Impact case study database

The research led to changes in parks policy, practice and civic engagement in Leeds – resulting in improvements for park-users and funding for community groups – and fostered debate in national policy fora. Key beneficiaries included park managers, park-users and volunteers in Leeds, and municipal authorities, national park alliances, civil society organisations and government policy-makers. The three dimensions of impact from the team’s research were:

(i) Influencing local policy and practice to safeguard high-quality, accessible parks in Leeds

The research contributed to safeguarding high-quality, accessible parks and strategic commitment to local authority-led park governance in Leeds [A,B], the second-largest urban local authority in the UK. Impact resulted from quarterly meetings to discuss interim findings with the senior leadership team of LCC’s Parks and Countryside Service (2015-17) and a half-day workshop with 25 members of the Service’s management team (19 January 2018).

In the face of budget cuts of 50%, the team’s research underpinned investments in park quality. Findings linking park quality to levels of use and satisfaction [5] led Parks and Countryside to refocus investment on improving community parks and to make park quality a key priority of their 2020-2030 strategy [A,B]. The Chief Officer stated: ‘The research… enabled us to work out if we are delivering a service that serves the public well (which is key for a public service), and where to make improvements. In particular, research findings on the significance of park quality for visitation and user satisfaction have underpinned the Service’s ongoing commitment to invest in improving quality across the city’s parks… As a result, both Access and Quality were identified as key areas for consultation and have been proposed as priorities for the next Parks and Green Spaces Strategy.’ [A] The 2020-2030 strategy also introduces management plans for community parks, as recommended in [5], to drive improvements in satisfaction and use [A,B].

The research drove work to improve accessibility, extending the benefits of park use to wider groups. In response to findings on lower levels of use among older and disabled people [5], Parks and Countryside worked with Leeds Parks and Green Spaces Forum (a voluntary organisation representing over 90 local groups) to identify concerns about equality of access in annual park audits. The LPGSF Chair confirmed: ‘Anna’s [team’s] research has shown us that parks are least visited by elderly and disabled people for a number of reasons, one being poor accessibility. As a result, with LCC officers, we have embarked on an audit of accessibility, using Forum members as a volunteer resource to collect data, which will help to prioritise improvements’ [C]. Further, Parks and Countryside made accessibility a key priority of its strategy [A,B].

Impact on policy and practice improved the quality of parks, with knock-on benefits for users. Some 70% of parks met the Leeds Quality Parks standard in 2018, compared with 50% in 2016. Some 91% of residents are park-users, 88% of whom view parks as important to their quality of life [5]; this suggests over 700,000 potential beneficiaries. The Parks and Countryside Chief Officer also confirmed economic benefits were accrued: ‘the research findings on visitation levels have been used to set business sponsorship rates across various sites’ [A].

(ii) Revitalising local park governance through civic engagement in Leeds

The team led a programme of research engagement activities with park-users, volunteers and businesses, improving public understanding, cultivating civic engagement in parks policy and informing Parks and Countryside’s 2020-2030 strategy consultation. Activities included: public exhibitions of research findings across the city (e.g. Roundhay Park, 29 April – 1 May 2017, attracting over 1,000 visitors); a new digital, photographic archive of Leeds’s parks ( http://www.leodis.net/); and regular project updates to LPGSF meetings (2016-19).

Public engagement activities, widely covered in regional media (e.g. BBC Look North, 6 July 2016; BBC News, 25 April 2017), enhanced local understanding of parks and raised awareness of the difficulties parks face due to spending cuts and lack of statutory protection. Visitor feedback at exhibitions attests to raised awareness among park-users: ‘ The exhibition… made me realise parks may be in danger’. Volunteers benefited from these insights too – the Chair of LPGSF said: ‘The research… helped us to understand the challenges facing [parks], including an awareness of the national picture… which has been useful in comparing Leeds’ situation with other cities’ [C].

Greater awareness and understanding contributed to an informed public consultation, shaping Parks and Countryside’s 2020-2030 strategy [B]. With Parks and Countryside managers and LPGSF, the research team led a public consultation event (over 900 attendees, 9 November 2019), which used research findings (via displays, an animated video, talks and workshops) to support civic engagement [A,B,C]. Parks and Countryside cited the findings [5,6] extensively in its consultation documents [B] and used the research in over 35 consultation events (which produced over 2,000 responses) [A,B]. The Chief Officer confirmed: ‘Engagement with the research led to a high-quality, evidence-based consultation in which members of the public were able to assess strategic priorities fully informed of the key facts and issues’ [A]. The LPGSF Chair affirmed: ‘With the benefit of the research… the Forum’s impact is greater when speaking with LCC officers, Councillors and other decision-makers, using [research] evidence as examples’ [C].

