Wednesday, 16 December 2015

UK academics release algorithm measuring Personal Value in 60 seconds

Can Seratio change your life in 60 seconds?

Seratio, world leader in the measurement of non-financial  value, today launches their Personal Value (PV) campaign to measure the social impact of 1 million people for free. In less time than it takes to boil a kettle, you can now measure your PV at Measuring Personal Value takes 60 seconds and consists of 6 online questions.

According to COO Karen Bryson, “Seratio’s Personal Value service is the only place where individuals can get an overall score on their unique contribution to societal welfare. Measuring Personal Value allows us to reflect on our choices and actions – and challenge ourselves to improve our personal score and watch it grow over time.”

Seratio is the licensing arm of the not-for-profit Centre for Citizenship, Enterprise and Governance (CCEG) based in the UK. Developed over 4 years and across 90 universities, Seratio's algorithms measure value at citizen, family, community, team, organisational, network, regional, national, global levels and even the value of our thoughts. Their disruptive Social Earnings Ratio® is "the most rapidly adopted metric in the world" (Vatican press) already supporting  two laws in the UK – the Social Value Act 2012 and Modern Slavery Act 2015 - and has measured $4 trillion of organisations internationally.

To support measuring Personal Value, Seratio has launched a crowdfunding campaign at . A percentage of funds raised will support the Tutu Foundation to continue its work on peace and reconciliation. The Tutu Foundation UK endorses the work of Seratio to measure Personal Value, recognising that "my humanity is tied to your humanity". Measuring PV allows people to express their humanity and start to understand the impact they have on others. 

Raisa Ambros
Mobile: +39 (3203) 551053

Friday, 11 September 2015

Growing Old Gracefully: Valuing Personal Care

By Peter Adams
Director, Avida Care

Most of us want to grow old gracefully, don’t we? However, despite our best efforts, this is by no means a certainty; in fact it is something of a lottery. Being careful and responsible in our own life is unfortunately no guarantee of a long life, let alone a graceful old age. Whilst there are many personal choices and actions we can take to help stave off what used to be called "decrepitude", sadly most of us will, sooner or later, become frailer and more dependent on others to perform functions we previously took for granted.

I should clarify that all I mean here by growing old gracefully is merely how we can grow old while maintaining a reasonable quality of life and standard of living for as long as possible. I suggest that for most of us this means being of sound enough mind and body, with enough money to be able to lead a largely self-determined, happy life, and leave something to our children.
But how can we continue to remain "graceful" in our older years, particularly when we need help coping and caring for ourselves? How can our hard-pressed care system help make this happen? This is surely one of the greatest challenges our society faces, because it will face each one of us sooner or later. We are living longer; can we live happily longer? This begs some very important questions of the care system, our funding of it, and indeed our very attitude to caring.

The current care system does indeed face massive pressures. It has been geared mostly to doing the basics to keep older people out of crisis, and less to promoting happiness and wellbeing, so there is a transformative expectation that the system needs to satisfy – extremely challenging in its own right. Moreover, the available funding for care has not kept up with both the fact that we are living longer and that the population is ageing. So budgets have been stretched thin; like a pastry chef with one lump of pastry left to roll a pastry lid to cover an ever growing pie, the lid is rolled ever thinner to the point of falling apart. Of course, factor in the austerity cuts to council budgets and the funding outlook becomes dramatically worse. To cap it all, to use a very inappropriate phrase, the prospects for hard-pressed families have hardly been helped by the Government’s recent decision to renege on bringing in the long-awaited cap on care fees.
So the system is at breaking point, with serious danger of collapse in the near future. So what can be done, now, to properly address this funding crisis? Well, one of the answers is certainly more money. Nice one Einstein you might reply, but hear me out, because making more money available, though vital, needs to be done in a totally new way. So whilst there is a good argument for re-prioritising current government expenditure budgets, such a solution, involving as it does robbing Peter to pay Paul, cannot be the long-term answer, even though there may be obvious, less-deserving candidates right now to "rob" from.
Moreover, making more money available is actually not the starting point, but an ending point, once the proper worth to society of care funding has been calculated. This requires a deeper, more fundamental approach based on values – specifically how we value care and caring, and our notion of real value, which is more than just monetary worth. Ultimately this approach forces us to reflect what real value society places on older people. This is important not just morally, but economically too, because any economist will tell you that investors search out value – or to put it another way – money follows the value. So, we have no hope of funding care properly as a social good if we do not first appreciate its true value.

