Localism:

Literacy and the importance of localised

approaches
A policy discussion paper

Joe Morrisroe
Local Areas Policy Officer
National Literacy Trust

March 2014
About the National Literacy Forum
The National Literacy Forum is attended by representatives from Government,
business, local authorities and the voluntary and community sector and meets twice
each year to discuss policy themes pertinent to addressing low literacy.

The forum’s aims are to:

 Inform the development of national policy around literacy – following each
meeting the National Literacy Trust writes, publishes and disseminates a
short policy paper. These papers are intended to influence policy makers in
the lead up to the 2015 General Election, prompting them to consider the role
of literacy in addressing child poverty and social exclusion.
 Update forum members on the National Literacy Trust’s work in local areas
and identify where and how members’ programmes and interventions can be
linked into this activity.
 Support members by providing a space to discuss national policy, build
consensus, reflect on service development and support collaborative working.

If you represent an organisation with national reach, a commitment to literacy and

would be interested in joining the forum, please contact Joe Morrisroe at
joe.morrisroe@literacytrust.org.uk.

About the National Literacy Trust

We are a national charity dedicated to raising literacy levels in the UK. We work to
improve reading, writing, speaking and listening skills in the UK’s most
disadvantaged communities where up to 40 per cent of people have literacy
problems. Our research and analysis drive our interventions. Because low literacy is
intergenerational, we focus our work on families, young people and children.
 We establish literacy projects in the poorest communities
 We campaign to make literacy a priority for politicians and parents
 We support schools

The National Literacy Trust is a registered charity, no. 1116260, and a company
limited by guarantee, no. 5836486, registered in England and Wales, and a
registered charity in Scotland, no. SC042944. Registered address: 68 South
Lambeth Road, London SW8 1RL. Tel: 020 7587 1842.

Copyright
© National Literacy Trust 2013. You may report on findings or statistics included in
this report if you accredit them to the National Literacy Trust.

Suggested reference for this report is: Morrisroe, J. (2013) Localism: Literacy and the
importance of localised approaches. London: National Literacy Trust.

We will consider requests to extract from this publication provided that you:
- Acknowledge that the content is the work of the National Literacy Trust and
provide appropriate references in any publications or accompanying publicity;
- State that any views expressed are yours and not necessarily those of the National
Literacy Trust.
Introduction and Context
In times of economic instability, low literacy makes individuals and
communities more vulnerable to inequality, increases the risk of social
exclusion and undermines social mobility. In the current national context of
austerity, cuts to government funding has also meant that services
traditionally provided by local authorities that may remove barriers to social
immobility and increase educational attainment have become unsustainable.
Within this context, the second meeting of the National Literacy Forum
focused on localism (the local ownership of services) and how this might
relate to literacy policy.

Localism has become increasingly relevant for local government seeking to

mitigate the negative impact of funding cuts and employ alternative solutions
to service provision. Integrated services, for example, seek to address
multidimensional needs of local populations in a more efficient manner. For
charities, localism raises the question of how agencies in the third sector can
best operate, both in the service they provide to communities and the
relationships they hold with other sectors. Specifically, localism has raised the
question of whether community mobilisation rather than service provision can
be a more effective strategy for fulfilling objectives. At a political level localism
has been reflected upon positively by all parties. However, there is little
coherent national policy that exists. The forum discussed the significance of
localism within this context, providing a number of key discussion points.

Why is localism important?

While the Localism Act introduced by the coalition government in 2011 has
faced political contention, the basic concept of transferring power from
national government to local governments, communities and individuals has
been well received across the political spectrum. This acceptance has
stemmed from the notion that local people recognise the problems in their
communities and understand the solutions for solving them. Despite this,
devolvement of power to local government and a willingness to increase
public participation has not automatically translated into citizen empowerment.
The long-term decline in turnout at local elections has been interpreted by
some as evidence of diminishing trust in public agencies and institutions, and
critics argue that local administrations do not always understand the needs of
their electorate. Furthermore, the mandates of local politicians who hold key
decision-making power have been questioned; in 2012 local councillors were
elected with an average turnout of less than one third of the voting population,
and won an even smaller proportion of the vote.1 Part of the challenge in
empowering communities through devolution of power is that communities are
hard to define and often do not have clear figureheads.

1
The Guardian Online, (Dec, 2013). UK Election historic turnouts since 1918. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/16/uk-election-turnouts-historic
Inclusion of local communities in decision making processes are conceivably
one way to ensure the needs of locals are addressed. Participatory budgets,
individual budgets and deliberative forums are all examples of mechanisms
that can be used to encourage participation and devolve power to the public.
Some evaluations of these mechanisms have concluded that involving people
in decision-making improved public services, albeit in different ways, at
different levels and to varying degrees.2 However, these mechanisms do
present challenges of accountability between communities, local and national
government. Firstly, participatory budgeting can result in disproportionate
attention to preferred services over other important responsibilities; for
example, environmental and children’s services may be more popular in
participatory budgeting than adult services. Secondly, local interests may not
be conducive to the interests of national government and visa versa; growth in
the national economy, for example, does not equate to growth in a local
economy, nor does it guarantee that the type of growth taking place
complements the needs of communities.

Despite these challenges, the importance of localism stems from the potential
it offers to support local government in providing services and creating
positive change in society. It is widely argued that public participation can
build social capital by bringing people together for a collective purpose and
building networks, trust and values between them.3 Furthermore, one reaction
to a retracting remit of local authorities is the mobilisation of communities in
reconstituting these resources or guiding the efficacy of service provision
through participatory processes.

i. Recognising the relativity of local needs

The question of what service ownership means to communities is highly
significant. The paradox remains that in the case of education those who
‘need’ to learn do not enrol in educational courses. A critical perspective of the
interface between service providers and communities raises the question of
whether agencies infantise individuals by prescribing them with needs and
services without consultation. One response to this question is not whether
individuals need improved literacy skills, but how literacy can be located as
relevant to these individuals’ lives. Being able to demonstrate the relevance of
literacy is crucial to the uptake of literacy improvement strategies in
communities.