Research findings on barriers to charitable giving for parks [6] directly influenced the rebranding of Leeds Parks Fund to Love Leeds Parks [D] , the move to establish an independent charity [A,C], and fundraising and marketing strategies [A,D]. According to the Chief Officer of Parks and Countryside: ‘a decision has been taken for the charity to become completely independent because confusion around the governance of the scheme was an issue highlighted in the research’ [A]. Love Leeds Parks applied to be registered at the Charity Commission on 27 October 2020 (charity no. 1193205). Impact resulted from monthly steering group meetings with Love Leeds Parks partners (2018-20), who used the research [5,6] to engage residents and businesses, including through the Give A Little Back Campaign (June 2020), 'Help Our City Grow' Tabloid (February 2020) and Love Leeds Parks Festival (8-16 August 2020) cultivating civic engagement through voluntary donations. In 2019, 13 community groups involving 90 volunteers benefitted from donations raised (GBP23,182), supporting improvements to park quality and accessibility (e.g. guided walks for under-represented user-groups), including 2,477 direct beneficiaries [D].

(iii) Informing national policy debate and municipal authorities beyond Leeds

Through developing a national network of parks organisations, the team mobilised their research findings to advocate for local authority-led park governance and promote initiatives to diversify park revenue streams, thereby helping to shape the development of UK parks policy.

In light of the 2016-17 Parliamentary inquiry into parks, which cited the research to affirm the enduring value of parks [E], the team developed collaborations with Historic England, The Parks Alliance (TPA) and Groundwork. This network [c] drew on the research (notably **[2,4,5]**) on the social value of parks and the implications of spending cuts to call for a sustainable UK parks policy. Impact was achieved through a joint national conference on The Future of UK Public Parks (13 July 2017), organised and hosted by Barker, with attendees from 66 organisations (including the Chair of the Parliamentary select committee that led the parks inquiry), and through accompanying media engagement (e.g. The Metro). The conference deliberations informed the work of the UK Government’s Parks Action Group (PAG) launched in September 2017, comprising government officials and sectoral representatives. Impact resulted from: network partner representation on PAG; a meeting between the research team and a PAG representative from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (13 November 2017); and a national workshop of research findings from [b] (20 April 2019), attended by MHCLG officials. These activities shaped government thinking on new approaches to parks funding. The then Minister for Communities and Faith remarked: ‘…officials in the Parks and Green Spaces team have been actively engaging representatives from the University of Leeds for some time… My officials will... promote the learning from the “Charitable Giving to Parks and Green Spaces” report and…build this into our policy thinking’ [G]. TPA drew on the research [5,6] in developing the Business Case for Parks in England (June 2020). The TPA Project Manager stated: ‘The findings… contributed to the strategic and management cases…to the financial case…and the recommendations for diversifying revenue streams to maintain funding for public parks’ [F]. The National Landscape Advisor for Historic England drew on the research in national policy exchanges to advocate for local authority governance [H], and confirmed: ‘The University of Leeds research has helped corroborate and deepen our understanding about the role of parks and how people use [them] and the tensions between communities, park uses and choice of parks. The 2020 Covid-19 Lockdown experience and the importance of public green space has [highlighted] the importance of this research and in particular equity of access and governance’ [H].

Through engagement with Nesta – an innovation foundation that helps policy-makers and communities recraft public services – the research findings on barriers to charitable giving for parks [6] benefitted municipal authorities and park charities nationally. Impact resulted from contributions to Nesta’s national ‘Rethinking Parks’ programme at specially convened meetings (2018-19) and a national workshop [6] with 46 delegates from 31 organisations across public, voluntary and charitable sectors (30 April 2019). The research [6] formed one of four reference points in Nesta’s toolkit to promote parks foundations in supporting UK local authorities adapt in a challenging financial context [I]. The Head of New Operating Models at Nesta confirmed that the research was used in Leeds, Bournemouth and the Lake District as a ‘reference point for evidence-based decisions on what works in fundraising in a time of changing funding to public parks’ [I].

The research enabled EC policy-makers to make the case to the European Parliament for taking a new approach to business failure, restructuring, insolvency and a second chance for insolvent debtors within Europe. Key beneficiaries to date, therefore, include policy-makers, advisors, and legislative drafters. The three dimensions of impact are:

(i) Informing the drafting of the European Directive

While undertaking the EC study [a], the research team engaged with the EC and discussed, received, and actioned feedback on the team’s interim research findings with EC officials in Brussels in two face-to-face meetings (14 April 2015; 8 October 2015). As a direct result of the research, the EC were able to make a case for binding legislative action in the form of the 2019 Restructuring and Second Chance Directive [A]. The research was pivotal in the EC’s determination of whether, and how, to propose an appropriate legislative response to restructuring and insolvency issues, as manifested by the fact that the researchers’ report [1] is the only document referenced as underpinning research on the EC website's introduction to the new law. The study convinced the EC that insolvency reform should come in the form of a legal instrument leaving more, rather than less, choice to member states. A former legislative assistant of the EC Justice and Consumers Directorate-General explained: ‘Indeed, the study has shown that the divergence between national insolvency laws would make it difficult to propose an instrument such as a Regulation. Instead, a Directive focusing on minimum standards would be more feasible…’ [D]. The EC Staff Working Document, which made nineteen distinct references to the Leeds report, confirmed: *‘This need for current action [Directive] is evidenced by…the independent external evaluation of the implementation of the Recommendation on restructuring in the Study on a new approach to business failure and insolvency performed by the University of Leeds (January 2016)*’ ( [B] p. 105). All EU member states are required to implement the terms of the Directive in their own domestic laws by mid-2021, subject to a possible one-year extension. The EC predicts that implementation of the Directive will lead to the creation of 3 million new jobs and positively affect 50,000 businesses [E].

