Newsletter October-December 2013
Dear Reader,
Over the last quarter, OxPolicy
has expanded to include 70
people actively involved in
management of the think tank,
organizing events, researching
policy and contributing to our
blog. Our reach has expanded
exponentially, and we have made
several important connections
inside and outside of Oxford.
OxPolicy is a very different
animal from the small group of
10 starting out in April 2013, and
we're proud of how far we've
come.
As the end of the year
approaches, we would like to
look back on the following term.
In this newsletter, you will find a
summary of this term’s events,
research and reports. We also
feature a policy comment by a
distinguished academic and the
winning blog from our SHIFT
competition.
We chose to focus on two main
themes this term: human
trafficking and social exclusion.
You can read the executive
summaries of our reports on
pages 5 and 7; the full reports
and fact sheets are available
online at www.oxpolicy.co.uk.
We w i s h y o u a l o v e l y
Christmas season and all the
best.
1
- The OxPolicy Team
Contents
p.1 p.2
p.3
p.4
p.6
p.9
People
“‘Benefits reform is unnecessary.’
Discuss.”, a comment by Prof. Robert
Walker
“Sustained sustainable behaviour
change”, by Fay Niker
HUMAN TRAFFICKING. Events.
Executive Summary.
SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN THE UK. Events.
Executive summary.
Acknowledgements and Contact
People
We would like to thank our speakers, Ms.
Debbie Beadle, Mr. James Behan, Mr. Andrew
Desmond, Mr. Mark Glendening, Ms. Raven
Kaliana, Ms. Caroline Lennartsson, Lord
MacLennan of Rogart, Mr. David Nix, Dr.
Carrie Pemberton Ford, and Ms. Nina Shick.
We are grateful for the input of Ms. Fran
Bennett, Dr. Emanuele Ferragina, Dr. John
Hammock, and Prof. Robert Walker. We are
also indebted to our graduate mentors Owain
Johnstone, Ahmed Safar, Stephanie Tam, and
Rachel Wechsler for their precious help along
the way.
‘Benefits reform is unnecessary.’
Discuss.
by Prof. Robert Walker
Robert Walker is Professor of Social Policy at the University of Oxford. His research interests include a particular concern with poverty,
social exclusion, family dynamics, and employment instability and progression in all parts of the world. He is currently directing (among
other research projects) an eight country study of poverty and shame.
We all know that the welfare benefit system needs to be
reformed. ere is consensus across the political parties that
change is needed and even a large measure of agreement on
how this is best achieved. Benefits are bad, work is good.
But why do we think that benefits need reform?
Politically, the answer is obvious. Parties have to differentiate
themselves and claim that they can do better than either the
incumbent government or its predecessors. Benefits reform
appeals to voters because the vast majority think that it will not
affect them. If savings can be made, perhaps taxes will fall.
But why do you think that benefits reform is necessary?
You know that the continued existence of poverty -16 per cent
of the UK population, 120 million persons across Europe - is a
blemish on society1. You know that something must be done
about it.
But why do you think benefits reform will resolve the problem
of poverty?
Politicians certainly say that welfare reform will address
poverty.
Tony Blair argued that benefits ‘encouraged
dependency, lowered self-esteem and denied opportunity and
responsibility in almost equal measure’2.
e planned
introduction of the new Universal Credit in Britain, which the
Labour Party did not oppose, aims to stem ‘welfare dependency’
which is said to have the ‘effect of trapping individuals, families
and whole communities in the very condition it was supposed
to alleviate.’3. e reform, the government states, will alleviate
the ‘huge social and economic cost for individuals, their families
and wider society’4.
e public in focus groups and surveys say the same thing. ey
say people ‘work the system’ at the expense of others. And
because they can claim benefits, they are not ‘sufficiently’ poor
‘to want to actually get out of poverty ’5.
But there is precious little evidence that welfare benefits create
dependency other than the truism that if they exist for people
in need, people in need are entitled to receive them. Rather, the
causes of poverty lie in weak labour market demand, in
mismatches between skills required and the skills possessed and
in the inability to work due to disability, old age and childcare
responsibilities. People do not choose to be poor. Instead they
feel ashamed that they cannot afford to be good parents,
relatives and friends6.
So why do ministers blame and shame families receiving
benefits, denigrate people in poverty and those without work
suggesting that worklessness and welfare dependency ‘breed
intergenerational poverty’?7 Rats breed vermin. Human beings
have children.
