Contexts

The UK government's Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) is preparing a framework for interfaith working, for which a consultation document is currently in circulation (see Face-to-Face, Side-by-Side: a framework for inter faith dialogue and action).

As part of that process, CLG has commissioned the Faith Based Regeneration Network (FbRN) to report on faith based social action and regional activity. This paper reports on the faith based social action dimension of this work.

The report is intended for use by government officials and Ministers in their preparation of the framework. It will also be of interest to policy makers and practitioners in faith based settings, and their partners, outside of government.

Questions, Processes and Methods

The questions addressed in the paper were agreed in consultation with CLG and are specific to them. They are:

• What is the scale and scope of faith based social action?
• What is the relationship of faith based social action to the ideas of social capital?
• What is the relationship between faith based social action and contact theory?
• What Government interventions are effective in supporting bridging and linking social capital?
• How does faith based social action relate to wider community and civil society? What do faiths bring?
• What evidence is there for faith based social action accessing non-faith specific Government funding streams?
• What support mechanisms are there for faith based social action?
• What is the role of Government, national, regional and local, in relation to faith based social action?

We have addressed these questions in four broad categories:

1. The scale and scope of faith based social action
2. The relationship of faith based social action to wider civil society
3. Support mechanisms for faith based social action
4. The role of government

We have taken the following approaches:

1. Overview of relevant literature to inform structured interviews with key individuals to produce initial findings and observations (see Appendix A for interview schedule)
2. Review of literature and online sources
3. Search for and review of grey literature and other material held at community and neighbourhood levels
4. Further and extended telephone interviews with key actors in local faith based social action (see Appendix A for interview schedule)
5. Telephone interviews with key actors in national, regional and local government. (see Appendix A for interview schedule)
6. Liaison with Community Development Foundation over the use of material emerging from the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund
7. Analysis of grant awards from selected non-faith specific government funded grant programmes to establish the patterns of access by faith based groups; followed by interviews with key actors to establish what are the factors that influence a positive pattern

A Note on Definitions and Terms

It should be noted that the key ideas underpinning this report mean different things to different people. It is crucially important to acknowledge this, both for the sake of clarity within this report but more importantly in terms of how these ideas are put into practice in the inter faith framework. The terms in question are:

• Faith based
• Social action
• Inter faith

In particular, 'faith based social action', which is the remit of this report, is not necessarily the same thing as the 'inter faith dialogue and social action' referred to in the title of the consultation document. This is because inter faith social action is distinct from faith based social action, which may or may not be inter faith. These categories carry a high degree of practical meaning in faith communities. The framework must be crystal clear whether it means one or the other or both.

Our conversations with people of faith tell us that the idea of 'faith based social action' is preferred because it includes inter faith social action as well as social action initiated in single faith settings.

It should also be noted that even in single faith settings, there can be, and often is, significant bridging and linking activity with others in wider society. It has been observed therefore that

“Members of single faith groups were often from different parts of the same town, of different ages, different genders, different sub-religious groups or different national or sub-national ethnic groups”

(James 2007 p70).

This is often overlooked because of suspicion that single faith groups are motivated by an unchecked desire to evangelise. Experience shows that this is rarely the case in relation to social action. Indeed, in addition, beneficiaries of activities arising out of single faith settings frequently include people of other faiths and none. Therefore, as well as inter faith social action, activities arising out of single faith settings should also be regarded as an important and legitimate part of faith based social action.

Another key issue here is that 'dialogue' is a distinct activity from 'social action' and the relationship between the two varies widely. In some cases the one is rooted in the other. Elsewhere dialogue and social action are completely unrelated. While the two may overlap, complement or coincide they can at the same time be quite distinct and happen independently. Both social action and dialogue are beneficial and many faith groups say that they value the space to engage in dialogue as a basis for their social action. Where reflection does not happen it is often as a result of lack of resources and it is widely felt that potential for social action is unfulfilled in consequence.

