🔍💡 Illiteracy in priority neighbourhoods: 13% of residents affected, four times more than elsewhere.The 2022 INSEE survey reveals massive difficulties with writing impacting employment, administrative procedures, and digital inclusion. Territorial solutions exist to take concrete action with audiences far from autonomy.

Source: 📒 Understanding the difficulties with writing that are more common in priority neighbourhoods of urban policy📜🔗LINK

At the heart of the subject 

1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

Massive disparities revealed by an unprecedented national survey

In 2022-2023, the lifelong learning survey (FLV) by INSEE, co-funded by ANCT, establishes for the first time a precise comparison between residents of priority neighbourhoods (QPV) and the general population. The results show that 28% of residents in QPV aged 18-64 are in a concerning situation regarding fundamental literacy skills (reading, comprehension, written production), compared to 6% outside QPV. Among them, 13% are illiterate after having been educated in France, which is nearly four times more than elsewhere (3.5%). In the DROM, half of the residents in QPV face severe difficulties. The study identifies the most affected populations: people over 55, without qualifications, unemployed, educated abroad, with a significant gender gap in numeracy (25% compared to 19% in QPV).

Concrete impact on administrative autonomy and employment

Difficulties in writing lead to increased vulnerability in digital processes: 29% of people in a concerning situation in QPV do not carry out any administrative procedures online, compared to 8.5% for those without difficulties. Multivariate analysis confirms that residing in QPV doubles the risk of illiteracy for individuals with a comparable socio-demographic profile. The document presents the actions taken by the National Agency for the Fight Against Illiteracy (ANLCI) and the Resource Centres for Urban Policy (CRPV), including awareness-raising, training for professionals, territorial support, and targeted programmes such as FAMILIRE in the DROM.

2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

• Accurately measuring illiteracy in QPVthanks to the FLV 2022-2023 survey covering 16,000 people, including 2,500 residents in QPV, with exercises assessing reading, comprehension, written production, and numeracy (p. 5)

• Identify the most vulnerable profiles: 57% of QPV residents educated abroad are in difficulty, 18% of 55-64 year olds are illiterate in QPV, 35% of unemployed individuals in QPV are in a concerning situation (p. 7-8)

• Demonstrate the territorial effect with equal profiles: logistic regression analysis establishes that residing in a QPV doubles the risk of illiteracy regardless of age, gender, qualifications, or employment status (p. 10-11)

• Quantify the impact on digital autonomy: 29% of individuals struggling with writing in QPV do not engage in any online administrative procedures, hindering access to rights, employment, and public services (p. 12-13)

• Map territorial responses: mobilization of ANLCI, CNV, and CRPV with awareness-raising actions, training, territorial engineering, and the FAMILIRE programme in the DROM (p. 14-15)

3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

Early identification of illiteracy situationsby organizing awareness-raising actions for frontline professionals (social workers, mediators, reception agents) to identify individuals in difficulty from the first contacts and direct them to appropriate training (p. 14-15).

Adapt support according to linguistic profileby distinguishing training needs: basic skills when French is the mother tongue, French as a Foreign Language (FLE) for non-French speakers, with particular attention to the 57% of QPV residents educated abroad (p. 7, 14).

Deploy targeted digital support measuresby supporting the actions of public cyber-writers recommended by the CNV (2018) to address the difficulties related to digital illiteracy, knowing that 29% of people struggling with writing in QPV do not carry out administrative procedures online (p. 12-13, 14).

Mobilise the City Policy Resource Centres (CRPV)to benefit from territorial engineering, facilitation of exchanges of practices between stakeholders, and professional training (examples: IREV Hauts-de-France webinars, ORIV Grand-Est qualification cycles, RésO Villes Bretagne Pays de Loire actions) (p. 15).

4. Other references

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

5. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF PRACTICES IN HEALTH

Literacy: The document proposes an objective measurement framework for reading, comprehension, and written production skills through standardised exercises, but does not provide pedagogical tools suitable for different levels of literacy (p. 5-6).

Empowerment: Beneficiaries are only surveyed to measure their skills, without participation in the design of the study or the resulting action plans.

Participation: No co-construction mechanism is described — the study remains top-down, led by INSEE and ANCT without consultation of the affected residents.

Community health: The collective dimension is absent from the document, which treats illiteracy as an individual problem, without addressing the collective dynamics of neighbourhoods or mutual aid.

Ethics: The study identifies biases related to the country of birth and education but does not question the systemic factors (discrimination, territorial segregation, early educational inequalities) explaining these disparities (p. 7).

Human rights: The document implicitly acknowledges inequalities in access to administrative rights related to illiteracy but does not explicitly state literacy as a fundamental right (p. 12).

Intersectorality: Partnerships between INSEE, ANCT, ANLCI, and CRPV are mentioned but remain technical, with no engagement towards health, employment, housing, or education (p. 14-15).

Partnership: The coordination between ANLCI and CRPV is structured with documented regional actions, but no formalised model of multi-actor collaboration is presented (p. 14-15).

Combating discrimination: The data is disaggregated by sex, age, qualification, employment status, and country of education, allowing for the objectification of inequalities, but the non-judgment of the individuals concerned and the appreciation of linguistic diversity are not mentioned (p. 6-8).

