Centre Write

Education is the ticket to improved life chances and principal route out of intergenerational poverty. Yet there is a substantial body of oft-cited evidence that children from poor households are unlikely to fulfil their potential at school. Regular absence from school is a key driver in this tragic cycle preventing a fair start for all children.

Once a child reaches ‘legal 5’ (the educational jargon for fifth birthday) they are legally required to go to school. Attendance is monitored daily and those who slip below 85% are categorised as ‘persistently absent’ (or PA). At that point interventions are made, initially by the school. Recognising the importance of attendance Michael Gove last year increased the measure from the 80% standard set by the Blair government.

For many the word truancy triggers memories of Ferris Bueller ‘bunking off’ for the day and a few days beneath the covers of our own. But persistent absenteeism is much more complicated and has long-term implications. From an educational point of view the reason for monitoring attendance is obvious; there is a direct correlation between poor attendance and poor attainment at GCSE level. But from a wider societal perspective there are many other reasons to worry about school attendance.

Those young people who are persistently absent from school are four times more likely to receive a fixed term exclusion and a staggering twenty-six times more likely to be permanently excluded. A third of young people who were PA during the last year at school are not in education, employment or training at the age of 18, four times as many as their peers.

Once exclusion happens, it gets worse: in a study by HM Prisons Inspectorate and the Youth Justice Board more than 70% of 15-18 year olds in custody had truanted from school. Today some 40% percent of newly sentenced prisoners were permanently excluded and 46% left school with no qualifications.

It is a problem of significant scale. During the 2010-11 academic year nearly one in sixteen school-age young people in the UK missed more than 15% of their schooling (400,000); that’s almost a day a week. Many miss much more.

Of the children who are persistently absent, 40% qualify for Free School Meals (household income of less than £16,000). If you are poor and persistently absent from school, you are three times more likely to come from a household where none of the principal adults are in work. Analysis of School-Home Support’s intervention data for the academic year 2011-12 shows that children who qualify for Free School Meals are:

* Five times more likely to live in a house where domestic violence occurs.
* Seven times more likely to have drug or alcohol abuse problems.
* 27% likely to need support for mental health issues.
* 46% likely to have problems with family relationships.
* 22% likely to have protection/safeguarding issues.

Yes, poverty is deeper than just money. But money matters – so leaving the problem to teachers to deal with exclusively is not a sufficient intervention. Schools must use their Pupil Premium allocation to intervene with the issues underlying poor attendance if we are to stop this waste of young lives being repeated generation after generation.

Preventing the continuing cycle of poor attendance at school; leading to poor attainment, poor job prospects, a poor adulthood and poor parenting is something that we can do and must all aspire to make happen. As well as being much more cost effective for the taxpayer, it is also just straightforwardly more humane to catch people before they fall over the cliff edge into the ‘troubled families’ category. And it saves a lot of collateral damage to society along the way.

Jan Tallis is the Chief Executive of School-Home Support.

Follow Jan on Twitter: @jantallis

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

The most sophisticated cement production plant in the world is a two hour drive from Lagos, the booming commercial capital of one of the world’s fastest growing economies. Nigeria has averaged a staggering 9% annual growth since 2000, in blithe disregard for the western financial crisis. If you visit Dangote Cement’s new plant, after flying one of British Airways most profitable routes, you will see dozens of Staffordshire made JCBs trucking around sand by the tonne. Aliko Dangote is set to choose the London Stock Exchange for his company’s first international share offering next year. The UK is already benefiting from Nigeria’s boom.

But regrettably this example runs counter to the trend. Britain is losing her position at the fore of a continent experiencing the fastest economic growth in its history. The growth trajectory of modern Africa looks familiar – it is following the same path once trodden by India and Developing Asia. Projecting this path forward generates exciting numbers. If Africa merely continues as per the past three decades its economy will grow from $2 trillion today to $29 trillion by 2050 (in today’s money, this equates to a larger annual output than at present in the US and Eurozone combined).