Debates about the use of these terms and the contexts in which they are deployed range around the following summary of arguments:

• The 'usefulness' of faiths is a key starting point of the public policy view
• Faiths have a long tradition of being 'useful' but they also see themselves in terms of the experiences lived by individuals and groups standing in a tradition of their own. They feel strongly that this should be understood and respected
• That one defining characteristic of faith is belief, an obvious factor but one which is often overlooked - the starting points and values of belief must be respected as well as what faiths can 'offer'
• That the idea of 'faith' takes some additional starting points which may be unfamiliar to a policy audience

1. 'faith' is about stories, experiences and values and these may be expressed in their own distinctive 'language'
2. fellowship and worship are important aspects of faith as well as the practice of social action. Many see the one as rooted in the other

• That talk of a 'faith community' belies the sheer diversity of faiths, within and between traditions. Faiths can differ within and between one another in important ways - we cannot talk of one 'faith community'

• That there can be discontinuity as well as continuity between the various 'parts' of faith communities - leaders, representatives, projects, volunteers and worshippers may or may not have very much to do with one another even though they are all based within the same church, mosque or other religious centre. The meaning of 'faith based' is therefore debated - based in what aspect of faith and/or what part of the faith community?
• Similarly the relationship between 'dialogue' and 'action' is not always clear
• And there are many very good examples of faith based social action which is NOT inter faith, even though it may benefit or work with people of other faiths or none.

In terms of social action, there are also debates:

• That social action can be quite challenging, perhaps politicised, on the one hand or may be very locally focused, practical and pragmatic on the other
• That most faith based social action consists somewhere in between the challenging and the locally practical
• At the same time, faiths have shown a capacity for politicised perspectives on poverty and disadvantage, for example in 'Faith in the City' the Church of England report on urban priority areas
• That policy makers should be ready to hear the critical perspectives of some faiths and make room for faiths to be 'critical friends'

For the purposes of this report, we chose a pragmatic and relatively broad definition which sees faith based social action as projects, programmes or aspects of work undertaken by organisations or groups with a direct relationship with faith communities that intend to achieve positive benefits for the welfare of faith communities and/or wider social groupings.

Scale and Scope of Faith Based Social Action

Faith based organisations are ‘a strong force’ in the charitable sector, which encompasses a large range of social action projects and programmes (NCVO, 2007:15). Within this, some charities are engaged in religious activities and NCVO’s 2007 report notes that at least one registered charity in seven is thus engaged. Of these, Christian-based chari- ties outnumber charities based on other faith tra- ditions. It is noted that “The total income of faith based registered charities is estimated at £4.6 bil- lion” though income appears to be unevenly spread across organisations so that “those with an income of less than £200,000 account for 90% of organi- sations but generate only 11% of the total income (NCVO, 2007:16). This reflects the case that many faith based organisations are very small, informal and heavily dependent on volunteers, although oth- ers are amongst some of the largest charities.

Over half of faith based charities aim to serve the general public, and two fifths place a particular focus on children or young people (NCVO 2007, p15). Grant-making is the majority area of activity (56% of faith based organisations) followed by service provision (35%) (NCVO 2007, p15). This is supported in other research which shows that a significant amount of work across England focuses on children/ young people and the elderly, although faith based organisations are engaged in many other activities (see Dinham 2006, p9).

At the same time, most faith based social action takes place through projects and associations. Many of these are not established as charities and oper- ate within the formal structures of the wider faith organisation, often the religious framework, such as a diocese or equivalent structure. The majority of these are orientated towards the wider community and not confined only to the faith group itself.

Some faith based social action is distinctive because of its pioneering work with groups that others have found difficult to address. A good example is the work of the Lighthouse Project set up by Hull Community Church.

In each of the nine English regions there has been some sort of mapping of faith based social action activity to identify what faith groups are doing. In some regions this has been extensive. Thus, Beyond Belief (March 2004) reports that there are at least two community action projects for each faith centre in the South East. Faith in the East of England (July 2005) identifies 180,000 beneficiaries of faith based community development in the East.

Neighbourhood Renewal in London: the role of faith communities (May 2002) identifies 7000 projects and 2200 faith buildings in London. Believing in the Region (May 2006) reports that 80% of faith groups deliver some kind of service to the wider community in the West Midlands. Faith in England's North West (November 2003) shows that faith communities are running more than 5000 social action projects and generating income of £69m - £94m per annum in the North West.

