Foreword Foreword © Nuffield Foundation 2023 100 St John Street London EC1M 4EH Registered charity: 206601 Annual report and financial statements 2022 T: + 44 (0) 20 7631 0566 E: info@nuffieldfoundation.org Twitter: @NuffieldFound LinkedIn: Search ’Nuffield Foundation’ Website: www.nuffieldfoundation.org I II ## Contents - 2 Chair’s foreword - 3 Chief Executive’s foreword - 4 Trustees’ report - 4 The year in numbers - 7 Objectives and activities - 8 2022 Highlights - 10 Impact - 11 Strategic goal one – research portfolio - 30 Strategic goal two – evidence, data and digital society - 39 Strategic goal three – profile and influence - 44 Strategic goal four – opportunities for young people - 47 Grants awarded in 2022 - 53 Future plans - 57 Diversity and inclusion 62 Financial review - 64 Principal risks - 66 Structure, governance and management 72 Independent auditor’s report - 76 Financial statements and notes 100 Reference and administrative details 1 III Foreword Foreword ## Chair’s foreword In 2023, the Nuffield Foundation will mark its 80th year. The world we live in would be almost unrecognisable to its founders – the transformation in technology and communications, the development of the internet and AI, a population that lives much longer than was the case in 1943, and a National Health Service which has become a valued part of the fabric of society. And yet some aspects of our society are more familiar than we might wish. The lives and opportunities of individuals and families still vary greatly, significantly impacted by income inequality, unemployment, poor health and insecure housing. Society is – now as then – being disrupted by accelerating political, economic, social and cultural challenges. And once again we have lived through a debilitating pandemic and seen conflict on the European continent, bringing with it a cost-of-living and energy crisis. We want to use this anniversary year to look forward and explore how we can revise our enduring mission to help shape the United Kingdom for the better over the next 20 years, as we continue towards our centenary. We will do so grateful for the vision of our founders who recognised the value of a high-quality and independent body working with others to support public benefit and address social disadvantage in a wide variety of areas from education and justice, to the economy, welfare and the rapidly changing world of work. Our aim is always to identify key areas where we can make a distinct difference, convening experts and practitioners, and funding research to influence policy and practice. We are committed to playing our part in the evergreen challenge of advancing social well-being in a more just and inclusive society. Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, as well as serving to undermine peace and security across the continent, has exacerbated the sense of growing insecurity in the UK that Nuffield-funded research has charted over recent years. Increased energy and food costs in turn led to the highest inflation rate in more than a decade, and a cost-of-living crisis especially for those with families in the most disadvantaged and vulnerable sections of society. The underlying trends behind these immediate crises have been starkly illuminated by two important Nuffield projects – the Institute of Fiscal Studies’ Deaton Review of Inequalities, led by Nobel Prize winning economist, Sir Angus Deaton, and the Resolution Foundation’s The Economy 2030 Inquiry. In addition, the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) programme has offered a powerful example of long-lasting impact born out of Nuffield-funded research that has been developed over more than a decade. Adopted by the Department of Education, as a response to the disruption and disadvantage revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, NELI is now used by more than 11,000 primary schools across England, benefiting thousands of young children in need of targeted support in basic language skills. The Nuffield Foundation is entrusted with its resources to make a difference for good. In the course of the year, we have awarded £13.7 million in grants. We have maintained our spending and commitment to our core areas of research across Education, Justice and Welfare. Our Nuffield research centres – the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory – have continued to thrive and their work has had direct impacts on public policy in the UK and beyond. We also helped pioneer a new Researchers at Risk programme with the British Academy, supporting Ukrainian academics who have been forced to leave their country and are unable to go home. Professor Sir Keith Burnett Chair ## Chief Executive’s foreword 2022 was the last year of our five-year strategy, in which time the Foundation has significantly scaled up its ambition, more than doubling its charitable spend. We have committed over £25 million on strategic projects, creating the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, and funding six definitional Strategic Fund grants. We have reinvigorated our Oliver Bird Fund, and the financial framework for 2023–2027 includes a further £8 million for work on the social determinants and implications of musculoskeletal disease. Our core grants portfolio has continued to grow, with over 200 active projects exemplifying our mission of enhancing social well-being for people and communities in a just and inclusive society. society faces in 2023 have changed and intensified since 2017. Thanks to the resilient management of our endowment, we can increase our regular research grants spend to £65 million over the next five years and will increase total spending by £30 million in the next five years. The Foundation has always had as a core concern the social and ethical implications of scientific advances as they increasingly impact on our lives. The perspectives of Ada and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, across bioscience and AI, provide an essential lens on the drivers of social inequality and inclusion in a digitally driven society. Our challenge is to match their agenda within our research grants portfolio. This year we brought together the findings of more than 90 projects we’ve funded over the past seven years into a major synthesis report: _The changing face of early childhood,_ connecting our research in Education, Welfare and Family Justice (and partnering with the Nuffield Trust in the chapter on the health of mothers and infants). This led to the Foundation’s early childhood lead, Carey Oppenheim, and Beverley Barnett-Jones, Associate Director of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, being appointed as advisors to the Princess of Wales and her Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood. Working closely with civil servants, parliamentarians and many other organisations in the field, it also has influenced the wider debate on childcare, contributing to new government commitments to bolster early years provision. We now have a unified leadership team that, working closely with our Trustees, brings together the rich intellectual capital within the organisation, connects it to the energy of our grant-holders and applicants, and represents and reflects all parts of the organisation. As we approach our 80th anniversary, we will look ahead to the next 20 years. How can we ensure that the Foundation is upstream of the developments that will shape our future, scanning the horizon and identifying new priorities? What makes us distinctive and how can we best add value to the UK’s research capacity? Our agenda is fast changing in an age of increasing insecurity; our core domains of interests – Education, Welfare and Justice – must take account of the challenges to a diverse and inclusive society, the significance of climate change, social geography and intersectionality. In all this, Nuffield’s research will remain rooted in the most rigorous analytical understanding of the data combined with the curiosity to encounter and listen to the experience of those whose lives make up this data. This is the foundation of our authority and purpose. Our three centres have each demonstrated their direct influence on policy and practice. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has been asked by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out an independent review of the management of disagreements in the care of critically ill children. The Ada Lovelace Institute has engaged with EU institutions and other stakeholders to inform the legislative development of the EU AI Act. The Institute has also submitted evidence to the UK government on AI regulation and is engaging with the UK’s recently published policy proposals. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory has highlighted the use of deprivation of liberty orders on vulnerable children in the family courts system. We will now refresh our strategy for the five years ahead, recognising that the challenges Tim Gardam Chief Executive 2 3 The year in numbers The year in numbers ## The year in numbers (down from Charitable expenditure £28.5m of £23.2 million in 2022 in 2021) **----- Start of picture text -----**
Restricted and
other funds
£1.6m
Strategic
and other funds
£4.3m
Research,
development
Hosted centres
and analysis
£5.1m
£12.2m
**----- End of picture text -----**
Current portfolio of research, development and analysis grants 207 research, development and analysis projects with a total value of £37m Total value of research grants being managed at the end of 2022 Split by domain (including Strategic Fund) Welfare (inc. Oliver Bird Fund) £12.8m (64 projects) Strategic Education Justice Fund and £9.4m £4.9m Understanding (83 projects) (47 projects) Communities £9.8m (13 projects) Who do we fund? Most of our charitable expenditure comprises grant awards. £13.7m Total value of grants awarded 53 new projects funded 22 projects that received additional funding * Our Oliver Bird Fund is a restricted fund for improving the lives of people living with musculoskeletal conditions. Applicants submit a short outline application and those that meet our criteria are invited to submit a full application, which is subject to independent peer review and considered by Trustees. 414 81 outline applications full applications invited received and considered Universities (172 projects) Research / policy institutions (24 projects) Charities and voluntary organisations (11 projects) **4** **5** Objectives and activities The year in numbers ## Objectives and activities ## Communications and engagement Across the Nuffield Foundation, the Ada Lovelace Institute, the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, we: Nuffield Future Researchers convened ## 63 events attended by more than 5,000 people 1,021 students were placed had 668,443 visits ## 94% of students were satisfied with their Nuffield Future Researchers experience to our websites were referenced in broadcast, print and online media 7,438 times increased our Twitter following by an average of 9% across our accounts to 49,757 followers The Nuffield Foundation is an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance educational opportunity and social well-being in the UK. We are home to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (Nuffield FJO) and the Ada Lovelace Institute (Ada). Our aim, across all our activities, is to improve lives for people, families and communities within a just and inclusive society. Our work addresses the inequalities, disadvantage and vulnerabilities people face in Education, Welfare and Justice, and considers the social and ethical implications of science and digital technologies for people and society. In order to achieve our goal, we: We assess our success against our aims and objectives by: - Identify and explore interconnected and complex trends that shape society. - Developing a success framework, which we are using to undertake an evaluation of our 2017–2022 strategy and will embed throughout the Foundation for ongoing evaluation. - Support rigorous research and analysis to build the evidence base and improve understanding. - Convene, connect and listen to diverse perspectives to foster informed debate and bring evidence to inform policy and practice to achieve meaningful change. - Undertaking internal reviews of work funded within our core domains of Education, Welfare and Justice to assess their value and impact as a body of work and inform development of new research priorities. - Develop people and skills to strengthen capacity. - Analysis of our grant-holders’ evaluations of their projects. This helps us shape our funding criteria and improve the service we provide. - Commission independent evaluations of areas of our work. For example, evaluations of Ada and the Nuffield FJO were completed in 2021, and an independent evaluation of our student programme Q-Step will report in 2022. - Identifying our target audiences and measuring reach, engagement and impact. **6** **7** 2022 Highlights 2022 Highlights ## 2022 Highlights - Our _Changing face of early childhood_ project took place over three years and culminated in 2022 with a landmark conference and the publication of the final report _Bringing up the next generation: From policy to research practice_ . It brings together all the evidence and provides a holistic account of the experience of contemporary childhood. The report contains a wide range of policy recommendations drawn from the research and engagement across the series. - The 2022 Green Budget was particularly important because the government did not ask the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) to conduct their own impact assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget. The IFS’s independent analysis was crucial in filling the void left by no OBR report, and in challenging the Chancellor’s promises of large permanent tax cuts. - The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory conducted research into young people deprived of their liberty and found a 462% increase in the use of this special high court measure over three years. The findings led to the President of the Family Division announcing the creation of a national court to oversee all deprivation of liberty cases and inviting the Nuffield FJO to gather evidence from them. - The Nuffield Council on Bioethics were delighted to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care as an independent, inclusive and trusted organisation to carry out an important review of the causes of disagreements in the care of critically ill children. - _Stagnation nation_ shone a spotlight on high inequality and slow growth in the UK. It argued that the lack of a coherent economic strategy that addressed the challenges in the 2020s contributed to the decline. This interim report from The Economy 2030 Inquiry engaged influential national and local policymakers, received significant coverage in the media, and brought in new audiences through a regional events programme. The final publication is due in summer 2023. Economy 2030 is backed by our Strategic Fund. - The Nuffield Foundation was proud to help fund a new Researchers at Risk Fellowship Programme for Ukrainian researchers who have left the country and those already in the UK who are unable to return home. The programme is led by the British Academy. It received £3 million of government money and the Foundation contributed £518,000. - _When is a wedding not a marriage? Exploring non-legally binding ceremonies_ found that the current law on weddings seemed too limited and restrictive for the diverse needs of contemporary society. Its findings directly informed the work of the Law Commission for England & Wales in producing recommendations for the reform of weddings law, featuring prominently in the Commission’s report _Celebrating marriage: A new weddings law_ . - Ada’s report, _Who cares what the public think?_ , has informed a regular meeting of policy and civil society stakeholders, and the Information Commissioner’s Office asked Ada to reconvene the long-form public deliberation Citizens’ Biometrics Council to review its proposals for biometrics governance. - Studies into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people and teachers were published. Disadvantaged pupils at key stage 4 and in the 16–19 phase fell further behind in 2021, and research into the impact of the disruption on primary school attainment provided valuable evidence on loss of learning across England. It was also found that work-related anxiety of headteachers increased substantially during the pandemic. 8 9 Strategic goal one Impact ## Impact ## Strategic goal one – research portfolio We want the work we do to make a positive difference to people’s lives. Over the past year, we have been thinking more about the impact of our research and engagement. We have been working to improve our understanding of the impact we have already had, how we can best measure this, and what we need to do next to increase the difference we can make. ## Developing our thinking on impact ‘Impact’ to us means helping to create positive change that contributes to the Foundation’s overall goal of improving social well-being. We recognise that impact can take time, may be indirect, and will always involve collaboration with others. Over the past year we have sharpened our focus in this area, hiring a dedicated Impact Manager and developing how we understand, communicate and measure our impact. We have also explored new ways of collecting data that might help us understand what has been achieved as a result of our work. We are now working on how we can best communicate our expectations to grant-holders and partners. Measuring the true impact we may have had on social well-being is difficult, so we have focused on measuring interim outcomes and impacts, such as effects on government policy, shifts in public opinion, changes to practice or guidance, and notable contributions to debates around important societal issues. These outcomes are valuable, even if we cannot always definitively link them to longer-term impact on social well-being. Some of the ways we work towards these outcomes are captured in our success framework. ## What impact have we had? The annual report contains many examples of a wide range of different impacts we had in 2022. For example: - Our funded research has, in some cases, directly contributed to changes in policy or legislation, with positive implications for social well-being. - A significant proportion of our funded research has influenced debate at a national level, and provided evidence to inform better public understanding of important policy issues. - Our centres are highly focused and able to address important current issues in ways that have helped shape policy and practice. We see some common factors that contribute to this success. For example, impact may be greater when researchers work with policymakers or practitioners to help shape research. ## Next stage In 2022 we reviewed our progress since the launch of our five-year strategy in 2017. This will help to inform the creation of a new strategy which we expect will include a greater focus on impact and the difference we want to make. We will also be revising the way we communicate about impact, and exploring how we can best collect and use data to help us understand our impact. We fund research that advances educational opportunity and social well-being across the United Kingdom. We will shape our research portfolio by bringing together researchers and users of research to identify the larger questions in our core areas of Education, Welfare and Justice. ## Education Through the research that we fund, we want to understand the foundations and pathways of a just and inclusive society, and the restrictions to achieving it. We are open to original research projects that seek to address inequalities and disadvantage, and have the potential to make life better for people, families and communities. Within our Education domain, our objective is to identify ways to improve educational outcomes – across all life stages – through policy change and approaches to teaching and learning that are grounded in robust evidence. We also want to understand wider influences on education and skills, such as the role of families and socio-economic context. We are an open, collaborative and engaged funder that offers more than just money. We work with our grant-holders and the wider research, policy and practice communities to identify and explore the complex trends shaping our society, and to convene diverse perspectives to foster informed debate. Key Education outputs published in 2022 During 2022 we made £13.1 million of new research grant commitments in our core domains of Education, Welfare and Justice, including £4 million from our Strategic Fund, the Understanding Communities work and the Oliver Bird Fund. A full list of grants awarded can be found on pages 47–52. What: The impact of a dialogic book-sharing training programme on child cognitive and socio-emotional development: A randomised controlled trial within UK Children’s Centres Who: Professor Lynne Murray, University of Reading Headline findings: Book-sharing training had substantial benefits on parental behaviour, especially for sensitivity and cognitive scaffolding, but gains in child development were more limited. In this section, we report on each of our core domains, including highlights from research outputs published and examples of policy and practice impact. We also report on the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 10 11 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one What: Analysis of the reach and impact of private sector childcare in England Who: Antonia Simon, University College London Headline findings: The private-for-profit childcare market is large and growing, buying up smaller nurseries but is not always creating more childcare places or investing in staff. Some large private-for-profit providers are heavily indebted with little to no financial reserves, which could put childcare provision at risk. What: Common elements: An innovative approach to improving children’s outcomes in early childhood education Who: Dr Aleisha Clarke, Early Intervention Foundation Headline findings: This project produced _The early years library,_ which helps early childhood education staff support children’s development and essential skills. It describes the key skills relating to cognitive and socialemotional development and provides a set of strategies and activities to use. What: Can maths apps add value to learning? A systematic review and content analysis Who: Dr Laura Outhwaite, University College London Headline findings: The top 25 maths apps for under-fives do not reflect best practices on how children learn and develop their early mathematical skills. The report also highlights the lack of governance and regulation for ‘educational’ apps. What: Contemporary fathers in the UK (2019–2023) Who: Adrienne Burgess, The Fatherhood Institute Headline findings: The pandemic showed the importance of childcare for both children and parents. To strengthen the childcare system, funding should be increased, local authorities need to be given more power to meet the needs of families and more support is needed for childcare providers. What: Strengthening the English childcare system after Covid-19: A new role for local government Who: Jane Lewis, Centre for Evidence and Implementation Headline findings: The pandemic showed the importance of childcare for both children and parents. To strengthen the childcare system, funding should be increased, local authorities need to be given more power to meet the needs of families and more support is needed for childcare providers. What: English grammar teaching in primary schools: Assessing the efficacy of Englicious Who: Professor Dominic Wyse, University College London Headline findings: The research assessed the impact of Englicious, a grammar teaching intervention. Results showed encouraging results for generating sentences, but no statistically significant improvement in children’s narrative writing. What: The SWAN game-based approach to learning foundational number language: A feasibility study Who: Professor Chris Donlan, University College London Headline findings: This feasibility study demonstrated that the SWAN app has potential as an intervention to enhance numeracy for people with aphasia and potentially also for children with developmental language disorders. What: A guide to the use of practical tasks and manipulatives in the teaching of fractions and decimals with children aged 3 to 11 Who: Professor Rose Griffiths, University of Leicester Headline findings: A textbook, _Making fractions_ , and free online materials for teachers have been developed and published by Oxford University Press. These research-informed materials will support effective teaching of fractions and decimals in primary schools. What: ‘Intractable’ schools: Can an Ofsted judgment prevent sustainable improvement? Who: Dr Bernardita Munoz-Chereau, University College London Headline findings: Schools receiving a series of below good Ofsted grades often enter a cycle of challenging circumstances such as increased teacher turnover and more disadvantaged pupils. This makes it harder to improve the school and reverse the negative rating. What: Comparisons of cognitive skills and educational attainment across the UK Who: Luke Sibieta, Education Policy Institute Headline findings: The development of children’s outcomes differs across the UK nations, but the picture is not simple. Reading is a particular problem in Wales and the disadvantage gap is particularly pronounced. Maths and numeracy is worse in Scotland. Pupils in Northern Ireland lead on most measures. What: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of covid on pupil attainment and wellbeing Who: Katie Blainey, Hodder Education Headline findings: RS Assessment data showed that while COVID-19 had detrimental effects on primary children’s outcomes in spring 2021, attainment had recovered significantly but not completely by spring 2022; children in Year 1 and 2 need attention. The pandemic eroded well-being, particularly for children in Year 3. What: The health of teachers in England over the past 25 years Who: John Jerrim, University College London Headline findings: Work-related anxiety of headteachers increased substantially throughout the pandemic, more than junior staff. Providing live online lessons and working longer hours were associated with higher anxiety. What: Covid-19 and disadvantage gaps in England 2020 and 2021 Who: Emily Hunt, Education Policy Institute Headline findings: In 2020, the disadvantage grade gap widened in the 16–19 phase but was broadly stable for GCSE students. In 2021, the grade gap widened for disadvantaged students in both phases, reversing progress over the past decade. What: Education spending (including annual report) Who: Luke Sibieta, Institute of Fiscal Studies Headline findings: _Annual report on education spending in England 2022_ Total spending on education in the UK has fallen by 8% since 2010/11 and is now 4.4% of national income. _The changing cost of childcare_ England remains expensive for childcare, possibly due to staff-to-child ratios which are tight compared with most European countries. While there is a wide range of government support for early education and childcare, take-up rates differ widely. What: Teacher supply, shortages and working conditions in England and Wales Who: Jack Worth, National Foundation for Educational Research Headline findings: Teacher-supply challenges have returned post-Covid. A range of secondary subjects are unlikely to meet recruitment targets and retention levels are rising to pre-Covid levels. Teacher real-terms pay in 2020/21 was 7–9% below 2010/11. Teachers work longer hours than similar professions. What: Educational choices at 16 – 19 and university outcomes Who: Dr Catherine Dilnot, Oxford Brookes University Headline findings: BTEC-only students were twice as likely to drop out of university compared with A level-only students with comparable GCSE qualifications and characteristics. Graduates with only BTECs 12 13 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one were 1.4 times as likely to graduate below a 2:1 than similar students with only A levels. What: Post-16 educational trajectories and social inequalities in political engagement Who: Dr Germ Janmaat, University College London Headline findings: There is an increasing gender gap in political interest between ages 16 and 30. Girls are less likely than boys to be interested in politics by 16, and their political interest grows more slowly between 16 and 30. What: ‘First in family’: Higher education choices and labour market outcomes Who: Dr Morag Henderson, Centre for Longitudinal Studies Headline findings: Having non-graduate parents was a significant barrier to university participation and graduation, even after controlling for other disadvantages. ‘First in family’ status could be key in efforts to widen participation through contextualised admissions and early interventions. What: The skills imperative 2035: Essential skills for tomorrow’s workforce Who: Jude Hillary, National Foundation for Educational Research Headline findings: The project published two working papers in 2022: _The skills imperative 2035: What does the literature tell us about essential skills most needed for work?