Britain doesn’t count

With so many charities struggling to make ends meet, it is fantastic to see a new charity launching today. National Numeracy will champion the importance of numeracy for all ages, transforming negative attitudes and boosting numeracy standards across the UK. The idea for National Numeracy was born out of research that NPC published in 2010’s report Count me in, but it is only through a great deal of effort by many others that the idea has become a reality.

But why do we need another charity when there are so many already struggling to find the money to survive? In the field of numeracy, the reason is unfortunately all too clear—numeracy skills in the UK are shockingly poor and getting worse. The latest government Skills for Life survey (2011) found that 17 million adults in England (nearly half the working-age population) have numeracy levels at or below the level expected of a child leaving primary school. This has increased by 2 million since 2003. 30,000 children leave primary school at 11 with the mathematical skills of a seven year old, and almost half the pupils in England fail to achieve A*-C grade at GCSE. It is not surprising then that England came 27th out of 65 countries in mathematics according to a 2009 survey of 15 year olds. Something needs to change.

Unless this downward trend is reversed the implications for the UK economy are bleak—not to mention the negative impact poor numeracy skills has on the life chances of individuals and their ability to make a positive contribution to society. People with poor numeracy skills are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as those who are competent at numeracy. A quarter of young people in custody have a numeracy age below that expected of a seven year old. There are plenty more depressing statistics to support the case for better numeracy in Count me in.

The good news is that this situation can be reversed. Huge progress has been made with improving literacy in the UK, and with the right attention (and funding) there is no reason why the same cannot be achieved for numeracy. But there is one important caveat: the widely held negative attitudes towards maths must end. Although 85% of adults think literacy and numeracy are equally important, it seems that it’s OK to say ‘I can’t do maths’, whereas to say ‘I can’t read’ is almost unthinkable.

This attitude must change if we are to stop the rot—it is not an easy task, but vitally important for our economy and for individuals. The determination of National Numeracy, and its supporters, to take up the challenge should be applauded.

Read coverage of the launch of National Numeracy on BBC news and in today’s Telegraph, Mirror, Daily Mail and Sky news. You can also listen to coverage of the launch on BBC Radio 4′s Today Programme.

To collaborate or compete?

Whether to collaborate or compete is a difficult question for many charities. Greater competition for funding is driving charities to compete more with each other and with private organisations, but positive outcomes often require collaboration amongst organisations, not competition. So is there a danger that greater competition will drive charities apart and destroy the collaborative working that is so important to achieving positive outcomes for individuals?

In a report published today titled  Impact networks: charities working together to improve outcomes, we explore the benefits and some of the challenges of collaboration amongst charities. The benefits are many: primarily stemming from working together in a timely and efficient way to provide the full range of support that yields the best outcomes for individuals. If one organisation fails to do its bit, then the impact of the other organisations can be compromised. However there are many challenges to getting this right – not least the challenge of working with another organisation that, in other circumstances, might be your competitor.

Understanding and applying the concept of impact networks may help charities answer this difficult question of whether to collaborate or compete. It requires a clear understanding of what your organisation excels at and what other activities are needed to achieve the best possible outcomes for your beneficiaries. Competition on the other hand is usually between organisations (or activities) which do the same thing. Whilst competition can be healthy, it should encourage charities to question whether they are best placed to provide this service or whether they should concentrate on something else. Regular competition between the same organisations could be a sign that a partnership or merger might make more sense.

One charity that has a clear answer to collaboration or competition is the homelessness organisation Thames Reach. It collaborates with organisations that bring something different to the mix but will not collaborate with organisations who are competitors. For example, it worked with a small organisation with links to the Irish community in Lewisham to improve its services for homeless Irish people.

Ultimately, the issue of collaboration or competition challenges the very existence of an organisation – does it primarily exist for itself or does it exist for its beneficiaries. The extent to which an organisation collaborates or competes could be a clue.

Cuts threaten even the best charities

The merger of Fairbridge and The Prince’s Trust shows that even the best charities are at risk from the cuts.

Fairbridge is a charity that NPC knows well and rates very highly. It works with some of the hardest to reach young people in the country, those who fall through the cracks and become NEET (not in education, employment or training). Many of its beneficiaries have multiple needs—they may be homeless, have problems with substance abuse, or a history of offending. Getting them back into work or education is complicated, but Fairbridge has developed an impressive personalised approach to supporting them.