In Yorkshire and the Humber, Count Us In (2000) shows that in Hull 90% of churches are involved in social action and Angels and Advocates (November 2002) reports that there are 6500 social action projects in churches across Yorkshire and the Humber. Faith in the North East (September 2004) shows that there are more than 2500 faith based projects in the North East. Faith in Action (June 2006) demonstrates that 165,000 people are supported by faith groups in the South West by 4762 activities. Faith in Derbyshire (May 2006) claims that, on average, churches run nine community activities in the East Midlands.

It should be noted that a major difficulty in establishing an analysis of this faith based social action is that there is no national dataset nor at this stage any standardised tools for building one. This means that the wealth of regional and sub-regional data which is available cannot be effectively compared, except crudely.

A process of agreeing shared definitions of terms would be of great value both to faiths and to policy makers in developing tangible ways of communicating activity within, between and beyond faith groups. This in itself would provide a framework for establishing a standardised tool for analysis across a national dataset and is an important strategic next stage.

It should also be noted that the data does not currently distinguish between activities undertaken by different faiths and there is practically no data therefore on what each tradition contributes. It would be beneficial in terms of targeting capacity building to map activities by faith tradition.

Nevertheless, even in its absence, a review of the regional data shows that there are four key ways in which faith communities engage in their wider contexts (Dinham 2007):

• Faiths in projects (partnerships, projects and associations more widely)
• Faiths in fellowship (within congregations, in faiths forums and their equivalents)
• Faiths in strategies (partnerships, networks)
• Faiths in governance structures (leaders and representatives)

The regional aspect of this last point is addressed in the 'Regional Forums' section of this report.

We can also aggregate the regional data to consider the predominating forms of faith based social action. This is necessarily crude because the data is not comparable. The following table does this, though it should be noted that this is indicative rather than conclusive. These figures should not be read as exhaustive. They indicate the trends and represent what regions report themselves to be active in doing. It is highly likely that there is considerably more activity than the existing data shows and a detailed census of activity nationally would be a very desirable next step in more fully apprehending the scale and scope of faith based social action. It should be noted that this would also give a sharper understanding of the exact nature of those activities, some of which is currently captured in a very general way through the use of self-reporting 'catch all' categories like 'community support'.

Aggregate of Faith Based Social Action Activities

Source: These data are derived from a range of regional sources reviewed in Priceless, Unmeasurable: faith and community development in 21^st century England (Dinham A 2007). They are aggregated to give an overall indication of the frequency of the range of activities. They are not exhaustive. The aggregation is crude because there are currently no national data sets nor modes for achieving them which can ensure comparability

Faith and Social Enterprise

Another area in which faiths are active in wider society is through social enterprise. As non-government partners, faiths have increasingly demonstrated a limited but significant capacity for delivering social action, and government has become increasingly interested in how they can be encouraged, with other social actors, to 'stand on their own feet' by generating income from the services provided which are then ploughed back into those services. At its starkest, this is the model of social enterprise which government has committed to.

Faiths have a long tradition of engaging in social enterprise and they are important because they:

• Are seedbeds for this type of enterprise. Many of the most quoted examples of social enterprise began as faith based organisations
• Make a significant contribution to economic and social life in the UK
• Have the potential to reach the most marginalised and excluded groups

Research about the role of faiths in social enterprise carried out in 2006/07 identifies a number of issues which are distinctive to faiths in this regard. Working with multi-faith focus groups, we asked what role faiths think they play in social enterprise. They identified a number of distinctive characteristics which they felt add value. These included a range of values, such as non-judgementalism, hopefulness, compassion, commitment, and a 'whole-person' view of problems.

They also identified distinctive practice orientations, including stability, continuity, long-termism, sustainability, leading by example, buildings and resources, responsiveness & speed and an ability to reach parts others can't reach.

A third important area they identified is associated with relationships and networks. These include rootedness in communities, reaching into communities more broadly, community cohesion/social capital, an educative bent which includes reaching beyond faith groups, as well as being educative about faith in wider contexts.

At the same time, these focus groups identified some concerns about their engagement with social enterprise. Some of these were to do with a sense of lacking - that they do not necessarily have the skills, resources, partnership experience and capacity, adaptability, governance know-how or time to be effective.

Others were associated with a sense of fear - of not knowing how to professionalise, of competition with others, of getting on the wrong side of legal requirements, of corrupting or diluting their values with a business ethos, and finally a fear of failure.