In addition to making the case for the Directive, the research provided a robust evidence base for the Directive’s provisions [A]. The research [1] informed the EC Expert Group on Restructuring and Insolvency’s consideration of the issues surrounding insolvency and the advice they gave on drafting the proposed Directive. A member of the EC Expert Group (appointed to advise the EC and to assist in formulating a proposal for legislation) confirmed: ‘[the] Study has… framed and influenced several of the most important discussions that took place within the Expert Group, not only with regard to the legal nature of the instrument but also to its substantive content’ [C]. The adopted Directive includes three key elements: i) common principles on restructuring frameworks for financially distressed businesses (Articles 4-18 of the Directive); ii) rules to allow natural debtors to benefit from a second chance (Articles 20-23); iii) targeted measures for EU Member States to make insolvency, restructuring and debt discharge procedures more efficient (Articles 25-27) [A]. The member of the EC Expert Group went on to state: ‘Key provisions of the proposal were analysed and designed under the influence of the Study e.g. on the moratorium on creditor actions, debtor-in-possession restructuring, directors' duties, classification of creditors, or new financing’ [C]. The former legislative assistant of the EC Justice and Consumers Directorate-General confirmed: ‘[T]he findings of the comparative study were used by the Commission services to justify both the form of the legislative instrument [the Directive] and particular provisions to be included in that instrument… the study has had a clear impact on the choice of the EU policy makers to focus on the rules to facilitate debt discharges for entrepreneurs rather than to cover all individuals. This explains the choice in the final text of the Directive to exclude binding rules on consumer over-indebtedness’ [D]. This last comment means that it is left to individual member states to decide whether and how to apply the provisions of the Directive to deal with debts owed by consumers.

As a result of the research, EC officials were better able to understand and explain how restructuring procedures should be crafted and nuanced, as evidenced by the EC impact assessment of the Directive ( [B] p.17). For example, the researchers’ definitions of concepts in the study, such as ‘bankruptcy’ and ‘going concern value’, were adopted in the proposal ( [B] pp.193-96). Officials also gained an understanding of how new legislative developments at the EU level could be formulated and adopted for optimum innovation and change. For instance, the EC used the research:

1. as the foundation for its arguments that there was a clear need to develop procedures designed specifically for insolvent small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and as to how such procedures might be advanced ( [B] pp. 28, 172-174 and contained in, for example, Directive articles 8(2), 11(1) and 12(3) **[A]**);

2. to support proposals for discharge of natural persons (both entrepreneurs and consumers) from debt obligations ( [B] pp. 26, 40-41, 106 and contained in, for example, Directive articles 20-22 **[A]**);

3. to determine whether rescue plans (i.e. plans to restore the financial viability of the debtor’s business) should divide creditors into classes for voting purposes, and whether (and to what extent) consent of creditors within each class is necessary for a court or administrative authority to approve restructuring plans ( [B] p.18 and contained in, for example, Directive articles 9-11 **[A]**).

The Directive is a game-changer, bringing about business rescue for financially distressed businesses, and relieving highly indebted individuals of their debts, giving them a ‘fresh start’ free from debt. The Directive will create and preserve jobs and foster economic growth, support cross-border cooperation and economic integration, facilitate access to credit and build a more economically inclusive society [D]. This is encapsulated in the statement of Josef Moser (Austrian Justice Minister) when speaking on behalf of the EU Council of Ministers in December 2018 in relation to the Directive: ‘Every year, 1.7 million people lose their jobs because their company goes bankrupt. We must therefore have robust insolvency rules in place across the EU to reduce the number of bankruptcies, and ensure that reputable entrepreneurs are offered a second chance. I am glad we have reached an agreement with Parliament so quickly so the new rules can be adopted …’ ( EU Council Press Release, 2018).

(ii) Framing policy and legal change in EU member states

The Directive requires fundamental change for some member states, who must make substantial amendments to their laws. By clarifying concepts and providing a theoretical framework, the underpinning research [1] has assisted national policy-makers and their advisors in responding to the Directive. For example, a member of the EC Expert Group explained: ‘the Study is…very useful at a national level to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. Since many of the provisions included in the Directive are relatively new in several Member State [sic] , like Spain, the Study is one of the main references used by experts and stakeholders to set the conceptual and policy frame when advising local authorities in the implementation process’ [C]. The research has been used in a report by the Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI), a leading European research and policy analysis centre, advising the Lithuanian Government on how insolvency law reforms need a wider, complementary institutional framework supporting business restructuring [F].