Although there may be some strategic logic in the merger, with over 40% of its income from statutory sources, Fairbridge was exposed to government spending cuts. The long-term support that it provides is indeed more expensive than other approaches, but the evidence shows that this is exactly what vulnerable young people need to get back on track. Over the past year, Fairbridge reports that 85% of the young people it has worked with have gone on to get a job, start a college course, or go back to school, or else have stayed with the charity to continue working on their development. Fairbridge’s approach works.

So cutting funding to a charity like Fairbridge makes government statements about connecting funding to results look a bit hollow. The sad thing is that while there is no mechanism that makes this connection, good charities doing excellent work will continue to be at risk, especially if their approach costs more in the short term than other less successful ones. Britain is now perilously close to having nearly a million young people out of work, and Fairbridge can expect to see demand for its services increase. It is just the kind of charity the government needs to be investing in to help offset the effects of the recession on young people.

The good news is that Fairbridge has found a merger partner to keep it going and that services will continue to be provided through its 15 centres across the country. However, it is difficult to judge whether it will be able to retain its unique approach given the pressures on youth service funding. Ultimately, the success of the merger should be judged on the outcomes achieved for young people.

I’m counting on charities

Charities already do lots of good work improving the 3 Rs of education – writing, reading and (a)’rithmetic for the non-UK readers of this blog. But it’s the 3rd R where a charity rescue strategy is desperately needed. This is a difficult ask in the current climate of falling income and savage cuts in government spending, but relying so heavily on government doesn’t work. With 1 in 5 adults considered to be innumerate, something must be done.

The association between very poor numeracy skills and negative outcomes is striking. Children who struggle with numbers are twice as likely to be excluded from school and adults who are innumerate are twice as likely to be unemployed as those who are competent with numbers. Also two thirds of young people in custody have numeracy skills below the level expected of an eleven year old. Not only does this create problems for individuals, many believe it hits our prospects for economic growth.

For these reasons, NPC is calling for a new organisation to be set up – a National Numeracy Trust – to improve coordination of teaching methods, foster more positive attitudes towards maths and promote and support successful initiatives by charities and businesses.

We will outline the rationale for this proposal in our forthcoming research on numeracy, Count me in, which we are publishing next Tuesday, 27 April.

(Read my earlier blog on numeracy: Kids don’t count – what’s to be done)

‘Kids don’t count’ – what’s to be done?

I wonder if I was the only person in the country not to be shocked by the recent programme on Channel 4 ‘Kids don’t count’ which highlighted the failure of our schools to teach children basic numeracy. It reported that 1 in 5 children leaving primary school fail to achieve the expected standard in numeracy, nearly half our children fail to achieve a grade A-C at GCSE, and many adults (including primary teachers) can’t do basic sums.

The reason I wasn’t shocked, is that these figures are all too familiar to me. NPC is currently carrying out research into poor numeracy to see whether charities could be part of the answer. We think they can.

Whilst the government can rightly be criticised for letting our children down through inadequate teaching, we think that charities could also do more. At the moment, charities play a very minor role in this area, and whilst it is not their place to provide mainstream teaching for our children, we think there is a need for an independent organisation to hold the government to account and ensure our children (and adults) are equipped with the numeracy skills they need. Otherwise, I can see myself watching exactly the same sort of programme in five, ten and twenty years time.

NPC’s report on numeracy will be published in April when it will be available to download from our website.

NPC’s response to McCarthy’s trusteeship article in ThirdSector

Rosamund McCarthy (ThirdSector Opinion 9 June 2009) makes a valid point that the one million or so voluntary trustees in the UK show a spirit of selflessness that appears to be missing in business and politics today. She is also probably right to blame lack of transparency as a cause of the financial meltdown and fiasco over MP’s expenses.

However, her argument that the voluntary nature of charity trusteeship somehow excuses trustees from being transparent about their own performance, is fundamentally wrong. Accepting the current situation that ‘love and devotion’ alone will ensure that vulnerable people get the support they need, leaves too much to luck.

NPC’s report into the state of charity trusteeship in the UK (Board Matters, May 2009) emphasises the importance of trustees ensuring that their charities do the best they can for beneficiaries, but it also outlines why it can be difficult and where trustees need more support.
On the issue of accountability, raised by Rosamund McCarthy’s article, the report highlights the peculiar nature of charities in that they are accountable to a range of different stakeholders (funders, regulators, beneficiaries etc,) rather than one single body (shareholders in the commercial world). This makes it even more important that trustee boards review their performance and the performance of the charity, and make their findings public.

Trustees need and deserve more support. The view that just because someone volunteers their time means they automatically do a really good job, is illogical and ultimately undermines attempts to improve the effectiveness of the charitable sector.

Belinda Vernon is Head of Charity Analysis at NPC, and co-author of the report Board matters.