These are all serious concerns which will need to be addressed through targeted programmes of support and research in framing approaches to interfaith social action as it relates to social enterprise. What is also striking about these findings is that they might apply more widely both to what faiths can offer and also to what they need in social action outside social enterprise as well as within it. It is likely that the lessons here can be applied more widely across faith based social action in general.

But for faiths, social enterprise is not a panacea. It is also crucial to recognise that much of the social action undertaken by faiths is unlikely to attract financial self-sustainability and that resources may need to be committed in the long term in these cases outside of social enterprise.

What Faiths Bring to Wider Society

It is clear that faiths contribute significantly in terms of social action through projects and initiatives at local level, through social enterprise, and, as the 'regional forums' section of this report shows, in governance and extended forms of participation.

But there are other more intangible but no less practical and important dimensions to what faiths bring.

NCVO shows that “faith based organisations are integral to civil society; that is they are part of associational life, they are part of the space and place for dialogue within civil society, and they contribute to negotiating collective notions of what a 'good society' might look like” (NCVO 2007:53). They also often provide and participate in spaces for argument and deliberation (e.g. dialogue groups/inter faith councils) as well as participating in external deliberative activities (e.g. through participation in governance structures such as LSPs).

In addition, there are two key concepts which are also useful in exploring the relationship between faith based social action and wider society.

These are:

• Social capital
• Contact theory

These are pertinent because evidence suggests that faiths are particularly effective agents of social capital and that contact between faiths, and between faiths and others, has the potential to promote community cohesion.

Faith & Social Capital

Field (2003) offers a useful definition of social capital. At the heart of the concept is the idea that relationships matter. “By making connections with one another, and keeping them going over time, people are able to work together to achieve things that they either could not achieve by themselves, or could only achieve with great difficulty. People connect through a series of networks and they tend to share common values with other members of these networks; to the extent that these networks constitute a resource, they can be seen as forming a kind of capital” (Field, 2003:1).

Different types of social capital can be identified (see Furbey, Dinham et al 2006:7):

Bonding: “based on enduring, multi-faceted relationships between similar people with strong mutual commitments such as among friends, family and other close-knit groups”

Bridging: “Formed from the connections between people who have less in common, but may have overlapping interests, for example, between neighbours, colleagues, or between different groups within a community”

Linking: “Derived from the links between people or organisations beyond peer boundaries, cutting across status and similarity and enabling people to exert influence and reach resources outside their normal circles”

The Gujarat Hindu Society of Preston illustrates the progression from bonding social capital, to bridging and linking. It was first necessary to build up the confidence of the Hindu community in Preston, and secure a base from which they could inter-act with the wider community. This path has taken many years, and is one that is increasingly being followed by the faiths that are newer to Britain. A forthcoming report from the Community Development Foundation examines the issue of single identity funding. The authors of the current report agree with the findings of the CDF report that; funding should depend on an organisation's ability to deliver outcomes and not on its identity, single faith or other and; single identity groups need support to develop diverse leadership, provide culturally appropriate services to their communities, link with other communities, and engage with the public agenda.

A major Joseph Rowntree Foundation study on faith and social capital in 2006 found the following:

Faith communities contribute substantial and distinctive bridging and linking social capital through:

• Co-presence in urban areas
• Connecting frameworks (infrastructure)
• Use of their buildings
• Spaces that their associational networks open up between people
• Engagement in governance
• Work across boundaries with others in the public domain

On the other hand there are also difficulties and obstacles identified including:

• Misunderstanding and suspicion of faiths amongst partners
• Financial barriers
• Inappropriate buildings
• State managerialism and regulation
• Bridging and linking is undertaken by a small minority within faith communities

The evidence shows that women and young people participate less in bridging and linking forms of social capital and more in bonding, probably because of issues of power and the role of women (and young people)

It is also noted that faith buildings stand as physical markers of faith presence and diversity and in many cases they become places where community activity is focused.

At the same time, it is observed that some faith communities can bond so tightly, within their buildings and more widely in their associational spaces, that they never move on to bridging and linking and in fact resist attempts to do so. This has been called the 'dark side' of social capital.