The main features of the Directive were used to inform recent changes to the UK’s corporate restructuring and insolvency laws (Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020). They were discussed in a House of Commons briefing paper used by MPs and those that work for them [G] and subsequently embraced in the terms of the Act, such as the introduction of a new insolvency process allowing for a standalone stay (a temporary pause) in relation to credit enforcement actions.

(iii) Raising awareness of the need for further legislative and regulatory action

The research [1]:

1. provided the EC with a base for analysing whether general insolvency law reform and harmonisation measures should also be applied to bank insolvencies, as provided for in the tender for a ‘Study on differences between bank insolvency laws and on their potential harmonisation’ [H].

2. was used in an Opinion by the European Central Bank to demonstrate the need for a pan-European regime for bank insolvencies, setting trigger points for opening restructuring proceedings and building on common underlying concepts and harmonised key elements [I].

3. was used by the Conference of European Restructuring and Insolvency Law (CERIL), an independent and influential lobby group, to argue for the harmonisation of European law on the avoidance of pre-insolvency transactions (which may undermine the principle of equality of treatment of creditors and make business rescues more difficult) [J].

The research has had a timely and extensive influence on a major area of EU commercial life, namely the problems of debt, and the resultant Directive has ushered in a new era in the EU for addressing insolvency and its effects on all companies and individuals with significant debts.

.

Research by de la Feria has shaped VAT reforms and legal changes worldwide. It has identified the limitations of existing VATs – particularly in anti-fraud policy and tax base design – and how to overcome them. The research has influenced tax reforms at every stage of the policy process: from the development of tax policy (stage 1), to drafting of new tax laws (stage 2), finally to the political debate that precedes legal approval (stage 3). These reforms are critical for countries’ economic sustainability, as well as their capacity to deliver public services, such as education and healthcare, that are key to long-term development. In developing countries, reforms can also decrease dependency on foreign aid, contribute to formalising the economy, and help attract foreign investment.

(i) Tax reforms (stage 1): shaping VAT policy development

De la Feria’s research has benefited several national governments and parliaments, European Union institutions, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), helping policymakers develop VAT policy to deliver VAT laws that are more efficient, neutral and equitable. Her impact on tax policy worldwide, and particularly on VAT design, has been recognised by various awards, such as a place in the International Fiscal Association’s 100 Years of Women in Tax (2019).

In Brazil – a G20 country and one of the world’s biggest economies – de la Feria’s research findings on VAT anti-fraud policy and VAT base design [2,3,5] have shaped tax reform proposals currently under discussion. These are the constitutional amendment known as PEC 45, proposed by Congress, which paves the way for a new goods and services tax (known as IBS) and a new federal tax (known as CBS). De la Feria engaged directly with policy-makers and other stakeholders (2018-20), highlighting the need for a tax reform to replace the various existing consumption taxes with a single new tax that follows the SLiM VAT model [A]. She held private meetings with the Economy Minister and with CONFAZ (the heads of Treasury of all Brazilian federal states) in March 2020, and testified before Congress on a need for a well-designed VAT base [B]. She was the first witness called upon by the Congress and one of only two academics; she participated in meetings, seminars and Q&As with business stakeholders [C]; and she gave media interviews to support the reform [A]. The co-director of the Centro de Cidadania Fiscal, which co-drafted PEC 45, explained: ‘ Professor de la Feria provided an evidence-base justification for a new Brazilian VAT, helped shape our proposal, and has contributed to the debate as a respected third-party. Her intellectual and academic capital, as well as her ability to engage with politicians and other stakeholders, and with the general public, has been critical to advancing the reform agenda, overcoming the political economy obstacles, and helping to build a growing consensus on the need for reform’ [C]. [text removed for publication] [D].

De la Feria’s experience in Brazil replicated her previous role in shaping the government VAT law proposal in Timor-Leste, where she also engaged directly with policymakers and other stakeholders, testified before Parliament, met with the Cabinet of Ministers, and delivered training on VAT legal drafting to ministry officials (Feb 3-5, 2016). [text removed for publication], de la Feria worked as part of an IMF team closely assisting governments in the development and introduction of well-designed VATs [E]. As part of that process, she held meetings with policy-makers and other stakeholders [text removed for publication], who have appropriated the SLiM VAT model (described in a tax news publication as the ‘brainchild of professor Rita de la Feria, chair in tax law at Leeds University’ **[F]**), expressly referring to it in official documentation. [text removed for publication] de la Feria was part of an IMF team that assisted the governments to improve the design of existing VATs, using her research insights on VAT anti-fraud policy and VAT base design [2,3,5] to help shape the advice provided [E]. Even in countries where de la Feria had no direct involvement in the design of VAT policy, the SLiM VAT model (and the research insights that it conveys) has been appropriated by national policy-makers, including in Poland, where the government recently approved a SLiM VAT package of reforms ( KPMG, 2020).