So how do we put a true value on care and caring? Well we need to look at both economic value and social value. Let’s look at some figures.
For many of us the first steps along "reliance road" will be to receive support or care from immediate family or friends – and this army of "informal" (ie unpaid) carers actually delivers a huge amount of care. ONS data show that, between 1995 and 2010, the total amount of informal care delivered to adults increased by nearly 50% to over 7.5 billion hours per year! Around half of these care hours were for people aged 70 years or older. In 2011 the Valuing Carers report estimated that unpaid carers contributed the equivalent of well over £100 billion per year to the economy, and much of this "value" concerned personal care for older people. Yet this is not properly reflected in budgetary planning for the funding of care, which assumes this free service will continue ad infinitum – an unlikely scenario given that many carers are elderly and indeed frail themselves. Also does even this stupendous figure begin to adequately reflect the real value of these carers’ love, commitment and sacrifice to those they care for, let alone to society at large? So this social added value needs to be measured properly too.

Of course, informal care is just part of the picture – there is another army of professional care workers out there. As we become frailer, these paid care workers supplement, and sometimes replace altogether, our unpaid carers. Does the funding for paid care (or indeed the amount of money these care workers are paid) really reflect the true value of their contribution to those they care for, on behalf of the rest of us? Once again we need to recognise and measure the true social value of what they do, and add this into the funding mix. Only then can we hope to make, as a society, a properly informed decision as to how much money we should, and are willing to, put into care funding.
This more holistic, values-based approach to funding our care system for older people is urgently needed. Progress is starting to be made in the right direction. Organisations such as Carers UK and In-Control – with the latter’s conception of a transformed "public offer" based on the "real wealth" of individuals and communities – are making valuable contributions to this new values-based thinking. But there is much more to be done, and quickly. Far more emphasis must be placed on ground-up values measurement, combined with more focused, top-down values-based policy making.
Only when we recognise and measure the true value – both economic and social – of our older people and of caring properly for them, can we possibly hope to invest the right amount of money in funding a care system that is fit for an enlightened, 21st Century society; one in which more of us can grow old gracefully; one where we really can live happily for longer.

Monday, 24 August 2015

Female Perpetrators of Murder, Domestic Violence and Modern Slavery

By Professor Olinga Ta’eed

Director, Centre for Citizenship, Enterprise and Governance

Intuition tells us that these three subjects must be connected by sentiment if nothing else. Words such as rage, oppression, freedom are emotive expressions  which until recently could not be quantified and thus only qualitatively connected.  The latter makes for an interesting lecture, but frankly it’s hardly ground breaking. This made last weeks inaugural lecture by Dr Jarka Hrabetova, our newly appointed Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Citizenship, Enterprise and Governance all the more fascinating in her unique approach to these delicate subjects.

Her research sample consisted of all imprisoned women who had perpetrated murder in one particular prison ie half of all incarcerated women in the Czech Republic. The data detected the forms of murderous behaviour of women, the typology of murder by motivation, mapping the social situation of female convicts in prison, selected attitudes of homicide offenders including the analysis of family murders. The results indicate that most are intimate murders with the most common being partner homicide in conflict situations, long-term domestic violence and excessive alcohol consumption for both victim and perpetrator. The 100+ academic audience found comfort in her robust methodology which supported her conclusions but the real surprise was what she presented next. 

Building on the results of her sound but traditional research approach, Jarka has gone on to use Sentiment Analysis, a methodology stemming from the burgeoning Semantic Web 3.0, to analyse her data with a view to devise quantifiable metrics to define, and thereby forecast,  catastrophic events based on emotion – like murder. This is the stuff of the future and her work cannot be undervalued. My daughter, Tigris, has drawn out the analogy to Tom Cruise’s 2002 film ‘Minority Report’ where foreknowledge Is used to predict crime. This is powerful stuff.

Going even further, Jarka’s has extended her theory to applications in Domestic Violence, Honoured Based Violence and Modern Slavery. Using the Social Earnings Ratio in the context of ‘Personal Value’, she is defining trigger points to intimate murders, to DV and HBV in the context of criminology. And even further still, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 which is obtained Queen’s Royal Ascent in March 2015 in the UK will be enacted later this year. Companies with turnover of more than UK£36m will have to disclose whether they are making efforts to eliminate slavery in supply chains. Modern Slavery has principally two components – pay and oppression – and Jarka is working to define the latter benchmark whilst her colleague, Rani Kaur, works on the former. In this respect Jarka’s previous research work on Human Trafficking and her 12 year background in the police force has provided us with great insights. CCEG aims to provide the go-to metric behind the Modern Slavery Act 2015, just as we have become the leading provider of measurement under the Social Value Act 2012.

We are living in a time when how we feel about things can be quantified and becomes the new lexicon of intangible non-financial values. These modern tools such as S/E allow Jarka to seamlessly draw from her Prague work on female perpetrators of murder and apply it to the measurement of Ambition for the Arts Council in Corby, a middle-England town which is the focus of her most recent work. Who would have believed that would be possible?
Visit our website at:
Email us at: 

[The views and opinions expressed in this blogs by guests or members of the CCEG are those of the author, and not of the CCEG or the University of Northampton Business School]