_ As a result of megatrends and the changing labour market, essential skills such as problem-solving/decision-making, critical thinking/analysis, communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation will be in high demand in the next 15 years and beyond. _Occupational outlook – Long-run employment prospects for the UK_ Brexit and the pandemic caused the economy to contract sharply. It will recover in the medium term with output projected to grow modestly over the next 15 years. 2.6 million new jobs are predicted by 2035, the majority of which will be taken by women. While the adoption of new technologies will lead to some job losses, there will be many new opportunities too. Employment in the Health industry is projected to increase the fastest in all scenarios but most of the new jobs created by 2035 will be in Professional and Associate Professional occupations, with the workforce projected to become increasingly well qualified. What: Why have universities transformed their staffing practices? An investigation of changing resource allocation and priorities in higher education Who: Professor Alison Wolf, CBE, King’s College London Headline findings: Over the last two decades, universities have increased the proportion of ‘teaching-only’ staff and non-academic staff, while technicians and administrative support for academics have declined. Professional services and approval of academic posts have become more centralised. ## Policy and practice impact of Education projects ## Greater understanding of the differences in education between the four nations of the UK Research by Luke Sibieta at the Education Policy Institute explored how policy has diverged across the four UK nations, how cognitive skills evolve differently and when gaps emerge. The findings achieved significant and clear policy impact with regard to catch-up funding and the disadvantage gap. The analysis on catch-up spending across the four nations was widely reported and shared across print/social media, and helped drive a higher level of catch-up spending and more focus on disadvantaged pupils. For example, the First Minister of Scotland was asked directly about the findings at a press conference and indicated a need to consider further spending. The research team had significant levels of contact with the Welsh Government, and the findings were quoted when they announced extra spending. The Foundation funded Professor Rose Griffiths at the University of Leicester to develop a new textbook for teachers to improve the teaching of fractions and decimals for children aged three to 11. _Making fractions_ was published by Oxford University Press. It provides a wealth of engaging activities which support investigation and problem-solving and build children’s confidence and fluency. The team also engaged with the Welsh Government on the level of the disadvantage gap in Wales before the release of the main report. In summer 2022 the Minister for Education acknowledged that progress in this area had been disappointing, and launched a major initiative to reduce the gap. The project followed previous research by Professor Griffiths into the teaching of arithmetic using manipulatives, also funded by us. Influencing post-16 qualifications reform in England New textbook published to improve the teaching of fractions and decimals Research led by Dr Catherine Dilnot at Oxford Brookes University into the Fractions and decimals have long been recognised as tricky to teach. 14 15 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one relationship between qualification and subject choices at 16–19 years old and university outcomes is informing a policy review of Level 3 qualifications which aims to streamline the qualification routes available. The research found that BTEC qualifications have been instrumental in widening access to university, with one in four students entering with BTECs. The overwhelming majority of university students with BTEC qualifications successfully complete their degrees, although they typically have lower success at university compared to students with A levels. The research recommends greater support for students entering university via BTECs and identifies a need for further research to understand the reasons for variation in university outcomes. ## Improving support for new fathers A new evidence review was carried out by Adrienne Burgess at The Fatherhood Institute. It looked at a body of almost 800 pieces of research exploring fathers and fatherhood in the first year of their child’s birth. The review included many studies based on the UK’s three largescale birth cohort studies, which track children’s outcomes over decades, and identified the almost universal presence of biological fathers at the time of birth. The review made policy, practice and research recommendations about father inclusion. The results influenced a new toolkit developed by the Royal College of Midwives and NHS England guidance, differentiating fathers from visitors. Findings are influencing the development of the UK’s latest large-scale longitudinal studies. ## Informing the debate on teacher workforce Research led by Jack Worth at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) provided an in-depth analysis of the teacher workforce, including trends and patterns in recruitment, retention, pay, workload and well-being. The research also identified how schools adapt to staff shortages, including using non-specialist staff and school leaders delivering more lessons. The results have informed the public debate on teacher pay with particular attention given to the subject areas that are least well-staffed. Access to the data has been widened through the creation of an interactive data dashboard. ## Supporting early years language development More than 11,000 primary schools across England are now using the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI). In the 2021/22 academic year NELI proved to be particularly helpful for around 90,000 fourand five-year-olds affected by the COVID-19 pandemic who needed to catch up on vital speech, language and communication skills. NELI was developed with funding from the Foundation, and is now funded by the Department for Education (DfE). For the academic year of 2022/23, DfE agreed to continue to support schools already signed up. They also promoted the programme to unregistered schools serving large numbers of disadvantaged pupils or which are located in Education Investment Areas, to encourage them to use NELI. Delivered over 20 weeks, NELI involves scripted individual and small-group language sessions delivered by trained teaching staff to Reception-age children who need targeted language support. More than 20,000 staff have received online training. Findings from the most recent large-scale trial of NELI by the Education Endowment Foundation found that children made an extra three months of additional progress in their oral language skills compared to children who were not on the programme. ## Key Welfare and Oliver Bird Fund outputs published in 2022 ## Welfare Within our Welfare domain, our objective is to improve people’s lives by understanding how their well-being is affected by different social and economic factors. We want to understand the ways in which some people and groups are potentially vulnerable to adverse outcomes, and to identify how those risks can be mitigated or channelled more positively. What: Fertility impacts of the two-child limit Who: Professor Jonathan Portes, King’s College London Headline findings: The two-child limit has done little to reduce birth rates and will increase child poverty by depriving families on low incomes of £3,000 per year. What: How UK welfare reform affects larger families ## Improving the well-being of people living with musculoskeletal conditions Who: Dr Ruth Patrick, University of York Headline findings: There are several mismatches between the policy presentation and lived realities of the two-child limit. It’s vital to continue monitoring the impact it has, due to the harms it causes, and its status as an internationally unusual and significant policy. Our call for applications for research to improve the social and economic well-being of people living with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions produced a strong response. During 2022 we worked in close partnership with Versus Arthritis to assess applications, and instigated an expert panel to make recommendations for awards. With Versus Arthritis’s support, we were able to involve people with lived experience of MSK conditions at all stages of the assessment process, benefiting significantly from their contribution. The two-child limit and benefit cap cause severe immediate hardship for affected families. They should be removed as a priority by any government committed to addressing child poverty. What: COVID-19 and school availability: Impact on parental labour supply and well-being Who: Professor Birgitta Rabe, University of Essex Six awards, totalling £1.9 million of funding, were made in November 2022 to projects that are aiming to inform policy and practice interventions, particularly in relation to the quality of working lives. People with MSK conditions will continue to advise across the duration of the projects, to ensure that they have a basis in real life experience. Headline findings: Children’s social and emotional well-being was lower during the pandemic when compared with previous years. The scale of the fall was similar to the magnitude observed for parents’ mental health. The living standards of most workers have been hit hard, risking the creation of intergenerational inequalities and threatening social mobility. 16 17 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one What: Caregiving dads, breadwinning mums: Transforming gender in work and childcare? Who: Professor Ruth Gaunt, University of Lincoln Headline findings: For most couples gendered state policies around Paternity and Maternity leave their choices severely restricted, steering them into a traditional division of childcare during their baby’s first months. ## What: Covid realities Who: Dr Ruth Patrick, University of York Headline findings: The pandemic exposed and exacerbated problems with the UK’s welfare system. The report, documenting the everyday experiences of families with children living on a low income, said the social security system is unfit for purpose and called for urgent reforms to protect low-income families. What: Vulnerability, migration and well-being Who: Dr Laurence Lessard-Phillips, University of Birmingham Headline findings: Migrants at risk of vulnerability, including undocumented migrants and asylum seekers, living in the UK may have little or no access to healthcare – creating a major threat to their well-being. What: Women in multiple low-paid employment: Juggling time and money Who: Louise Lawson, University of Glasgow Headline findings: Approximately 3% of working-age women in the UK were in multiple low-paid employment (MLPE) in 2019, but the real figure is probably higher as not all women’s paid work will be captured in official data sources. Zero-hours contracts were more common for this group, and there was evidence of earning below the minimum wage. What: Tracking the psychological and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic across the UK population Who: Dr Daisy Fancourt, University College London Headline findings: Standout findings from the final report of the COVID-19 social study included: people struggling financially before the pandemic were more than 10 times as likely to be worse off financially during the pandemic; rates of thoughts of death or selfharm hovered around 20% for young adults; women more than men carried a heavy psychological burden; pregnant women faced challenges receiving support and care; and people with mental health or physical conditions at the start of the pandemic consistently had worse mental health, as did key workers and people with long Covid. What: The IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities Who: Professor Sir Richard Blundell, Institute for Fiscal Studies Headline findings: The review published a number of chapters in 2022: ## _Labour market inequality_ Chronic lack of real wage growth has blighted the UK since the financial crisis. Many lowestearning employees have bucked that trend due to the minimum wage, but the growing numbers of self-employed are not covered by the minimum wage. The living standards of most workers have been hit hard, risking the creation of intergenerational inequalities and threatening social mobility. There is a need to boost the wage growth of middle earners and low earners in non-traditional employment. ## _Families and inequalities_ Parental financial resources, mental health and relationships and the quality of parenting create disparities between families. These have repercussions for children’s development and their life chances. The UK is far from equal with regard to children’s opportunities and futures. Mitigating the intergenerational transmission of vulnerability both in the short and long term is crucial for improving economic, social and mental well-being. This will involve the implementation and delivery of long-term multifaceted policies that are not subject to the vagaries of changes in government. ## _Early childhood inequalities_ Despite unprecedented public investments over the last 20 years, disparities in early child development remain high. Little progress has been gained between children born in the early 2000s and the early 2010s. The majority of funding is directed towards childcare rather than the family home, where the majority of challenges to development occur. This highlights the need for a more integrated approach that lays strong foundations for families. ## _Education inequalities_ The education system is still failing to bridge the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their better-off classmates. This issue has been intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, which seems to have impacted the attainment of primary school children from lower-income families twice as much as their peers. The report also found that the existing structure of formal learning leaves children who are struggling at school with limited opportunities for further education, resulting in restricted social mobility and outcomes in life. ## _Race and ethnicity_ Ethnic inequalities are complex and characterised simultaneously by continuity rooted in historical origins and conditions, and rapid change fuelled by new and changing populations and opportunities. The UK’s diverse minority ethnic groups were established at different times, and those who immigrated came from different countries and cultures, and were equipped with different levels of educational and human capital. These groups now show varied fortunes. Some are characterised by high levels of average qualifications, income and wealth, while others are persistently disadvantaged, faced with elevated levels of poverty and unemployment. What: Stagnation nation: Navigating a route to a fairer and more prosperous Britain – The interim report of The Economy 2030 inquiry Who: Torsten Bell, Resolution Foundation Headline findings: Britain’s toxic combination of low growth and high inequality has left it trailing behind comparable countries, with disastrous consequences for low- and middle-income households. The UK’s productivity gap with France and Germany has almost tripled since 2008 to 16% – an extra £3,700 in lost output per person. Low growth is reflected in pay packets. Before the financial crisis, from 1970 to 2007, wages grew by an average of 33% a decade. Since then, pay growth has fallen below zero and the poorest fifth of households are now over 20% poorer than their French and German equivalents. The report highlights the need for a renewed economic strategy to successfully navigate the decade ahead, one that recognises the UK as a services superpower, that has firms investing in their people, that is serious about levelling up, the quality and fairness of jobs and wages, and about taxes. Recommendations from The Economy 2030 Inquiry will follow in 2023. ## What: IFS Green Budget 2022 Who: Paul Johnson, IFS Headline findings: The report was published ahead of Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget. It showed that a combination of a weaker outlook for the economy and substantial tax cuts will lead to more borrowing and more debt, with spending on debt interest, state pensions and most working-age benefits pushed up by inflation. It predicted that making plans underpinned by the idea that headline tax cuts will deliver a sustained boost to growth would be a gamble at best. 18 19 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one What: Changing the story of dietary inequality _Immigration policy and food insecurity in the UK_ This briefing on families without recourse to public funds focused on the impacts of access to sufficient and appropriate food. Food is less important than other challenges such as navigating the immigration system, poverty and poor-quality housing. Who: Anna Taylor, Food Foundation Headline findings: ## _Broken plate 2022_ The poorest fifth of UK households have to spend 43% of their disposable income to follow the government-recommended healthy diet. This compares to 10% for the richest fifth. More healthy foods are nearly three times as expensive per calorie as less healthy foods. _Food insecurity tracking survey_ The survey assesses the impact of food insecurity in the UK. It focuses on families with children, ethnic groups, people with disabilities and people on benefits. Three surveys were carried out in 2022. In September, 26% of households with children had experienced food insecurity in the previous month, affecting an estimated 4 million children. _The superpowers of Free School Meals: Evidence pack_ This presents key data and evidence on Free School Meals (FSM) gathered from a range of independent sources. It sets out the case to policymakers that investment in FSM makes sense socially, morally and economically. What: The impact of musculoskeletal conditions on outcomes of other illnesses Who: Dr Michelle Marshall, Keele University Headline findings: Patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) painful conditions are at more risk of worse outcomes from other illnesses than patients without MSK pain. However, after taking into account characteristics such as age and number of medicines prescribed, MSK pain was not generally independently associated with poor outcomes. This project was supported by the Oliver Bird Fund. What: Older people in England: The geography of challenges and opportunities Who: Dr Les Dolega, University of Liverpool Headline findings: The Ageing in Place Classification (AiPC) uses a wide range of attributes of older people’s sociodemographic characteristics and their living environment for small geographical areas to create an openly available mapping tool for England. Policy and practice impact of Welfare projects What: Rural assets: Policy and practice insights from the devolved nations Who: Dr Danielle Hutcheon, Glasgow Caledonian University Headline findings: The research found that community empowerment legislation matters but needs to be coupled with practical and financial resources for implementation and longer-term support. ## Shaping economic policy The Resolution Foundation’s The Economy 2030 Inquiry publication, _Stagnation nation_ , highlighted how the UK is over a decade into a period of stagnation and began to plot a route to how Britain may recover from the pandemic, adjust to exiting the EU and transition towards a net zero future. Findings attracted major media coverage and events were held in London, Birmingham, Swansea, Manchester and Belfast. What: Living with data: Knowledge, experiences and perceptions of data practices Who: Professor Helen Kennedy, University of Sheffield Headline findings: Inequalities play a role in people’s views about what happens to their personal data, so there is no single public view. However, there is widespread concern about data uses reinforcing inequalities. The IFS Green Budget has been supported by the Nuffield Foundation for the past 10 years. Each year it provides a comprehensive independent assessment of the public finances and the key economic questions and policy options. This year’s outputs came in a period of rising inflation, growing national debt and intense pressure on government services. The IFS Green Budget was central in informing national debate. Most of the measures were subsequently reversed, the Chancellor was replaced and the Prime Minister resigned. 20 21 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one A mini-budget in September announced the biggest package of tax cuts in 50 years but was published without accompanying analysis from the Office of Budget Responsibility. The Green Budget was central in informing national debate. Most of the measures were subsequently reversed, the Chancellor was replaced and the Prime Minister resigned. Research by Professor Jonathan Portes at University College London showed that the two-child limit under Universal Credit is having very limited impacts on overall fertility. It focused media and parliamentary attention on both the specific outcomes of the study and the broader implications for child poverty. To maximise its impact, the findings were integrated with other Foundation-funded work by Dr Ruth Patrick at the University of York, which explores how UK welfare reform affects larger families. ## Race, ethnicity and intersectionality A number of our funded projects highlighted issues of inequality, division and discrimination related to race and ethnicity. As part of the _Beyond Us and Them study of social cohesion during COVID-19_ , researchers led by Professor Dominic Abrams at the University of Kent surveyed public perceptions of prejudice, as well as experiences of discrimination and intergroup contact. It found that four-fifths of Black and three-quarters of Muslim respondents reported having experienced some form of discrimination in the last month. There were stark findings from research by a team led by Professor Laia Becares at King’s College London. They conducted analysis that revealed the severe, cumulative and enduring negative effects of experiencing racism on people’s mental and physical health across different age groups. _Beyond Us and Them – Societal cohesion in Britain through eighteen months of_ _COVID-19_ , by Professor Dominic Abrams at the University of Kent, also highlighted the intersectional nature of people’s experiences: for example, younger female respondents reported experiencing the highest levels of discrimination, suggesting that vulnerability is compounded by each protected characteristic a person has. The IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities similarly emphasised the need for research and policy on race and ethnicity to consider less-explored intersectional contours of difference, including gender, geography and class, as well as the contrasting stories of advantage and disadvantage that apply to different minoritised groups. It also highlighted persistent and prevalent ethnic discrimination in hiring practices, as well as unexplained wage penalties for some racial groups. ## Gender, work and care Juggling work and family life is a feature of many people’s lives, but the intersections between work and care, and the implications for individual and family well-being, are relatively under-researched. Nuffield Foundation-funded research is changing this. Our _Changing face of early childhood_ series highlighted that combining paid work and childcare has become the norm for mothers with young children and calls for a step change to enable mothers and fathers to balance work and care. _Caregiving dads and breadwinning mums,_ led by Professor Ruth Gaunt, reached similar conclusions, finding that mothers in couples in ‘equal share’ work and care arrangements had the highest levels of satisfaction with their division of responsibilities. _Covid realities_ , participatory research with families on low incomes during COVID-19 led by Dr Ruth Patrick, and the UCL _COVID-19 social study_ led by Dr Daisy Fancourt which captured the psychological and social experiences of over 70,000 adults, highlighted a gendered aspect in the mental health impact of the pandemic. Both showed that mothers faced enormous pressures managing work, home-schooling, childcare and domestic tasks. Things Foundation, is developing a Minimum Digital Living Standard for the digital goods, skills and services a family needs to be able to participate in society. Looking more specifically at the effect of school shutdowns during the pandemic on family well-being, Professor Birgitta Rabe and her team demonstrated a negative effect of closures on mothers’ (but not fathers’) mental health. They also found no effect of school closures on parental labour supply. This suggests a potential factor in the mental health deterioration among mothers who had to fit in their usual working hours alongside additional childcare and home-schooling responsibilities. The team were commissioned by the Welsh Government to develop a Standard specifically for Wales and have shared emerging learning in national and regional policy fora, including the Data Poverty All-Party Parliamentary Group. In a major expansion of our interests in the impact of technology on society, Professor Sir Christopher Pissarides is leading a collaboration between the Institute for the Future of Work, Imperial College and Warwick Business School that will make recommendations for practical strategies to build resilience among individuals, firms and communities in response to how automation technologies are impacting the economy and workers’ health and well-being. ## The impact of digital technology on people’s lives Professor Helen Kennedy and her team at the University of Sheffield completed their project, _Living with data_ , to understand how the public perceives use of their data by public sector bodies, such as the NHS and the BBC. ## Cost-of-living Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine contributed to rising energy costs, parents and carers participating in _Covid realities_ were highlighting the impacts of the cost-ofliving crisis. The work was referenced in the government’s National Data Strategy and the group participated in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport’s expert group on data altruism. Their survey is in turn having influence on research and tracking by others including the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. _“It’s a struggle. I can’t stop myself from thinking and worrying about meals and making sure it’s tasty and healthy, food shopping and using energy when cooking. It’s like a system charging you to breathe.”