Some countries will benefit from this boom, just as Japan has benefited from China’s rise, and the UK thrived from the US industrialisation of the 19th Century. But today we would have to bet that the primary beneficiaries will be South Africa, China and India. Recent trends show the UK’s focus on a low-growth Europe has increased while trade with Africa has shrivelled from a peak of 26% of all sub-Saharan trade to just 3% today. In the last 15 years, Africa’s exports have risen from $180 billion to nearly $700 billion, with imports having grown in line. So 26% of African total trade today would be worth around $300 billion, or more than 10% of UK GDP. Instead trade with Africa today is worth just 1% of UK GDP.

It is not too late to re-invigorate the historic relationships. The English language is so attractive that the reformist Rwanda government has changed from French and broadcasts the BBC. Nearly every English family has had some connection to Africa through a distant relative who worked in Kenya, Zambia, Nigeria or South Africa. And don’t forget the Queen – still the head of state for many.

Based on our forecasts of Africa following India and Developing Asia, we see car sales exploding from 3-4 million today to 14 million by 2030 and 35 million by 2050. Passenger flights are expected to double every decade from around 110 million to 1.7 billion by 2050. While the UK struggles with the question of expanding Heathrow from two runways to three, African governments need to plan for seventeen runways where just one exists now. The growth opportunities for UK businesses are immense.

What about corruption, conflict and disease? HIV infection rates and deaths from malaria are both down 27% from their peak. The surging demographics of Africa are better educated than they have ever been and life expectancy is on the rise. Growing income levels are creating an emerging middle class calling for more accountable, less corrupt government. Nigeria’s rating in the Transparency International survey is still low, but it has shown the third best improvement of any nation in the last decade. The majority of Africans now live in budding democracies.

Too many in the global North still think of Africa in obsolete negative terms – we all remember the Band Aid song of 1984. What many don’t know is that Ethiopia has also been one of the fastest growing economies in the world since the turn of the millenium. While it struggled to feed  18 million children back in 1984, today it sustains her 34 million.

To give credit to David Cameron, his visit to Nigeria expressly aimed to boost to business links with Nigeria. It is now up to UK firms to follow up, not just in Nigeria but across the wider continent. Africa has learnt a valuable lessons from the mistakes of the past, and is now booming on the back of making the right public policy choices.

Charles Robertson is Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro-strategy of Renaissance Capital. He is the lead author of The Fastest Billion: The Story Behind Africa’s Economic Revolution, published in October 2012. 

Follow Charles on Twitter: @rencapman

Listen to Bright Blue blog editor Jonathan Algar in conversation with Charles & Razia Khan at the Royal Institute of International Affairs:

{soundcloud}https://soundcloud.com/jonathanalgar/economic-growth-in-africa-from{/soundcloud}

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

It is often overlooked that the UK and Turkey are united by the Conservative vision of an “aspiration nation”, powered by an entrepreneurial, innovative, highly-skilled workforce. This isn’t an original observation. David Cameron recognised this shared drive back in 2010 when he signed a ‘Strategic Partnership’ with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Since then, UK ministers have made six trips to Turkey, including Nick Clegg’s delegation earlier this month when he renewed the UK’s promise to double bilateral trade from 2009 to 2015. This goal represents a significant opportunity for the UK that the government should maximise by supporting innovation and improving visa services for Turkish investors.

Looking at the data, it’s easy to see why the Coalition and the CBI are keen to encourage more trade between the UK and Turkey. Current deals between the two countries are worth more than £9billion, with more than 2,000 British firms actively investing in Turkey. While British companies like Vodafone are attracted to Turkey’s young, tech-savvy consumers, Turkish companies look to Britain for its technical excellence. For example, on 10 October Turkish Airlines announced the purchase of 15 A330-300 Airbus aircrafts which will help sustain nearly 6,000 jobs at the Airbus Broughton plant. Similarly, when the Turkish Navy needed propulsion equipment for three new ships in May, it offered the lucrative contract to the UK’s own Rolls-Royce.