: Summary: A rigorous statistical document quantifying the disparities but limited in terms of participatory, ethical, and intersectoral dimensions of a comprehensive community health approach.

6. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Scientific relevance: Very high. The study is based on the lifelong learning survey (FLV) 2022-2023 from INSEE, a robust sample of 16,000 people, including 2,500 residing in QPV. Rigorous methodology with standardised exercises derived from the Information and Daily Life survey (IVQ), multivariate analysis using logistic regression controlling for confounding variables (age, gender, qualification, employment, country of schooling). The definitions are precise (illiteracy, numeracy, literacy) and aligned with those of ANLCI. The results are statistically contextualised with confidence intervals. The data is from 2022-2023, ensuring its relevance.

Operational relevance: Average. The document provides a precise territorial diagnosis and identifies priority audiences, allowing for targeted actions. It maps existing resources (ANLCI, CRPV) and documents concrete regional actions. However, it does not offer directly usable intervention tools on the ground (no evaluation grids, no educational materials, no support protocols). Stakeholders must turn to other resources for operational implementation.

Transparency: Authors and structures clearly identified (ONPV, ANCT, Florian Simonnet writer). Explicit data sources (INSEE-ANLCI). No mention of conflicts of interest. However, the methodological limitations are not well discussed (notably the simplification of the Skills module making comparisons with previous IVQ surveys difficult, mentioned p. 5).

Recommendation : Reliable resource to be used as a reference for territorial diagnosis and advocacy, but to be supplemented with methodological guides and concrete educational tools for field intervention (see additional references).

7. MCQ — 5 QUESTIONS FOR PROFESSIONALS AND VOLUNTEERS

PART 1 — Presentation of the MCQ

Question 1: What percentage of residents in QPV aged 18-64 are in a situation of illiteracy according to the FLV survey 2022-2023?

a) 3.5%

b) 8%

c) 13%

d) 28%

Question 2: In the fundamental areas of writing (reading, comprehension, production), which exercise poses the most difficulties for residents of QPV?

a) Reading

b) Producing written words

c) Understanding a text

d) The difficulties are the same for all three areas

Question 3: Among residents in QPV who started their education abroad, what proportion is in a concerning situation in at least one fundamental area of writing?

a) 13%

b) 28%

c) 43%

d) 57%

Question 4: With a comparable socio-demographic profile, what is the multiplicative risk factor of illiteracy for a person residing in QPV compared to a person outside QPV?

a) 1.5

b) 2

c) 3

d) 4

Question 5: Among people in a concerning situation in writing in QPV, what percentage does not carry out any administrative procedures online?

a) 8.5%

b) 12%

c) 19%

d) 29%

PART 2 — Commented correction

Question 1: What percentage of residents in QPV aged 18-64 are in a situation of illiteracy according to the FLV survey 2022-2023?

✅ Correct answer: c) 13%

📝 Explanation: The survey establishes that 13% of residents in QPV are illiterate (having started their education in France), which is nearly 4 times more than the 3.5% observed outside QPV. This figure only concerns individuals educated in France — it is distinct from the 28% in a globally concerning situation including those educated abroad. —Source: p. 9

Question 2: In the fundamental areas of writing (reading, comprehension, production), which exercise poses the most difficulties for residents of QPV?

✅ Correct answer: c) Comprehension of a text

📝 Explanation: The reading exercise poses the least difficulties (16% in a concerning situation in QPV). The production of written words and comprehension of a text reach similar levels around 24% in a concerning situation, with a slight prevalence for comprehension. The gap with the population outside QPV is particularly marked for these two areas. —Source: p. 6

Question 3: Among residents in QPV who started their education abroad, what proportion is in a concerning situation in at least one fundamental area of writing?

✅ Correct answer: d) 57%

📝 Explanation: This proportion is massive: 57% of residents in QPV educated abroad face concerning difficulties, compared to 13% for those who started their education in France. Outside QPV, these figures are 43% (educated abroad) and 3.5% (educated in France), confirming a cumulative effect between territory and migratory background. —Source: p. 7

Question 4: With a comparable socio-demographic profile, what is the multiplicative risk factor of illiteracy for a person residing in QPV compared to a person outside QPV?

✅ Correct answer: b) 2

📝 Explanation: The logistic regression analysis, which controls for the effects of gender, age, education level, employment status, and country of birth, establishes an odds ratio close to 2 for residents in QPV. This means that with identical socio-demographic characteristics, simply residing in QPV doubles the risk of illiteracy, revealing a specific territorial effect. —Source: p. 10-11

Question 5: Among people in a concerning situation in writing in QPV, what percentage does not carry out any administrative procedures online?

✅ Correct answer: d) 29%

📝 Explanation: This strong correlation between difficulties in writing and non-use of digital administrative services (29% compared to 8.5% among those without writing difficulties in QPV) illustrates the concrete impact of illiteracy on administrative autonomy and access to rights. Logistic regression confirms that difficulties in writing significantly complicate the autonomous completion of online procedures. —Source: p. 12-13

8. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) — 7 QUESTIONS

1. What is the difference between "concerning situation in writing" and "illiteracy" in this study?

A person is in a "concerning situation" when they achieve less than 60% success in reading, comprehension, or written production exercises, regardless of their educational background. Illiteracy only concerns those in a concerning situation who started their education in France. Thus, 28% of residents in QPV are in a concerning situation, of which 13% are illiterate (the other 15% were educated abroad).