Perhaps it is because we, the electorate, would like to believe
these things about people in poverty. at way we could justify
our own privileged position. We have studied and worked hard
so as to be able to afford the good things of life, whereas people
2
in poverty have not. at is why they are poor. And that is why
they do not deserve to be helped through our taxes. Moreover,
maybe we can shame them into changing their ways.
But whatever we would like to believe about ‘the poor’ being
lazy and feckless, it is simply not true. e vast majority of
people claiming benefits have worked a full working life, are
unable to work or are doing their very best to find employment
and to better themselves8.
Perhaps welfare benefits do need to be reformed. But much
more important, we need to reform the way we think about
poverty and welfare benefits. Benefits are not the cause of
poverty. ey are a policy response, currently inadequate
because we refuse to be generous and are willing to see
claimants stigmatised, hassled and humiliated.
We need to live up to our international obligations. We should
insist that our governments abide by the treaties to which they
are a party. ey should have ‘respect for the rights and dignity
of people covered by … social security guarantees’9. Indeed,
according to a 2013 Resolution of the UN General Assembly,
‘respect for the inherent dignity of those living in poverty must
inform all public policies’10. Moreover, ‘state agents and private
individuals [you and I] must respect the dignity of all, avoid
stigmatization and prejudices, and recognize and support the
efforts that those living in poverty are making to improve their
lives.’ Do we?
References :
DWP (2013) Households Below Average Income An analysis of the income
distribution 1994/95 – 2011/12 June 2013 (United Kingdom). London:
Department for Work and Pensions; ISBN 978-1-78153-531-8; http://
epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/
People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion
2 Blair, T. (1997) e 21st Century Welfare State, Speech to the Social Policy and
Economic Performance Conference, Amsterdam, 24 January.
3 DWP (2011) Universal Credit: welfare that works, London: Department for
Work and Pensions, Cm. 795.7, p.12.
4 Ibid, p.11.
5 Chase, E. (2012) e role of society in shaming people living in poverty – UK,
http://povertyshamedignity.spi.ox.ac.uk
6 Walker, R. with others (2014) e Shame of Poverty: Global perspectives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7 DWP, op cit, p. 1.
8 Barnes, M. and Lord, C. (2013) Poverty, Economic Status and Skills: What are the
Links? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Gordon, D. et al. (2013) e
Impoverishment of the UK, Bristol:
e_Impoverishment_of_the_UK_PSE_UK_first_results_summary_report_Ma
rch_28.pdf
Aldridge, H et al. (2012) Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2012, York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Longhi, S. and Taylor, M. (2011) Explaining Differences in Job Search Outcomes between
Employed and Unemployed Job Seekers, Colchester: ISER Working Paper Series No.
2011-17.
9 ILO (2012) Recommendation Concerning National Floors of Social Protection, adopted by
the Conference at its one hundred and first session, 14th June 2012. Geneva: ILO,
Recommendation 202.
10 UN (2013b) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 67/164. Human rights and
extreme poverty New York, United Nations General Assembly [on the report of the
Third Committee (A/67/457/Add.2 and Corr.1)], General distribution: 13th
March.
1
Fay Niker is the MT13 winner of SHIFT, our blogging competition. Want to be next ? Register as a
policy blog writer at http://www.oxpolicy.co.uk/services/policy-blog-writer/
‘Climate change’ and ‘behaviour change’ are both central themes
in the policy landscape, academic research, and media discourse
of the twenty-first century. e former has been described by
the former Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, as “the
greatest humanitarian challenge facing mankind today”, a
statement that carries added weight in light of the complete
devastation inflicted upon the Philippines by Typhoon Haiyan –
one of the strongest storms ever to make landfall. e latter,
‘behaviour change’, has become a ubiquitous phrase in
policymaking circles, representing a radical shift towards a nonregulatory policymaking paradigm, often referred to as nudging.