Because these deals help drive the UK towards productivity and prosperity, the British government should encourage further exports by championing innovation. According to NESTA, the UK has experienced a “lost decade of innovation” that needs to be reversed if it is to stay relevant in a global marketplace. This is admittedly a vast policy area, but I’d like to highlight one government initiative that promises to open new export channels to Turkey. Recently, the Technology Strategy Board announced the creation of a Future Cities Catapult, a public-private partnership which will “help UK businesses to develop high-value, integrated urban solutions and then sell those solutions to the world”. With Istanbul in desperate need of solutions to its housing, traffic and pollution problems, it seems logical that a future trade delegation could showcase the Catapult’s solutions to Turkish officials. This isn’t to undermine the Turkish government’s own innovation initiatives, but rather to capitalise on the unique knowledge network here in the UK.

In the meantime, the Coalition should continue to simplify the visa system for Turkish investors. During his delegation, Mr Clegg announced a new “Business Bridge” service to ensure that key Turkish executives benefit from expedited visa processing times. While the details have yet to be published, the announcement sends an encouraging signal to the Turkish community. In his testimony to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry into UK-Turkey relations, Sir David Logan spoke for many witnesses when he stated “British visa policy is the issue which impacts most negatively on the UK’s bilateral relations with Turkey”. It’s clear that Turkish businesses want to engage with the UK: Beko PLC (the largest Turkish investor in the UK) sponsored the terrace pavilion at UKTI’s British Business Embassy during the Olympics. Reduced bureaucracy will help ensure investors continue to see great potential in Great Britain.

Enhancing trade with a dynamic economy like Turkey represents a vast opportunity for the UK. While they are differentiated by many traits like EU membership, both countries are united by the Conservative vision of an economy driven by innovative, industrious businesses. The Coalition has worked hard to strengthen bilateral relations but more must be done to meet the lucrative 2015 trade target. Increased spending on R&D to support British businesses and simplifying the visa process for Turkish investors can help realise our shared “aspiration nation”.

Jennifer Brindisi is Conservative Friends of Turkey‘s policy officer.

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

Whenever I speak to someone about the Big Society, especially members of the Conservative Party, they often slink away in embarrassment as if I had just said something distasteful.  And yet I really don’t understand why – our Big Society is something as one nation we should be really proud of.

Last year, even before the shock of the riots had gone away, the Big Society was out in force sweeping up the mess. The media talked about the spirit of the Blitz like this was something that we only see in times of crisis.

But I see Big Society in action every day as busy people volunteer their time to mentor primary school children with behavioural difficulties for Chance UK. This is not easy work – it requires a long term commitment with selection, CRB checks, training and the persistence to mentor a child for a whole year. Yet people come forward every month to do so and other charity CEOs can relate similar experiences. While working with our European partners they constantly express surprise and envy at how willing people are to volunteer their time for us.

Fundamentally that’s just what Big Society is – volunteering, social action, doing something for nothing. The concept is just rebranded like a Marathon bar, new name but still as satisfyingly nutty!*

Surely this is the best time to rejuvenate Big Society after four glorious summer weeks when the Games Makers got almost as much water cooler time as the Olympic and Paralympics athletes. Big Society in action got the biggest cheers of both closing ceremonies and they deserved it. Most of the Games Makers had less than glamorous roles, crowd control or standing long hours at train stations making sure people got to their events. Yet they did it all with good humour and often a crowd pleasing sing-along. It was infectious. Londoners did as they were asked and stayed off public transport at vital times; they even took it upon themselves to talk pleasantly to tourists.  The Daily Telegraph was moved to call it the ‘Summer of Love’.

Of course volunteering isn’t totally free, good quality training and supervision is vital. And the unmistakable outfits of the Games Makers and their funky limited edition swatches all come at a price. Volunteering requires investment but it does save public money and that is something we cannot afford to ignore in this economic environment.

