News

National Literacy Trust loses £1m government funding

03.03.11 | Benedicte Page

The government's £1m grant to independent charity the National Literacy Trust is to be axed in its entirety.

NLT director Jonathan Douglas was told last week that the funding, 45% of the charity's total budget, would not be renewed in the next financial year. The NLT has launched a fundraising campaign to replace the axed funds but is warning it will now have to charge schools for some projects previously supported by the government grant and delivered free, such as the Reading Champions project for boys.

Head of development Judith Parke said the charity was working hard to avoid those charges for schools in areas of disadvantage. The fundraising campaign will include an appeal to individuals for a monthly £10 donation and a Where's Wally? schools fundraising initiative launching in April. Parke said the NLT would also be encouraging other publishers to emulate Walker Books, which raised £36,000 for the charity through employee fundraising last year.

Parke said there would be "no immediate job losses" at the charity, adding the NLT was "working hard to avoid" them.

Comments: Scroll down for the latest comments and to have your say

By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller comments policy. Comments go direct to live please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable comments by clicking the links"

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first | Readers' most recommended

By Andy Goodman

This may not be a popular view but I beleive that cutting funding for charities like this could be a good thing. Hear me out.

I think that we all know and agree that government spending has to be reduced and when a charity like this is affected then it means that it has to rely on its own fundraising rather than relying on a government handout. It's nice that some money used to come from the public coffers but it shouldn't be the crutch that they hold on to.

Similar in a fashion to social benefit payouts; the recipient shouldn't expect or rely solely on the payout and almost be encouraged not to find alternative funding or monies.

Charities shouldn't expect government money for all time - and when it is given it should be treated as an extra not the be-all-an-end-all which, if taken away, means the charity folds. If a commercial company relied on one sole client who went bust or switched supplier can't bemoan the fact that their business will suffer just because they didn't plan for such a predicament.

By reducing funding I believe that charities will have to work harder for their money and in the end be in a stronger position than before.

Fri, 04/03/2011 - 09:49
By Ross Bradshaw

I do not see the millionaires in the Cabinet, the arms manufacturers that our PM tours round the Middle East, the bankers with their bonuses worrying too much about this Gravy Train being ended. And, no, we don't all know that Government expenditure has to go down.. If Vodaphone, Barclays, Philip Green, Boots and, sadly, so many more paid their taxes we'd have no Government cuts.

Mon, 07/03/2011 - 16:55
By Eliza K

National Literacy doesn't sound like a 'gravy train' to me.

Why should programmes such as this, supporting literacy and the encouraging of young boys to read, depend on fundraising? Why should individuals spend time and money - and professional fundraising salaries - chasing a share of capital from the private sector, on behalf of deprived youngsters?

This kind of work is never going to be a directly profit-making enterprise, but it is an element of national education, to the benefit of all. This is what taxation and redistribution is there for.

So tax capital and let the government provide for literacy, either directly or through the funding of independent agencies or charities such as this one.

It's for the greater good, which is why we should all be striving to earn and be taxable, and to pay as much tax as possible, and vote very carefully to check where it goes. I've spent time in societies with little taxation and redistribution, and little public service. They are poor places to live - even, I dare say, for the very rich who hide away in them.

Sat, 05/03/2011 - 23:24
By Dump Bin PR.

Well written Andy. It's time too stand up and be counted, the gravy train has hit the buffers. As for you Bigotry, heaven won't help but a big society just might.

Sat, 05/03/2011 - 18:21
By tory?

Looks like Andy is a "big society fan".... heaven help us

Fri, 04/03/2011 - 14:55
By Andy Goodman

My political leanings have nothing to do with my comment and posting a snide remark shows little character on your part - especially as you're anonymous.

Surely encouraging organisations and individuals to be more self-reliant can only be a good thing. People bleat about the UK being a 'nanny state' (regardless of which party is in power) and then bemoan the fact that the government isn't running the free buffet it once did. We can't have it both ways.

Sat, 05/03/2011 - 15:00
By Dump Bin PR.