e 2008 Climate Change Act established the world’s first
legally binding climate change target. is has committed the
UK to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by
2050 - a target that requires a major change in the way we live
and think, representative of an unprecedented reversal of a
universal trend among industrialised nations concerning the
relationship between economic growth and carbon
emission. e key question going forward, therefore, is: How
is such a radical behavioural/cultural transformation going to be
brought about? e current government’s answer appears to
rest heavily upon behaviour change techniques that seek to
nudge (implicitly encourage, incentivise, etc.) citizens’ toward
more sustainable behaviour patterns. e problem with this approach – or at least with the way in
which it is currently being framed by the Coalition government
in major initiatives such as the Green Deal – is that it threatens
to actually undermine sustained sustainable behaviour change:
for instance, by presenting energy-saving simply as a means of
saving money. Providing this self-interested motivation for
environmentally responsible action does not translate into
meaningful engagement with climate change. And it also runs
the risk of trivialising the issue at hand. e debate about
sustainable behaviour change must remain connected to
the fact that climate change is already a daily reality for some of
the world’s poorest communities, where unpredictable rainfall
and drought patterns are threatening food security
and livelihoods. As Mary Robinson, former UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights and climate justice advocate,
states: “ese communities are not responsible for the
emissions causing climate change, and yet they are
disproportionately affected because of their already vulnerable
geographic locations and their lack of climate resilience”.
In terms of private morality, we each have a duty of justice not
to harm others; and our current levels of emissions can be
expected to cause significant harm. Hence, we - citizens of
industrialised nations - each have a duty of justice to reduce our
net personal emissions to zero, whether by transforming our
lifestyles or by offsetting our emissions. And this not only
makes sense as an abstract philosophical argument; recent
3
Sustained
sustainable
behaviour change
by Fay Niker
research by Dr Rachel Howell (University of Aberystwyth) has
shown that the single most significant motivation among
people who had already made major changes towards
environmentally responsible, low- or zero-carbon lifestyles was
a sincerely held conviction that climate change is a matter of
social justice.
Hence, it seems as though the government’s enthusiasm for
‘nudge’ and its potential for generating measureable behavioural
outcomes may have caused it to lose sight of the fact
that committed, long-lasting behavioural transformations are
not brought about by government officials tinkering with
‘choice architecture’, but rather by citizens’ internalising the
ethical reasons that are motivating such a change – reasons
based on justice, fairness and responsibility. For the sake of
both efficiency and justice, therefore, the government’s
‘behavioural’ strategy on climate change should be driven and
defined by the moral motivation that taking action on climate
change is simply the right thing to do.
is would not necessarily involve canning the existing proenvironmental nudge policies; but it would require a significant
alteration of the government’s rhetorical strategy,
to make it focused on communicating to, and educating, citizens
about climate change as an issue of social justice
by highlighting the impacts on people, especially poorer and
disadvantaged people. is strategy should also
include the instigation of public debate concerning the socially
just adaptation to climate change within the UK. Furthermore,
alongside (and as part of) this norm-changing strategy, it will be
necessary to provide both practical guidance about carbonreduction and a variety of low- or zero-carbon infrastructure
options, so that the opportunity for
sustainable behaviour change is a real and equitable one for all
citizens. Ultimately, it is values and morals that (i) inspire public support
for national-level, regulatory policies and (ii) motivate
transformational individual- and household-level behaviour
changes; so the quicker the government engages with the issue
of sustainable behaviour change in these terms, the more
chance that we have of reaching our own decarbonisation
targets.
RESEARCH PROJECT
Human
trafficking
The reality of
modern-day
slavery
Although trade in humans has been
illegal for many years, it continues
around the world today, including in our
own country. This might be for sexual
slavery, forced labour or even for the
forced extraction of organs. Indeed, in
the UK it is estimated that there are
significantly more than 2,000 people at
the mercy of traffickers at any given
time. OxPolicy’s research this term has
attempted to develop a coherent picture
of the problem, and examine the work of
government, NGOs and the police in
tackling the problem.
To this end we have produced three
documents summarizing our work. The
flagship project is our policy report
entitled ‘Modern Day Slavery: Human
Trafficking in Oxfordshire and The UK’
and which was launched at a panel
debate of the same title on Tuesday
26th November. The paper includes our
own primary research into the attitudes
of Oxford residents and students.
Events in October and November
30th October 2013
The reality of modern-day
slavery
We launched our research on human trafficking
with an awareness-raising event. Andrew
Desmond, from New Scotland Yard, gave a
presentation on the criminal dimension of human
trafficking, specifically the structure and
functioning of trafficking networks. Raven Kaliana,
film-maker and puppeteer, showed deeply moving
passages from her film, inspired by her experience.