Big Society’s biggest strength is the feel good factor. For our kids at Chance UK the first realisation that their mentor isn’t paid to be there but is there out of choice, after a long days work, is a turning point in the relationship.

So please do not be embarrassed by the Big Society. Hold your heads up high your heads and say: “We are proud to be part of a Big Society. What can we do to help?”

*explanatory note for the under 30’s: Snickers used to be called Marathon’s pre-1990.

Gracia McGrath OBE is the CEO of Chance UK.

Follow Gracia on Twitter: @ChanceUK

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

The political hue of a government by no means tells you where it will stand on defending freedom of expression when the chips are down. The signals from Cameron and his team so far are mixed but by the end of 2012, judgements good or bad are likely to start rolling in. A whole mixture of issues, laws, domestic statements and foreign policy stances add up to a picture of whether a government is promoting, defending or limiting freedom of expression – free speech, a free press, freedom to receive and share information online and off. So why is autumn 2012 likely to be so critical in telling us if the government is standing up for one of our most fundamental rights in a democracy?

Three particular issues are on the agenda this autumn, crucial to whether the UK can stand proud in the world as a democracy where free speech thrives: the defamation reform bill, the communications data bill, and the report from the Leveson Inquiry. The rough state of play on these goes as follows: defamation report bill – very welcome but some critical gaps need plugging at committee stage this month; communications data bill – very unwelcome, risks the UK being the pariah of the democratic world in digital surveillance; government response to the Leveson Inquiry – all to play for. If all of these go in the right direction, there will be reason for celebration and plaudits for Cameron indeed. If the three go in different directions, the government may well end up looking confused on freedom of expression. If they go in the wrong direction, criticism is likely to come in from around the world.

Index has been campaigning for three years (with its partners English Pen and Sense about Science) for a reform of England’s libel laws for the last three years. And it was a huge step forward to have the defamation reform bill in the Queen’s speech this May – the bill is likely to complete its path through parliament by the end of the year. In its current form, there is much that is positive – major steps have been taken to tackle libel tourism, so that nationals of other countries no longer use the English courts on the excuse of a small even negligible extent of publication in the UK, just to benefit from the complainant-bias in the existing law. But some of the most notorious cases of libel in recent years – such as those of Simon Singh or Ben Goldacre, both dragged expensively and at length through the courts (even though ultimately cleared) for debating and challenging scientific and medical practices – could still occur. The defamation bill crucially needs a proper public interest defence to be added at committee stage – so that open, reasonable debate can take place without the chill of possible expensive libel suits. Without it, a major opportunity to bring English libel law firmly into the 21st century will have been missed.

The Comms Data Bill – aptly labelled a ‘snooper’s charter’ by the press – has no saving graces. The Bill would lead to collection and filtering of data across the entire British population – emails, mobile and landline calls, websites visited, the list goes on. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly both on the right to privacy and on the right to freedom of expression. No other democracy is proposing such an extensive approach to data collection – and it is the kind of approach that would normally be associated with regimes such as Iran and China, who will certainly be watching whether the Bill goes through with interest. If it does, it will be very difficult for Cameron or Hague to tell Iran, China, Russia and others that they must allow and respect internet freedoms when they will no longer be doing so at home. The report stage of the Bill is expected to conclude in November – the committee has an opportunity then to call for the withdrawal of the Bill, and the government should do so.

Then there is Leveson – expected to report in mid-November. It is too soon to say exactly what Lord Leveson will propose, or how Cameron will respond. But many are speculating that Leveson will recommend introducing a so-called ‘light’ form of statutory regulation of the press – through a statute that would go to parliament determining what an ‘independent’ regulator should look like. If so, this would be the thin end of the wedge – introducing  government control over how the press can behave – a development which would risk taking the UK in the direction of Hungary with its increased state intervention in the media. Tougher, more effective independent regulation of the British press is surely the direction of travel. But if Leveson goes down the statutory route, Cameron needs to stand up for the basic principles of press freedom – journalists cannot hold government (and opposition) to account if government in the end determines how the press is controlled.

