone no……………………………………….
Occupation (if retired please state former occupation)…………………………………
13.
DECLARATION
I………..……………………………………………………………………………………
Declare that the information given here is correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
Applicant’s signature……………………………………………………………………...
Date…………………………………………………………………………………………
(The information on this form may be entered on a computer)
34
RABI application form – Version 2
CONFIDENTIAL
ROYAL AGRICULTURAL BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION
Shaw House, 27 West Way, Oxford, OX2 0QH
Registered Charity no. 208858
Fax Number: 01865 202025
SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE CRISIS FUND
1.
PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT
Surname…………………………………. First names………………………………………...
Date of birth……………………………… Age on application………………………………...
Address…………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Postcode………………………..
Telephone no……………………………………………….
HOLDING NO…………………………………………………………………………………….
How much have you received from RABI to date?...................................................................
Please give date of assistance……………………………………………………………………..
Have you received any financial help from any other organisation e.g. The Addington
Fund? YES/NO
If yes, please state which organisation and how much you received…………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What is your acreage?.................................................................................................................
What stock do you have on the farm?....................................................................................…
Please describe present situation below
Signed………………………………………………………..Date……………………………….
35
RABI application form – Version 3
CONFIDENTIAL
ROYAL AGRICULTURAL BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION
Shaw House, 27 West Way, Oxford, OX2 0QH
Registered Charity no. 208858
Fax Number: 01865 202025
Office Telephone Number: 01865 724931
Helpline Telephone Number: 01865 727888
APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE
TO BE COMPLETED IN BLOCK CAPITALS
1.
PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT
Surname…………………………………. First names………………………………………...
Date of birth………………………………
Address…………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Postcode…………………………………. Telephone no……………………………………….
Have we helped you in the past?.............................Please give date(s)………………….
Amount of
Grant(s)………………..
Are you a farmer/farm employee? (please indicate which is applicable)
2.
PARTICULARS OF SPOUSE/PARTNER (please indicate which is applicable)
Surname…………………………………. First names………………………………………...
Date of birth………………………………
3.
NUMBER OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN WHO NORMALLY LIVE WITH YOU
Please give sex and ages…………………………………………………………………………...
4.
Please give details of any other people who normally live with you including their
contribution to the household
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.
FARMING DETAILS
a)
Is the farm owned or rented?…………………….
b)
If owned, is there a mortgage or loan secured on the property? YES/NO
c)
c) Please state how many acres are:
36
i) Rented ……………………………….
ii) Owned ………………………………
d)
Please give your Holding no. ……………………………………………………………..
e)
How many employees do you have? ……………………………………………………..
f)
What livestock do you have on the farm? Please give details including numbers and
ages of stock
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
g)
If livestock has been slaughtered due to FMD please give date, numbers, age and
types of livestock slaughtered
Date
FMD (Slaughter)
Type
Age
No.s
Date
Welfare (Slaughter)
Type
Age
No.s
h)
Date that restocking may start……………………………………………………………
i)
How much government compensation have you received or expecting to receive? (if
received please give date)…………………………………………………………………
Please give full details of acreages of all crops and pasture:
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
j)
Please give details of stocks held (e.g. hay/straw/silage/grain)
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
6.
SUBSIDIES – ANNUAL PAYMENTS
SOURCE
Arable Area Payments
Sheep Annual Premium
Beef Special Premium
Suckler Cow Premium
Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
Set Aside
Land Management Supplements
(Countryside Stewardship Scheme, Woodland
Grant, Farm Woodland Premium etc.)
Other
TOTAL PER YEAR
37
AMOUNT £
7.
FARM INCOME
SOURCE
Grain Sales per Year
Livestock Sales per Year
Machinery Sales per Year
Milk Sales per Year
Other per Year
AMOUNT £
TOTAL per Year
8.
FARM BUSINESS ACCOUNT
How much money is there in the account?
£ CREDIT………………………………….
£ DEBIT……………………………………
If you have an overdraft facility please state limit £…………………………………………….
9.
LIABILITIES
Amount owing to suppliers
Bank overdraft
Bank loan
Lease & HP agreements
Other (e.g. rental charges)
AMOUNT £
TOTAL
10.
PERSONAL FINANCIAL DETAILS
SELF
Savings/Capital
Bank, current a/c
Bank, deposit a/c
Building Society
National Savings
Stocks & Shares
Property (other than house lived in)
Other
TOTAL
38
SPOUSE/PARTNER
11.
OTHER INCOME
a)
Do you or your spouse/partner have any other earned or unearned income apart
from the farm business?
YES/NO
If yes, please give details and approximate monthly amount.