Debbie Beadle, from ECPAT UK, introduced
ECPAT’s action and shared her experience as an
anti-trafficking campaigner.
26th November 2013
How can we end human
trafficking ?
On 26th November, we published our findings at a panel
discussion event on human trafficking policy. We were
delighted to be joined by speakers from OXCAT, an antitrafficking charity based in Oxford, who opened the event
with an overview of the work they do on a day-to-day basis.
After their introduction had set the scene, we moved on to the
main debate with our panel, consisting of a number of highly
experienced speakers. James Behan, Head of Operations at
the UK Human Trafficking Centre, passionately defended the
important work of the police in this area and suggested that
resources may be better spent on may be better spent on
making human trafficking a core part of police training rather
than on raising awareness of the problem among the general
public. Concurring, David Nix, Head of Licensing at the
Gangmasters Licensing Authority, noted that, although many
people are not aware that forced labour is still affecting many
workers in this country, the authorities have recently been
quite successful in stopping what are in essence slave
operations. Dr Carrie Pemberton Ford, Director of the
Cambridge Centre for Applied Research in Human Trafficking,
despaired at the depravity many victims of trafficking face and
strongly urged the audience to look at this as an issue of
transnational justice, requiring international solutions.
4
Modern Slavery
Human Trafficking in
Oxfordshire and the UK
OxPolicy Report - Executive Summary
Our report looks into the extent of
human trafficking in Oxfordshire
and the UK and what provision
there is for victim support and
police training in this area. We
decided to concentrate on this
issue for two main reasons.
Firstly, as demonstrated by our
primary research, there is a
general lack of awareness that socalled ‘modern day slavery’ still
exists. Secondly it has been
shocking to hear about the recent
sex trafficking ring right here in
Oxford, and we wanted to further
expose the detail surrounding
both this hidden crime and work
to stop it happening in the future.
Our research is taken from both
primary and secondary sources.
We conducted a survey into
attitudes towards human
trafficking in Oxfordshire and
submitted freedom of information
requests to ames Valley Police.
While we recognise the limitations
of our resources as students, we
believe that our
approach
provides refreshing clarity and
creativity in policy analysis.
Human trafficking across the UK
remains a hidden, horrific and
prevalent crime. Estimates of the
number of victims span from 2255
to over 5000, counting both those
trafficked into and within the UK.
ere is not data available on how
many of those are based in
Oxfordshire, but we know from
the recent Operation Bullfinch
that it is not an insignificant
number. e inter-departmental
ministerial group on human
5
trafficking is the government body
responsible for overseeing human
trafficking policy in the UK, and it
works closely with UK Human
Trafficking Centre, part of the
National Crime Agency. But our
research has exposed two key
policy problems: there is a great
deal of missing data and the public
simply do not know the extent of
the problem.
We recommend that the
government establishes a
human
trafficking
commissioner, who would have
responsibilities including
raising awareness of the
problem and collecting data.
Police training on human
trafficking is lacking in both scope
and intensity. Officers complete a
‘distance learning package’, which
experience shows takes only about
thirty minutes. It is not even a
mandatory requirement for police
officer training. ames Valley
Police is seeking to develop a more
in-depth training package to be
delivered on their training course,
but unless that involves rigorous
training from qualified experts in
the field then we believe police
training will remain weak.
We recommend that officers
are given training in a
‘classroom’ format from key
players in the field (including
detectives, NGOs and
survivors) so that officers
understand both how to spot
human trafficking and how to
deal with it.
Child victims, once rescued, are
supported by their local authority,
whereas adults are cared for by the
Salvation Army (as the recipient of
a government contract), as well as
other NGOs. It is unclear how
successfully adult victims are
integrated back into society, but
the quality of care for trafficked
children depends significantly on a
postcode lottery. Many victims
disappear once they are rescued,
and it is only to be assumed that
they are retrafficked. One of the
main causes behind human
trafficking is that traffickers
exploit victims’ vulnerability. e
most effective way to allow
victims to escape from that
vulnerability is by giving them the
education and training they need
to be able to support themselves
as an autonomous and dignified
individual in modern society.
We think the government
needs to reform victim support
significantly. Care quality
needs to be assessed based on
clearly defined targets to work
on for each victim, whether an
adult or a child. e care
service needs a comprehensive
follow up process so that the
carers can ensure victims are
not retrafficked and have the
tools to develop their own
lives, either in the UK or in
their home country.