Three crucial choices face the government in the next two months – by December, we hope Index will be applauding Cameron on all three fronts. If not, it will be a sad moment for freedom of expression in the UK.

Listen to Bright Blue blog editor Jonathan Algar in conversation with Kirsy & Mark Stephens about the globalization of political protest at the Institute of Contemporary Arts:

https://soundcloud.com/jonathanalgar/holy-mary-a-discussion-about

Kirsty Hughes is the Chief Executive of Index on Censorship.

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

Something odd has been happening in the UK economy. Normally, when output contracts as much as it did in the 2008-09 recession – and for that matter recovers as weakly as it has done since – you’d expect unemployment to rise and employment to fall sharply. Well, the unemployment rate is certainly higher and employment lower than when the crisis started. But the point is they are not that much above/below their starting points given that GDP is lower now relative to its peak than it was in the 1930s Great Depression.

Another way of putting this is that output produced per person or per hour worked has collapsed – the so called ‘productivity puzzle’. In some countries, such as Germany, unemployment has fallen even further – back below its pre-crisis level, in fact. In the US the opposite has happened – unemployment has stayed high despite a semi-decent recovery in output, prompting the Fed into action again last month in the form of QE3.

While UK productivity doesn’t look so odd compared to average international experience, it does look strange when compared to previous UK recessions. Why are firms holding on to employees – some are even hiring more – when output is so weak?

There are plenty of possible explanations. One relates to labour hoarding – training staff is costly and firms may be reluctant to let go of employees if they think recovery is around the corner. But this suggests there’s lots of spare capacity in the economy, a notion that some business surveys refute. Moreover, it’s getting more and more difficult as time goes by to argue firms are simply playing the waiting game – after all, it’s nearly five years since the recession began in early 2008.

So, I think the most powerful explanation for weak productivity relates to corporate bankruptcies. There have been vastly fewer in this recession than that of the 1990s despite output falling more sharply. And fewer bankruptcies mean less job shedding. This could be because banks are showing more forbearance to borrowers – easing the terms and conditions on existing loans to avoid having to accept the inevitable losses that increased insolvencies would cause.

This presents us with good news and bad. The good news is it keeps firms afloat during difficult times and people in jobs. The bad news is that bank funds which have continued to prop up otherwise insolvent firms could possibly have been put to better use by being lent to fresher, more dynamic and stronger growing companies. By creating zombie companies bank forbearance could be pulling down on underlying productivity even further.

If we’re right, and underlying productivity has been hit, this has important implications for everything from the budget deficit to inflation and monetary policy. Lower underlying productivity suggests supply in the economy, as well as demand, is growing at a slower pace which in turn implies less spare capacity. But it also means higher government deficits and debt as receipts growth is permanently depressed. Inflation might also be stickier than otherwise, limiting how much room the Bank of England has to deliver further support through asset purchases or lower interest rates. Finally, in order to continue to meet its inflation target the BoE will probably have to accept slower economic growth than in the past.

What does this mean for government policy? While I believe it is important to stick to ‘Plan A’ – i.e. cutting the structural deficit – it is also helpful to think about ways to support investment. After all, the collapse in UK investment has been the worst in the G7 – implying that a depreciating capital stock will make it difficult for workers to produce the same as they did before the crisis, thereby exacerbating weak productivity.

With limited available funds the government has few options – divert public money towards government investment projects, or encourage private firms to invest their large cash balances. The latter might be achievable by designing better tax incentives. But with the real enemy of investment being fear, the most effective way to support spending in the economy will be an improvement in the situation in Europe.

George Buckley is Chief UK Economist at Deutsche Bank. He writes in a personal capacity.