In the UK, de la Feria’s research insights on VAT anti-fraud policy [1,3] was critical in substantiating the concerns of campaign groups and contributed to the introduction of anti-fraud legislation for online VAT fraud in the Finance Bill 2017-2018 [H]. She worked directly with the campaign groups Retailers Against VAT Abuse Schemes ( RAVAS) and VATFraud.org (composed of businesses who had been directly affected by growing levels of VAT fraud on online platforms) to promote stronger VAT fraud enforcement and new legislative measures to address VAT fraud, in line with her research on anti-fraud policy (2016-2017). The founder and manager of RAVAS remarked: ‘ Prof de la Feria added a great deal of credibility to the arguments that RAVAS put forward regarding the VAT liability of online platforms for third party sellers who are outside the jurisdiction of EU law’ [H]. De La Feria engaged directly with various stakeholders, including HMRC (April 2017) and the National Audit Office (February 2017) [I], and contributed to various media pieces ( Guardian, 2017; Independent, 2017), most notably providing expert advice to BBC Panorama for its documentary on the topic, which aired in November 2017 [H]. That year, she was also called to testify before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on online VAT [1,3]. She was the only academic witness; her testimony is referenced in five paragraphs in the Committee’s twenty-seven-paragraph report and embedded in its six recommendations (especially numbers 1, 2 and 4) [I]. The founder and manager of RAVAS noted that ‘ after five years of campaigning RAVAS together with VATfraud.org were successful in making online marketplaces collect VAT. The UK is due to introduce a set of measures designed to prevent UK sellers on online marketplaces evade VAT in 2021. The success … is in part because Prof. de la Feria endorsed it adding both credibility and factual rigour’ [H].

In the EU, de la Feria has engaged with European institutions to promote a better-designed VAT base and anti-fraud measures to combat online VAT fraud. In this context, in May 2017, she was asked by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), an EU institution with a consultative role in approving new legislation, to testify on new legislative measures proposed by the European Commission, and assisted with drafting that Committee’s Opinion. This Opinion expressly endorsed concerns raised in her research regarding deterioration of the VAT base [4]: ‘the proposed measures are … a prelude to wider reform of the EU VAT rate structure, and [the EESC] is concerned about the impact that such de-harmonisation would have’ ( [J], para. 1.4); leading the European Commission to also acknowledge those concerns in a response document. In April 2018, she was asked by the European Parliament to testify on the same legislative proposals ( [J] – again, as the only academic witness).

(ii) Tax reforms (stages 2 & 3): assisting with drafting of VAT laws and informing the political debate

In several countries where national policy-makers used de la Feria’s research into VAT anti-fraud policy and VAT base design, de la Feria herself was asked (by the IMF or by national policy-makers) to be involved in stages 2 and 3 of tax reform. Thus, she helped draft new laws – either directly, as in the case of Timor-Leste, or via the IMF, [text removed for publication] (stage 2) – and engaged with the political debate that precedes legal approval, as in the case of Brazil (stage 3) [A,C,E].

De la Feria helped draft the new VAT laws in Timor-Leste (2016), [text removed for publication], ensuring that policy recommendations – including those informed by her research insights on VAT anti-fraud policy and VAT base design [2,3,5] – were reflected in the law itself. As such, in Timor-Leste, [text removed for publication], the new VAT laws were characterised by broad bases and strong anti-fraud legal mechanisms [F]; [text removed for publication]. In Brazil, where the tax reform process is ongoing, de la Feria remains actively engaged with the debate, which is informed by her research insights on the political dynamics of VAT base reforms [5]. She has co-organised various online seminars ( JOTA, July 2020), participated in political debates (Congresso em Foco, Sept 2020), engaged directly with the media through interviews ( Folha, Jul 2020; Estadao, Jul 2020) and podcasts ( Economisto, Oct 2020), and helped design a media campaign, where she featured as an influencer (PraSerJusto, December 2020) to foster awareness and build support for the reform amongst key stakeholders (businesses, tax and legal communities) and the general public.

Whilst it is too early to assess the ultimate economic results of most of the tax reforms to which de la Feria contributed, [text removed for publication]. Despite contractions in consumption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government’s tax performance bulletin for August 2020 confirms that VAT revenue has outperformed all other taxes, becoming the second biggest source of [text removed for publication]. This has reduced the country’s dependence on natural resources and made a significant contribution to its long-term economic sustainability.

Lawson received the international Bob Hepple Equality Award in 2016 from the Equal Rights Trust and Industrial Law Society for her work on disability equality and accessibility. This recognised the research and impact described in this case study as one element of a career-long contribution in this area. Lawson’s research discussed above has been used by the European Commission, the United Nations Disability Committee, the Council of Europe, and the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee to shape law and guidance on accessibility to improve disabled people’s life chances and opportunities.