_ (Isabella) Professor Simeon Yates at the University of Liverpool, in partnership with the University of Loughborough and Good The challenges currently facing the justice system make critical examination of who the system serves, and how it operates, more important than ever. 22 23 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one Participating parents say the project has fostered greater self-confidence and a sense of solidarity. It has raised the profile of poverty in public discussion and has been credited with contributing to the government’s decision in May 2022 to provide targeted support for those on means-tested benefits. Also led by Dr. Patrick, _Benefit changes and larger families_ is raising awareness of the impact of household size on poverty risks. It calls attention to the growing numbers of children affected by the two-child limit and benefit cap policies and the challenges families face navigating the impact of the policies and the cost-of-living crisis. Research by Louise Lawson and her team underscores that work does not necessarily lead to a route out of poverty. It found that women in multiple low-paid jobs are more likely to receive working-age benefits, be in debt and be materially deprived. The Food Foundation highlighted the specific challenges experienced by families with children who have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF). They found the perpetual state of uncertainty, hostility and hardship can last years, leaving families in destitution with little income and poor housing, unable to afford or access enough quality food. ## Justice Within our Justice domain, our aim is to explore how the real-world application of law and the administration of justice meets people’s needs and expectations. Our particular focus is on issues of justice that have the most significant effect on the lives, opportunities and well-being of people who are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way. We believe that the challenges currently facing the justice system make critical examination of who the system serves, and how it operates, more important than ever. We want the research we fund to help improve the effectiveness of the justice system and outcomes for the people who need to access it, or are drawn into it. We are especially keen to encourage proposals for impactful research that takes an interdisciplinary approach and examines the effects of involvement with the justice system on people’s wider life chances. ## Key Justice outputs published in 2022 What: The relationship between poverty and child abuse and neglect: New evidence Who: Professor Paul Bywaters, University of Huddersfield Headline findings: The review provided stronger evidence linking poverty to child abuse and neglect. It found that reductions in income and other economic shocks increase the number of children experiencing neglect and abuse, while improvements in income reduce this rate. What: Understanding preventative intervention in youth justice Who: Professor Stephen Case, Loughborough University Headline findings: Reviewing the evidence on the effectiveness of preventative interventions with a particular focus on the contextual factors, the study sought to provide more insight on the question of why those interventions may work for some children but not others. The findings are supporting the development of a research and practice agenda rooted more in the key principles of a ‘Child First’ approach in youth justice. What: Law and compliance during COVID-19 Who: Professor Joe Tomlinson, University of York Headline findings: The public were generally willing to comply with COVID-19 restrictions. However, as time went on there was more rule bending and ‘creative non-compliance’. Compliance was linked to people’s attitudes to the rules and rule-following generally, as well as whether the rules were based in law or just guidance. While there was good initial understanding of the restrictions, confusion grew as rules became more complex. and religious groups. The research shows couples often borrow rituals, prioritise rites and personalise ceremonies for weddings that are not recognised by the law. Findings from the study have informed the Law Commission’s review of marriage law. What: Disrupting the routes between care and custody: Learning from females in the care and criminal justice systems Who: Dr Claire Fitzpatrick, Lancaster University Headline findings: Young people, especially girls, with experience of care are over-represented in the youth and criminal justice systems. Girls in care may experience ‘over-scrutiny’ in some care settings, leading to unnecessary criminalisation. This contrasts with the lack of support they can face in relation to experiences of victimisation, leaving care support and imprisonment. What: The mental health MHTS for Scotland: The views and experiences of patients, Named Person, Practitioners and MHTS members Who: Professor Jill Stavert, Edinburgh Napier University Headline findings: The study examined processes and decision-making in the operation of Mental Health Tribunals for Scotland (MHTS) in upholding the rights of detained psychiatric patients. Areas of good practice were identified but so were concerns, particularly relating to patient participation and the perceived power and influence of clinicians. What: When is a wedding not a marriage? Exploring non-legally binding ceremonies Who: Dr Rajnaara Akhtar, University of Warwick Headline findings: Wedding laws are outdated and restrictive and do not reflect a diverse modern society. The law does not allow ceremonies some couples want to have, and does not cater for different communities 24 25 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one What: Access to justice for social rights: Addressing the accountability gap Who: Professor Katie Boyle, University of Stirling Headline findings: The research reveals that people in the UK face too many barriers to justice for violations of their social rights. It highlights gaps between social rights enshrined in international human rights law and the practice, policy and legal frameworks across the UK. What: The Edinburgh study phase 8: Causes and impacts of criminal justice pathways Who: Professor Lesley McAra, University of Edinburgh Headline findings: While persistent offending is associated with a background of social adversity, most people who offend during adolescence stop by early adulthood. However, desistance is not the same process for everyone. Contact with the criminal justice system does not necessarily make people more likely to desist from offending and for some people it may catalyse continued offending into adulthood. More holistic approaches, working across education, the economy, housing and justice, and targeting risk factors across communities rather than just in individuals, are more likely to be successful in reducing offending. ## Policy and practice impact of Justice projects ## Intervening effectively with children and young people who offend Three reports published important evidence on the need to take a wider, whole-system approach in preventing or responding to offending by children and young people, and to put addressing their needs at the centre. Dr Claire Fitzpatrick’s study looked at the experiences of girls and women in the criminal justice system who had experience of being in care. Failures to address at an early stage their trauma, stigmatisation and mental health needs were a common feature of their path to custody. The findings are being used by HM Prison Service to inform their work on care-experience and traumainformed practice. Professor Stephen Case’s review of the evidence on youth justice preventative interventions focused on the contexts and mechanisms of those interventions, and how this information might be used to better tailor them to children’s individual needs and circumstances. An ongoing programme of knowledge exchange is promoting the work with practitioners and policymakers in youth justice, to help support the development of a Child First approach. A report from Professor McAra and Professor McVie on the latest phase of the long-running Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions has continued the hugely influential contribution this research makes to criminal justice policy and practice in Scotland and beyond – informing, for example, the development of a new Violence Prevention Framework by the Scottish Government. The study emphasises the importance of taking a multi-system approach to prevention and early intervention involving health, education, housing and other services alongside criminal justice responses. ## Acquiring and protecting people’s rights We have published a cluster of reports this year addressing a range of issues around how people’s everyday rights and responsibilities can be better understood and protected. Professor Katie Boyle’s report examined the challenges faced across the UK’s jurisdictions in seeking access to justice to uphold people’s social rights, including rights to adequate housing, social security and freedom from poverty, including fuel and food poverty. Her work has been used as evidence in official discussions informing the development of legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, including the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scottish law. of teenagers in the UK, Italy, Lebanon and Singapore. The findings have been widely disseminated and have attracted interest from a range of organisations concerned with the well-being of children and young people, both in the UK and internationally. Dr Rajnaara Akhtar (University of Warwick) and colleagues’ project, _When is a wedding not a marriage? Exploring non-legally binding ceremonies_ , examined the views and experiences of a range of people who had either had or conducted such ceremonies. The study found that the current law on weddings seems too limited and restrictive for the diverse needs of contemporary society. Its findings directly informed the work of the Law Commission for England & Wales in producing recommendations for the reform of weddings law, featuring prominently in the Commission’s report _Celebrating marriage: A new weddings law._ The research also received widespread media coverage. Professor Joe Tomlinson led a team examining public attitudes to, and understanding of, the lockdown restrictions and people’s levels of compliance. The research team used their emerging findings to support active engagement with the government during the course of the pandemic. The findings have been widely circulated and discussed, including in the media, and cited in official reports on the pandemic including by the House of Lord’s Constitution Committee’s inquiry on the use and scrutiny of emergency powers. ## Researchers at Risk Fellowship Programme Lastly, Professor Jill Stavert’s project examined how effectively the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (MHTS) performs as a guarantor of mental health legislation and human rights standards in Scotland. The recommendations have been adopted by the Scottish Mental Health Law Review and widely cited in their final report. Following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the Nuffield Foundation helped to fund a new Researchers at Risk Fellowship Programme that is supporting Ukrainian researchers who have left the country and those already in the UK who are unable to return home. The programme is led by the British Academy on behalf of the UK National Academies, working in partnership with the Council for At-Risk Academics (Cara). It received £3 million of government funding from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Foundation contributed £518,000 to the scheme. ## The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic Two very distinct studies looked at different aspects of how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted our lives. Laurie Day and colleagues used an innovative longitudinal qualitative approach to explore how the pandemic had affected the lives The study found that the current law on weddings seems too limited and restrictive for the diverse needs of contemporary society. 26 27 Strategic goal one Strategic goal one year and across several areas of health and bioscience policy. The Fellowships provide a salary, research and living costs for up to two years, allowing researchers whose lives and livelihoods are at risk to continue their research and research collaborations from the UK. ## Genome editing in our food and farming system ## Nuffield Council on Bioethics Following on from our in-depth report on genome editing and farmed animal breeding in 2021, we have brought ethics to the fore in the debate around the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill which has been discussed in Parliament throughout 2022. This Bill is significant because it will set conditions for the introduction of genetic technologies into the farming and food systems. There are particular ethical concerns regarding how this may impact on the breeding of farmed animals, and our report identified the protection of animal welfare as one of the key priorities for policymaking in this area. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB) is a leading independent policy and research centre, and the foremost bioethics body in the UK. The NCOB identifies, analyses and advises on ethical issues in biomedicine and health so that decisions in these areas benefit people and society. We were pleased to secure a partnership with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation) and Sciencewise, to run a public dialogue which helped to broaden out the debate around precision breeding to include questions about the During 2022, the NCOB conducted a strategic review to help feed into a funding proposal and strategy development for the next five years. Alongside this integral piece of work, we had many significant successes and achievements across the aims, purpose and societal consequences of the technology. MPs and Lords alike have commended and referenced our policy report, and our subsequent public dialogue, throughout the parliamentary debates. At one point in the House of Commons, both the Minister and the opposition were pictured holding up a copy of our report to show the House – that’s a first in NCOB history! Having already steered the inclusion of animal welfare protections throughout the shaping of the Bill, we are continuing our engagement during the final stages in Parliament with the aim of ensuring the technologies are put to uses which are directed towards outcomes that promote the public’s interests. ## Genomics and human health Throughout 2022 we continued our efforts to try and make the UK ‘world-leaders’ in ethics as well as science when it comes to genomics. Most significantly, following the appointment of our Chair, David Archard, to the National Genomics Board, we secured the inclusion of ‘ethics and maintaining public trust’ in the Board’s Terms of Reference. We provided advice to the Office for Life Sciences on the implementation of the government’s Genome UK strategy, which has resulted in a greater recognition by government of the ethical issues raised by genomic medicine and research. This has been taken forward in a partnership with genomics healthcare leads in the devolved administrations to help establish a _“gold standard UK model for how to apply strong and consistent ethical standards”_ in genomics research and healthcare. A report of our findings will be published in spring 2023 and presented to the National Genomics Board. ## Mental health and technology In April 2022 we published a briefng note highlighting a lack of clarity in how digital technologies in mental healthcare are currently regulated. We convened a policy roundtable on ethical considerations in digital access to mental health support, and our briefing note was submitted to the government team developing the 10-year mental health and well-being plan. We are delighted that Wellcome have since taken forward the production of guidance on regulating digital mental health tools. This will help to give clarity on the issues we identified and provide better support for people seeking help with their mental health. ## Care of critically ill children We ended 2022 being appointed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct an independent review of the disagreements that can arise between families and healthcare teams in the care of critically ill children in England. It is hoped the review will lead to better support for families and healthcare professionals facing very distressing situations to work through disagreements sensitively and collaboratively, and to resolve matters as quickly and fairly as possible. The NCOB’s work in this area stems back to 2006, with an infuential report on critical care decisions in neonatal medicine, and further research and engagement in 2018–19 focusing on disagreements between parents and healthcare teams. After all our influential work in this area, we are pleased to be recognised as an independent, inclusive and informed organisation uniquely placed to carry out this review. We look forward to sharing our findings and recommendations in 2023. 28 29 Strategic goal two Strategic goal two ## Strategic goal two – evidence, data and digital society We will work to improve the accessibility, use and collection of the evidence and data necessary to understand the issues affecting people’s life chances. We will consider the broader implications of a digital society. ## Nuffield Family Justice Observatory - Young people and the care system. - Babies who are subject to care proceedings. - Separating families and private law proceedings. - Inequalities in the family justice system. Together with our partners, we have reviewed research and linked data to uncover new evidence about the rising number of newborn babies and older children in care proceedings. We have started to shine a light on the experiences of these children and their families, as well as the experiences of children involved in private law cases. We have also embarked on a journey to find out what we know about inequalities in the family justice system – including ethnicity, disability and deprivation – and how lack of data is hampering systemic change. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (Nuffield FJO) aims to improve the lives of children and families by putting data and evidence at the heart of the family justice system. The centre of its lens is on the family courts, but its focus extends far beyond this to understand the support that children and families need before they reach the family courts, and what happens when they have been through the family justice system. The examples featured here demonstrate how the Nuffield FJO works to find and fill gaps in our understanding of the family justice system in England and Wales, highlight the areas where change will have the biggest impact, and foster collaboration to make that change happen. The Nuffield FJO is funded through to 2026, to enable it to sustain and build upon the impact it has already achieved. We focus our work on four themes: We work with others – from judges and lawyers to local authorities, third sector organisations and academics – to gather insights and convene discussions about how evidence can be used to initiate change. We hold events to share evidence and innovation with thousands of professionals on the frontline of the family justice system. our understanding and experience of how the family justice system is working on the ground. And above all, we have listened to the lived experiences of children and families, who have shared their insights and ideas for an improved future – and to whom we are extremely grateful. ## Young people and the care system Our work is detailed in our 2022 – 26 strategy, which prompted a noticeable increase in contact from individuals and organisations keen to partner with us, and our impact is detailed in our first-ever impact report. The sharp increase in the number of older children and young people who are being taken into care has prompted concerns about the ability of the family justice system to respond to their needs. We have been shining a spotlight on this group of children and young people and convening discussions across the family justice system on how to facilitate change. We have created a number of initiatives to reach those involved in family justice system in different ways. For example, we launched a new lunchtime event series called _In Conversation with…_ , broadening our network and having important conversations about the family justice system – the most popular talk had over 400 participants. We have also run events with partners such as Cafcass. _“Once again the FJO has hit the target by identifying a topic that requires focus and profile as an issue.”_ (Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division) We held a ‘practice week’ for all Nuffield FJO staff and consultants, who sat in on public and private law proceedings, FDACs, private law pilot sites, magistrates’ courts and legal meetings, and visited services across the country. This helped to increase In July 2022, the President of the Family Division launched the national deprivation of liberty (DoLs) court, in part influenced by our publication of data on DoLs which exposed the extent of DoLs orders being 30 31 Strategic goal two Strategic goal two sought. Based at the Royal Courts of Justice, it deals with all new applications seeking authorisation to deprive children of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction, and will run for a 12-month pilot phase initially. The Nuffield FJO was invited to collect and publish data on these applications and has been releasing monthly briefings highlighting high-level data trends. The data has received a lot of interest and has been widely quoted and reported in media outlets, including _The Guardian_ . Our report, What do we know about children from England and Wales in secure care in Scotland?, was published and revealed that local authorities in England and Wales are sending vulnerable children needing secure care to Scotland; this was picked up by _The Times_ . In 2022 we also published: - The Care fles: Exploring teenagers experiences of entering the care system - Children subject to secure accommodation orders: A data review - What do we know about children deprived of their liberty? - A short briefng paper that explains what deprivation of liberty is and the legal frameworks used - An animation: ‘Why are we depriving our most vulnerable young people of their liberty?’ ## Babies who are subject to care proceedings Given the rising number of babies being removed from their parents at birth (many of whom have previously had a child taken into care), we have been continuing to explore what needs to change to reverse this trend. Where it is considered necessary to take a baby into care, we have been providing evidence to help ensure that practice is humane and less likely to result in a subsequent removal of a child from the parent’s care. To support this work, we launched a new bulletin to share research and emerging good practice in relation to newborn babies at risk of care proceedings – this now has over 700 subscribers. - Born into Care: Developing best practice guidelines for when the state intervenes at birth, and the guidelines for feasibility testing, were published. - We published the latest research identifying the number of mothers who are subject to recurrent care proceedings in England and Wales. ## Separating families and private law proceedings Children are far more likely to be involved in private law disagreements or disputes between parents or family members about arrangements for their upbringing than they are likely to be subject to child protection proceedings. We know little about these children or their families as they are only just starting to be captured in national administrative data. The Nuffield FJO has have been working to better understand the families that go to court following separation, why they use the court, and how their needs can be better met. We are also looking at how children’s participation in proceedings is experienced by children themselves. For example, we published research by a team at the University of Bristol about the experiences of children and parents in separating families. It is based on in-depth interviews and video recordings with children, mothers and fathers. The research provides a very helpful ‘window’ on the process of separation and the type of advice and support that parents and children feel they need. It also usefully views the role of the court and mediation from this perspective. It shows, for example, that court is usually a ‘last resort’ not a ‘first port of call’. ## Inequalities in the family justice system To be effective and fair, the family justice system needs to understand how the system is used and experienced by children and adults, and how this experience differs for different families. One way to consider this is to examine whether there are variations in the experiences and outcomes of families from different ethnicities. We have been working to contribute to the knowledge base around ethnic diversity in the family justice system and published What do we know about ethnic diversity in the family justice system in England and Wales? ## The Ada Lovelace Institute The Ada Lovelace Institute (Ada) was established by the Nuffield Foundation in 2018 as an independent research institute with a mission to make data and AI work for people and society. We do this by building evidence, convening diverse voices, and shaping policy and practice in the UK, EU and internationally. We amplify the voices of people, to ensure that public opinions, attitudes and concerns are presented in, and inform, debates about data and AI. Ada’s mission aligns with the Nuffield Foundation’s aim to improve lives for people, families and communities within a just and inclusive society, and supports the Foundation’s strategic goal to understand the issues affecting people’s life chances in a data-driven, digital society. Ada receives core funding from the Nuffield Foundation, secured until 2026, and in addition has raised approximately £3.8 million from external funders for the period of 2019 to 2025. In 2021, we opened an office in Brussels, where the European Parliament is making significant inroads into data and AI legislation. ## Anticipating and responding to challenges and opportunities In our fourth year – and as the urgency of evidence-building for responsive policy around COVID-19 technologies moved towards greater understanding of the longerterm lessons for health and social care and future pandemic preparedness – Ada has worked to anticipate, identify and respond to existing and emerging issues arising from data and AI for people and society. There are two contexts that are particularly pertinent to Ada’s work: the societal effects of the UK cost-of-living crisis, and the UK government orienting around deregulation and ‘light touch’ governance of data and AI – while other global administrations (notably Europe and the USA) are moving towards more comprehensive regulation. This means there are many opportunities to ensure people and society are central to AI and data policy and regulation developments in the UK and beyond, and to work directly with industry, regulators and practitioners to embed considerations of people and society directly into product development. Meeting these challenges through five distinct programmes – biometrics, public-sector use of data and algorithms, the future of regulation, health data and COVID-19 technologies, and ethics and accountability in practice – Ada has continued to demonstrate that our evidence-based research is robust, relevant, responsive and impactful, as follows: 32 33 Strategic goal two Strategic goal two ## Convening diverse voices public resource (publishing in spring 2023) that will support decision-makers in the wider AI ecosystem to be aware of public understanding and attitudes towards specific uses of AI. Ada brings together researchers, thinkers and subject-matter experts through convenings, public events and commissioned blog posts – interrogating established ideas and sharing new perspectives. The culmination of three years’ evidencebuilding around biometrics technologies was marked with a high-profile event in June at the Royal Society. Speakers from Ada and independent legal review author Matthew Ryder KC were joined by Chi Onwurah MP, Baroness Sally Hamwee, and Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner Fraser Sampson, as well as a participant from Ada’s Citizens’ Biometrics Council. In 2022, we worked extensively with: - Government departments, policymakers and regulators – including the Office for AI; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport; the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation; the NHS AI Lab; the Geospatial Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Following our strategy for targeted and early influence on policy, Ada convened an event with leading UK academics, policymakers, regulators and third-sector organisations to influence the government consultation _Data – a new direction._ - Third-sector organisations – including the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Health Foundation. - Corporate AI companies and technology trade associations – including techUK. - Academics – including Exeter University and the Alan Turing Institute. In Europe, Ada hosted an event in Brussels in April, with a keynote by one of the two co-lead rapporteurs on the EU AI Act, Dragos Tudorache MEP, who recognised Ada’s unique contribution to the European policy landscape through centring people and society. And in October, Ada held an event in Brussels inviting experts from trade unions, civil society and academia to express views on the comprehensiveness of the EU’s liability proposals. Attendees included representatives from big tech companies, experts from the European Commission and staff in the European Parliament. Ada collaborated with the Nuffield Council on Bioethics exploring future trends in the intersection of genomics and AI, and their ethical, legal and societal implications. Funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the project uses futures methodology and participatory approaches. With the Public Policy programme at the Alan Turing Institute, we conducted a nationally representative survey about UK public attitudes towards AI. Funded by the AHRC and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), we will co-produce an authoritative, credible Working internationally to explore the role of research ethics committees and Ada has worked to anticipate, identify and respond to existing and emerging issues arising from data and AI for people and society. institutional review boards in reviewing the ethics of AI and data science research, Ada hosted a joint workshop in February with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) to convene organisers of AI / Machine Learning research conferences to better understand practical methods for creating incentives around research ethics issues. As part of the Health Foundation-funded programme on data-driven systems and health inequalities, Ada worked with a group of peer researchers in the north of England, affiliated with the APLE Collective. Together they convened regional lived-experience panels, to observe the intersection of social, digital and health inequalities and make visible points of friction and disadvantage in healthcare technologies. Ada has extended the reach of its work through media coverage: _Countermeasures_ and the _Ryder Review_ were cited on _BBC News_ , the _Today_ programme, the _Financial Times_ , the _New Statesman_ , _Tech Monitor_ and the _Daily Mail._ Ada’s work in Europe was covered in _TechCrunch_ , _TechRadar_ , _Biometric Update_ , _EU Reporter_ , _EurActiv_ and _Politico_ . ## Building evidence Ada builds evidence to support rigorous research and foster informed debate on how data and AI affect people and society. We begin from a position of empirical curiosity and critical awareness of power dynamics, and ground our research in robust evidence and expert analysis. In 2022, we published research in 10 distinct subject areas, including developing data and AI legislation, healthcare inequalities, algorithmic accountability, public attitudes to regulating data and data-driven technologies, biometrics, public-service recommendation systems, research ethics and data governance in pandemics. ## Ada’s research _Rethinking data_ _and rebalancing digital power_ set out an ambitious vision for the societal value of data. Overseen by an expert working group – co-chaired by Professor Diane Coyle and Paul Nemitz – Rethinking data proposes four cross-cutting interventions that challenge increasingly entrenched systems of digital power, and have the potential to re-centre people and society. The recommendations are designed to inform future policy initiatives, including the reform of data protection rules in the UK. The independent _Ryder Review_ of the governance of biometric data by Matthew Ryder KC, commissioned by Ada, identified a regulatory gap, and fragmented and inadequate governance of biometrics. Ada combined this evidence with public engagement from the first national study of public attitudes to facial recognition technology, _Beyond face value_ (2019), and the report of the Citizens’ Biometrics Council (2021), to produce _Countermeasures_ , which made specific policy recommendations on biometrics to the UK government. The ICO recognised certain biometric technologies as “immature” and potentially discriminating, and approached Ada with a request to reconvene the Citizen’s Biometrics Council, the long-form public deliberation exercise we ran in 2020, to enable participants to engage with its proposed biometrics governance. The NHS AI Lab and the new National Medical Imaging Platform provided the context for the development of the first UK model for a participatory algorithmic impact assessment for public-sector data-access requests. _Algorithmic impact assessment: A case study in healthcare_ aims to ensure that broader societal questions of benefit and harm are addressed when companies apply to use public data. 34 35 Strategic goal two Strategic goal two A collaboration with the BBC, _Inform, educate, entertain… and recommend?_ , explored the ethical implications of public-sector recommendation engines in the context of public-service media, and specifically how ethical approaches can be built into recommender algorithms. The project identified the potential to create change across three areas: instilling ethical norms and engendering common/shared practices that are deserving of public trust; shaping a well-informed public conversation about the effects of algorithmic decisionmaking systems on people and society; and supporting the development of effective legal, regulatory and policy structures. can lead to some members of society experiencing harm and losing out on the benefits of health technologies. Throughout 2022, we have conducted mixed-methods evidence-building research in a private-sector context, to better understand how the people that design and build technology products define and navigate ethical challenges in their day-to-day work, and whether participatory practices can contribute to better outcomes for people affected by technologies. Ada produced substantial research interventions directed at EU legislative developments. With the expert input of Newcastle University Professor Lilian Edwards, we contributed targeted research into the AI Act process, with a cross-cutting theme of building people and society into the legislative framework. We commissioned University of Vienna Professor Christine Wendehorst to produce legal context and analysis of where product and fault liability could be leveraged in AI regulation. These reports have contributed to Ada becoming a respected, informed voice in discourse The _A knotted pipeline_ report explored systemic reasons that underpin the way health and well-being in the UK is experienced differently across different socio-economic, ethnic, geographic and age groups. While data-driven systems promise better health and well-being outcomes, they also risk exacerbating existing inequalities in health – avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health outcomes that exist between different demographics – which and negotiations around the EU AI Act and accompanying policy. it is vital to understand people’s experiences and perspectives in order to align data policy and governance with societal values and needs.” ## Informing and shaping policy and practice in the EU and UK The Department of Health and Social Care announced the National Medical Imaging Platform with a press release that championed the NHS’s world-leading pilot of this new accountability mechanism, developed with Ada. Ada shapes and informs policy and practice to prioritise societal benefits in the design and deployment of data and AI. In 2022, we continued to provide proactive and responsive research, to support and inform decision-making by UK and EU policymakers, regulators and public-sector actors. Centring public voice, we are committed to meaningfully listening to and representing the voices of the public – those affected by data and AI technologies – to policy and industry decision-makers. Based on our health inequalities research, Ada was invited by Professor Dame Margaret Whitehead to provide oral evidence to the Independent Review into Equity in Health Devices on the potential for AI and datadriven technologies to perpetuate or mitigate biases in the delivery of healthcare. Ada engaged with the Dutch government to present our key ideas and provide feedback on their proposals for AI regulation. We gave evidence to the Brazilian Parliament, which is considering its own AI legislation. Regulating AI in Europe is referenced in a policy statement from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), _Establishing a pro-innovation approach to regulating AI_ , which sets out the proposed approach to UK AI regulation. We engaged consistently with the reform of the UK data protection framework, meeting with the Minister and her team to present our evidence on the reforms, and particularly to encourage the government to undertake public engagement on data use. We also met with government departments and submitted consultation responses with respect to two significant policy initiatives: the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and the AI regulation whitepaper. In the lead up to the publication of the _Ryder Review_ and _Countermeasures_ , Ada met with several ministers interested in the inclusion of biometrics provisions in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, as well as the Home Office and ICO, and gave an evidence briefing to the Science and Technology Committee ahead of their parliamentary debate on biometrics. In March 2022, Ada produced an evidence review of studies of UK public attitudes to regulating data and data-driven technologies, _Who cares what the public think?,_ which represents public views to policymakers and technology developers. Lord Clement Jones tabled a parliamentary question, to which the government answered: “We agree that Ada shapes and informs policy and practice to prioritise societal benefits in the design and deployment of data and AI. 36 37 Strategic goal two Strategic goal three The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner Dr Fraser Sampson engaged substantially with the review, and the ICO produced a strong warning about emotion recognition, in line with the research’s evidence on uses “beyond identification”. _TechCrunch_ coverage of the ICO’s work cited the _Ryder Review_ and the call for a comprehensive framework for biometrics regulation, stating that the government had taken a “soft-touch” approach. In July, Lord Vaux of Harrowden asked a parliamentary question on the _Ryder Review_ recommendation of a framework for biometrics regulation. Ada presented evidence on research ethics from _Looking before we leap_ (co-authored with Exeter University and the Alan Turing Institute) to the National Ethics Councils Forum – an independent informal network of representatives of the National Ethics Councils (NEC) for the exchange of information, experience and best practices on issues of common interest in the field of ethics and science. The NEC Forum brings together the EU National Ethics Committees, the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, representatives of the Council of Europe, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, and ethics committees from Horizon Europe Associated Countries, neighbouring countries of the EU and other non-EU countries (for example China) to enrich the work of the network and to build awareness and good practice based on European ethics standards and legislation. Work from pre-2022 continues to have a long tail: Ada’s _Regulate to innovate_ report (2021) garnered more academic citations, and we have engaged at length with DCMS and the Office for AI around the forthcoming whitepaper on AI regulation, made numerous written submissions to government consultations and inquiries, and given evidence to parliamentary select committees. _Examining the black box_ (2020), which established a clear understanding of accountability mechanisms for algorithmic assessment, continues to be cited in academic and policy contexts. A _New Statesman_ article on the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces cited Ada’s survey, _Beyond face value_ , as well as recommendations from the _Ryder Review_ and _Countermeasures_ . ## Developing the organisation, practices and approaches At the end of 2022, the Ada team – now comprising 25 staff – restructured into five Directorates. Three research-centred Directorates concentrate our work into: Emerging technology & industry practice; AI and data law & policy and Society, justice & public services. These are supported by cross-cutting, functional teams that focus on research practice, public participation, impact, communications and organisational development. Operationalising justice and equity continues to be a central issue for our organisation and the work we do. The evaluation of the JUST AI racial justice fellowship programme, established in 2020 by Ada and the London School of Economics with support from the AHRC, will assist this work into 2023. Strategic goal three – profile and influence We will increase the profile and influence of our research portfolio and of the Nuffield Foundation as a whole. Central to our grant-making ethos is that we across our three domains, alongside many are more than just a funder. We work with our other studies. grant-holders at all stages of their projects to plan and deliver communications and Six thematic reports were published: engagement activity to maximise the profile and influence of the work we fund. The result • How are the lives of families with young of that collaborative way of working is children changing? evidenced in the impact examples provided • Protecting young children at risk of abuse under strategic goal one. and neglect Alongside this, we use our own • Changing patterns of poverty communications platforms to make the in early childhood research we fund accessible to a wider • audience and to amplify its message. We and care in shaping life changes also produce synthesis – in different forms – bringing together findings from individual • projects to strengthen their collective were two decades ago? impact and to provide new opportunities • _Time for parents_ for engagement. Our events programme convenes audiences to facilitate productive The final report was Bringing up the next debate, and the public affairs team connects generation: From policy to research politicians and policymakers with the work practice. It pulls all the evidence together of the Foundation and its centres. - The role of early childhood education and care in shaping life changes - Are young children healthier than they were two decades ago? The final report was Bringing up the next generation: From policy to research practice. It pulls all the evidence together and provides a holistic account of the experience of contemporary childhood. The report contains a wide range of policy recommendations drawn from the research and engagement throughout the series. This has enabled the Foundation to have its own voice in relation to current issues and debates beyond those of individual grant-holders, to link up with other organisations and coalitions, and create a resource for future policy-making. ## The changing face of early childhood _The changing face of early childhood_ (CFEC) project took place over three years and culminated in 2022. It was the first synthesis project of its scale undertaken by the Nuffield Foundation and drew from more than 90 pieces of research 38 39 Strategic goal three Strategic goal three ## Engagement and reach and findings in the final report and reflect on the next steps. The conference was very well received, with lively, thoughtful breakout sessions and an excellent final panel session, including the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza. We held a national conference on early childhood, a research workshop to identify evidence gaps, roundtables, webinars and think-ins with parents. We also produced a series of podcasts _Life, Changing_ with Tortoise Media. The conference and research workshop were real moments of cross-pollination among the early childhood network and strengthened the Foundation’s role as a convenor, while the events programme enabled us to interact with a wide range of policymakers, practitioners and researchers, and attracted new audiences. The Nuffield Foundation conference, _Early childhood: what needs to change?_ , was held in July and chaired by Dame Clare Tickell. The flagship event brought together leading experts in the field and beyond, providing an opportunity to share and discuss the insights Our events programme convenes audiences to facilitate productive debate, and the public affairs team connects politicians and policymakers with the work of the Foundation and its centres. ## Influencing policy and practice |Event|Attendees| |---|---| |Six webinars|1,289| |Six roundtables|120| |Parent / carer Think-ins|67| |Conference|94| |Research workshop|56| |_Early childhood_series
unique webpage views
_Early childhood_series
report downloads|More than 51,000
6,000| A core aim of the project has been to use the findings and insights to inform policy and practice for the medium term. Our programme teams have met with a range of senior civil servants and special advisors across the four key government departments and in the No 10 Policy Unit for in-depth one-to-one discussions, and given presentations to the Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions on our work. We have also met with Andrea Leadsom MP; Robin Walker MP, the Chair of the Education Select Committee; Helen Hayes MP, the Shadow Minister for Children and Early Years; Margaret Hodge MP, and participated in a webinar with Bridget Phillipson, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education. The project has received nearly 500 media mentions, securing considerable coverage in the children’s and early years sector press, local media, national media (including _The Times_ ) and the BBC. 40 41 Strategic goal three Strategic goal three We have strengthened existing relationships and fostered new connections with leading organisations working on early years policy, including the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, the Royal Foundation, Kindred 2, Save the Children, the Early Intervention Foundation, Ofsted, the Local Government Association, IPPR and UNICEF. Our work has been widely cited. We have contributed to the development of new work in early childhood policy and practice through, for example, UNICEF’s three-year programme for England, Early Moments Matter, including its work on young children’s mental health; the Academy of Medical Sciences; and Thrive at Five. _Time for parents_ is being used to teach psychology undergraduates, provide background briefing for the Social Mobility Commission, and inform the Children in Wales national network. At the end of 2022, Carey Oppenheim and Beverley Barnett-Jones from the Nuffield FJO were invited to sit on the advisory group for the Royal Foundation’s Centre for Early Childhood. Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales is pioneering a major awareness campaign, Shaping Us, about the importance of early childhood for later development. We have engaged with Ofsted throughout, and staff also attended our conference. Their report, _Best start in life,_ cited the CFEC final report and our work on early education and care. We are building on the relationship through a joint seminar to share insights and priorities in 2023. Looking ahead we will continue to encourage applications for research funding for early years priority areas identified at our research workshop. This will allow us to continue to build evidence to support change. ## Media profile and opportunities The Foundation was mentioned in the media 6,270 times in 2022 and comments from our spokespeople featured more than 3,000 times. A range of projects attracted significant media interest, reflecting the broad scope of the work we fund. These included the _COVID-19 social study_ , the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme, teacher workforce trends, the impact of COVID-19 on the disadvantage gap for key stage 4 and Post-16 students, and government spending on education. Strategic Fund grants in the Welfare domain – including the IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities and The Economy 2030 Inquiry – drew focus, as did our _Early childhood_ series. In Justice, Nuffield-funded research into the laws that cover weddings also attracted media attention. Media coverage helps to position the Foundation as a funder of quality research that can evidence change to improve people’s lives, promotes the dissemination of research findings, amplifies the voice of our grantees, and raises the profile of the Foundation and its expert programme team. ## Public affairs The public affairs team shares research funded by the Nuffield Foundation – and research from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory – with political and policymaker audiences. The team develops early influence and engagement strategies and identifies and develops relationships with government departments, public bodies, parliamentarians and select committees. Through these relationships, we create opportunities for research to lead to impact, in line with our mission to inform social policy and improve people’s lives. In 2022 we worked with policymakers across nine government departments – the Department for Work and Pensions; the Department for Health and Social Care; the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; the Department for Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs; the Department for Education; the Home Office; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport; the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office – to inform and influence government policy, and engaged with parliamentarians over policy development and parliamentary debates. We also submitted evidence to relevant select committee inquiries and worked closely on legislation, including the Health and Care Bill and Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, resulting in the Foundation and each of its centres having a tangible impact on policy. You can find examples across this report. At the end of 2022, Carey Oppenheim and Beverley Barnett-Jones from the Nuffield FJO were invited to sit on the advisory group for the Royal Foundation’s Centre for Early Childhood. 42 43 Strategic goal four Strategic goal four ## Strategic goal four – opportunities for young people Our student programmes are direct interventions to create opportunities for young people to develop the quantitative literacy and critical thinking necessary to be engaged citizens in modern Britain. ## Nuffield Research Placements Nearly 4,000 students applied in 2021/22, with 1,021 selected and matched to available placements. Following the disruption caused by COVID-19, face-to-face and hybrid formats were available. More than 200 organisations hosted a placement. In 2022, NRP students continued to all be young people who were aiming to become the first in their family to go to university and/or were from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. 87% of students needed extra financial support and were eligible to receive an additional bursary, which is above the target of 85%. For more than 25 years, Nuffield Research Placements (NRPs) have supported students from across the UK to develop a wide range of research skills through an engaging, real-world placement experience. The programme is funded by the Nuffield Foundation, but from October 2020, NRPs have been managed and operated by STEM Learning, the UK’s leading provider of STEM education and careers support. Evaluation of the 2021/22 placements was positive: - Overall satisfaction with the scheme was high. 94% of students were satisfied or very satisfied, and 95% would Taking place in the summer holiday following Year 12 (or equivalent), the fourto-six-week experience comprises online preparatory study; a two-to-three-week supervised placement in the field of STEM quantitative social science, computing, technology, engineering or maths; and finally a range of optional webinars on topics such as university admissions and future study options. recommend NRPs to others. All teachers surveyed would recommend placements to future students, and 98% of providers would recommend placements to others. - Students and teachers reported benefits - for participants. At least two-thirds of the students surveyed said that their placement had positively impacted a range of skills, and at least 89% of teachers agreed that there had been an improvement in the areas examined in participating students. Q-Step is helping to address the shortage of graduates with the skills to apply quantitative methods in both research and professional settings. Students also expressed high levels of satisfaction with their experience. The vast majority (82%) of students who undertook placements planned to go on to university to study for a STEM degree. 49% said that their placement had confirmed they were happy with their plans, while 23% said that it helped them to decide which option was right for them. In addition, the evaluation found that Q-Step has increased quantitative teaching capacity and had a positive impact across participating institutions, particularly those with less established traditions of quantitative social science teaching. ## Q-Step We worked with SAGE Publishing and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to create a new online platform – Research Methods Teaching – designed for social science lecturers to find and share teaching materials and to inspire academics teaching quantitative methods courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Q-Step was established in 2013 as a strategic response to the shortage of graduates with the right skills for careers in research and other data-led professions. The programme operates in 17 universities and was developed by the Nuffield Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), part of UK Research and Innovation, with a total initial investment of £19.5 million. The new platform is an important route through which the benefits of Q-Step can be shared with the broader research community. It hosts valuable resources for the teaching of topics including data analytics, modelling and descriptive statistics. Materials are free and open for reuse by faculties around the world. An independent evaluation by Technopolis, published in 2022, highlights a number of positive findings. It shows that students who take Q-Step quantitative skills modules during their social science degrees have better earning potential than students on similar courses. They are more likely to earn over £25,000 and be in highly skilled employment 15 months after graduation. The resource is designed to grow over time and become a forum through which researchers can share their teaching materials and build networks of support in teaching quantitative methods. Q-Step has increased quantitative teaching capacity and had a positive impact across participating institutions, particularly those with less established traditions of quantitative social science teaching. 