SOURCE……………………………………AMOUNT £……………………per month
SOURCE……………………………………AMOUNT £……………………per month
SOURCE……………………………………AMOUNT £……………………per month
b)
HOUSEHOLD/DOMESTIC DEBTS
Please list all bills with dates and amounts, if applicable, and send with application
form
Electricity
Gas
Water
Telephone
Council Tax
Other
c)
WEEKLY AMOUNT OF STATE BENEFITS
BENEFIT
Working Families’ Tax Credit
Child Benefit
State Pension
Council Tax Benefit
Housing Benefit
Other (please specify)
AMOUNT £
TOTAL
12.
Have you contacted any other charitable organisation e.g. The Addington Fund?
YES/NO
If yes, which organisations and how much assistance did you receive? ………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
39
a)
Have you received any financial/business advice? YES/NO……………………............
………………………………………………………………………………………………
b)
Membership of organisation i.e. NFU/WFU/CLA/TFA (please indicate as
applicable)
13.
PLEASE GIVE DETAILS BELOW OF YOUR REASONS FOR MAKING THIS
APPLICATION:
PLEASE TURN OVER
40
14.
If we can assist you, who should the cheque be made payable to?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
15.
REFEREE DETAILS
Please give full name, address, telephone number and occupation of someone who
will provide a reference; e.g. Accountant, Bank Manager, Minister of Religion, Vet,
GP, NFU/FUW official or another farmer. THIS MUST NOT BE A RELATIVE.
Please contact the person to ensure they are willing to provide a reference.
Name………………………………………………………………………………………..
Address…………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Postcode………………………………
Tel. no………………………………………
Occupation (if retired please state former occupation)…………………………………
16.
DECLARATION
I………..……………………………………………………………………………………
declare that the information given here is correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
Applicant’s signature……………………………………………………………………...
Date…………………………………………………………………………………………
(The information on this form may be entered on a computer)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE FORM SENT
SENT BY
Newhelplineform
01/07/01
41
ARC-Addington application form
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
ARC-ADDINGTON TRUST
APPLICATION FORM FOR FUNDING
Please complete as many details as possible so that the trustees can assess the help
required.
Fax completed form to 024 7669 6274 or e-mail to : [email protected]
NAME OF APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
CASE NUMBER
TEL.:
MOBILE:
NAME & ADDRESS OF REFEREE:
TEL.:
MOBILE:
NUMBER OF CHILDREN:
TYPE OF FARM:
ACREAGE:
OWNED:
DESCRIPTION OF LIVESTOCK SITUATION:
AGES:
TENANTED:
SPECIFIC PROBLEM:
LOANS SECURED AGAINST FARM:
OVERDRAFT SITUATION:
NEGOTIATIONS WITH BANK: YES/NO
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS: PERSONAL
BUSINESS:
INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES:
STATE BENEFITS OBTAINED/APPLIED FOR:
HELP REQUIRED FROM THE FUND:
IF A GRANT WAS PREVIOUSLY AWARDED PLEASE GIVE DATE:
ASSESSMENT:
HOW MUCH DO YOU RECOMMEND THE TRUST SHOULD GIVE:
HOW DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO BE PAID:
IF BY CHEQUE PLEASE GIVE NAME & ADDRESS OF PAYEE:
OTHER AGENCIES CONTACTED FOR HELP (RABI, etc.):
NB Families with disabled children can get help from: Family Fund Trust, PO Box 50, York. YO1 9XZ
Royal British legion may be able to give assistance to anyone who has served for more than a week in the
42
armed forces
If you would like a hard copy of the report, please contact the Farm Crisis Network office:
Farm Crisis Network
38 De Montfort Street
Leicester
LE1 7GP
Tel/Fax: 0116 255 0362
e-mail: [email protected]
www.farmcrisisnetwork.org.uk
Contact details for the partner organisations which together commissioned and sponsored
this report are as follows:
ARC-Addington Fund
National Agricultural Centre
Stoneleigh Park
Warwickshire
CV8 2LZ
Tel: 024 7669 0587
e-mail: [email protected]
Farm Crisis Network (FCN)
38 De Montfort Street
Leicester
LE1 7GP
Tel/Fax: 0116 255 0362
e-mail: [email protected]
www.farmcrisisnetwork.org.uk
Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RABI)
Shaw House
27 West Way
Oxford
OX2 0QH
Tel: 01865 724931
e-mail: [email protected]
www.rabi.org.uk
Rural Stress Information Network (RSIN)
Arthur Rank Centre
Stoneleigh Park
Warwickshire
CV8 2LZ
Tel: 024 7641 2916
e-mail: [email protected]
www.rsin.org.uk
43