Follow George on Twitter: @georgebuckley

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

Thirty years ago, we successfully reclaimed the Falklands, reaffirmed our sovereignty over the territory and began to strengthen our ‘presence’ in the region. Throughout the 1980s, measures were taken to enhance our military capacity in the South Atlantic in terms of providing sufficient deterrence against further aggression and – less well known but just as significant – investments were also made to enhance scientific exploration in the Antarctic itself with the added benefit of underlining our commitment to the region.

British presence in the Antarctic matters and has done so for over two centuries. As a continent without an indigenous population (the first human birth took place in 1978) but, with competing claims of interest from other nations, retaining an unambiguous and significant role is necessary to secure our long-term position.

The Antarctic is demilitarised and protected, with our part in bringing this about undisputed. However pressures are mounting as potential economic value is being assessed by interested parties so, from this position of relative strength, we can be a decisive and constructive influence on the future of this beguiling continent.

To this end, I am using my success in the Private Members Bill ballot to underpin existing treaty obligations through our own domestic law – one of the first signatory nations to do so – and, crucially, to strengthen measures to protect the environment and marine life in and around the Antarctic.  I am working closely with my colleague, Andrew Rosindell MP, who as Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Polar Regions, has a keen interest in this issue.

With international commitments to prevent exploitation of the Antarctic already in place, it is now necessary to strengthen their reach through introducing the ‘polluter pays’ concept, and respond to new claims and challenges including the increased industrial use of Krill, a shrimp like source of protein found in the waters around the Antarctic.

The Bill has two parts. The first enhances contingency planning and capacity to respond to environmental emergencies in Antarctica. ‘Operators’ become liable to costs if things do go wrong and they must have adequate insurance. This, effectively, implements measures agreed by Antarctic Treaty parties in 2005.

The second part implements agreed measures to protect fauna (animal life) and flora (plant life), giving marine plants and invertebrates protection for the first time. This part also introduces measures to conserve British Historical Sites and Monuments in Antarctica, and generally tidies up the implementation of the original Treaty (signed in 1959 and came into force in 1961) and subsequent agreements.

In a nutshell, the Bill will demonstrate our commitment to upholding the “Treaty System” and strengthen environmental protection. By passing this Bill, we will be maintaining our high profile in the region, and underlining our interest in protecting the environment and promoting the safety of those who visit the continent.

A century after Robert Scott’s ill-fated Terra Nova expedition to the South Pole, it is wholly appropriate to recognise the team’s efforts, secure their legacy, and ensure that the region is properly protected through British action and commitment.

Neil Carmichael is the Member of Member of Parliament for Stroud and sponsor of the Antarctic Bill 2012-13.

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

If the Government plans to benefit from online public services, it’s time to get serious about getting people online. Recent research from Policy Exchange points a way forward. 

As the Government transitions to a “digital-by-default” delivery of public services, they are faced with the challenge of ensuring the 5.4 million people aged 65 and over who have never used the internet are not left behind. For a primarily digital government to actually happen, more weight must be put behind digital inclusion. Our research finds that universal internet take-up won’t be achieved overnight, but nevertheless, investing in the digitally excluded has long term benefits for both citizens and government.

Getting people online can be especially difficult, and barriers to internet use range from cost to ability and interest. Therefore, it is important that the benefits to getting online are presented in a compelling way. Telling people they have to go online to access a public service can create more scepticism around technology, and making it more difficult or costly to use non-digital channels only puts a burden on some of the most vulnerable people in society. Instead, people who are offline should be integrated into digital channels in a way that is beneficial for both the digitally excluded and the Government.

Creating a paid position to fill the role of a silver sidekick allows the government to reach more people who are digitally excluded in a shorter period of time than could be expected by volunteers alone. On a day-to-day basis these silver sidekicks would take the internet to the digitally excluded in their homes or other convenient locations in the community, using a mobile device as the platform to help people complete digital transactions with government, such as applying for their pension.

In the first instance, we recommend that a programme of this sort be piloted on a small scale to establish the principle and help inform the design of a full-scale programme. Considering the savings from cheaper Government transactions, we expect the programme to deliver a modest £120 million cost saving over a five year period. This is in addition to the multitude of social benefits of getting more people online, as a recent report from Nominet UK suggests.

