Social failure is the fault of the political elites.

Many years ago JK Galbraith posited that the problem of the USA underclass could be resolved. Governments had the means to achieve change but not the desire to will the funding to make it happen.

The use of the word 'underclass' raises hackles in some, but it is a convenient shorthand as used by Galbraith in a non-pejorative sense.   He argued that people in well-paid, satisfying employment with plenty of discretionary income needed the underclass to maintain their standard of living.

The underclass undertook the dirty, repetitive, low-paid jobs: care staff, cleaners,  shelf-stackers, lavatory attendants and the like. They live in poor housing, have poor education and often poor health. Raising taxation to improve their lot would eat into the resources of the better off.  Indeed it would be counter-productive as who would do the dirty work if you gave these people or their children a better education?

Galbraith's analysis travels well to the United Kingdom.  The problems in the UK have been well documented.

Somewhere along the line governments gave up on the underclass. Instead of measures to counter the problems successive governments have entrenched deprivation through the welfare system, by permitting sink schools, be making unemployment  more financially advantageous than working and so forth.   I know there are examples of policies which were intended to have the opposite effect, such as the Sure Start initiative, but the position is that problems in deprived areas and of the underclass are no better than they were in 1985 when the Church of England published its devastating critique: Faith in the City.

Life for many is grim.  I have some hopes that the educational reforms of the present government may bear fruit and that the benefit changes will likewise prove positive.  But they are only a start, much more requires to be done.  Unfortunately our economy is weak and we do not have the means, never mind possibly the will, to make the radical changes that are needed, unless taxation is increased.


I commend the article to which I have provided the following link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8700270/UK-riots-Mr-Cameron-has-been-handed-a-chance-to-mend-this-broken-society.html

I have supported the Centre for Social Justice for some years, having been introduced to it by Greg Clark MP, who is now the Minister for Cities.

Sure Start Children's Centres: targeted intervention?

The link below sets out what children's centres do:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Preschooldevelopmentandlearning/NurseriesPlaygroupsReceptionClasses/DG_173054

Surely it is not beyond the wit of politicians to understand how important these centres  are if we are to tackle parenting issues?  The first wave of centres were located in areas of deprivation and deliberately targeted parents and children in those areas.  Then some bright spark in the last Labour government decided what was required was a huge increase in the number of centres.  The later tranches of centres had a wider geographical remit and before long the  affluent middle-class realised they were on to a good thing and made full use of the facilities, often driving away low income parents who really did need support, but who felt out of place. 

The whole process became target driven, namely numbers led, rather than identifying and concentrating on those in real need.  Attendance at the centres is voluntary.  There must be a legal obligation to attend: to ensure some sense and knowledge is knocked into dysfunctional parents as well as providing a service for the children.  I know, those of a tender liberal, human rights disposition will squeal with outrage, but what is the point of providing services when the main potential beneficiaries go now-where near?   How else can we ensure there is engagement?  (Whilst I am in this vein, I believe it should be compulsory for parents to attend their child's school's parents evenings.)

I have commented before on a playgroup I was involved with, but it bears repetition in this context.  It provided facilities for children from families living in difficult circumstances. Some of the children had major problems of socialisation, were not potty trained and did not know how to play. We had a high staff/child ratio and employed a family liaison officer.   We targeted our clientele. When the premises we used were demolished it had been hoped to move in to the children's centre.  However, the numbers game came into play, the staff/child ratio would have had to worsen and we would no longer be able to target our clientele.  The playgroup closed.

Targeted intervention is what is needed, not a universal system. Again, squeamish liberals will trot out arguments about labeling, provision for all etc. Let them.  We have to tackle the problems and try to give children in deprived circumstances a better chance of commencing primary school on equal terms with the children of  better off families.

Working in areas of deprivation.......begging the questions?

My previous post on working in areas of deprivation has led me to ask the following questions:

• Why do it? 
• Is it worth it?
• Why do we open community centres in areas of deprivation?

Not many years ago I was an enthusiastic adherent and promoter of community development.  Also, I was heavily involved in a major community centre capital project. Now I am much more cynical, or should that be realistic?

What has brought about this change in my attitude?  Below I summarise some of the factors. I intend to develop my thoughts in future posts.

• The theory is optimistic, the reality a disappointment. It is as though the people writing the manuals on community development and engagement have no understanding of the reality.
• Experience in the field of the difficulties involved in achieving anything meaningful and lasting.
• Under-utilisation of community centres.