Source: p. 4-5, 9

2. Why do women perform better in writing but worse in numeracy?

In QPV, 13% of women are unable to complete writing exercises compared to 11% of men. Women perform better in the task of producing written words but show a significant drop in numeracy: 25% are in a concerning situation compared to 19% of men. This gender gap in mathematics is also found outside QPV and reflects persistent educational inequalities.

Source: p. 7

3. Are there differences in illiteracy between age groups in QPV?

Yes, older individuals are more affected: 18% of those aged 55-64 in QPV are illiterate compared to 10% of those aged 18-24. However, multivariate analysis reveals a paradoxical effect: at equal levels of qualification and employment situation, those aged 25-54 are less illiterate than those aged 18-24, as the latter are overrepresented in education, masking their real difficulties.

Source: p. 9-10

4. Do difficulties in writing really prevent people from completing administrative procedures online?

Yes, the correlation is strong: 29% of people struggling with writing in QPV do not carry out any administrative procedures online (application for social benefits, registration with France Travail, administrative documents), compared to 8.5% of people without writing difficulties. Logistic regression confirms that difficulties in writing significantly complicate digital administrative autonomy, combining illiteracy and digital illiteracy.

Source: p. 12-13

5. What is the situation in the DROM compared to the mainland?

The DROM face more pronounced difficulties: 1 in 5 residents is in a concerning situation (compared to 8% in France as a whole), and 1 in 4 experiences moderate difficulties. Among residents in QPV in the DROM, 1 in 2 is in a concerning situation and more than a quarter are illiterate. The affected profiles (age, qualifications, schooling) are similar to those in the mainland, but the scale is greater.

Source: p. 11

6. Who should I contact to implement actions against illiteracy in my area?

The National Agency for the Fight Against Illiteracy (ANLCI) coordinates national actions and runs the National Observatory for Illiteracy and Digital Illiteracy (www.anlci.gouv.fr). The Regional Resource Centres for Urban Policy (CRPV) offer awareness-raising, training for professionals, territorial engineering, and facilitation of practice exchanges. Specific actions exist in each region (ORIV Grand-Est, IREV Hauts-de-France, RésO Villes Bretagne, etc.).

Source: p. 14-15

7. What concrete actions have proven effective on the ground?

The CRPVs have developed several effective methods: awareness-raising actions to identify people in difficulty from the first contact; professional training for field workers; support for territorial dynamics through engineering; cyber public writers to address digital illiteracy (CNV recommendation 2018); the FAMILIRE programme in the DROM combining basic skills workshops, parenting support, and socio-cultural activities. Webinars and documentary resources are available on the CRPV websites.

Source: p. 14-15

9. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

What is illiteracy?

Illiteracy means having difficulty reading, writing, and counting.

It concerns people who have been to school in France.

They learned to read and write when they were children.

But as adults, it has become difficult.

The figures in priority neighbourhoods

A survey was conducted in 2022 and 2023.

It asked questions to 16,000 people in France.

Among them, 2,500 live in priority neighbourhoods.

These neighbourhoods are called QPV.

Here is what the survey found:

• In QPVs, 13 out of 100 people have significant difficulties reading and writing.

• Outside of QPVs, only 3 or 4 out of 100 people have these difficulties.

• It is 4 times more in QPVs.

• In QPVs, 28 out of 100 people struggle with writing.

• Among them, some have not been to school in France.

Who is affected?

The most affected people are:

• People over 55 years old.

• People without a diploma.

• People looking for work.

• People who have been to school in another country.

Women have more difficulties with numbers.

25 women out of 100 in QPV struggle with mathematics.

For men, it's 19 out of 100.

The consequences in daily life

Struggling with writing complicates life.

• It's difficult to complete administrative paperwork online.

• 29 people out of 100 struggling with writing do not take any steps online.

• They cannot apply for social assistance.

• They cannot register with Pôle Emploi.

• They cannot apply for social housing.

It's harder to find a job.

It's harder to assert one's rights.

The existing solutions

There are organisations that help:

• The ANLCI helps combat illiteracy in France.

• The Resource Centres provide assistance in each region.

They do several things:

• Identify people in difficulty.

• Guide towards training.

• Train the professionals who provide support.

• Help people with a computer.

In the DOM-TOM, there is the FAMILIRE programme.

It helps parents and children together.

What to remember

Illiteracy affects many people in priority urban areas.

This is four times more than in other neighbourhoods.

It prevents people from doing simple everyday tasks.

But solutions exist to help these individuals.

We need to talk about it and direct people to the right services.

10. STRATEGIC HASHTAGS

#Illiteracy #HealthLiteracy #UrbanPolicy #PUA #DigitalInclusion #DigitalIlliteracy #BasicSkills #AccessToRights #HealthPractices