Examples of social capital connection include:

• National faith, interfaith and multifaith structures (e.g. Inter Faith Network for the UK; FCCC; Faith Based Regeneration Network UK; Council of Christians and Jews; informal dialogue groups for Muslims and Jews, Christians and Muslims)
• Regional and local structures (e.g. faith representatives on regional groups; faith forums and councils; friendship arrangements via informal associations for discussion and action)
• Linking with the wider voluntary and community sector
• Participation in formal governance structures (eg LSPs and Regional Assemblies on which regional faiths forums have seats), which promotes linking social capital.
• Partnerships and projects at community level - this is where most faith based bridging and linking takes place (as the case studies, below, show)

Baker and Skinner (2006:4-5) develop the idea of social capital by talking about spiritual and religious capital:

Religious capital: “is the practical contribution to local and national life made by faith groups”. This relates to the practical actions and resources FBOs contribute in the spaces of civil society.

Spiritual capital: “energises religious capital by providing a theological identity and a worshipping tradition, but also a value system, moral vision and a basis of faith.” This relates to the motivation of FBOs to act in civil society.

Of great importance to faiths is that government and other partners take seriously the relationship between their spiritual and their religious capital. One is often grounded in the other and there is very strong feeling amongst faiths about the importance of policy nurturing both rather than 'taking' the social or religious capital without acknowledging or understanding the spiritual capital that underpins it.

Contact Theory

Whilst there is much evidence and data concerning the role of social capital in relation to faith, there is very little in relation to contact theory.

In his 1954 volume, The Nature of Prejudice, Allport proposed that under certain conditions, bringing together individuals from opposing groups could reduce intergroup prejudice. This clearly has potential in terms of government's agenda for community cohesion, particularly as it relates to faiths. At the same time, Allport warned that superficial contact between members of different groups would, in fact, reinforce stereotypes.

The basic formulaic version of the contact hypothesis has four elements: that those in contact with each other should have

• equal status
• common goals
• institutional support
• a perception of similarity between the two groups.

There are three practical approaches associated with how contact works:

The decategorization model (Brewer & Miller, 1984) proposes minimizing the use of labels altogether, and instead interacting on an individual basis (focusing on relationships between people of different traditions).

The recategorization model (e.g., Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989) suggests that intergroup contact could be maximally effective if perceivers reject the use of “us” and “them” in favour of a more inclusive, “we” category (giving a focus on acting together aside from differences in faith traditions).

The categorization model (Hewstone & Brown, 1986), points out practical problems with personalized, as opposed to group-based, interactions and instead promotes keeping group boundaries intact during intergroup encounters (eg faiths remain highly identified with their traditions and engage with one another from within them).

The research presented here thus suggests that ignoring or overlooking group membership during contact may not necessarily result in better intergroup attitudes and relations. Rather, it is suggested that clear but co-operative assertion of different faith identities in inter faith interactions is helpful in promoting better relations between the different groups. This has very important implications for inter faith working.

That said, the faith based evidence for contact theory is very limited. Though it may have application to faith based contexts, and potentially promise much for strengthened and resilient communities, the evidence currently needs to be built up significantly. A programme of research would be required prior to an effective application of contact theory to faiths and community cohesion policies and this would be a beneficial part of an inter faith framework.

A Key Related Idea: Community Cohesion

Embedded in the idea of social capital, and contact theory as a mechanism for promoting it, is the related notion of community cohesion. The CLG response to the report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion adopts the Report's vision and definition of an integrated and cohesive community as being based on three foundations:

• People from different backgrounds having similar life opportunities
• People knowing their rights and responsibilities
• People trusting one another and trusting local institutions to act fairly

And three key ways of living together:

• A shared future vision and sense of belonging
• A focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside a recognition of the value of diversity
• Strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds

Faith based social action, emerging from the needs and realities of community life, can be an important contributor to many of these aspects of community cohesion, as the case studies below show. Cohesion is a particularly important concept for faith communities as faith is increasingly acknowledged to be a marker of identity along with race and ethnicity and it is along these 'fault lines' that cohesion is ensured, or fractures emerge.

At the same time, it is crucial that faith and ethnicity are not confused. Whilst they may often overlap, ethnicity cannot be taken as a predictor of faith, nor vice versa. To do so risks forming a framework which does not reflect the real diversity and local contingencies of faiths, and therefore to alienate rather than to engage.