(i) Impact on EU and member state law

The underpinning research contributed to demonstrating the need for legislative change at the European level. According to the Senior Expert on Disability and Inclusion at the European Commission, Lawson’s ANED research provided ‘ important information that supported and justified elements of the development of the European Accessibility Act’ [A]. In particular, by identifying the extent of inconsistency and divergence in national accessibility standards and regulation, it helped the Commission ‘ to argue the need of EU wide legislation’ [A] – a point also evidenced by the fact that reference was made to [4] and its supplementary survey in the Commission's 2015 proposal for the European Accessibility Act [B] and (21 times) in its accompanying impact assessment [C]. Further, Lawson’s finding in [4] that many national standards and approaches were unenforceable, ‘ contributed to the justification of certain provisions such as those related to enforcement and monitoring’ [A].

The route to this impact involved a close working relationship between Lawson, Priestley and the European Commission, throughout the planning and writing of [4] and its supplementary survey. This included Lawson presenting emerging findings of the work being carried out for [4] to Commission staff (as well as ANED national experts and representatives of disabled and older people’s organisations) at the ANED 2012 annual conference, where possible implications and potential recommendations were discussed prior to Lawson completing [4] in 2013.

Commission staff who worked with Lawson and Priestley played a lead role in persuading the European Commission, and subsequently member states, of the need for a European Accessibility Act. These staff also helped shape the 2015 proposal [B], which passed into EU law in 2019 as Directive 2019/882. This requires governments in all EU and EAA countries to take legislative and other steps to regulate accessibility in the manufacture, distribution and delivery of a wide range of products and services (including telephones, computers, ticket machines, self-service terminals, e-books, banking, transport and audio-visual media), and to establish effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, in line with the general recommendations in [4].

(ii) Impact on official guidance to governments and civil society

a) Guidance from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( Disability Committee) – to civil society and national governments in the 182 countries which have ratified the Disability Treaty – was shaped by the underpinning research. In particular, Lawson’s work informed the content of the guidance issued by the UN Disability Committee on how governments should use disability discrimination law to make accessibility barriers unlawful. This guidance was issued in a ‘ general comment’ on the right to accessibility – GC 2.

The route to impact of this research was the UN Disability Committee’s consultation on its draft of GC 2. Research [1-6], on using discrimination prohibitions to achieve accessibility, informed a submission by the Leeds CDS which recommended (in paragraphs A2 and B22) that the draft be changed to include clear guidance on the forms of accessibility barrier that should, as a minimum, be prohibited by national law as unlawful discrimination. The draft was subsequently revised and the final version of GC 2 now includes a new paragraph (31), setting out some guidance on this point in terms very similar to those suggested by CDS [D].

General comments issued by UN treaty monitoring bodies, such as the Disability Committee, provide authoritative guidance to UN bodies, national governments and civil society on how to interpret and implement particular treaty rights. They are drafted in closed sessions and subject to strict confidentiality rules against the disclosure of the details of the discussions and the influence of particular submissions. However, the Vice-Chair of the Disability Committee’s Working Group, which drafted GC 2, noted that ‘ one may safely highlight the impact which submission by Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds made on the drafting of paragraph 31’ [E].

(b) Guidance from the Council of Europe (CoE) to national governments in its 47 member states, CoE institutions and civil society was shaped by the underpinning research. The CoE advocates for the human rights of over 830 million people. In 2016, because of Lawson’s accessibility research (including [1-6]), the Head of the CoE's Rights of Persons with Disabilities Unit invited her to write a study on accessibility to supplement the new high-level CoE Disability Strategy 2017-2023. This Strategy ‘ aims at guiding and supporting the work and activities of the member States to implement the [UN Disability Treaty] and Council of Europe standards in this area’ [F]. It identifies accessibility as one of its five rights-based priorities. The purpose of the proposed study was to ‘ highlight and expand information, evidence, data and good practice’, ‘provide concrete ideas for implementation of the Strategy’, and identify ‘ ways and means with which to implement’ the right to accessibility in the UN Disability Treaty [F]. The study itself thus constituted guidance to national governments (as well as civil society and CoE institutions) on the effective implementation of accessibility rights.

Lawson drew heavily on her research [1-6] to write the study and presented it at a ministerial conference to launch the CoE’s Disability Strategy in March 2017, where it was used to frame discussion of the Strategy’s accessibility priority [F]. The CoE published Lawson’s study (or guidance) in hard copy and online as a resource on its website. While including a disclaimer to the effect that the opinions are Lawson’s and not necessarily those of the CoE, the title (selected by the CoE and not Lawson) makes it clear that it is a ‘contribution to the CoE Strategy’ [F]. It is the only guidance the CoE has issued to underpin the accessibility strand of its Strategy (the Strategy itself being stated in very broad and general terms).