However, over and above all this is the realisation that much of the work in communities is tackling symptoms but failing to deal with the causes of deprivation.  I have put in the caveat 'much' as there are exceptions where it is important to deal with symptoms, but these should be used as  stepping - stones to tackling causes.

My concern is that far far too many community development/engagement initiatives are only about making the status quo more bearable.  To put it bluntly: this is not what we should be doing.  We should be finding and implementing solutions to the underlying problems.  So far we have failed  to achieve this and wasted a lot of money along the way.

Communities in areas of deprivation.

It never fails to disappoint me the way money is thrown at areas of deprivation  by central government, local councils, housing associations, quangos, charitable trusts and the Big Lottery. Why am I disappointed?  Mostly because so much money is wasted on short-term projects.  When the money stops the project ceases.  It is all very well for the pompous statement to be made that alternative funding should be sought. The problem is that there is either no alternative funding or such funding as there is has to be taken from other projects.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul syndrome.

However there are other factors in play, the most significant to my mind being: incorrect assumptions upon which so many projects are based, unrealistic times-scales, lack of clear outcomes and dewy-eyed optimism.

One would have thought that before any attempt was made at community development or community engagement in an area of deprivation there would be a detailed analysis of the area.  It is true that statistics are pored over: Indices of Deprivation and Neighbourhood Statistics provide a wealth of information.  However, that is what they are: facts and figures.  To find out what an area of deprivation is like you have to get into the field: walk the streets, talk to local councillors, visit the pub and above all talk to residents.  By such means a far better picture emerges.  But it is not foolproof.

A common misconception is that social housing estates (or council estates when owned by the local authority) are the homes of the poor. Of course poor people live in social housing, but it is not the end of the story.

On some estates a majority of the properties have been bought by residents using the 'Right to Buy' legislation. Some of these properties are owner-occupied but a proportion will be buy-to-let properties.  Immediately you have three distinct types of occupation.  Walk down any road on a social housing estate and it is possible to identify the nature of the ownership of individual properties. 

There will be a very wide range of household income.  Some households will have two or three earners, others will have one-parent families, some households will be living entirely on benefits. 

You will discover factions on the estate, minority groups which have no collective identity, but above all a  lack of community spirit given the divergent groups that exist.  There is often an over-laying apathy at best and from some an hostility to the local council, police and social services.

Whatever the statistics might tell you, pushing through a project will be very hard work.  The process of engagement is very slow, erratic and subject to setbacks.

So, not fertile territory for the bright policy wonks who come up with phrases such as community empowerment, localism, stakeholder engagement, social capital, community participation and the like.  The ground is littered with community fora, PACTS (Partners and Communities Together), community associations/ groups which hardly anyone attends.

However, it is not all negative. I shall look at the positive aspects in a future blog.

Frank Field

According to press reports David Cameron has lined up Frank Field, the Labour MP and former minister, to be his "poverty tsar" as he puts the fight against deprivation at the heart of his agenda.

I hope this story is correct.

Having pressed for a credit union for Kent I am now directing my energies to establish a foodbank in the county. There is a substantial number of people living in poverty in Kent. The Labour government failed to make any significant inroads into the problem. What is needed are radical changes which attack the many causes of poverty, rather than dealing with the symptoms.

Having worked amongst some of the poorest people in Kent and East London I recognise that there is no easy or quick fix to the problems. Reducing poverty significantly will take years to achieve.

I have supported the work of the Centre for Social Justice for a few years and broadly agree with its recommendations on poverty issues. It will be fascinating to watch as the 'Right' of UK politics makes progress on issues the 'Left' has failed to address.

Education, education, education

Remember the refrain from Tony Blair? Well how well is our education of children progressing after 13 years of Labour rule?

During the election hype a report was issued by researchers at Sheffield University. Its conclusion is that one in five teenagers is practically unemployable after leaving school, lacking the English and mathematical skills required for everyday life. 22 per cent of 16-19 year olds were functionally innumerate whilst 17 per cent were illiterate.

A fifth of teenagers left school with very basic competence in maths which was 'clearly not enough to deal confidently with many of the mathematical challenges of contemporary life'. On literacy one of the author's of the report stated that the standard of literacy attained was 'less than the functional literacy needed to partake in employment, family life and citizenship'.

The conclusions of the research do not surprise me but two matters concern me:

1. What remedial action can be taken for those who have left school with such appalling lack of attainment?

2. How do we ensure children currently in education do not finish up in the same mess?