44 45 Strategic goal four Grants awarded in 2022 ## Nuffield Foundation Fellowship at POST UK Devyani Gajjar examined the key ethical debates around assisted dying, Katherine Davis looked at how innovations in adult social care can deliver improved quality of life, Rebecca Kelly wrote about invisible disabilities in education and employment, and Susie Walker examined the impact of proposed reforms of the Mental Health Act on children and young people. Susie also gave evidence to the Joint Select Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. We offer PhD students in their final or penultimate year of studying within a scientific or quantitative social science field at a UK university the opportunity to undertake a three-month fellowship at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). POST Fellows benefit from the Foundation’s expertise throughout the three months. Staff share their networks and make connections to other experts, and Fellows have access to our wide array of public outputs and historic research. Fellows are also given the opportunity to present to an engaged audience at the Foundation’s offices. In 2022 we increased the number of places offered in the year from one to four. Our 2022 Fellows co-authored POSTnote briefings on a range of topical issues. ## Grants awarded in 2022 |Principal Investigator|Project Name|Value (£)|Term| |---|---|---|---| |and Institution|||(months)| |New Education projects funded in 2022|||| |Susan James Relly,|Comparing UK policies,|449,916|24| |University of Oxford|outcomes and inequalities||| ||in post-16 education||| ||& training||| |Manon Jones,|Research Instruction|360,482|21| |Bangor University|of Language and Literacy||| ||(RILL): A randomised||| ||control trial||| |Jeremy Segrott,|Optimisation and feasibility|341,022|17| |Cardif University|of Triple P parenting||| ||programme for remote||| ||delivery||| |Kathy Rastle,|Do same language subtitles|338,144|36| |Royal Holloway, University|help children to learn||| |of London|to read?||| |Umar Toseeb,|Rethinking special|332,139|36| |University of York|educational needs||| |Jane Lewis,|How can we increase the|296,892|20| |Centre for Evidence and|take-up of early education||| |Implementation Global (CEI)|entitlements?||| |Tom Harrison,|NewsWise in primary|270,189|24| |University of Birmingham|education: News||| ||and digital literacy,||| ||and civic engagement||| |Jack Britton,|The long run impact of|228,257|21| |Institute for Fiscal Studies|the Education Maintenance||| ||Allowance||| |Catherine Sezen,|The educational provision|210,056|26| |Association of Colleges|for 14-16-year-olds||| ||in Further Education||| ||in England||| |Sarah Earle,|Purposeful and|178,101|24| |Bath Spa University|efective practical work||| ||in primary science||| |Jenni Ingram,|Developing language-|153,749|31| |University of Oxford|responsive mathematics||| ||classrooms||| 46 47 Grants awarded in 2022 Grants awarded in 2022 |Principal Investigator|Project Name|Value (£)|Term| |---|---|---|---| |and Institution|||(months)| |Jo Van Herwegen,|Raising educational|122,438|19| |UCL Institute of Education|outcomes for pupils with||| ||SEN and disabilities||| |Andrew Jenkins,|Work or study? Gender and|113,083|19| |University College London|the transition from school||| ||to work in England||| |Anna Cunningham,|Feasibility of a movement|85,962|16| |Nottingham Trent University|and story-telling||| ||intervention for Reception||| ||children||| |Karen Jones,|The diferential impact|84,036|21| |Durham University|of Covid-19 lockdown||| ||on pupils’ writing skills||| |Mary Oliver,|TIMSS and primary|81,313|18| |University of Nottingham|science (TAPS)||| |Cathryn Knight,|Quantifying the impact of|56,904|12| |University of Bristol|additional learning needs||| ||identifcation in Wales||| |Noel Purdy,|Testing times: Northern|20,703|5| |Stranmillis University|Ireland school transfer||| |College|without tests in 2021||| |Additional funding for Education projects funded in previous years|||| |Emily Hunt,|From algorithmic bias to|65,710|18| |Education Policy Institute|teacher bias? Covid-19||| ||and the disadvantage gap||| |Additional funding for||34,634|| |four projects, each less|||| |than £50,000|||| |Total Education grants||3,823,730|| |New Justice projects funded in 2022|||| |Gillian Hunter,|Lived experience|457,371|33| |Birkbeck, University|of the law: A research||| |of London|and policy project.||| |Joe Tomlinson,|Administrative fairness|395,140|24| |University of York|in the digital welfare state||| |Principal Investigator|Project Name|Value (£)|Term| |---|---|---|---| |and Institution|||(months)| |Tim Bateman,|Exploring racial disparity|313,633|30| |University of Bedfordshire|in diversion from the youth||| ||justice system||| |Steve Case,|Child First: Examining|241,694|24| |Loughborough University|children’s collaboration||| ||in the YJS||| |Felix Stefek,|Should I go to court?|173,482|24| |University of Cambridge|Improving access to justice||| ||using artifcial intelligence||| |Elizabeth O’Loughlin,|Transparency and judicial|53,522|12| |Durham University|review: An empirical study||| ||of the duty of candour||| |Hilary Woodward,|Pensions on divorce update|40,065|21| |University of Bristol|and review: Report of the||| ||Pension Advisory Group||| |Thomas Pope,|Creating and using better|27,425|9| |Institute for Government|justice data||| |Additional funding for Justice projects funded in previous years|||| |Emma Hitchings,|Fair shares? Sorting|85,917|32| |University of Bristol|out money and property||| ||on divorce||| |Grainne McKeever,|Understanding and|72,402|44| |Ulster University|supporting legal||| ||participation for litigants||| ||in person||| |Ruth Gilbert,|Understanding the health|55,801|88| |University College London|needs of mothers and||| ||children involved in family||| ||court cases||| |Additional funding for||73,036|| |nine projects, each less|||| |than £50,000|||| |Total Justice grants||1,989,490|| |New Welfare projects funded in 2022|||| |Adrian Pabst,|Building a regional|476,999|36| |National Institute|regeneration Index to||| |of Economic|track socio-economic||| |and Social Research|`Levelling Up’||| 48 **49** Grants awarded in 2022 Grants awarded in 2022 |Principal Investigator|Project Name|Value (£)|Term| |---|---|---|---| |and Institution|||(months)| |Arun Advani,|Broad shoulders:|469,513|39| |University of Warwick|raising taxes at the top||| |Suzanne Verstappen,|Juvenile onset rheumatic|402,442|30| |University of Manchester|diseases: Education,||| ||vocational readiness,||| ||& employment||| |Alison Gardner,|Evidencing links between|395,747|24| |University of Nottingham|cognitive impairment||| ||and exploitation in England||| |Helen Lomax,|Children’s lives in changing|348,105|21| |University of Huddersfeld|places (CHILL)||| |Ross Wilkie,|Extending working|345,403|36| |Keele University|lives for people with||| ||musculoskeletal conditions||| |Anja Heilmann,|Physical punishment and|338,343|27| |University College London|child outcomes in the UK –||| ||a mixed methods study||| |Holly Blake,|The PAW Trial: feasibility|337,943|33| |University of Nottingham|and acceptability of||| ||the Pain-at-Work Toolkit||| |Rebecca Lacey,|Inequalities in health,|300,101|33| |University College London|social participation, work||| ||& education of young carers||| |Adam Martin,|Arthritis, work and|299,503|36| |University of Leeds|wellbeing: A mixed||| ||methods study with policy||| ||recommendations||| |Andrew Steptoe,|The psychological, social,|287,620|24| |University College London|and economic impact of||| ||musculoskeletal conditions||| |Paula Holland,|Designing inclusive remote|266,503|24| |Lancaster University|and hybrid working to||| ||support disabled workers||| |Gretl McHugh,|Remote osteoarthritis|265,983|27| |University of Leeds|peer-mentorship for||| ||socioeconomically||| ||underserved people||| |Principal Investigator|Project Name|Value (£)|Term| |---|---|---|---| |and Institution|||(months)| |John Gathergood,|The impact of pension auto-|214,399|16| |University of Nottingham|enrolment and COVID-19||| ||on saving behaviours||| |Anders Bach-Mortensen,|Evidencing the impact|152,821|16| |University of Oxford|of the outsourcing of social||| ||care provision in England||| |Guillaume Wilemme,|Redesigning labour|107,212|12| |University of Leicester|market policies for the||| ||future of work||| |Yael Arbell,|Housing 21: Exploring|17,038|14| |Shefeld Hallam University|a more inclusive model||| ||of cohousing||| |Additional funding for Welfare projects funded in previous years|||| |Laia Becares,|Ethnic inequalities|83,515|| |University of Sussex|in later life||| |Additional funding for||57,768|| |two projects, each less|||| |than £50,000|||| |Total Welfare grants||5,166,958|| |Other|||| |Philip Lewis,|Researchers at Risk|518,000|36| |The British Academy|||| |Rebecca Kelly,|POST Fellowship 2022|7,000|3| |University of Oxford|||| |Devyani Gajjar,|POST Fellowship 2022|7,000|3| |The Open University|||| |Total Other grants||532,000|| |New Strategic Fund projects funded|in 2022||| |Olena Nizalova,|Connecting pensions,|928,968|36| |University of Kent|health and care||| |Understanding Communities Fund|||| |Mona Sakr,|Beyond the school gate:|246,782|24| |Middlesex University|Children’s contribution||| ||to community integration||| 50 51 Grants awarded in 2022 Future plans |Principal Investigator|Project Name|Value (£)|Term| |---|---|---|---| |and Institution|||(months)| |Danielle Hutcheon,|RAPPID: Rural assets:|199,841|24| |Glasgow Caledonian|Policy and practice||| |University|insights from the||| ||devolved nations||| |Azadeh Fatehrad,|Nature-based|199,350|24| |Kingston University|integration: Connecting||| ||communities with/in||| ||the natural environment||| |Sarah Nason,|Social welfare law|198,377|24| |Bangor University|advice, community||| ||connectedness, equality||| ||and well-being||| |Tirion Havard,|Transformative justice,|184,442|24| |London South Bank|women with convictions||| |University|and community cohesion||| |Lasana Harris,|Exploring the utility|120,397|23| |University College London|of behavioural data to||| ||understanding community||| ||well-being||| |Additional funding for Strategic Fund|projects funded in previous|years|| |Torsten Bell,|Economy 2030: Navigating|77,000|36| |Resolution Foundation|a decade of change||| |Total Strategic||2,155,157|| |Fund grants|||| ## Future plans ## Nuffield Foundation In 2023 the Nuffield Foundation will continue to fund research that connects evidence to policy and practice to advance social wellbeing. We will also be looking to the future and plan how we will identify – and respond to – new priority issues that we think will be fundamental in the coming years. Not just the next five of our new strategy, but beyond. Radical social, economic and technological changes are impacting all our lives. As a funder we want to not only respond to these developments, but also anticipate new local and global shifts, trends and challenges. We will develop our programmes across our domains of Education, Justice and Welfare, addressing some of the most difficult issues facing us – geographic inequalities, migration and integration, provision for an ageing society and the changing face of early childhood – the challenges of care from cradle to grave. There is an imperative to prepare the next generation with the skills they will need as they move from education to the world of work in an age of digital technologies and AI. The Foundation will also address how the effects of climate change are reshaping and redefining our research agenda. We will expand our work on access to justice in the face of an increasingly dysfunctional justice system, with a particular focus on the effects that the justice system has on the lives of those in contact with it. Our work in this area connects closely with the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory who continue with their mission of improving outcomes for children involved in the family justice system through better use of data and evidence. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Ada Lovelace Institute will continue to chart the most testing ethical and social implications of the impact of data science and bioscience on people’s lives. Ahead of the next general election, the Foundation opened a new fund for research into key policy areas and the country’s economic and social circumstances. The aim is to provide people with independent evidence to support them to make well-informed voting decisions. Projects will begin in the second half of 2023. As an inclusive funder, we welcome applications from diverse communities and under-represented groups for all our funds. Going forward we will continue to invest in reaching out to, and attracting, a broad range of applicants, following the success of our first _How to apply for funding_ webinar. The _Children’s information: improving lives through better listening and better data_ project, led by Professor Leon Feinstein and working in partnership with local authorities across England, is now well underway. This ambitious five-year project aims to develop and test ways of how information about and from children and families can be used ethically and effectively to better meet their needs and interests. _The skills imperative 2035: Essential skills for tomorrow’s workforce_ will publish an analysis of the demand for skills in the labour market in 2035, and Dr Ruth Patrick at the University of York will publish her final report looking at the impact on larger families of benefit reforms, including the two-child limit. The influential IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities has completed its major evidence-gathering stage. The second volume will consider what this tells us about which inequalities matter, why, and what to do about them. It will address issues such as why starting points in life are so important and what to do about a labour market that is failing many workers. Understanding Communities is also working towards a major report in 2024, which will bring several pieces of research exploring how to enhance people’s lives in the context of their communities. 52 53 Future plans Future plans The legacy of COVID-19 continues to feature in our agenda. Findings from Professor Lee Elliot Major at the University of Exeter into how the pandemic has affected social mobility will be published in the autumn, and Sarah Cattan of the Institute for Fiscal Studies will publish further work in their definitive study of the effects of COVID-19 on family time use and child development. life in the UK over the next 20 years, and develop research priorities that will address these issues. The thread running through all work is our mission to improve the lives of individuals, families and communities within a just and inclusive society. We look forward to 2023 being the year we apply the independence, authority and trust we’ve built up since 1943 to new research ideas that will contribute to shaping all our futures. Our Strategic Fund continues to make possible our most ambitious projects, the latest being a project by Dr Olena Nizalova at the University of Kent, _Connecting pensions, health and care_ , investigating the trade-offs between the key policy areas that should provide the conditions for living well in older life – one of our priority topics. Our Oliver Bird Fund will continue to build a definitive research programme on the social determinants and implications of musculoskeletal (MSK) disease across different populations on the UK. ## The applicant journey Our efforts to improve the experience of people who apply to us for funding continued throughout 2022. The aim is to make the application process more straightforward and ensure we are attracting a diverse range of projects, research teams and institutions who will bring innovative ideas on issues that address our core interests. The year will see the conclusion of some of our Strategic Fund projects, including the Resolution Foundation’s The Economy 2030 Inquiry. This is producing a range of significant reports exploring the implications of three major changes in the UK economy: Brexit, COVID-19 and the transition to a zero-carbon future. A series of regional events is engaging local leaders and new audiences with how economic change affects the places we live and the role for local action in an economic strategy for the UK. We also want to encourage greater involvement of early career researchers, more interdisciplinary research teams, and to support applicants to give increased consideration to the desired impact of their projects and how they will work to achieve it. In 2022 we redesigned our Application Guide so it was shorter and easier to read, and made some adaptations to our online portal. We also continued to visit universities to talk about the areas of research we are interested in funding, including what makes a successful application. We met with 36 universities and organisation either in-person or online, including the University of Glasgow, the University of Birmingham and King’s College London. In 2023 we will mark the Foundation’s 80th anniversary with a series of events to celebrate, but also to look to the future. The aim is to anticipate the circumstances, challenges and changes that will shape In 2023 we will mark the Foundation’s 80th anniversary with a series of events to celebrate, but also to look to the future. In 2023 we will be hosting a webinar for people interested in learning more about our research priorities and the application process. This will allow us to reach and engage with a larger and more diverse audience of potential grantees. ## Developing our people Following the pandemic, and a period of growth, we are continuing to work on building an inclusive organisation with a shared identity, underpinned by the principles of collaboration and autonomy. We want to build stronger links between the component parts of the Foundation, facilitate opportunities for staff to collaborate across teams and identify new opportunities for joint working. Personal development for our people is a key area of focus for us this year to create a development culture and upskill many of our people whose roles and remits have expanded in recent years. We are also now starting to make the best use of our new office, harnessing opportunities for collaboration and making more use of our convening space. We have recently developed a small number of research associate opportunities for early career researchers, supporting our core research domains and forging links across the Nuffield Foundation. Initial plans include positions for research associates to work on education and AI, and education and genetics/neuroscience. We are continuing to fund fellowships at POST, aligned with our research priorities. ## Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2023 is a transition year for NCOB as we move towards a new funding period and strategy. During the year we will be making changes to begin aligning our workplan and resources towards our new strategic goals and priority areas of work. For example, we will be developing our horizon scanning function, and appointing a horizon scanning manager. We will be announcing the findings of several of our current major projects. - Our _Future of ageing_ in-depth inquiry was published in April. This work links to the UK government’s grand challenge to help meet the needs of an ageing society, and explores how technology can be used to support people to flourish in older age. - We will share findings from two of our collaborative projects – firstly our work on developing a UK model for ethical standards in genomics initiatives with The Government Ofce for Life Sciences and genomics healthcare leads in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and secondly our partnership with the Ada Lovelace Institute on AI and genomics. - We will complete our independent inquiry on the causes of disagreements in the care of critically ill children, commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care, by the autumn. Also in 2023, we will be embarking on a public engagement project exploring views on assisted dying, publishing a briefing note on surrogacy, and sharing our review of climate change and health ethics, commissioned by Wellcome. ## Nuffield Family Justice Observatory In 2023 we will provide evidence and convene discussions to inform and inspire policy and practice relating to our five goals for the family justice system. Our work will focus on young people and the care system, babies who are subject to care proceedings, separating families and private law proceedings, and inequalities in the family justice system. For example, together with our partners we will publish the finalised _Born into care_ best 54 55 Future plans Diversity and inclusion and families of different ethnicities in the family justice system. practice guidelines – informed by pilot sites that have been trialling improvements in practice when babies are removed at birth. Alongside this programme of work, we will expand our networks to reach more people working in the family justice system, support innovation and fresh ways of looking at entrenched issues, and seek out and listen to the experiences of children and their families. We will continue to collect and analyse data from the new DoLs court, as we did in 2022. In addition to monthly data monitoring, we will undertake an in-depth case file analysis to understand the underlying needs and circumstances of the young people subject to applications. This analysis will be used to inform discussions about what alternative provision is required to support young people in these circumstances. ## Ada Lovelace Institute In 2023, Ada will continue to interrogate the role of data and AI in the biggest societal challenges – climate change, education, gender, and the multiple factors driving inequalities and their intersections – and anticipate opportunities to build impactful evidence that shapes decisions and practices for the benefit of people and society. We will share and convene discussions to explore the issues that parents undergoing separation and their children face, and what support they think might be helpful. We will also use data to understand more about the 10% of private law applications made by non-parents. We will also publish a report on the pathways that lead to cases returning to private law courts. To respond to these opportunities, we will: - Contribute to tackling fundamental societal issues through our work in In addition, we will continue to shine a spotlight on inequalities between children Emerging technology & industry practice; Society, justice and social policy; and AI & data law and policy – to support better understanding of potential impacts, benefits and transformative effects of AI and data-driven technologies. In addition, we will expand our remit by producing new evidence on AI and climate change, education and gender that examines the role that AI and data-driven technologies can play, or already play, in these areas. • Bring evidence to inform and shape policy and practice by publishing an international review, an online evidence explorer and a synthesis of lessons learned from our three-year programme investigating societal impacts of COVID-19 technologies. We anticipate this will be of use to UK and international inquiries into COVID-19, pandemic preparedness, and the future of health and social care. We will also publish and convene conversations around evidence on the practices of local authorities seeking to use data-driven systems, like predictive analytics, in the provision of services including social care. And we will continue to build evidence to contribute to ongoing policy and regulatory conversations throughout the year – for example, strengthening the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill’s coverage of biometric technologies, and methods for regulatory inspection in the EU, ensuring they prioritise societal benefits and minimise harms. • Centre public voice and public participation to surface the views and perspectives of people and communities that can be lost in rapid societal and technological change. This year will see the publication of findings from a major new survey of public attitudes to AI and data-driven technologies, conducted in partnership with the Alan Turing Institute. We will also publish a report examining people’s lived experiences of digital tools and data in healthcare as part of a project in partnership with the Health Foundation. This evidence will be used to engage policymakers and practitioners on the voices and perspectives of those affected by data and AI – influencing regulatory decisions and industry practices. ## Diversity and inclusion We continue our programme of work to ensure diversity and inclusion principles are embedded in all aspects of what we do as a Foundation. We have three main objectives: - To ensure that we are an inclusive - employer, where our policies and practices encourage diversity, and where people can perform at their best. - To ensure that the diverse nature - of society is reflected in how we work, the work and people we fund, and those with whom we engage. - To leverage our influence as a funder or influencer to: - a. Require that our grant-holders adopt similar good practice. - b. Support capacity and opportunity building for under-represented groups, including in the research community. - c. Recognise the importance of research reflecting the diversity of society. In 2022 we continued to focus on the first two of these objectives. We monitor the diversity of our staff and job applicants so that we can understand where we need to take further steps to ensure we are an inclusive employer. 56 57 Diversity and inclusion Diversity and inclusion Table 1 presents data across four protected characteristics for Nuffield Foundation employees as of 31 December 2022, and there has been a small increase in the proportion of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds during the course of the year. We acknowledge the low proportion of staff declaring a disability, and continue to look at actions and initiatives that might address this. We have recently started collecting diversity monitoring data on those people holding governance roles across the Foundation. 88% of the Foundation’s Trustees have provided this information. Of those disclosing, 57% are male and 43% are female, 71% are White and 29% are from other ethnic backgrounds. Incorporating members of our wider governance bodies (the Trustees, our committees, and the members of the governing boards for the Ada Lovelace Institute, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory), 58% have disclosed this information. From those disclosing, 50% of members are female and 50% are male, and 83% of members are White with 17% from other ethnic backgrounds. During the course of 2022 we introduced a series of seminars and workshops for our staff looking at different aspects of diversity in the workplace and in our work – this included sessions on diversity and inclusion in UK social research, embedding anti-racist approaches in research design, neurodiversity awareness, trans awareness, disability in the workplace and LGBTQ+ allyship. These were well received by our staff and further events will be arranged. We recruited our first apprentice and also hired a member of staff from the government’s Skills Bootcamp scheme. We will continue to identify other opportunities using similar schemes which aim to support young people into work. During 2022 we were awarded the RNIB’s ‘Visibly Better’ standard, and we have signed up to be an age-friendly employer. During 2023 we will review our Disability Confident Level 1 status and look to see whether we are ready to progress to Level 2. We want to ensure that our applicants and grant-holders reflect the diversity of society. Since 2021 we have introduced voluntary diversity and inclusion monitoring of applicants, grant-holders and their teams to find out more about the people who apply for – and are awarded – funding. Tables 2 and 3 present data across four protected characteristics for Principal Investigators and Co-Investigators named in applications and those who were grant-holders in 2022, and compares these against the same in 2021. Overall, there has been little change between the two years. As can be seen in Table 2, there are clearly fewer applicant respondents who completed the survey in 2021, this is due to our instigating monitoring during the second of our two annual funding rounds that year. Over time, the data gathered helps inform what steps we may take to ensure our funding opportunities are accessible to all potential applicants. In 2022, we updated our website to meet Level AAA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These explain how to make web content more accessible to people with disabilities and covers websites as well as all other digital content. The scope of work included adjusting our font sizing, increasing colour contrasts, adding text alternatives and making scrollable areas accessible with keyboard tab index. We will monitor for any updated requirements put forward by the WCAG and continue to make sure our content is accessible as possible going forward. |Table 1:|| |---|---| |Staf protected characteristics (%)|| |Age|| |29 or under|22.5| |30–39|27.5| |40–49|23.8| |50–59|21.2| |60+|5.0| |Prefer not to say|0| |Ethnicity|| |Asian or Asian|8.7| |British|| |Black or Black|3.8| |British|| |Mixed|3.8| |Other ethnic group|1.2| |White|75.0| |Prefer not to say|7.5| |Disability|| |No|85.0| |Yes|3.8| |Prefer not to say|11.2| |Gender|| |Female|72.5| |Male|27.5| |Use another term|0| |Prefer not to say|0| 58 59 Diversity and inclusion Diversity and inclusion Table 2: Applicant protected characteristics |Principal|Investigator|Co-Investigator|Co-Investigator|| |---|---|---|---|---| ||2022 (%; n=446*)|2021 (%; n=130*)|2022 (%;|2021 (%;| ||||n=742*)|n=177*)| |Age||||| |29 or under|3|3|2|0| |30–39|28|31|24|24| |40–49|40|38|35|36| |50–59|21|19|28|30| |60+|7|8|9|8| |Prefer not to say|1|0|2|2| |Ethnicity||||| |Asian or Asian British|9|5|6|5| |Black or Black British|1|1|1|0| |Mixed|3|2|3|2| |Other ethnic group|2|2|2|2| |White|84|88|86|90| |Prefer not to say|1|2|1|1| |Disability||||| |No|83|85|80|83| |Yes|12|10|17|15| |Prefer not to say|5|5|3|2| |Gender||||| |Female|62|55|58|53| |Male|35|42|40|46| |I use another term|2|2|1|1| |Prefer not to say|1|1|1|1| * Sample sizes (the number of respondents) are denoted by the ‘n’ value. Table 3: Grant-holder protected characteristics |Principal Investigator|||Co-Investigator|| |---|---|---|---|---| ||2022 (%;|2021|