(c) Guidance from the House of Commons Women and Equalities Parliamentary Committee to the UK Government and civil society was shaped by the underpinning research. In 2016 Lawson was approached and appointed by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) to the role of special adviser in connection with its inquiry into Disability and the Built Environment. According to the Committee specialist who supported this inquiry, this was ‘ because of her expertise and research in accessibility and equality law and her knowledge of disability organisations and activists’ [G]. Lawson, together with another special adviser with a non-academic background and different expertise, worked closely with this Committee specialist to advise, brief and support Committee members (MPs) – including: on which issues to focus; which witnesses (including government ministers) to invite for questioning; and the analysis and writing of the report, including its recommendations to government and civil society. For these purposes, Lawson drew on research [1-6] to inform her work for the Committee.

Discussions and deliberations of the Committee are confidential. While this makes it impossible to detail Lawson’s impact on specific recommendations, the report (published in 2017) described the ‘ support and advice’ provided by Lawson and the other special adviser as ‘ invaluable’ [H]. Moreover, the Committee’s recommendations on accessibility have begun influencing government action. For example, because of their inaccessibility for many disabled people, the WEC report recommended that the government should replace shared-space street schemes (permitted by Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/11 issued by the Department for Transport (DFT) in 2011) with guidance drawing on accessibility and inclusive design principles. It also recommended that no new shared-space schemes should be introduced until new guidance was published, and that the government should introduce regulations under the Equality Act to make it easier to bring discrimination cases to challenge inaccessible shared-space streets. These recommendations were endorsed by the DFT’s Disabled People’s Transport Advisory Committee (comprised of disability experts, many of whom are disabled people) in its 2018 ‘Position on Shared Space’, which described them as ‘ impressive’ and ‘ well thought’. Several recommendations were adopted by the 2018 Inclusive Transport Strategy (adopted by DFT), which urges local authorities not to introduce any new shared-space schemes and announces the DFT’s withdrawal of LTN 1/11 [I].

Crawford’s research and its implementation through the N8PRP have (i) transformed how police forces in the North of England organise and derive benefits from research and engage with academic researchers, and (ii) enriched the perception, value and use of research-informed practice across policing organisations in the UK. Direct beneficiaries of the impacts include police and partners, with indirect benefits to service users and communities.

(i) Transforming organisational learning and engagement with research/researchers

The N8PRP’s infrastructure, operating principles and activities have positively transformed police-academic relations, improved the quality of inter-professional dialogue and enhanced the value of, and access to, research within policing. Key to this transformation in organisational learning have been the collaborative governance framework and new platforms for engagement, which have mitigated common barriers to policing partnerships identified by Crawford [1,2] and allowed the partners to reach collective decisions on priorities, investments and co-designed research projects to be awarded funding. Partners are represented on the decision-making N8PRP Steering Group, which includes College of Policing representation to ensure national learning and engagement.

A further operating principle of partnership governance has been the sharing of co-produced research across the partners, the benefits of which was corroborated by the Strategy Manager at West Yorkshire Police: ‘As all police forces strive to be more evidence-based, to be more innovative and to implement good practice/what works, the N8 structure allows those conversations to take place, with different perspectives between policing and academia shared. The infrastructure also allows for academia and police professionals to share research findings more widely with other forces so that there is a cumulative benefit’ [A]. This helped embed an evidence-based approach to the police force’s strategic planning process [A].

As a result of the Partnership, police have reorganised and adapted how they engage with the production and application of research. Informed by Crawford’s research on effective partnerships [1,3], new platforms for engagement have included: annual policing innovation forums focused on collectively agreed priorities; data mobilisation events at which police identify under-utilised datasets; and the Register of Experts, providing accessible means of connecting researchers and practitioners to build inter-organisational research capability and enable knowledge exchange. Innovation forums have highlighted knowledge gaps and opportunities for practice-based innovation (some have been supported by N8PRP small grants – see below). The PCC for Durham evidenced the benefits: ‘Through events, such as the Policing Innovation Forum and the N8PRP’s register of experts, Durham Constabulary has gained a means of accessing research expertise on a plethora of subjects’ [B].

The Strategy Manager at West Yorkshire Police attested that these platforms create conducive environments for police ‘to mix with academics, partners and fellow practitioners in order to share ideas, good practice and to discuss potential research requirements’ [A]. Consequently, the Chief Constable of Merseyside confirmed that the Partnership has ‘ helped to foster police innovations through research, enabled collaborations, provided skills training for analysts and fostered organisational learning across policing’ [C]. As a result of this new infrastructure, police forces have changed how they engage with and commission research and use research evidence [B,C]. West Yorkshire Police cited the N8PRP as a key element in helping embed an evidence-based approach into their strategic planning process and providing ‘a greater understanding of the scale and nature of our crime and demand threats’ [A].

Consequently, evidence is now used more strategically and policing organisations share learning across force areas in new and more effective ways. The former Head of West Yorkshire for Innovation (based in the PCC’s Office) confirmed: ‘the framework of the N8PRP has, for the very first time, brought the twelve police forces of the north together where they are now sharing effective practices, discussing operational challenges and identifying common research requirements to better protect the communities they serve’ [D].