Support Mechanisms for Faith Based Social Action

There is a range of support mechanisms for faith based social action operating at national and regional levels. It is also certain that there is a degree of local support in some areas but this is almost entirely undocumented and rather patchy. Support activities are predominantly characterised by activities including dissemination of information, seminars and training, promotion and support of networks, advice, consultancy and mentoring.

National Structures

At the national level, there is one multi-faith organisation, the Faith Based Regeneration Network UK (FbRN UK) which supports faith based social action and one key interfaith organisation, the Inter Faith Network for the UK (IFN UK), which, though not focusing on social action, is key in building social capital with faith groups.

Faith Based Regeneration Network UK (FbRN)

The Faith Based Regeneration Network UK (FbRN) is the leading national multi faith network for community development and regeneration. Set up in 2002 by practitioners of faith based community development, regeneration and social action, it aims to:

• link practitioners to learn and gain inspiration from each other across the different faith traditions in the UK
• encourage the active engagement of faith groups in regeneration
• build their capacity for this
• provide an interface between policy makers and communities.

It is managed by a Trustee body drawn from nine faith traditions: Bahá'í, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian.

FbRN has 1,400 individuals and organisations on its contact list. By cascading through other organisations, its newsletters and email bulletins reach 9,000. It produces a Toolkit for practitioners, Tools for Regeneration: Practical Advice for Faith Communities, 4,000 of which are in circulation. It runs seminars and training events, for example in 2006/7 on Faith in Community Development and Faith Communities and Social Enterprise, resulting in policy focused publications and further good practice guides.

FbRN is a member of the Government's Faith Communities Consultative Council and the CLG Third Sector Partnership Board. With the Inter Faith Network for the UK, FbRN facilitates the developing English Regional Faiths Forum Network.

FbRN is developing a new website which aims to be a major resource for practitioners and policy makers.

Inter Faith Network for the UK (IFN)

The Inter Faith Network for the UK was founded in 1987 to promote good relations between people of different faiths in Britain. Its 150 member organisations include national representative bodies of the Bahá'í; Buddhist; Christian; Hindu; Jain; Jewish; Muslim; Sikh; and Zoroastrian communities; national, regional and local inter faith organisations; and academic institutions and educational bodies concerned with inter faith issues.

The emphasis of the IFN's work is on linking, co-operation and communication. It provides information and advice to a wide range of organisations and individuals on inter faith matters and on how to contact communities at both national and local level. It holds regular national and regional meetings and organises seminars and conferences on a variety of issues and projects and publishes material to help encourage and resource inter faith activity.

In recent years a Faith Communities Forum has been developed within the framework of the Inter Faith Network for the UK to provide a mechanism for consultation between national faith community representative bodies on matters of mutual concern, including issues on the public agenda as well as the development of inter faith relations. IFN services, with FbRN, the recently formed English Regional Faith Forums Network.

Alongside these multi and inter faith organisations, a number of bodies springing from a single faith (though often working with others) are also key. They are as follows:

Church Urban Fund (CUF) provides support in the form of funding for small faith based community projects, practical advice and information for them and acts as a vehicle for representing their voices at all levels. CUF has been operating for 20 years and emerged from the 'Faith in the City' report (see also Dinham, 2005). The overall aim is to tackle poverty and deprivation. CUF does this via targeting funding at small and local faith based social action projects that are open to all. These projects need to be located in the top 10% of poorest areas in England in accordance with the Index of Multiple Deprivation and/or serving intrinsically deprived communities. They make grants totalling between £1.5 and £3 million per year. The average annual grant is £5,000. CUF is also funded by the Cabinet Office in support of its CUF Xchange (CUFX) initiative, aimed at creating a voice for small faith based social action projects and encouraging them to network together (mostly at national level, but also at regional and local too). Through this they run an interactive website. The longer term aim is to broaden this network to include all faiths and projects that are not receiving CUF funding but that meet CUF's funding criteria as well as the 500 projects that are currently supported. Other support activities offered by CUF and CUFX include conferences, training workshops, tool kits, one to one consultancy, signposting, infrastructure development and advocacy work.