2022|2021| ||n=100*)|(%; n=107*)|(%; n=186*)|(%; n=191*)| |Age||||| |29 or under|0|1|4|5| |30–39|21|21|18|16| |40–49|33|32|40|42| |50–59|30|29|23|23| |60+|15|17|12|12| |Prefer not to say|1|1|3|3| |Ethnicity||||| |Asian or Asian British|3|4|2|2| |Black or Black British|0|0|1|1| |Mixed|4|4|1|1| |Other ethnic group|2|2|1|1| |White|86|86|94|95| |Prefer not to say|5|5|2|2| |Disability||||| |No|86|87|80|81| |Yes|14|13|16|15| |Prefer not to say|0|0|5|5| |Gender||||| |Female|61|62|60|61| |Male|37|36|38|37| |I use another term|1|1|0|2| |Prefer not to say|1|1|2|0| - Sample sizes (the number of respondents) are denoted by the ‘n’ value. 60 61 Financial review Financial review ## Financial Review 2022 saw us complete the five-year financial framework period that we established in 2018 to operate in support of our organisational strategy. In 2022 our two key financial metrics – annual charitable expenditure and the value of our investment portfolio – are somewhat lower than in the previous period. In both cases this is down to 2021 being something of an exceptional year. - Our charitable expenditure in 2022 was £23.2 million compared to £28.5 million in 2021; 2022 continued to evidence our target spend being in excess of £20 million per annum, with the year-on-year reduction explained by 2021’s high annual strategic fund commitments (£7.2 million against a medium-term average annual target of £3 million) and the phasing of spend on the one-off Nuffield Early Language Intervention (£4.3 million in 2021, £1.1 million in 2022). • Our investments were valued at £498 million at the end of December 2022, against a December 2021 valuation of £542 million. In common with other endowment funds within the sector and beyond, 2022 has seen increased volatility in market valuations. Against our longer-term financial targets we remain significantly ahead of our target position, and so 2022’s market volatility does not yet cause any concern for our long-term ability to spend at our intended levels. The key headline from our five-year framework is that we achieved our goal to commit over £100 million of charitable expenditure in the five-year period from 2018 to 2022 to help us achieve the goals set out in our strategy. We have developed a framework for the following five years that sees further growth in our spending – we will set out more on this in the coming period as we develop the next phase of our organisational strategy. ## Expenditure Expenditure in 2022 – while £5.3 million (19%) lower than in 2021 due to the factors described above – remains around double our average annual spend in the periods prior to the financial framework being established. ## Key components of our 2022 expenditure include: - £9.5 million of research grants to higher education institutions and other organisations, including - £0.5 million to the British Academy to support Ukrainian researchers through the Researchers at Risk Fellowship Programme that was launched in April 2022. - £2 million of strategic fund grants, including £1.1 million for our new Understanding Communities programme. - £2 million of grants under the latest phase of our musculoskeletal research funding through our Oliver Bird Fund. - Increased expenditure for the Ada Lovelace Institute (including third-party funding support such as from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Open Society Foundations). These activities indicate some of the ways in which we are using our financial resources to deliver the aspirations laid out in our strategy. ## Investment management and governance Our financial objectives are: - To have the ability to spend at a sustainable rate over the medium term (5 years +). - With the actual timing of expenditure being variable, driven by the Foundation’s risk appetite and quality criteria. - While seeking to maintain in real terms the value and purchasing power of the endowment in the longer term. - And by reflecting our mission of advancing social well-being in how we invest. Our investment objective remains to have a diversified portfolio that will allow for high and stable long-term spending, earned in a way that is consistent with our values. The portfolio return of −5.4% (2021: +20.3%) was comfortably ahead of our market-based benchmark of −7.3% (+17.8%), which is based on 90% in global equities and 10% in short-dated gilts. Private equity was the largest contributor to overall performance (+12.3%), while public equities returned −11.6%, 4% less than the MSCI ACWI index (which returned −7.6%). The individual performance of listed equity managers was largely disappointing and some of the style diversification we had expected failed to materialise, especially in our new value-oriented managers. Private equity performed strongly, although as revaluations feed through from private equity funds during 2023 we expect to concede some of the earlier gains in this asset class. - We aim to know what we own, or be confident that our managers know what they own on our behalf and why they own it. When investing in private equity we will seek reassurance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters in line with our policy. - We will disinvest from a manager where on balance its approach is incompatible with our interests described above. This portfolio is normally unhedged, which has served it well. During the year we decided to protect some of these currency gains by hedging approximately 50% of our USD exposure (therefore 25% of our total fund) at £1 to $1.15. When and if GBP recovers towards its more normal value we will return to our unhedged strategy. Our full responsible investing policy is available on our website: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/our-policies ## Asset allocation and ranges |We are now building on how we monitor and understand
how our managers behave on our behalf as responsible
investors. We dedicate one Investment Committee
meeting a year to this based on our principal of ‘know
what we own’. As part of this we examine our portfolio
against a number of metrics to ensure that we are not
earning our returns by exploiting vulnerable people
(a key test for us), and discuss with our managers how
they express our policy in what they own, how they vote
and how they engage.|Asset class
Target
2022 Actual
_Real assets_
Global equities
70%
68%
Private assets
20%
18%
Currency
-
1%
_Total real assets_
_90%_
_87%_
Short-dated gilts and cash
10%
13%
_Total assets_
_100%_
_100%_| |---|---| We continue to carefully watch inflation (both globally and in the UK), which would affect us by increasing the rate at which our CMI rises while potentially decreasing market values of our investments. The impact of this would be to reduce the amount of excess reserves that we are holding over the CMI target. ## Manager structure and principal benchmarks Investment performance is assessed against total returns relative to a composite benchmark based on asset allocation at the beginning of each period. Performance is also compared to an appropriate peer group index (previously WM Charities Unconstrained Index). Individual manager benchmarks are set out below. Our Investment Committee is made up of three Trustees and two independent investment professionals, and fulfils a key governance role by monitoring and overseeing this area on behalf of the Board of Trustees. ||Asset class
_Real assets_
Global equities|Manager
Arrowstreet, Harding
Loevner, GMO, Magellan,
Maj Invest, Veritas| |---|---|---| ||Private assets|Various illiquid funds| |||| ||_Nominal assets_|| ||Short-dated gilts|Internally managed| ## Responsible investing policy Our Responsible Investing Policy has three parts: - We aim to achieve our financial returns in a way that is consistent with our charitable purpose of advancing social well-being. This includes being an engaged investor as well as avoiding businesses that are either unsustainable or seek to exploit vulnerable people. 62 63 Principal risks Principal risks Asset class Benchmark Target Total equities MSCI ACWI + 2% Private assets MSCI ACWI + 3% Fixed interest 0–5yr ML Gilt index - ||Investment performance|||| |---|---|---|---|---| ||Total returns_(annualised %)_|1 Year
3 Years|5 years|10 Years| ||Nufeld Foundation
Bespoke benchmark
Infation (annual weekly earnings)|–5.4%
8.5%
–7.3%
7.0%
6.7%
5.0%|7.6%
7.4%
4.2%|10.8%
10.7%
3.6%| ||ARC Steady Growth Index
Key
_Nufeld Foundation_
_Bespoke benchmark_
_ARC Steady Growth Index_|–9.6%
1.7%
_Actual performance_
_90% MSCI ACWI; 10% UK 1–5 year Gilts_
_Commonly used index for charity funds_|2.9%|5.7%| As our endowment is managed on a total return basis, and as a significant proportion of our accounting commitments will not be realised for several years and are fully covered by cash and cash-like holdings within our investment portfolio, we are satisfied that our current reserves position is appropriate and is a good indicator of our strategic intent. ## Reserves policy The primary focus of our reserves policy is to monitor the long-term health of the Nuffield Foundation’s financial outlook. Our strategy is to preserve the endowment’s value over the very long term while releasing the funds required to meet our short-term spending commitments. As at 31 December 2022, the ‘target value’ of our endowment was £420 million, with an upper range of £488 million and lower range of £353 million. The actual value of the endowment was £498 million, in excess of what we consider to be the usual volatility range – this has offered us the opportunity to look at accelerating our level of expenditure beyond our standard rate of 4.5%. This will be set out in greater detail in our next strategy period. ## Principal risks We are responsible for the management of risks, with detailed consideration delegated to the Audit and Risk Committee and supported by senior staff. In setting out our risk-management approach we recognise that, for strategic risk management at least, the somewhat formulaic ‘probability’ and ‘impact’ approach can lead to more emphasis on the scoring mechanisms than on the deeper implications of the risks identified. The short-term reserves level (unrestricted expenditure reserve) is a secondary focus within our financial management. The nature of our expenditure is that we make commitments (either in grants to third parties or in the designation of funds for our in-house programmes) well in advance of the funds being drawn down, and so we expect this expenditure reserve to be negative. The December 2022 level is −£7.1 million. To avoid this trap we have developed an approach that frames each conversation to consider the gap between our risk appetite and the actual profile of a given risk. This has a number of advantages in comparison to some more widely used approaches, including: - It recognises that risk assessment is more of a continuum than a precise point on a chart. It allows space to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty in evaluating risks. - As the primary question is ‘where are we furthest from our aspiration in terms of risk appetite?’, the discussions naturally become action-oriented and forward-looking. - At its centre is the knowledge that failing to take sufficient risk can be as much of a problem as failing to mitigate against downside risks. Our strategic risk areas, with current status and key actions, are: Strategic risk area Is our strategy on track and sufficiently flexible and responsive to changing circumstances? Status and key actions The strategy has proved itself to be an important and valuable guide in framing our activity and flexing our approach to circumstances over the past five years. We continue to make good progress in strengthening our approach to impact, evaluation and learning, including through our impact evaluation in late 2022 / early 2023. Are we funding work of the quality and relevance required to advance our purpose? Our continued development of larger ‘strategic’ grants and more cross-cutting and synthesis workstreams allows us to check ourselves on this area. Are we taking the right level of risk to achieve the desired outcomes? Does our funding have the appropriate impact on policy and practice over the short, medium and long term? |||| |---|---|---| ||Does our funding have the appropriate impact on
policy and practice over the short, medium and
long term?
Does our reputation among key stakeholders
refect our purpose and enable us to build efective
partnerships?
Are we managing the Foundation’s range|We continue to build our profle as a convenor and to explore
how best to connect with policymakers and practitioners.
We will conduct stakeholder research over the next year
to check how well our self-understanding lines up with
external voices.
We are satisfed that this risk is being well managed; we| ||of activities in a way that prevents exposure
to undue reputational damage?
Are we reaching our key audiences efectively?|continue to refne our governance and leadership approach
as our work develops across its multiple streams.
This will also be covered in the stakeholder research conducted
in the coming year – our convening and, for example, our early| ||Is our leadership governance ft for purpose, in
line with best practice, and alert to the dangers of
‘group think’?
Do we have the stafng capacity and culture to deliver
on our strategic commitments?
Do our systems, processes and environment
facilitate and enable our work?
Is our current and long-term strategy adequately
supported by our investment portfolio?|childhood symposium gives us cause for confdence.
We are reviewing and refning our governance and leadership
structure, with the refned model being operationalised in
2023.
We have focused on aspects of culture including diversity and
inclusion in the past year; this remains work in progress as does
ensuring we have the right levels of capacity and engagement.
The extensive changes to our systems and our working
environment over recent years are beginning to bear fruit, not
least as we unwind from lockdown restrictions on ofce use.
Our fnancial model is so far proving itself to be resilient in the
face of market volatility and infationary pressures; this will
require continued careful monitoring over the coming period.| 64 65 Structure, governance and management Structure, governance and management ## Structure, governance and management ## The Trust Deed The Nuffield Foundation is a charity registered with the Charity Commission (206601). It was established by Trust Deed on 9 June 1943 by Lord Nuffield. The Trust Deed details the objects of the Foundation which include: the advancement of health; the advancement of social well-being; the advancement of education; the care and comfort of the aged poor; the relief of handicaps; the benefit of the Commonwealth; and ‘such other charitable purposes as shall be declared in writing by all the Trustees’. A Common Investment Fund was established by a Charity Commission scheme and took effect on 1 January 1980. It allowed the investments of different charities (but for which the Foundation Trustees were also responsible) to be invested as one unit. Subsequently, these funds (the Oliver Bird Fund, the Elizabeth Nuffield Educational Fund and the Commonwealth Relations Trust) have been classified as ‘subsidiary charities’ of the Foundation A Common Investment Fund was established by a Charity Commission scheme and took effect on 1 January 1980. It allowed the investments of different charities (but for which the Foundation Trustees were also responsible) to be invested as one unit. Subsequently, these funds (the Oliver Bird Fund, the Elizabeth Nuffield Educational Fund and the Commonwealth Relations Trust) have been classified as ‘subsidiary charities’ of the Foundation and are only identified separately in the notes to these accounts. The Trust Deed has been amended on a number of occasions, most recently in 2016. ## Trustees The Foundation has eight Trustees, who act jointly as a corporate body. Trustees are appointed by other Trustees for a standard tenure of two five-year terms. The Board of Trustees meets five times a year and retains overall responsibility for all activities of the Foundation. Allstrategic and policy decisions are taken by the Trustees collectively, advised by a number of committees. We also have oversight boards for the Ada Lovelace Institute, the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics – these do not have formal fiduciary duties. Committee / oversight board membership is as follows: _Italics_ external to / independent of Nuffield Foundation + Joined in year # Left in year ||Board sub-committees
Audit and Risk|Remit
Is responsible for the process leading to
the preparation of the annual fnancial
statements the control environment, and
the oversight of risk management.|2022 Membership
_Claire Brown_(Chair)
John Pullinger
Clare Tickell +| |---|---|---|---| ||Finance
Investment|Has oversight of fnancial planning and
performance monitoring; oversees the
management of signifcant initiatives.
Considers the Foundation’s asset
allocation and monitors investment
performance; can appoint and dismiss
investment managers.|John Pullinger (Chair)
Clare Tickell
_Claire Brown_
Keith Burnett (Chair)
James Banks
John Pullinger
_Neil Honebon #_| ||Nominations and Governance
Staf and Remuneration
Entity boards
Ada Lovelace Institute|Examines the way the charity is governed
and recommends changes to Trustees. It
also identifes potential new Trustees.
Has oversight and development of the
Foundation’s stafng policies.
Leads the strategic development of the
Ada Lovelace Institute, and is responsible
for securing long-term sustainability.
Board members also play a leading role in
identifying questions or projects relating to
the use of data and AI for investigation and|Gary Steinberg
David Ballance +
Keith Burnett (Chair)
Ash Amin
Ernest Ryder
Keith Burnett (Chair)
Ann Phoenix
_Wendy Hall_(Chair)
_Francine Bennett_
_Rocio Concha Galguera_
_Alix Dunn_
_Helen Margetts_
_Huw Price_| |||deliberation.|_Hetan Shah_| ||||_John Thornhill_| ||Nufeld Council on Bioethics|Is responsible for reviewing and|_Chris Todd_
_Brian Scott_(Chair)| |||challenging the Nufeld Council on|_Graham Hart_| |||Bioethics’ work, providing assurance that it|_Stephen Holgate #_| |||is operating within its remit and committing|_Katherine Littler +_| |||expenditure in line with the terms of|_Vivienne Parry_| |||the funding grant and the goals of the|_David Archard_, Chair of Council| |||Strategic Plan.|| |||(Note that the Council has a deliberative|| |||function, with responsibility for developing|| |||the Nufeld Council on Bioethics’ strategy.)|| 66 67 Structure, governance and management Structure, governance and management Nuffield Family Justice Observatory _James Munby_ (Chair) _Clare Carter Sally Jenkins Sophie Kershaw-Miller Lesley Newton Carey Oppenheim Andrew Powell Rob Street Andrew Webb Theresa Williams_ Provides independent oversight, ensuring that the work of the Nuffield FJO resonates with the wider family justice sector, reflects its England and Wales remit, and provides assurance to the funders on value for money and impact. _Claire Brown_ (Chair) Deirdre Carty _+ ad hoc members_ Panel for Trustee Remuneration Periodically reviews the principles and levels of remuneration of Trustees and other members of our governance environment and makes recommendations to the Chair of Trustees. chaired by Dame Wendy Hall and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory has a Governing Board chaired by Sir James Munby. We set terms of reference for all committees and panels, and parameters for the delegation of authority to senior staff. Senior staff set further levels of delegation for operational matters. New Trustees receive an induction, including a series of meetings with other Trustees and senior staff, and a handbook for Trustees, containing information about procedures, committees, meetings, decision-making and financial procedures at the Nuffield Foundation. In 2021 we set up a wholly owned subsidiary, Nuffield Foundation Education Ltd, as a ‘special purpose vehicle’ for the management of the grant from the Department for Education to roll out the Nuffield Early Language Intervention. The results of the subsidiary have been consolidated into the group accounts. The Foundation is a Living Wage Employer accredited by the Living Wage Foundation. ## Organisational structure and management of the Foundation The Foundation has employed an average of 70 full-time equivalent staff (including staff of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, all of whom are employed by the Foundation) during the year. The Chief Executive, supported by an Executive Board and a wider Leadership Team, is responsible for the management of the Foundation and for advising Trustees on strategic and operational matters. Trustees are responsible for grant-making decisions, with delegated authorities in line with agreed procedures. ## Statement of grant-making policy We seek to be an open, collaborative and engaged funder that offers more than money. We are not simply an academic funding body, though the research we fund must stand up to rigorous academic scrutiny. We publish details of available funding and the relevant application process on our website and promote these opportunities through our stakeholder engagement and communications. Grants are peer-reviewed by independent referees, who include representatives from the policy and practice worlds, as well as research experts. We require ethical scrutiny of proposals involving primary research and evidence of a commitment to the communication of research findings. Trustees make final decisions on these applications. We house several semi-autonomous bodies which, although legally part of the Nuffield Foundation, have their own governing structures with distinct terms of reference. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a longstanding example, with a Governing Board chaired by Brian Scott and a Council chaired by Professor David Archard. For our newer bodies, the Ada Lovelace Institute has a Governing Board Once a grant has been awarded, we will work with grant-holders to ensure an advisory board is in place to provide a range of technical, subject, policy and practice expertise. We also require grant-holders to report on progress and to produce at least one publicly available output that sets out how they used their grant and what they achieved. Additionally we require an end of project assessment, including feedback on the Foundation’s performance as a grant-maker. ## Statement of policy on staff remuneration We aim to recruit and retain able staff to deliver the operational activities of the organisation. Staff are paid on a pay band commensurate with the responsibility their post entails. Annual pay increases are agreed by the Staff and Remuneration Committee, taking inflation and national average earnings and any other relevant factors into account. We do not have a system of bonuses or other variable rewards, but will occasionally make additional payments to staff to recognise additional levels of responsibility or contribution. Periodically, staff pay is independently benchmarked to external comparators. We undertook a full benchmarking exercise in the summer of 2021, to ensure that our remuneration remained in line with our external markets, and that there was appropriate internal parity. It is recognised that there is some pressure on pay at this time due to increased costs of living, and we will keep our pay under review to ensure that we are still able to attract and retain talent. Details of senior staff pay are contained in note 4 to the accounts. ## Pay gap reporting While not required to report on our gender and ethnicity pay gap due to our relatively small headcount, we choose to do so in the interests of transparency and accountability. We are conscious that these figures are sensitive to fluctuation due to our small staff base, but we recognise the importance of understanding what they may tell us about our recruitment and retention practices and we will continue to monitor them. ## Gender pay gap As of 31 December 2022, the mean gender pay gap has reduced; mean average male pay is now 15.7% higher than average female pay (down from 19.5% in 2021). Looking at the median pay gap, this has also reduced with median male pay now 4.3% higher than female median pay (compared to 12.9% higher in 2021). Our overall staff base is 27.5% male and 72.5% female, with a 39% male / 61% female split in the upper pay quartile (unchanged from 2021). ## Ethnicity pay gap Looking at the average pay of employees disclosing themselves as from a White background compared with those staff from ethnic minority backgrounds, our mean pay gap has increased. Mean average pay for White employees is now 24.4% higher than those from ethnic minority backgrounds (up from 15.0% in 2021) and the median pay gap is 16.1% (increased from 5.3% in 2021). Although we have increased the overall ethnic diversity of our staff, the majority of recruitment over the previous year has been to positions that are in our lower pay bands. For reference, of those disclosing, our overall staff base is 81% White and 19% from ethnic minority backgrounds, with a 94% White / 6% ethnic minority background split in the upper quartile. ## Statement of policy on fundraising Section 162a of the Charities Act 2011 requires us to make a statement regarding fundraising activities. We do not undertake any fundraising activities, although we can accept offers from partners to contribute to work that we undertake. We show these sums in our accounts as ‘donation income’. We do not use professional fundraisers or ‘commercial participators’ or, indeed, any third parties to solicit donations. We are therefore not subject to any regulatory scheme or relevant codes of practice; nor have we received any complaints in relation to fundraising activities nor do we consider it necessary to design specific procedures to monitor such activities. 68 69 Structure, governance and management Structure, governance and management ## Charity Governance Code We have carried out a review of our activities against the Charity Governance Code, a tool designed to help charities and their trustees develop high standards of governance. We have an action plan to implement any relevant findings against this code. ## Streamlined energy and carbon reporting Although not required for charities of our size, we have elected to report our energy utilisation as a part of our wider commitment to responsible operations. 2021 was the first year that we collected the data. ||UK Energy Use