An Independent Review of the N8PRP – based on a survey of over 150 officers from participating forces and interviews with 20 senior police officers and PCCs within the participating forces, plus national policing leaders [E] – found that: awareness of the partnership is high amongst senior staff; establishing the organisational infrastructure for the N8PRP was seen as a significant achievement; and those who used N8PRP ‘products’, such as research reports, conferences and courses, valued them. One interviewee concluded: ‘It [N8PRP] is a really impressive product… I think the infrastructure that was laid was probably as impressive as I’ve ever seen’ [E] [Interviewee 05, p. 13]. Another stated: ‘The N8 is an example of genuine co-production… [it] is probably the best example of a major funding programme to particularly facilitate the relationship between academics and the police... I think the police attitude to research has changed dramatically’ [E] [Interviewee 06, p. iv].

Central to the Partnership’s working has been how Crawford’s research co-production philosophy [4,5,6] and practice have fostered organisational change, as highlighted by the Strategy Manager at West Yorkshire Police: ‘co-produced research is a critical part of us achieving our ambition to be a more innovative and evidence-based organisation. The co-produced element is a fundamental principle as it enables the blend of academic rigour with practical policing knowledge. Fundamentally, it allows police professionals to be involved from the onset, to influence the design and content and to ensure that the research is undertaken in a timely manner and most importantly can have practical application’ [A].

(ii) Enriching the perception, value and use of research-informed practice in the UK

The Partnership has: raised the profile, understanding and value of research evidence in informing policing; engaged frontline practitioners and managers in creating knowledge, using data and applying research to policing practice; and fostered ‘ greater recognition and understanding of the importance of policing research’ [F]. Police forces have directly gained new knowledge from the Partnership’s activities, including the training programme, innovation forums and the ‘Empowering Data Specialists in Policing’ continuing professional development (CPD) programme. Data resources have been put to new uses through data mobilisation events and processes, developed as a direct response to the research finding that data exchange was a key barrier [1].

In line with the Partnership’s philosophy, the CPD programme was co-produced and co-designed by academics and practitioners in the N8PRP [G]. Across the three cohorts, it has received considerable praise for its knowledge and skills development from participants and (international) observers. The Independent Review found that the CPD course for data analysts was especially valued, ‘ with large majorities of participants saying that it had improved their understanding of the issues and their knowledge of the evidence base’ [E].

Former Lancashire Police Data Analysis and Insight Manager confirmed: ‘ Perhaps for the first time for many of the participants, police analysts have been exposed to a series of modules that expanded their knowledge and tested their existing skill sets’ [G]. In recognition of its pioneering contribution, the lead facilitators Fiona McLaughlin (Leeds) and Dr Jude Towers (Lancaster) were recipients of the 2020 ‘Excellence in Analysis’ Award from the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts (IALEIA). Data analysts have become more active and vocal champions of evidence-based policing within their organisations [G].

The Partnership’s small grants programme has helped translate co-produced research outputs into practice with benefits to end-users [H]. This scheme has resourced and sponsored cutting-edge co-designed research by inter-professional teams with a strong focus on application. The College of Policing’s Director of Knowledge & Innovation attested: ‘The small grants programme has offered perhaps the most tangible examples of how research outputs can be translated into impact on policing practice, supporting police-academic co-produced research projects on various policing priority areas’ [I]. The corroboration cites the example of ‘Policing Bitcoin’ (PI David Wall, Leeds), which brought together police and academic experts to explore the novel challenges posed by criminal use of bitcoin: ‘The project… helped facilitate practical application of the research findings by translating these into the design and delivery of national training to UK law enforcement leads and other key stakeholders’ [I]. In another example, the Partnership was ‘instrumental’ to impacts derived from the ‘Coercive Control’ project (PI Charlotte Barlow, Lancaster) with Merseyside Police, as evidenced by the Chief Constable [C]. Through such projects, learning has been spread across forces, resulting in benefits from specific research that has made ‘an impact on how forces do business’ [J] and ‘helped to fill evidence gaps’ [H]. These have produced benefits to policing and communities.

The N8PRP is recognised far beyond its geographical base in the North of England for producing insight and learning. The contribution of Crawford’s research to national policing via the N8PRP was corroborated by the national College of Policing: ‘His critical reflection on his experience of leading N8PRP has provided valuable learning and insight on the key mechanisms and approaches underpinning effective partnership working. Co-production between police and academics defines the philosophy and strategy of N8PRP, recognising the importance of joint working between partners in bringing about positive change in police culture and practice… N8PRP has made a valuable contribution to the evidence base on effective co-production… We have been able to draw on this work to inform the support we provide to police-academic research collaborations across the UK’ [I]. Crawford’s research consequently ‘ fed into’ the College’s ‘ strategies for embedding evidence-based practices’ [I].