A recent study showed that CUF funding results in much greater impacts than originally intended by the grant itself (Dinham 2005) and that these arise out of a number of distinctive factors, many of which are shared with other faith based support structures and indicate something of what can be distinctive about the faith 'offer':

• Strategic and prophetic insight - seeing beyond the immediate to the long-term and sustainable
• Making small grants targeted towards needs that would otherwise be unmet or find difficulties in getting support
• Strong local and historical presence via diocesan and parish structures - giving voice to grassroots organisations
• A developmental approach which is responsive, flexible and creative
• Linking up local work with diocesan, regional and national agendas
• Commitment to building capacity
• Challenging others to 'join in' - setting an example
• Encouraging and allowing people to take risks and be distinctive

Churches Community Work Alliance (CCWA) is an infrastructure organisation with a remit to work across all parts of the UK and Republic of Ireland to advance and encourage church-related community development work. It promotes community development values and principles as the most effective and authentic way to engage with communities and it seeks to support frontline workers and organisations in delivering training and services. CCWA has a comprehensive website to help build capacity in the sector (www.ccwa.org.uk). CCWA is currently undergoing a major review of how it will provide capacity building support in the future and is looking at the major challenge of how it will sustain itself financially and structurally as an organisation. This is likely to result in CCWA becoming a virtual network of organisations and workers, with its website being the major tool for providing information, advice, resources and discussion. In accordance with community development values, CCWA wants to equip frontline organisations and workers to become better informed about a range of issues and policies, and be able to participate in networks and policy critique more effectively and to reflect on the theological motivations for community engagement, as well as how their own work can have more impact.

United Reformed Church (URC) Community Development Programme was a pioneer in Church Related Community Development. Its CRCW programme has been running since 1982. It trains community development workers who are then deployed in local areas and are paid a stipend in the same way as the clergy. It also encourages local church congregations to become involved in community development and produces resource packs and a video. The CRCW Programme is serviced centrally by the URC.

Caritas is the umbrella organisation for Catholic social care organisations working within England and Wales. It produces research reports and resources for Catholic social action.

United Synagogue, Community Development Group encourages community development and volunteering by the Jewish community. It works to develop strong leadership and community empowerment. The CDG recognises that the faith community needs encouragement to build up their confidence and capabilities and supportive relationships through which they can develop social capital. It runs a range of programmes including networking and training, and publishes resources.

Faithworks is a national second tier support agency specialising in the Christian faith sector which has three core aims:

• Empowering and inspiring individual Christians and local churches to develop their role in their community
• Challenging and changing the public perception of the Church by engaging the media and government
• Encouraging unity and partnership to meet needs of the community

Faithworks offer training resources, telephone advice, consultancy and tool-kits and are active in supporting and encouraging the development of networks between Christian faith based organisations.

The above organisations have as their primary purpose the supporting of faith based social action. There are, in addition, national bodies of faith traditions, some of which support and encourage their members in social action as part of a wider remit. It is not feasible to list all these organisations here and a full list can be found on the website of the Inter faith Network www.interfaith.org.uk

Support Structures at the Regional Level

Faith Councils/Forums of Faiths

A range of regional faith bodies have been developed which work in various ways as structures of support to faiths. (For details see the 'Regional Forums' section of this report). Faith councils or forums exist in eight of the nine English regions:

• Northwest Forum of Faiths
• South East of England Faith Forum
• West Midlands Faiths Forum
• Yorkshire and Humber Faiths Forum
• Forum of Faiths for the East Midlands
• East of England Faiths Council
• South West Council of Faiths
• London has a Boroughs Faiths Network and is developing a Faiths Forum

The regional section of this report explores the regional forums in detail. For the purposes of this report it should be noted that, at regional level, it is predominantly the Christian Churches that have geographical spread of population, physical presence and infrastructure. Thus, in each region a number of Anglican and Roman Catholic Dioceses, United Reformed Church Provinces, Methodist Districts and other groupings may well map onto the footprints of regional governance, as also the ecumenical Churches Together bodies that exist at county level in many parts of the country. That said, they are all working with other faiths to one degree or another (as the regional section of this report shows). The issue of differing capacities and resources between the faiths is an important one in framing a way of interfaith working. Faith forums recognise that it is crucially important to avoid institutionalising inequalities of capacity as this will further disadvantage the faiths which are newer to Britain, many of which also share minority ethnicities.