Recognising that local communities face differing contexts, situations, history

and attitudes is important because this in turn affects local perceptions of

2
McLean, S. and Andersson, E. (2009) Activating empowerment: Empowering Britain from
the bottom up. Available at: http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Activating-
Empowerment.pdf
3
Davies, A. and Simon, J. (2012) The value and role of citizen engagement in social
innovation. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for
building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework
Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research
http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/value-and-role-of-citizen-
engagement.pdf
needs and the relevance of literacy to individuals’ lives. Therefore, the uptake
of literacy strategies may be improved by measuring what individuals want to
learn and evaluating the uptake of support offered and received. Measuring
whether strategies have been adopted by the people they were created for is
a key measure of success. Utilising local knowledge is a powerful tool for
delivering effective services.

Recognising the local relativity of needs and attitudes is crucial to

creating relevant services and improving uptake of literacy improvement
strategies.

ii. Joining up services and creating integrated responses

An important way in which service providers may be able to mitigate funding
cuts and improve outcomes is to create integrated responses to needs.
Literacy skills are the foundation stone for success in educational attainment,
employability, community participation, individual confidence and well-being.4
However, literacy is not the whole story. Multiple barriers exist to improving
literacy skills in the same way that low literacy is a barrier to social mobility
and individual wellbeing. There is a strong argument for more collaboration
between service providers so that approaches are relevant, effective and
efficient. It is important to share intelligence and embrace alternative
perspectives to create a joined-up message, rather than one message for
education and another for health services. The National Literacy Forum
believes that collaboration between different services is fundamental to
tackling these multidimensional issues.

Common barriers can be addressed through integrated approaches and

intelligence sharing.

iii. Mobilising communities as well as providing services

It is important to recognise that communities are proud, creative and resilient.
Communities are a wealth of intellectual, financial and personal resources that
can be mobilised in effective ways. Some organisations are moving from
conventional charity frameworks of service provision and are inspiring
individuals to act independently in the charity’s interest at ‘arms-length
control’. The current context of retracting local authorities presents
opportunities for local government and charities to work in a new way to
maximise the resources of communities.

However, mobilising individuals to act for a collective good requires strong

social capital, which is often lacking in areas of deprivation. There is concern
that energy needed to support these communities cannot be created
internally; investment into communities with low social capital is required. A
second important issue is that of accountability; there is a challenge in the
underlying quality of community services. Community libraries, for example,

4
See, Literacy Changes Lives, National Literacy Trust, 2008
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/assets/0000/0401/Literacy_changes_lives_2008.pdf
are a healthy response to cuts, however they have limits as a professional
service. With this in mind, local governments face a serious challenge.
Middlesbrough Council, for example, faces budget cuts of £70 million over
three to four years, making the council’s current model of service provision
unsustainable. Problematically, cuts to services disproportionately effect
areas and communities with the greatest needs, and many such areas have a
higher proportion of public sector employees. A strategy that relies on
communities to support services is presented with risks.

The outcome of cuts that make important services unsustainable will be

felt worse by communities with low social capital.

Conclusion
The community ownership of services is important because matching the
needs of communities with relevant services is essential to successfully
engage individuals with literacy improvement strategies. Partnerships
between sectors, and integrated services, both offer potential because
barriers to improving literacy skills are multifaceted and intergenerational. In
addition, integrated services may prove both efficient in mitigating the
negative impact of cuts and powerful through efficient use of intelligence
sharing. Finally, localised community services may provide a response to
service cuts, however an upsurge of community resources is not inevitable. In
fact, the disappearance of services in the most deprived communities impacts
those who are most in need and who are often least able to take ownership of
them and self-generate additional capacity.

The National Literacy Trust proposes that national policy relating to

local services should consider the following recommendations:

 Recognising the local relativity of needs and attitudes is crucial to

creating relevant services and improving uptake of literacy
improvement strategies.
 Common barriers can be addressed through integrated
approaches and intelligence sharing.
 The outcome of cuts that make important services unsustainable
will be felt worse by communities with low social capital.

The financial climate means that, as never before, policymakers need to think
with greater dexterity about how to face the ongoing social challenge of
deprivation and low social mobility. We hope that this paper has given a new
perspective on both literacy and localism and consolidated key ideas rising
from the forum.

We are keen to meet with individuals or organisations working in policy to

discuss this paper and welcome comments or feedback.

Finally we would like to acknowledge the input of the members of the National
Literacy Forum whose discussions informed the writing of this paper.
Members include:

 Arts Council England

 Barnardo’s
 Beanstalk (formerly Volunteer Reading Help)
 Booktrust
 Booker Prize Foundation
 Campaign for Learning
 Capacity
 Centre for Literacy in Primary Education
 Cllr Alex Bigham
 Community Foundations Network
 Department for Education
 Education Endowment Foundation
 Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
 I CAN
 Middlesbrough Council
 National Literacy Trust
 NIACE
 Pearson
 Pre-school Learning Alliance
 Save the Children
 Shared Intelligence
 Springboard for Children
 Teach First
 The Prince’s Trust
 The Reading Agency
 UK Literacy Association
 4 Children

4. Forthcoming paper:
In preparation for the forthcoming general election and in response to the
recent spending review, the National Literacy Trust is examining future
literacy policy in the United Kingdom. This is the second paper to be
published during the period of 2013-14 reviewing the literacy issues that
policy should address and making recommendations for change. The next
policy paper will address the role of business in local areas and literacy
improvement.