It is important that these sidekicks are able to understand the particular needs of someone who has not used the internet before. Those who have worked with this group point out that seeing their peers use digital channels and learning from them can be especially effective. This suggests that finding silver surfers to become silver sidekicks is an ideal way to bridge the digital divide.

Sarah Fink is the Digital Government Research Fellow at the think tank Policy Exchange and the author of the report ‘Simple Things, Done Well: Making Practical Progress on Digital Inclusion’. 

Follow Sarah on Twitter: @SarahFinkPX 

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

One of the thorniest issues for any government policy that relies upon engagement from civil society and in particular the delivery of public services through voluntary and community organisations is the role of the faith sector. No one who is an active citizen can fail to recognise the role that people of faith play in communities, and in some sectors such as criminal justice or homelessness faith based organisations are especially prominent. At the same time, many are wary of faith and the faith sector: there are concerns over proselytisation, motivation, and effectiveness. And that wariness is often reciprocated by faith-based organisations, which find it difficult to work with officials in public sector agencies.

This tension has been ratcheted up by the increased prominence of church based franchises such as the Trussell Trust Foodbank and Christians against Poverty (CAP), which are now routinely getting national coverage, for example on Newsnight. But this builds on the long tradition of Christians in youth work, both by dedicated organisations such as XLP and through active participation by adult volunteers in the Scouting movement (which still requires the promise to “do my duty to God and the Queen”).

Churches have been at the centre of community life for centuries and even though church congregations have been declining, they still commonly act as a convenor of community activity through their premises and links to schools. But what is most notable is the longstanding tradition of working with the most excluded from society. The Salvation Army has been working with homeless people are over 100 years and is one of the biggest providers of homeless services in the UK, and there are many much smaller programmes run by individual churches or associated charities. Similarly many charities working in prisons or ex-offenders such as Only Connect and the Nehemiah project have strong links to churches. (Most of the information given here represents the work of Christian churches, which are by far the largest component of the faith sector in the UK. However, all organised faith groups are committed to social action and this blog does not seek to make a special case for the Christian church).

The global rise of religion is documented by Economist editors John Micklethwait and Alan Wooldridge in ‘God is Back‘. In it they describe the social work done by the churches in the US, concluding “If you took away [their work] in Philadelphia alone it would represent about half a billion dollars of social services cost a year”. To my knowledge no one has attempted such an analysis in the UK but it is clear that faith groups make a major contribution in both monetary and social terms.

But there is still caution, scepticism and straightforward opposition. The Secular Society sees religion as having “a disproportionate influence on government”, and recently Lambeth council was described as holding its nose as it turns increasingly to Foodbanks to help as benefits are cut.

Although many reasons are given, in my opinion the underlying concern is an irrational fear of proselytisation. It is very common for those unfamiliar with the activity of groups described above to make an assumption that the sole motivation of churches is proselytisation and therefore any social action is a subterfuge for the “real” purpose.

This is simply not the case. One of the most well-known injunctions is found in Matthew Chapter 25: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ This passage shows clearly that helping those in need is part of the believer’s duty, and in my experience that is the motivation for the vast majority of faith based social action.

Beyond such prejudice, the other main criticism is that faith groups are long on enthusiasm but short on competency. I have spoken with many public sector officials who see faith organisations as being poorly managed, lacking skills or having unrealistic expectations. And in some cases they are right.

Increasingly this concern is being addressed through social franchising, which is promoted by my organisation, among others. This is a business model allows a well-designed and managed programme to be replicated rapidly, and mitigates the competency risks discussed above while mobilising the resources of the local churches. Although the specific design will vary, in most cases there is a manual which gives detailed instructions on how to set up and run a local operation. These franchise systems can be extensive. CAP has over 200 franchisees while the Trussell Trust Foodbank network doubled from 100 to 200 in one year and now exceeds 250. This model is now being adopted by a wide range of faith-based social action programmes, working in employment, recycling and other forms of community assistance, and has recently been recognised by the Cabinet Office’s Social Action Fund.