Find out more by
reading our report
and fact sheet : http://
www.oxpolicy.co.uk/
portfolio/humantrafficking-2013/
RESEARCH PROJECT Social Policy is made at many levels: To this end we have produced two
Social
Exclusion
in the UK
EU and
National
Policies
a fact which often escapes the
national media and even policy
makers. In this policy report, we
examined different approaches and
systems tackling the problem of
Social Exclusion. This involved
comparative analysis of policies
adopted by the UK and other
European countries and also an
examination of the influence of the
European Union in social exclusion,
with reference to its Europe 2020
programme.
Event : Panel debate
29th November 2013
Should the UK prioritise its
relationship with the EU or
the Commonwealth ?
On the day of our panel event titled “Should Britian
prioritize its relationship with Europe or with the
Commonwealth?” the bill for a referendum of Britian’s
membership of the EU passed through the House of
Commons’ final reading. Although OxPolicy’s EU research
focus this term was on one specific policy area (social
exclusion and how policy
in this dimension is
divided between national
and supranational
methods), we wanted to
ask a broader question:
namely where should
Britian look in the future:
to Europe or elsewhere?
We were lucky to have
three excellent speakers
representing a range of
views on the issue. A large
amount of the debate
focussed on the merits
and demerits of the
European Union as a
framework for our EU
relations. Also considered
however was the dynamic
of the commonwealth,
and what Britian could achieve outside the EU were it to
leave completely or to become part of (for example) the EEA.
Nina Schick, Policy Analyst at Open Europe, began by
questioning the question. It is a false dichotomy, she argued,
to suggest that Britain can choose only one option. Instead it
must focus on improving the quality of its relationships with
its European neighbours through reform of the EU and
developing its global presence. Whilst she advocated backing
6
documents summarizing our work.
The flagship project is our policy
report entitled‘Social Exclusion in the
UK: EU and National Policies’ , which
was launched at a panel debate on
Friday 29th November featuring
several high profile speakers from the
world of politics and think tanks.
both horses, she noted that the commonwealth is a very
heterogeneous group, and countries such as India and South
Africa are routinely on the opposite side to Britain in
negotiations regarding trade, for example.
Marc Glendening, Campaign Director of the Democracy
Movement which is the biggest non-party campaign against
Britain's EU membership, presented a stance that was proEurope but anti-European Union. He highlighted some of the
democratic failings of the EU, and argued that Britain should
have greater freedom to determine its affairs – and perhaps
it might do this by becoming a ‘new Norway’ or a ‘new
Switzerland’.
Lord MacLennan of Rogart spoke in favour of our continued
membership of the European Union, highlighting its
essential role in bringing people together. e European
Union has been a positive force in the world, he argued, and
although its peace-bringing
effects may be obvious in the
post-Second World War and
Cold War contexts, it still
plays this role today. He
emphasised that whilst
independent relations with
commonwealth countries
may be important, the
European Union allows
Britain and its neighbours to
engage with other nations
with a common voice.
ere was no real consensus
reached by the end of the
debate, but each speaker
spoke passionately and
responded with insightful
analysis to the viewpoints
put forward over the
evening. e audience
likewise had interesting questions and opinions. We hope
that this is just the start of a more in-depth conversation
about Britain’s place in the EU and wider world, and that
people will move forward into discussions of the Referendum
and EP elections next year having more information about
the issues!
Social Exclusion in the
UK
EU and National
Policies
OxPolicy Report - Executive Summary
Amidst the political tumult
and institutional upheaval
following Europe’s severe economic
crisis, international attention on
the European Union (EU) has
mostly been directed towards its
economic policies. Increasingly,
however, social exclusion 1 has
grown in prominence to EU policymakers as the social ramifications
of persistent recession on an
already strained system of social
protection become important. In
setting out its Europe 2020
Strategy, the EU demonstrated a
clear commitment to addressing
social exclusion— the last of its five
targets is the reduction of EU
residents at risk of poverty and
social exclusion by 20 million.
Notably, this is the first official EU
target on poverty reduction widely
endorsed by member states. e EU
thus appears to have signalled its
intention to increase its
involvement on policymaking
regarding social exclusion; this
report is a response to these
intentions.