Ross. I'm sure you didn't intend to mislead, but I would like to point out that the past 13 years of Socialist Cabinets and Shadow Cabinets also included millionaires in them and will we ever forget the sick making spectacle of two former Prime Ministers licking the boots of a man who is now killing his own people in Libya. Incidentally are you the Ross Bradshaw who is a Director of a company receiving funding from Arts Council England?. If so, your definition of a gravy train may be somewhat influenced.

Wed, 09/03/2011 - 09:50
By Andy Goodman

This may not be a popular view but I beleive that cutting funding for charities like this could be a good thing. Hear me out.

I think that we all know and agree that government spending has to be reduced and when a charity like this is affected then it means that it has to rely on its own fundraising rather than relying on a government handout. It's nice that some money used to come from the public coffers but it shouldn't be the crutch that they hold on to.

Similar in a fashion to social benefit payouts; the recipient shouldn't expect or rely solely on the payout and almost be encouraged not to find alternative funding or monies.

Charities shouldn't expect government money for all time - and when it is given it should be treated as an extra not the be-all-an-end-all which, if taken away, means the charity folds. If a commercial company relied on one sole client who went bust or switched supplier can't bemoan the fact that their business will suffer just because they didn't plan for such a predicament.

By reducing funding I believe that charities will have to work harder for their money and in the end be in a stronger position than before.

Fri, 04/03/2011 - 09:49
By tory?

Looks like Andy is a "big society fan".... heaven help us

Fri, 04/03/2011 - 14:55
By Andy Goodman

My political leanings have nothing to do with my comment and posting a snide remark shows little character on your part - especially as you're anonymous.

Surely encouraging organisations and individuals to be more self-reliant can only be a good thing. People bleat about the UK being a 'nanny state' (regardless of which party is in power) and then bemoan the fact that the government isn't running the free buffet it once did. We can't have it both ways.

Sat, 05/03/2011 - 15:00
By Dump Bin PR.

Well written Andy. It's time too stand up and be counted, the gravy train has hit the buffers. As for you Bigotry, heaven won't help but a big society just might.

Sat, 05/03/2011 - 18:21
By Eliza K

National Literacy doesn't sound like a 'gravy train' to me.

Why should programmes such as this, supporting literacy and the encouraging of young boys to read, depend on fundraising? Why should individuals spend time and money - and professional fundraising salaries - chasing a share of capital from the private sector, on behalf of deprived youngsters?

This kind of work is never going to be a directly profit-making enterprise, but it is an element of national education, to the benefit of all. This is what taxation and redistribution is there for.

So tax capital and let the government provide for literacy, either directly or through the funding of independent agencies or charities such as this one.

It's for the greater good, which is why we should all be striving to earn and be taxable, and to pay as much tax as possible, and vote very carefully to check where it goes. I've spent time in societies with little taxation and redistribution, and little public service. They are poor places to live - even, I dare say, for the very rich who hide away in them.

Sat, 05/03/2011 - 23:24
By Ross Bradshaw

I do not see the millionaires in the Cabinet, the arms manufacturers that our PM tours round the Middle East, the bankers with their bonuses worrying too much about this Gravy Train being ended. And, no, we don't all know that Government expenditure has to go down.. If Vodaphone, Barclays, Philip Green, Boots and, sadly, so many more paid their taxes we'd have no Government cuts.

Mon, 07/03/2011 - 16:55
By Dump Bin PR.

Ross. I'm sure you didn't intend to mislead, but I would like to point out that the past 13 years of Socialist Cabinets and Shadow Cabinets also included millionaires in them and will we ever forget the sick making spectacle of two former Prime Ministers licking the boots of a man who is now killing his own people in Libya. Incidentally are you the Ross Bradshaw who is a Director of a company receiving funding from Arts Council England?. If so, your definition of a gravy train may be somewhat influenced.

Wed, 09/03/2011 - 09:50

Latest Jobs

Rights Sales Manager (Educational)
Oxford University Press is a...
Dependent upon skills and experience
"Team Leader" for cutting edge international Educational Publisher based in trendy Singapore!
A leading international Publisher of...
Excellent salary package
Sales Manager
Jessica Kingsley Publishers is an...
Competitive
 

TheBookseller