(kWH)
Associated
greenhouse
gas emissions
(tonnes CO2
equivalent)
Intensity ratio
(emissions per
square metre)|2022
216,191
55.5
0.02|2021
227,021
59.6
0.03| |---|---|---|---| UK energy use covers gas and electricity use across our UK offices plus the annual emissions from IT equipment. Associated greenhouse gases have been calculated using the GHG Reporting Protocol and we have used the 2021 government emission conversion factors for greenhouse gas company reporting. The bulk of our energy demand comes from our office use. In 2021 we moved offices from a Grade 1-listed Georgian property to a much more modern working environment where energy efficiency is more feasible; the old office was still retained during 2022, being sold in November. This will almost halve our energy utilisation. We use cloud-based and mobile technology solutions, so our in-house IT requirements (servers, etc.) have been reduced to a minimum. We have limited energy usage other than our office and IT commitments (Foundation travel is limited and is almost entirely by public transport); we have not attempted to calculate the power consumption of staff while working from home. ## Public benefit In preparing this report, Trustees have referred to the Charity Commission’s general guidance on public benefit and are satisfied that the activities undertaken by the Foundation meet the Commission’s requirements. As a research funder, the immediate beneficiaries are the organisations that we fund – universities, research institutes, voluntary organisations and others. Ultimately, the beneficiaries are much wider, since the aim of our grant-making is to improve the design and operation of social policy so that the lives of potentially every person in the UK benefit. Individual young people are the immediate beneficiaries of our student programmes, including the roll-out of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention; the public benefit reaches beyond the individuals directly supported, for example by ultimately seeking to address the skills gaps needed for the UK to flourish. ## Going concern We monitor our going concern position throughout the year, with regular formal reviews. Our general outlook on going concern is that the nature of the Foundation’s endowment management and its future financial commitments mean that the Trustees remain satisfied that the Foundation has sufficient reserves to continue as a going concern for the foreseeable future. Our most recent review confirms that, as our investment value is significantly in excess of our long-run target, our asset allocation is intentionally overweight on nominal / liquid funds (so strengthening our resilience to short-term adverse shocks), and as cash and gilt holdings are double the requirement to meet forecast outflows over the next 24 months, our general outlook remains positive. ## Statement of Trustees’ responsibilities The Trustees are responsible for preparing the Annual Report and the Financial Statements in accordance with applicable law and regulations. Charity law requires that Trustees prepare financial statements for each financial year, in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (United Kingdom Accounting Standards and applicable law). Under charity law, the Trustees must not approve the financial statements unless they are satisfied that they give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the charity and of the incoming resources and application of resources, including the income and expenditure, of the charity for that period. In preparing these financial statements, the Trustees are required to: - Select suitable accounting policies and apply them consistently. - Make judgments and accounting estimates that are reasonable and prudent. - State whether applicable UK Accounting Standards have been followed, subject to any material departures disclosed and explained in the financial statements. - Prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in business. The Trustees are responsible for keeping adequate accounting records that are sufficient to show and explain the charity’s transactions, to disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charity and to enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Charities Act 2011. They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charity and, therefore, for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities. These financial statements are published on the Foundation’s website, in accordance with legislation in the United Kingdom governing the preparation and dissemination of financial statements, which may vary from legislation in other jurisdictions. The maintenance and integrity of the Foundation’s website is the responsibility of the Trustees. The Trustees’ responsibility also extends to the ongoing integrity of the financial statements contained therein. ## Disclosure of information to auditors In so far as the Trustees are aware: - There is no relevant audit information of which the charity’s auditors are unaware. - The Trustees have taken all the steps that they ought to have taken as a Trustee in order to make themselves aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that the charity’s auditors are aware of that information. Approved by the Trustees on 12 May 2023 and signed on their behalf by: Professor Sir Keith Burnett Chair 70 71 Independent auditor’s report Independent auditor’s report ## Independent auditor’s report Independent Auditor’s Report to the Trustees of Nuffield Foundation ## Opinion We have audited the financial statements of Nuffield Foundation (the ‘Charity’) and its subsidiary (‘the Group’) for the year ended 31 December 2022 which comprise the Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities, the Consolidated and Charity Balance Sheets, the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows and notes to the financial statements, including significant accounting policies. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards, including Financial Reporting Standard 102 The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). In our opinion the financial statements: - give a true and fair view of the state of the group and the charity’s affairs as at 31 December 2022 and of the group’s income and receipts of endowments and expenditure, for the year then ended; - have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice; and - have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011. ## Basis for opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) and applicable law. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements section of our report. We are independent of the group in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in the UK, including the FRC’s Ethical Standard, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. ## Conclusions relating to going concern In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that the Trustees’ use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate. Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the charity’s or the group’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue. Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Trustees with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this report. ## Other information The Trustees are responsible for the other information contained within the annual report. The other information comprises the information included in the annual report, other than the financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and, except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in our report, we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon. Our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If we identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, we are required to determine whether this gives rise to a material misstatement in the financial statements themselves. If, based on the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, we are required to report that fact. We have nothing to report in this regard. ## Matters on which we are required to report ## by exception In light of the knowledge and understanding of the group and charity and their environment obtained in the course of the audit, we have not identified material misstatements within the Trustees’ report. We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters in relation to which the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 requires us to report to you if, in our opinion: - adequate and proper accounting records have not been kept; or - the financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or - certain disclosures of Trustees’ remuneration specified by law are not made; or - we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit. ## Responsibilities of the Trustees As explained more fully in the Trustees’ responsibilities statement, the Trustees are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view, and for such internal control as the Trustees determine is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In preparing the financial statements, the Trustees are responsible for assessing the charity’s and group’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the Trustees either intend to liquidate the charity or to cease operations, or have no realistic alternative but to do so. ## Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements. Details of the extent to which the audit was considered capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud and non-compliance with laws and regulations are set out below. A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council’s website at: www.frc.org.uk/ auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of our auditor’s report. ## Extent to which the audit was considered capable ## of detecting irregularities, including fraud Irregularities, including fraud, are instances of noncompliance with laws and regulations. We identified and assessed the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements from irregularities, whether due to fraud or error, and discussed these between our audit team members. We then designed and performed audit procedures responsive to those risks, including obtaining audit evidence sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. We obtained an understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks within which the charity operates, focusing on those laws and regulations that have a direct effect on the determination of material amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The laws and regulations we considered in this context were the Charities Act 2011 together with the Charities SORP (FRS 102). We assessed the required compliance with these laws and regulations as part of our audit procedures on the related financial statement items. In addition, we considered provisions of other laws and regulations that do not have a direct effect on the financial statements but compliance with which might be fundamental to the charity’s ability to operate or to avoid a material penalty. We also considered the opportunities and incentives that may exist within the charity for fraud. Auditing standards limit the required audit procedures to identify non-compliance with these laws and 72 73 Independent auditor’s report regulations to enquiry of the Trustee and other management and inspection of regulatory and legal correspondence, if any. We identified the greatest risk of material impact on the financial statements from irregularities, including fraud, to be the override of controls by management. Our audit procedures to respond to these risks included enquiries of management and the Audit and Risk Committee about their own identification and assessment of the risks of irregularities, sample testing on the posting of journals, reviewing accounting estimates for biases, reviewing regulatory correspondence with the Charity Commission and reading minutes of meetings of those charged with governance. Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable risk that we may not have detected some material misstatements in the financial statements, even though we have properly planned and performed our audit in accordance with auditing standards. For example, the further removed non-compliance with laws and regulations (irregularities) is from the events and transactions reflected in the financial statements, the less likely the inherently limited procedures required by auditing standards would identify it. In addition, as with any audit, there remained a higher risk of non-detection of irregularities, as these may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal controls. We are not responsible for preventing non-compliance and cannot be expected to detect non-compliance with all laws and regulations. ## Use of our report This report is made solely to the charity’s members, as a body, in accordance with Part 4 of the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the charity’s members those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor’s report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the charity and the charity’s members as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed. Crowe U.K. LLP Statutory Auditor London 30 May 2023 74 Foreword Foreword ## Financial statements and notes **76** **77** Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes ## Consolidated Statement of financial activities for the year ended 31 December 2022 Consolidated Statement of financial activities for the year ended 31 December 2021 **----- Start of picture text -----**
Note Unrestricted Restricted Endowed Total Funds Total Funds Note Unrestricted Restricted Endowed Total Funds
Funds Funds Funds 2022 2021 Funds Funds Funds 2021
£000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s
Income and Endowments Income and Endowments
Donations and legacies 2 176 2,403 - 2,579 7,660 Donations and legacies 2 174 7,486 - 7,660
Charitable activities 2 36 25 - 61 416 Charitable activities 2 65 351 - 416
Investment activities 7 - - 2,753 2,753 3,590 Investment activities 7 - - 3,590 3,590
Other income 2 13 - - 13 1 Other income 2 1 - - 1
Total income 225 2,428 2,753 5,406 11,667 Total income 240 7,837 3,590 11,667
Expenditure on: Expenditure on:
Raising funds Raising funds
Investment management costs - - 1,721 1,721 1,633 Investment management costs - - 1,633 1,633
Charitable activities Charitable activities
Research, development and analysis 11,558 605 - 12,163 11,824 Research, development and analysis 11,673 151 - 11,824
Student and other programmes 320 (83) - 237 148 Student and other programmes 125 23 - 148
Nuffield Early Language Intervention - 1,141 - 1,141 4,348 Nuffield Early Language Intervention 3 4,345 - 4,348
In-house programmes In-house programmes
Ada Lovelace Institute 1,588 1,130 - 2,718 2,071 Ada Lovelace Institute 1,155 916 - 2,071
Nuffield Council on Bioethics 771 646 - 1,417 1,451 Nuffield Council on Bioethics 798 653 - 1,451
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory 981 - - 981 1,115 Nuffield Family Justice Observatory 1,115 - - 1,115
Other in-house programmes 181 - - 181 105 Other in-house programmes 105 - - 105
- -
Total in-house programmes 3,521 1,776 5,297 4,741 Total in-house programmes 3,172 1,569 4,741
Strategic and Other Funds Strategic and Other Funds
Oliver Bird Fund - 2,048 - 2,048 38 Oliver Bird Fund - 38 - 38
- - - -
Strategic Fund 2,296 2,296 7,413 Strategic Fund 7,413 7,413
Commonwealth Relations Trust - 5 - 5 - Commonwealth Relations Trust - - - -
Total strategic and other funds 2,296 2,053 - 4,349 7,451 Total strategic and other funds 7,413 38 - 7,451
Total charitable activities 3 17,695 5,492 - 23,187 28,512 Total charitable activities 3 22,386 6,126 - 28,512
Total expenditure 17,695 5,492 1,721 24,908 30,145 Total expenditure 22,386 6,126 1,633 30,145
Net gains on investments - - (30,960) (30,960) 93,396 Net gains on investments - - 93,396 93,396
Net (expenditure)/income (17,470) (3,064) (29,928) (50,462) 74,918 Net (expenditure)/income (22,146) 1,711 95,353 74,918
Transfer between funds 14 16,451 1,918 (18,369) - - Transfer between funds 14 15,616 1,821 (17,437) -
Net (expenditure)/income after Net (expenditure)/income after transfers (6,530) 3,532 77,916 74,918
(1,019) (1,146) (48,297) (50,462) 74,918
transfers Reconciliation of funds:
Reconciliation of funds:
Total funds brought forward at 1 January 11,828 6,907 421,937 440,672
Total funds brought forward at 1 January 5,298 10,439 499,853 515,590 440,672
Total funds carried forward
14 5,298 10,439 499,853 515,590
Total funds carried forward at 31 December
14 4,279 9,293 451,556 465,128 515,590
at 31 December
**----- End of picture text -----**
78 79 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes ## Consolidated and Charity Balance sheet for the year ended 31 December 2022 ## Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows ||Consolidated and Charity Balance sheet for the year
ended 31 December 2022|Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows| |---|---|---| |Nuffield Foundation – Financial statements 2022|Group
_Group_
Charity
_Charity_
2022
_2021_
2022
_2021_
Note
£000s
_£000s_
£000s
_£000s_
Fixed assets
Tangible fxed assets
5
1,522
_6,223_
1,522
_6,223_
Intangible fxed assets
6
438
_634_
438
_634_
Investments
7
497,607
_542,052_
497,607
_542,052_
Programme related investments
85
_85_
85
_85_
499,652
_548,994_
499,652
_548,994_
Current assets
Debtors
8
2,647
_3,257_
3,361
_3,680_
Stock
-
_11_
-
_-_
Bank and cash
3,571
_5,851_
1,988
_3,781_
6,218
_9,119_
5,349
_7,461_
Liabilities: amounts falling due
within one year
Grants payable
9
(17,814)
_(21,120)_
(17,814)
_(21,120)_
Creditors
10
(2,569)
_(2,697)_
(2,462)
_(2,103)_
(20,383)
_(23,817)_
(20,276)
_(23,223)_
Net current liabilities
(14,165)
_(14,698)_
(14,927)
_(15,762)_
Liabilities falling due after one year
Grants payable
9
(20,160)
_(18,507)_
(20,160)
_(18,507)_
Provisions
11
(199)
_(199)_
(199)
_(199)_
Net assets
465,128
_515,590_
464,366
_514,526_
Funds
Unrestricted funds
Designated fund
14
11,426
_14,964_
11,426
_14,964_
General fund
14
(7,147)
_(9,666)_
(7,147)
_(9,666)_
4,279
_5,298_
4,279
_5,298_
Restricted funds
14
9,293
_10,439_
8,531
_9,375_
Endowed funds
14
451,556
_499,853_
451,556
_499,853_
Total funds
465,128
_515,590_
464,366
_514,526_|2022
_2021_
Note
£000s
_£000s_
Net cash fows from operating activities
Net cash used in operating activities
(22,879)
_(16,345)_
Cash fows from investing activities
Investment additions
(5,530)
_(3,658)_
Investment fees paid directly from portfolio
1,015
_1,094_
Investment cash withdrawals
7
18,000
_20,000_
Payments to acquire tangible fxed assets
5
(12)
_(452)_
Payments to acquire intangible fxed assets
6
(2)
_(75)_
Income from sale of tangible fxed assets
4,375
_-_
Investment income
7
2,753
_3,590_| |||Net cashprovided byinvestingactivities
20,599
_20,499_| |||Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents/net debt
Cash and cash equivalents at 1 January
5,851
_1,697_
Cash and cash equivalents at 31 December
3,571
_5,851_| |||Change in cash and cash equivalents/net debt in the year
(2,280)
_4,154_| |||Reconciliation of net income to net cash fows from
operating activities
Net income for the year
50,462
_74,918_
Adjustments for:
Depreciation
5
252
_218_
Amortisation
6
198
_171_
Investment income
(2,753)
_(3,590)_
(Gains) on investments
30,960
_(93,396)_
Loss of disposal of fxed assets
86
_-_
Increase in grant commitments
(1,653)
_5,308_
(Increase) in stock
11
_(11)_
Increase in creditors
(128)
_1,348_
(Increase) in debtors
610
_(1,311)_| |||Net cash outfows from operating activities
(22,879)
_(16,345)_| |||| Notes 1 – 15 form part of these financial statements. The loss generated by the Charity in 2022 after gains and losses was £50,462k (2021: surplus £73,854k). These financial statements were approved and authorised for issue by the Trustees on 12 May 2023 and were signed on their behalf by: There is £7.2m of cash held in investments (2021: £20.5m) which are not available for immediate use to further charitable activities, these are being held as part of the investment portfolio to generate investment returns. Professor Sir Keith Burnett Chair 80 81 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes ## Notes to the financial statements ## 1. Principal accounting policies ## a. Basis of accounting The financial statements have been prepared under the historical cost convention, as modified by the revaluation of investments and in accordance with applicable Accounting Standards. The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the second edition of the Charities Statement of Recommended Practice issued in October 2019 (the ‘SORP’), the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (FRS 102) issued on 16 July 2014 and the Charities Act 2011. The Nuffield Foundation is a public benefit entity and is registered with the Charity Commission in England and Wales (Charity number: 206601). The financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis and the accounting policies below are consistently applied. Based on the nature of the Foundation’s endowment management and its future financial commitments, the Trustees remain satisfied that there are no material uncertainties that may cast significant doubt about the ability of the Foundation to continue as a going concern for the foreseeable future. The Foundation’s financial statements are presented in pounds sterling and rounded to thousands. The functional and presentation currency is the pound sterling. ## b. Basis of consolidation Consolidated accounts have been prepared which include the Foundation and its subsidiary company, Nuffield Foundation Education Ltd. The Nuffield Foundation Education Ltd is a private company limited by guarantee that was incorporated on 5[th] May 2021. The consolidation is on a line-by-line basis. Amounts owed and owing between the entities have been eliminated from the consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of financial activities. - c. Estimates and judgements The Foundation must make certain estimates and judgements that have an impact on the policies and amount reported in the annual accounts. The estimates and judgements are based on historical experiences and other factors including expectations of future events that are believed to be reasonable at the time such estimates and judgements are made. Actual results may differ from these estimates. These are reviewed on an ongoing basis and any revisions are recognised prospectively. The key estimates and judgements made by the Foundation are addressed below. ## _I. Investments_ The carrying value of investments is subject to estimates, assumptions and judgements of their fair value. In determining this amount, the Charity ensures its managers adopt the International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation Guidelines, applying the overriding concept that fair value is the amount for which an asset can be exchanged between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. The nature, facts and circumstance of the investment drives the valuation methodology. ## _II. Fixed assets_ The actual lives of tangible and intangible fixed assets and their residual values are assessed annually. In re-assessing asset lives, factors such as economic and future market conditions are considered, as is the remaining life of the asset and projected disposal values. Property revaluations are obtained periodically. The last formal valuation of our Bedford Square property occurred in 2021 as this was marketed for sale. ## _III. Dilapidation provision_ The dilapidation provision requires management’s best estimate of the expenditure that will be incurred based on contractual requirements. The timing of cash flows and any discount rates used to establish net present value of the obligation requires management’s judgement. The provision was recognised in 2020 and will be assessed regularly for fair value. d. Income Investment income represents dividends and interest generated from the investment portfolio, including any associated tax credits or recoverable taxation. This income is accounted for on an accruals basis and is allocated proportionally to the underlying funds. Grants and donations are accounted for when the charity has entitlement to the funds, probable receipt and the amount is measurable. Where income is received in advance, it is deferred until the charity is entitled to that income. ## Expenditure - e. Costs of raising funds represent amounts paid to the Foundation’s external investment advisors and managers. This excludes private equity fees which cannot be identified separately and therefore are shown net of the income received. Charitable expenditure comprises grants and other payments made by the Trustees in accordance with criteria set out in the trust deed. Grants are charged to the Statement of financial activities when allocations are approved by the Trustees and confirmed to the recipient, less any awards cancelled or refunded. Grants awarded subject to conditions are included as expenditure at the point at which the Trustees make an unconditional offer of a grant to the applicant. ‘Other costs’ include staffing, hosting seminars and conferences, commissioned research or evaluations together with any direct costs immediately attributable to a specific activity. ‘Support costs’ reflect the apportionment of costs shared by all activities. Redundancy and termination payments are recognised when there is a demonstrable commitment on an individual or group basis that cannot be realistically withdrawn. - f. Basis of allocation of costs Investment management costs and charity administration costs are allocated to the funds in proportion to their holding in the endowment at the beginning of the year. Where identifiable, costs related to Charitable activities or governance are attributed to appropriate activities and funds in full or, where not separately identifiable, are apportioned using the most relevant allocation basis for that expenditure. ## Investments ## g. Quoted investments are included in the accounts at their bid price as at the balance sheet date. Unquoted (e.g. private equity) investments with no readily identifiable market price are included at the most recent valuations from their respective managers. ## h. Taxation The Foundation is a charity within the meaning of Paragraph 1 Schedule 6 Finance Act 2010. Accordingly, the charity is potentially exempt from taxation in respect of income or capital gains within categories covered by Chapter 3 of Part 11 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 or Section 256 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, to the extent that such income or gains are applied exclusively to charitable purposes. No tax charge arose in the period. - i. Exchange gains and losses All realised and unrealised exchange gains and losses on investments are accounted for in the Statement of financial activities. - j. Financial instruments The Foundation has financial assets and financial liabilities of a kind that qualify as basic financial instruments apart from the derivative instruments held. Basic financial instruments are initially 82 83 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes purpose and are available as general funds. Some of these funds are designated by the Trustees to fund specific strategic programmes. recognised at transaction value and subsequently measured at their settlement value. ## k. Fixed assets (tangible and intangible) Restricted funds have arisen from restrictions applied by donors. Expenditure that meets these criteria is identified to the fund, together with a fair allocation of support and charity administration costs. Fixed assets are stated at cost less depreciation. Assets over a value of £5,000 are capitalised. Assets under construction are not depreciated until they are brought into use. Depreciation has been calculated at the following annual rates, in order to write off each asset over its estimated useful life. |||The endowed funds of the Foundation consist of both| |---|---|---| |Software