Specifically, this report will
examine national and EU-level
policy approaches to social
exclusion on the UK, occasional
referencing other EU member
states for comparison. e key
research questions guiding the
report are: How closely is UK policy
regarding social exclusion in
aligned with EU policy? How
effective is national policy, EU
policy, or a combination of both at
reducing social exclusion? To the
7
extent that it is possible, will
greater Europeanization of social
policy benefit national attempts to
address social exclusion? Given the
multi-faceted nature of social
exclusion, the report comprises
seven sections, each analysing one
aspect of social exclusion: Child
Poverty, Education, Youth
Unemployment, Financial
Exclusion, Mental Health, Housing
and Minority Issues. If the topics
appear slightly narrow, it is because
of a deliberate attempt to highlight
less well-known aspects of social
exclusion and to preserve analytical
depth.
In general, this report finds
that UK policy has minimal links to
EU recommendations and makes
sparse use of coordination
channels. In most cases the UK’s
performance is average amongst
EU countries, which is unsurprising
given the current mix of EU
members. Political realities,
particularly those in the UK, limit
the scope for further expansion of
the EU’s role in social policy;
however, most areas would still
benefit from a more cohesive and
collaborative approach to
policymaking across the EU. What
is most striking, however, is how
under-developed the social policy
strategy at the EU level is— the
institution is only just beginning to
wield any significant influence over
social policy, and must improve its
organisational capacity quickly to
maintain even this minimal
amount of influence. A broader
finding is that the very concept of
social exclusion is fairly nebulous,
allowing for numerous
permutations when translated into
policymaking. Each country adopts
its own definitions and indicators,
making cross-EU comparisons on
data especially difficult; within each
country there is also scope for
greater inter-ministry collaboration
to address dimensions of social
exclusion with overlapping causes
or with common vulnerable groups.
Finally, this report ends
with the results of a survey
conducted on 153 residents of
Oxford. Overall findings indicate a
consensus on the need to reduce
social exclusion, although most
were neither aware of the state of
social exclusion in the UK nor
possessed strong opinions on the
EU’s role in this area. In
acknowledgement of the limited
sample size, we request that it be
treated as a preliminary gauge of
attitudes and knowledge upon
which more comprehensive
research can be built. In this vein,
we hope you find the preliminary
analyses and conclusions of this
report enlightening, and strongly
recommend that empirical analysis
of social policy be undertaken on a
far wider scale.
Find out more by
reading our report
and fact sheet :
http://
www.oxpolicy.co.uk/
portfolio/socialexclusion-2013/
Acknowledgements
None of this would have been
possible without our dedicated
research teams
Grant, Miski Abdi, Niamh
Healy, Miski Abdi and Hannah
Coates.
Human Trafficking : Katherine
Crofts-Gibbons, Cason Reily,
Teh Guo Pei, Jahnvi Vaidya,
Samuel Tran, Mark Williams,
Beccy Davies, Darcey Murphy,
Molly Brachfeld, Ruth Ng,
Emmeline Skinner Cassidy,
Max Young, Timothy Yap Wei
Hang, omas Maassen, Naomi
Social Exclusion : Ellen
Wiencek, omas Grand,
Stacey Boorman, Priya Shah,
omas Maassen, Shihang
Hou, Hung-Jen Wu, Kelsey
Mollura, Abigail Burman,
Christy Rush,
Katherine Davies, Florence
Barnett, Chaiyakorn
Srisakvarakul, and Il-Kweon
Sir.
...our blog contributors :
Stephanie Tam, Fay Niker,
Joshua Jesudason, Calum
Montell-Boyd, Nicholas
Howley, Kieran Hyatt, Grace
Feenstra
...and all our readers,
supporters, and contributors.
Contact
MT13 Committee :
Directors : Maeve Sinnott and
Russell Whitehouse
Secretary : Justine Rughooputh
Research Coordinators :
Charlie Bishop (Human Trafficking) and
Wei Qing Tan (Social Exclusion)
Treasurer : Aditya Sharad
Sponsorship : Michael Skazick
Events : Heather Brown and Adam Ward
Socials : Nuvneet Lutchoonum
Publicity : eophilius Kwek
Report Strategy : Zoe Huczok
Blog : Kieran Hyatt
8
www.oxpolicy.co.uk
Facebook page : /oxpolicy
Twitter : @OxPolicy
E-mail : contact@oxpolicy.co.uk
We are based at the Oxford Hub:
16 Turl Street, Oxford OX1 3DH