Are Micklethwait and Wooldridge correct? In the social action space I think so. Churches, along with other faith groups, are demonstrating both the capacity and commitment to address the social and economic challenges we face today, and innovations such as social franchising are enabling them to do so rapidly. As far as faith sector is concerned, we are seeing “Big Society” in action.

Patrick Shine is lead partner of The Shaftesbury Partnership. 

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.

Promisingly for the Government this week the World Economic Forum ranked Britain 8th in the world in its Global Competitiveness Report. This is up two places from last year and ahead of all but two G8 countries. Economic recovery is certainly good news for everyone, but as we build a stronger economy, we need to ensure that we build a stronger society too, so that opportunity and prosperity touch even the hardest-to-reach communities in Britain. Bringing the Big Society to life is key to achieving that goal. The Big Society’s vision of giving individuals and communities more control over their lives is admirable – and progressive. But to succeed, a worthy vision must be translated into tangible, practical, visible solutions to local problems that voters can relate. This is true whether tackling welfare dependency, anti-social behaviour or child hunger and poverty.

Around 700,000 of the UK’s poorest primary school children start the school day without any breakfast. This affects their school attendance, concentration in class, exam results and ultimately adult lifestyles. Magic Breakfast works with parents, teachers, local communities and local businesses to operate breakfast clubs in 210 schools in Britain’s most deprived inner cities. Every day we feed 6,000 hungry children with bagels, cereal, juice and porridge oats. For example, at Wellington Primary School in Tower Hamlets, one of London’s poorest boroughs, 20 hungry children receive a free breakfast whilst local volunteers read and play with the children. In Birmingham, at Leigh Primary School in the deprived Alum Rock area, Andrew Feldman helped Magic Breakfast launch the Magic Breakfast club during the 2010 Party Conference. It now provides 50 children with a nutritious breakfast every day. Local business Bagel Nash donates high-energy bagels for children at Ingram Road Primary School in Leeds. For this work we proudly collected the Prime Minister’s Big Society Award last year.

It’s charities like Magic Breakfast working in and with the toughest communities that can bring the Big Society to life. Organizations that can contribute practical, immediate, and tangible solutions to pressing social problems. The Big Society is ultimately about asking empowered citizens to take responsibility for their own lives – and their local communities – to build a sustainable economy, provide fair chances for all, and inject optimism and energy into civic society. Magic Breakfast and Bright Blue share these values – and put them into action. It’s about doing, not just talking. Stepping up, not sitting back.

Progressives have history on their side. Burke’s 18th century “little platoons” of engaged citizens doing their civic duty was a pre-cursor to Cameron’s Big Society vision. Through the centuries this sense of duty has led public-spirited individuals to serve their communities as school governors, councillors, magistrates, special constables and Olympic Games volunteers to cite just a few examples. In the 21st century the need for individuals to become engaged in their local communities, especially our toughest neighbourhoods and inner cities, is more pressing than ever. Time and time again local communities, individuals, and charities who have answered the call to action have shown they can respond more quickly, effectively and compassionately than the state to address social problems. David Cameron recognised this and ended his 2010 Conference speech, which focused almost exclusively on the Big Society, by defining it as “….the spirit of activism, dynamism, people taking the initiative, working together to get things done…” but recognised that “…the Big Society needs you to give it life.” Charities like Magic Breakfast are already working with local communities to get things done. It is only by showcasing and supporting tangible, impactful projects such as breakfast clubs that the Big Society will continue to flourish.

Alan Mak is President of Magic Breakfast and Chairman of Conservative Fastrack. He was a London2012 Olympic Torchbearer. He writes in a personal capacity. 

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMakUK 

The guest blog is published every Friday and views held by contributors are not necessarily those of Bright Blue, as good as they often are.

If you are interested in contributing please contact blog@brightblue.org.uk.