Computers
Equipment
Infrastructure/IT systems
Fixtures and fttings
Artwork/Antiques|3 years
3 years
5 years
5 years
10 years
20 years|permanent and expendable capital funds. Income
generated from the expendable endowment funds
is applied to the general fund or, where specifed,
to restricted purposes. A total return distribution is
made each year from the endowment funds to fund
charitable activities.| - l. Stock ## o. Pension costs The Foundation makes contributions into a defined contribution pension scheme for its employees. Pension costs are charged as they are incurred. Stock comprises of items provided to schools as part of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme. Stock is stated at the lower of cost and net realisable value. |2. Income
2022
Unrestricted
Restricted
Total
£000s
£000s
£000s
Donations and legacies
_Grants received_
_in support of:_
Nufeld Early Language
-
826
826
Intervention
Nufeld Council
on Bioethics
174
813
987
Ada Lovelace Institute
1
714
715
Oliver Bird
1
50
51
Nufeld Research
-
-
-
Placements
176
2,403
2,579
Charitable activities
Sales, royalties and fee
income
36
25
61
Other income
13
-
13|_2021_
_Unrestricted_
_Restricted_
_Total_
£000s
£000s
£000s| |---|---| ||_-_
_5,360_
_5,360_
_174_
_659_
_833_
_-_
_1,417_
_1,417_
_-_
_50_
_50_
_-_
_-_
_-_| ||_174_
_7,486_
_7,660_
_65_
_351_
_416_
_1_
_-_
_1_| |225
2,428
2,653|_240_
_7,837_
_8,077_| ## p. Provisions for liabilities ## m. Total return accounting The Charity Commission permitted the Foundation to adopt the use of total return in relation to its permanent endowment on 7 February 2006. The power permits the Trustees to invest permanent endowments to maximise total return and to make available an appropriate portion of the total return for expenditure each year. Until this power is exercised, the total return shall be an ‘unapplied total return’ and remain as part of the permanent endowment. The Trustees have decided that it is in the interests of the Foundation to present its expendable endowment in the same manner in note 13, although there is no legal restriction on the power to distribute the expendable endowment. The Trustees have used the values of the permanent endowments at 31 December 2003 to represent the ‘Preserved Value’ of the original gift. ## n. Fund accounting Unrestricted funds are donations, investment income and other income received or generated for the objects of the charity without further specified Provisions are recognised when the Foundation has a present obligation (legal or constructive) as a result of a past event, it is probable that the Foundation will be required to settle the obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. The amount recognised as a provision is the best estimate of the consideration required to settle the present obligation at the end of the reporting period, taking into account the risks and uncertainties surrounding the obligation. Where the effect of the time value of money is material, the amount expected to be required to settle the obligation is recognised at present value using a discount rate. The unwinding of the discount is recognised as a finance cost in profit or loss in the period it arises. The Foundation recognises a provision for returning the new office at 100 St John Street back to its original state at the end of the 20-year lease term. 84 85 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes |3. Expenditure
a. Charitable expenditure
Direct costs
Support and
governance
costs
Total 2022
Grants
Other
£000s
£000s
£000s
£000s
Research, development and analysis
Education
3,824
402
1,003
5,229
Welfare
3,170
388
931
4,489
Justice
1,989
257
583
2,829
_New grants commitment sub-total_
8,983
1,047
2,517
12,547
Cancelledgrants
(384)
-
-
(384)
8,599
1,047
2,517
12,163
Student programmes
115
111
11
237
Nufeld Early Language Intervention
-
1,134
7
1,141
In-house programmes
Ada Lovelace Institute
-
1,956
762
2,718
Nufeld Council on Bioethics
-
951
466
1,417
Nufeld Family Justice Observatory
-
753
228
981
Other in-houseprogrammes
-
161
20
181
-
3,821
1,476
5,297
Strategic and other funds
Oliver Bird Fund
1,997
7
44
2,048
Strategic Fund
2,151
31
114
2,296
Commonwealth Relations
-
-
5
5
4,148
38
163
4,349
Total charitable expenditure
12,862
6,151
4,174
23,187|_a. Charitable expenditure_
_(comparative information)_
_Direct costs_
_Support and_
_governance_
_costs_
_Total 2021_
_Grants_
_Other_
_£000s_
_£000s_
_£000s_
_£000s_| |---|---| ||_Research, development and analysis_
_Education_
_3,905_
_415_
_817_
_5,137_
_Welfare_
_3,880_
_385_
_779_
_5,044_
_Justice_
_1,521_
_257_
_494_
_2,272_| ||_New grants commitment sub-total_
_9,306_
_1,057_
_2,090_
_12,453_
_Cancelledgrants_
_(629)_
_-_
_-_
_(629)_| ||_8,677_
_1,057_
_2,090_
_11,824_| ||| ||_Student programmes_
_(49)_
_181_
_16_
_148_| ||| ||_Nufeld Early Language Intervention_
-
_4,344_
_4_
_4,348_| ||_In-house programmes_
_Ada Lovelace Institute_
_130_
_1,423_
_518_
_2,071_
_Nufeld Council on Bioethics_
_-_
_994_
_457_
_1,451_
_Nufeld Family Justice Observatory_
_7_
_891_
_217_
_1,115_
_Other in-houseprogrammes_
_-_
_105_
_-_
_105_| ||_137_
_3,413_
_1,191_
_4,741_| ||_Strategic and other funds_
_Oliver Bird Fund_
_-_
_-_
_38_
_38_
_Strategic Fund_
_7,195_
_25_
_193_
_7,413_| ||_7,195_
_25_
_231_
_7,451_| ||| ||_Total charitable expenditure_
_15,960_
_9,020_
_3,532_
_28,512_| ||| 86 87 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes ||b. Support and governance costs|Total 2022|_Total 2021_|| |---|---|---|---|---| |||£000s|_£000s_|| ||Staf costs|1,622|_1,398_|| ||Ofce costs
Information technology|1,862
529|_1,575_
_420_|| ||Governance costs
Auditors’ remuneration (incl. VAT)
Trustees’ remuneration
Trustees’ expenses
Legal fees|4,013
47
95
-
19
161|_3,393_
_40_
_93_
_2_
_4_
_139_|| ||Total support andgovernance|4,174|_3,532_|| See note 1e for basis of allocation ||4. Personnel costs|2022|_2021_| |---|---|---|---| |||£000s|_£000s_| ||Wages and salaries|3,830|_3,627_| ||Social security costs|456|_410_| ||Other pension contributions|411|_401_| ||Redundancy and termination costs|-|_-_| ||Average number of staf employed in year:
Grant-making
Ada Lovelace Institute
Family Justice Observatory
Nufeld Council on Bioethics
Support services
_Average number of full-time equivalent staf in year_
Remuneration of higher paid staf
Between £60,000 and £69,999
Between £70,000 and £79,999
Between £80,000 and £89,999
Between £90,000 and £99,999|4,697
Number
17.6
19.8
6.1
13.3
21.8
78.6
70.3
3
5
-
5|_4,438_
_Number_
_15.6_
_15.4_
_6.0_
_16.5_
_22.3_
_75.8_
_68.0_
_10_
_2_
_1_
_4_| ||Between £100,000 and £109,999|1|_-_| ||Between £120,000 and £129,999|1|_1_| ||Between £140,000 and £149,999|_-_|_1_| ||Between £150,000 and £159,999|1|_-_| The key management personnel of the Nuffield Foundation during the year were its CEO and the following Directors: the Director of Education, the Director of Justice, the Director of Welfare, the Director of Finance & Information Systems, and the Director of HR & Office Services. They form part of the Executive Board, responsible for planning, strategy and major decision-making within the organisation. Their combined remuneration during the year was £734k (2021: £712k). They received no benefits additional to those received by other staff. Employer’s pension contributions for higher paid staff were in total £147k (2021: £162k). There were no redundancy payments (2021: £nil) and no termination payments (2021: £nil) made during the year. The Nuffield Foundation paid contributions during the accounting period at a rate of £2.20 for every £1 of member contributions up to a maximum of five times the member contribution, together with an additional flat rate sum regardless of contribution, of £1,284 per employee (pro rata to their hours). 88 89 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes ||5. Tangible fxed assets|Leasehold|Other assets|Assets under|Total|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||property||Construction||| ||Groupand Charity|£000s|£000s|£000s|£000s|| ||Cost or valuation|||||| ||At 1 January|5,000|2,054|-|7,054|| ||Additions|-|12|-|12|| ||Disposals
Transfers|(5,000)
-|(202)
-|-
-|(5,202)
-|| ||At 31 December
Depreciation
At 1 January
Charge for year
Disposals
At 31 December
Net book value
At 31 December
_At 1 January_|-
500
60
(560)
-
-
_4,500_|1,864
331
192
(181)
342
1,522
_1,723_|-
-
-
-
-
-
_-_|1,864
831
252
(741)
342
1,522
_6,223_|| ||6. Intangible fxed assets|Software|Assets under|Total| |---|---|---|---|---| ||||Construction|| ||Groupand Charity|£000s|£000s|£000s| ||Cost or valuation|||| ||At 1 January|935|40|975| ||Additions|-|2|2| ||Disposals|-|-|-| ||Transfers|42|(42)|-| ||At 31 December
Amortisation
At 1 January
Charge for year
Disposals
At 31 December
Net book value
At 31 December
_At 1 January_|977
341
198
-
539
438
_594_|-
-
-
-
-
-
_40_|977
341
198
-
539
438
_634_| Intangible assets include infrastructure systems such our CRM system, accounting ERP system, HR system and website. Assets under construction include the development of a cloud communication and marketing solution which came into use on 01/01/2022. All tangible fixed assets are held for continuing use in the Foundation’s activities. The leasehold property at 28 Bedford Square was sold on 16 November 2022 for £4.375m. 90 91 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes ||7. Investments|2022|_2021_|| |---|---|---|---|---| ||a. Investments at market values|||| ||Groupand Charity|£000s|_£000s_|| ||Market value at 1 January|542,052|_466,092_|| ||Purchases at cost|(52,377)|_(326,327)_|| ||Sales at market value|55,152|_326,102_|| ||Cash withdrawals|(18,000)|_(20,000)_|| ||Other|1,740|_2,789_|| ||Realised and unrealisedgains|(30,960)|_93,396_|| ||Market value at 31 December|497,607|_542,052_|| ||Historic cost of listed investments at 31 December|437,064|_437,334_|| ‘Other’ movements include fees and expenses paid directly from the investment portfolio, income received and accrued income charges. ||b. Disposition
of investments
Groupand Charity
Listed equities
Fixed income
Private equity
Hedge Funds
Currency hedging
Cash
Total
Total UK investments
Total overseas investments
Total|2022
£000s
336,724
55,776
92,935
-
4,932
7,240
497,607
189,796
307,810
497,606|Purchases
£000s
(13,623)
(603)
(9,349)
-
-
(28,802)
(52,377)|Movement
Sales
£000s
13,500
-
10,802
-
-
30,850
55,152|Gains/
Losses
£000s
(44,677)
(3,746)
10,109
-
4,932
2,422
(30,960)|Other
£000s
215
1,273
(1)
-
-
(17,747)
(16,260)|_2021_
_£000s_
_381,309_
_58,852_
_81,374_
_-_
_-_
_20,517_
_542,052_
_63,260_
_478,792_
_542,052_|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ‘Other’ movements include cash withdrawals, fees and expenses paid directly from the investment portfolio, income received and accrued income charges. |c. Income from investments|2022|_2021_| |---|---|---| |Group and Charity|£000s|_£000s_| |Global equities|844|_1,101_| |UK government bonds|1,246|_1,370_| |Private equity|619|_1,124_| |Cash|44|_(5)_| ||2,753|_3,590_| - The forward exchange contracts have all been revalued at the applicable year end exchange rates and the resulting unrealised translation gains of £5m are included within the overall value of the equity investments above. - d. Illiquid assets and investment commitments At the year end, the Foundation had undrawn commitments to private equity funds of £38,395k, which are expected to be called at various dates between 2023 and 2035. Over a similar period, investments above. the current investments in private equity funds are expected to be realised by a return of capital. f. Programme-related investments The carrying value of the private equity investments of £92,935k reported above represents the latest valuations of the funds at or prior to 31 December 2022 as provided by the relevant fund managers. However, it is not possible for the Trustees to liquidate these investments prior to the future change through investment. return of capital. The Foundation holds 100,000 Ordinary Shares in Charity Bank Ltd with a nominal value of £50,000 and its net asset value is valued at £85,000. This is a company with a mission to tackle marginalisation, social injustice and exclusion and facilitate social change through investment. - g. Investment in subsidiary The Incorporated Trustees of the Nuffield Foundation is the sole subscriber of the Nuffield Foundation Education Ltd (a company limited by guarantee), which is registered in England and Wales (Company Number 13377195). Each member is liable to contribute an amount not exceeding £1 towards the assets of the company in the event of liquidation. - e. Currency hedging - At 31 December 2022, the charity had open forward exchange contracts to sell US dollars, with a total sterling value of £125m. The settlement date for all of these contracts was 31 March 2023. These contracts were entered into to reduce the charity’s currency risk arising from global diversification in its investment holdings. The company’s principal activity is delivering the NELI programme to schools with support via a grant from the Department of Education. |Nufeld Foundation Education Ltd Proft and Loss|2022
_2021_
£000s
_£000s_| |---|---| |Turnover|_-_
_-_| |Loss after tax|205
_(213)_| |Nufeld Foundation Education Ltd Proft Balance Sheet|| |Net Assets|(8)
_(213)_| 92 93 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes ||8. Debtors and prepayments|Group|_Group_|Charity|_Charity_|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||2022|_2021_|2022|_2021_|| |||£000s|_£000s_|£000s|_£000s_|| ||Accrued income|1,957|_2,234_|884|_960_|| ||Other debtors|690|_1,023_|690|_1,023_|| ||Amounts owed bysubsidiary|-|_-_|1,787|_1,697_|| ||Due within oneyear|2,647
2,647|_3,257_
_3,257_|3,361
3,361|_3,680_
_3,680_|| |||2,647|_3,257_|3,361|_3,680_|| ||9. Grants payable
Groupand Charity
Grants awarded but not paid at 1 January
Grants awarded in the year
Grants cancelled in the year
Grants paid in the year
Grants awarded but not paid at 31 December
Payables within one year
Payables after one year|2022
£000s
39,627
13,667
(805)
(14,515)
37,974
17,814
20,160
37,974|_2021_
_£000s_
_34,319_
_16,639_
_(679)_
_(10,652)_
_39,627_
_21,120_
_18,507_
_39,627_|| |---|---|---|---|---| For a list of grants awarded in the year please see pages 47 to 52 of the report. |11. Provisions for liabilities|2022|_2021_| |---|---|---| |Groupand Charity|£000s|_£000s_| |At 1 January|199|_199_| |Additions|-|_-_| |At 31 December|199|_199_| The Foundation recognised a provision during 2020 for returning the new office at 100 St John Street back to its original state at the end of the 20 year lease term. ## 12. Commitments under Operating Leases At 31 December 2022 the Foundation had the following future minimum payments under non-cancellable operating leases: ||Group and Charity
Not later than one year
Later than one year and not later than fve years
Later than fve years|2022
£000s
821
3,282
9,436
13,539|_2021_
_£000s_
_137_
_3,282_
_2,940_
_6,359_| |---|---|---|---| The Foundation’s operating lease is in relation to the new office building at 100 St John Street which was leased in August 2020 for a 20 year term. Lease payments recognised during the year total £684,000 (2021: £684,000). ||10. Creditors falling due within one year|Group|_Group_|Charity|_Charity_|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||2022|_2021_|2022|_2021_|| |||£000s|_£000s_|£000s|_£000s_|| ||Income tax and National Insurance|147|_132_|147|_132_|| ||Accruals|1,746|_1,774_|1,746|_1,184_|| ||Other creditors (inc. trade creditors)|478|_650_|371|_646_|| ||Deferred income|198|_141_|198|_141_|| |||2,569|_2,697_|2,462|_2,103_|| Deferred income brought forward has been fully utilised in the year. 94 95 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes **----- Start of picture text -----**
13. Statement of total return Permanent Expendable Total 14. Funds Balance at Income Expenditure Unrealised Transfers Balance at
endowments endowments a. Fund movements 1 January gain/(loss) 31 December
£000s £000s £000s 2022 2022
Investment return Endowment Other
Restricted and unrestricted investment income - 2,642 2,642 £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s
Endowment investment income 111 - 111 Endowments
Unrealised gains/(losses) (1,247) (29,713) (30,960) Permanent endowments
Investment management costs (69) (1,652) (1,721) Elizabeth Nuffield Fund 4,346 24 (15) (267) (159) - 3,929
Total return for year (1,205) (28,723) (29,928) Commonwealth Relations 15,907 87 (54) (980) (581) - 14,379
Less: application of return (740) (17,629) (18,369) Trust
Net total return for year (1,945) (46,352) (48,297) 20,253 111 (69) (1,247) (740) - 18,308
Expendable endowments
Unapplied total return Oliver Bird Fund 32,154 177 (110) (1,986) (1,178) - 29,057
At 1 January 12,673 298,868 311,541 Main Fund 447,446 2,465 (1,542) (27,727) (16,451) - 404,191
As 31 December 10,728 252,516 263,244 479,600 2,642 (1,652) (29,713) (17,629) - 433,248
Total endowed funds 499,853 2,753 (1,721) (30,960) (18,369) - 451,556
‘Preserved’ value at 31 December 2003 7,581 180,731 188,312
Expenditure reserve
Restricted funds
Elizabeth Nuffield Fund - - (159) - 159 - -
Commonwealth Relations 3,506 - (5) - 581 - 4,082
Trust
Oliver Bird Fund 3,483 50 (2,048) - 1,178 - 2,663
Ada Lovelace Institute 976 713 (1,129) - - - 560
Nuffield Council 6 814 (646) - - - 174
on Bioethics
Nuffield Early Language 1,064 826 (1,128) - - - 762
Intervention
Student and Other 1,404 25 (377) - - - 1,052
Programmes
Total restricted funds 10,439 2,428 (5,492) - 1,918 - 9,293
Unrestricted funds
Designated
Strategic Fund 5,838 - (2,296) - - 114 3,656
Ada Lovelace Institute 5,110 - (1,588) - - 762 4,284
Nuffield Family Justice 3,326 - (981) - - 228 2,573
Observatory
Other 690 13 210 - - - 913
Total designated funds 14,964 13 (4,655) - - 1,104 11,426
General fund (9,666) 212 (13,040) - 16,451 (1,104) (7,147)
Total unrestricted funds 5,298 225 (17,695) - 16,451 - 4,279
Total expenditure reserve 15,737 2,653 (23,187) - 18,369 - 13,572
Total funds 515,590 5,406 (24,908) (30,960) - - 465,128
**----- End of picture text -----**
96 97 Financial statements and notes Financial statements and notes The transfer of £18,369k between the endowment and expenditure reserve is the total return distribution for 2022 (see note 13). This is comprised of £2,573k investment income from the permanent endowments plus £15,616k of capital gains. Other transfers include a designation from the General Fund to the sponsored departments for £1,104k for designated funds support costs in year. ||b. Analysis of funds – 2022|Unrestricted
funds|Restricted funds|Expendable
endowment|Permanent
endowment|Total|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||£000s|£000s|£000s|£000s|£000s|| ||Investments|-|-|479,308|18,299|497,607|| ||Other fxed assets
Net current assets/(liabilities)
Liabilities due after more than 1yr
Total funds
_Analysis of funds – 2021_
_Investments_
_Other fxed assets_
_Net current assets/(liabilities)_
_Liabilities due after more than 1yr_
_Total funds_|-
4,279
-
4,279
_Unrestricted_
_funds_
_£000s_
_-_
_-_
_5,298_
_-_
_5,298_|-
9,293
-
9,293
_Restricted funds_
_£000s_
_-_
_-_
_10,439_
_-_
_10,439_|2,045
(27,737)
(20,359)
433,257
_Expendable_
_endowment_
_£000s_
_521,799_
_6,942_
_(30,435)_
_(18,706)_
_479,600_|-
-
-
18,299
_Permanent_
_endowment_
_£000s_
_20,253_
_-_
_-_
_-_
_20,253_|2,045
(14,165)
(20,359)
465,128
_Total_
_£000s_
_542,052_
_6,942_
_(14,698)_
_(18,706)_
_515,590_|| ## c. Description of funds independent research and deliberative body tasked to ensure data and AI work for people and society. - The Elizabeth Nuffield Educational Fund is a permanent endowment, established for the advancement of education and in particular the award of scholarships, grants or loans to women and girls who require financial assistance. It is currently used to fund student programmes. - Nuffield Council on Bioethics is part-funded by The Wellcome Trust and by the Medical Research Council; this is managed as a restricted fund, held for the purpose of funding an independent body that informs policy and public debate about the ethical questions raised by biological and medical research. - The Commonwealth Relations Trust is a permanent endowment, held for the purposes of promoting a common understanding between the unity of ideals in the United Kingdom and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. - The Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) is a restricted fund held for the purpose of delivering the NELI programme to schools and is solely funded by the Department of Education. Unspent income is not expected as this is claimed in arrears by DfE. - The Oliver Bird Fund is an expendable endowment, restricted in its use for research into the prevention and cure of rheumatism and associated diseases. It is used to fund research into musculoskeletal conditions. - Student and Other Programmes is a restricted fund comprising commitments made to the Nuffield Research Placements, Q-Step and restricted royalties received for the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme. - The Ada Lovelace Institute is funded both from restricted external funding and from unrestricted designated funds (Nuffield’s commitment). It is an - The Main Fund includes Lord Nuffield’s original endowment and a variety of subsequent gifts that have been subsumed into this fund. ## 15. Related party transaction a. Transactions with Trustees Each Trustee is entitled to an annual allowance by virtue of the provisions of the Trust Deed. During the year, Trustees received £11,000 (2021: £11,000) and the chairman received £16,780 (2021: £16,291), with the total paid to active Trustees during 2022 of £95,000. In addition, Trustee Indemnity Insurance was purchased during the year. - The ‘Expenditure Reserve’ is that part of the Foundation’s net assets that the Trustees have determined to be currently available for future expenditure. It comprises a general fund and a number of designated funds: - The Strategic Fund represents the unallocated portion of the £20m set aside in our strategy for major, longer-term projects. |pendture. t comprses a genera und and a number
designated funds:
– The Strategic Fund represents the unallocated
portion of the £20m set aside in our strategy for
major loner-term rojects|total paid to active Trustees during 2022 of £95,000.
In addition, Trustee Indemnity Insurance was purchased
during the year.| |---|---| |, g p.
– Ada Lovelace Institute represents the Nufeld
Foundation’s designated commitment to further
this work, as described above. Its funding was
extended in 2021, and now covers the period to
2026 (8 years from inception).
– The Nufeld Family Justice Observatory
represents a commitment to the development|2022
_2021_
£000s
_£000s_| ||Trustee remuneration
95
_93_
Expenses paid to the
Trustees
Travel expenses and
accommodation
1
_2_| ||Number of Trustees receiving
expenses
2
_8_| – The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory represents a commitment to the development and pilot delivery phases of an initiative to support the best possible decisions for children by improving the use of data and research evidence in the family justice system in England and Wales. Its funding was extended in 2021, and now covers the period to 2026 (8 years from inception). ## b. Transactions with subsidiary No management charges have been made from the Nuffield Foundation to Nuffield Foundation Education Ltd. ||2022
_2021_
£000s
_£000s_| |---|---| |Intercompany balance at 1 January
Working capital
Recharge of direct subsidiary costs
charged to parent|1,697
_-_
-
_1,500_
90
_197_| |Year end balance at 31 December|1,787
_1,697_| - Other designations include commitments made to co-funders for Q-Step and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. - For all restricted funds, unspent income is restricted to the purpose describe above. 98 99 Reference and administrative details Financial statements and notes ## Reference and administrative details ## Trustees Professor Sir Keith Burnett CBE, FRS, FAPS, FOSA, FInstPhys, FLSW FRS (Chair) Professor Ash Amin CBE, FBA, FACSS Professor James Banks Professor Lorraine Dearden FACSS Professor Ann Phoenix FBA, FACSS John Pullinger CB, CSTAT, FACSS Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder TD, DL, FRSA (Deputy Chair) Dame Clare Tickell DBE, FRSA, FCGI (from April 2022) ## Senior staff Tim Gardam, Chief Executive James Brooke Turner, Investment Director Deirdre Carty, Director of HR and Office Services Mark Franks, Director of Welfare Danielle Hamm, Director of the National Council on Bioethics Ian Hanham, Director of Finance and Information Systems Lisa Harker, Director of the Family Justice Observatory Josh Hillman, Director of Education Carly Kind, Director of the Ada Lovelace Institute Rob Street, Director of Justice ## Principal Investment Managers Arrowstreet Capital 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116, USA Harding Loevner 400 Crossing Blvd, Fourth Floor Bridgewater, NJ 08807, USA Veritas Asset Management 1st Floor, 90 Long Acre London, WC2E 9RA Maj Invest Holdings 33 Cavendish Square London, W1G 0PW Magellan Asset Management Level 36, 25 Martin Place Sydney NSW 2000, Australia GMO LLC 40 Rowes Wharf, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, USA Principal address 100 St John Street London EC1M 4EH ## Auditors Crowe U.K. LLP 5 Ludgate Hill London EC4M 7JW 020 7631 0566 www.nuffieldfoundation.org Charity number 206601 ## Solicitors Bates Wells 10 Queen Street Place London EC4R 1BE ## Investment Consultants Cambridge Associates 80 Victoria Street 4th Floor, Cardinal Place London SW1E 5JL ## Global Custodian The Northern Trust Company 50 Bank Street, London E14 5NT ## Bankers Barclays Bank plc 1 Churchill Place London, E14 5HP 100 101