FaithNetEast and Faithnetsouthwest

In addition to the regional forums of faith, in two regions there are also information and learning hubs which support the social action activities of faiths. These are in the East of England and the South West. The following case study gives examples of the work of one of these hubs, for more information on FaithNetEast and faitnetsouthwest please see the regional section of this report.

Churches Regional Network

CRN coordinates the input of the Churches into regional development, supports the Churches Regional Officers. The Churches regional structures have different names in the different regions. CRN frequently acts to support social action through good practice, experience and information sharing either informally or formally via events.

A particularly active example of a regional structure is the Churches Regional Commission (CRC) for Yorkshire and the Humber which provides advice, training, conferences, seminars and briefings. It has given funding to projects in the past, but its primary activity involves engaging at regional level with policy and strategy, and acting as a catalyst for action and networking. CRC Y&H supports the sharing of good practice and has provided help with funding bids, especially in the area of heritage and tourism. It also employs two people in North Yorkshire who work with a Christian organisation called Farm Crisis Network, providing (alongside volunteers), free advice and support to farmers. CRC Y&H was also key in setting up the Yorkshire and Humber Faiths Forum. With the Faiths Forum they run 'Faith Matters', a programme which trains people in secular organisations to better understand faith communities and how to work with them; 4,000 people have completed this training.

Sub-Regional & Local Structures

Specific faith based support is also available through structures at sub-regional level. The availability of other support varies greatly across the country. There are models of good practice to build on and we focus here on two: the Active Faith Communities programmes in West Yorkshire, and the Hull Search project.

It should also be noted that the Anglican Church is particularly strong in having staff located in most dioceses across England that have as at least a part of their role the support of church based social action. The other larger Christian denominations (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, United Reform) have their own equivalents.

A recent survey by the Church Urban Fund (CUF 2007) found that the projects it supports (mostly Christian and with links to churches) are most likely to seek help from a Church or faith organisation and it uses the Anglican diocesan structures to 'reach' those communities in need.

The next most likely source of support is the local authority or a local council for voluntary service. The local 'Churches Together' (see the Hull Search case study) frameworks in towns and cities provide the most used opportunities to engage in partnership work.

There is no comparable information about other non-Christian faith communities, most of which do not have similarly well established structures, though their faith based social action itself is extensive. As noted above, it would be beneficial to map activities by faith tradition. It would also be useful to map and database structures of support in order to target capacity building in these area and as a resource for faiths everywhere.

Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund

The Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund (FCCBF) has been another key source of support. In its two years of funding faiths (2005/06 and 2006/07) it has supported 338 faith based capacity building initiatives and 238 interfaith initiatives. Funded projects gave an indication of which faiths they would be working with. Of 139 projects reporting, in receipt of large grants, 609 faith groups were identified as end beneficiaries of their projects. Of those, the breakdown by faiths is as follows:

• Christian 114 (17.3%)
• Muslim 111 (16.9%)
• Hindu 85 (13%)
• Sikh 79 (12%)
• Jewish 71 (10.8%)
• Buddhist 62 (9.4%)
• Bahá'í 48 (7.3%)
• Other 33 (5%)
• Jain 32 (4.8%)
• Zoroastrian 22 (3.3%)

^{Source: Derived from data on p14, Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: an evaluation report from the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund}

The breakdowns for small grants follow a similar distributive pattern amongst faiths.

The evaluation of the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund indicates that there are several key learning points in relation to interfaith dialogue and social action:

• That capacity needs to be built from the 'bottom up' and reflect the diversity of faiths by being supported at regional, sub-regional and local levels
• That funding streams should use these networks to respond to local needs and be set up in such a way as to hear them
• That there needs to be a realistic mix of paid and unpaid staff and volunteers at the local level. It should not be assumed that faiths have an unlimited supply of labour and other resources
• Projects dominated by one faith may have diverse beneficiaries but often find it hard to attract diverse governance. There is a specific capacity building need around some of the faiths which are newer to Britain.
• It is important that when capacity is built in one place it is not at the cost of effective existing work in another.

Our discussions with faith groups also indicate that there is concern that FCCBF was effective in building capacity in year one but subsequently squandered much of it by not funding some of the year one initiatives in the second phase. It is important to strike a balance between supporting innovation on the one hand and consolidating excellence on the other. Faith based social action should not be regarded as solely or perpetually innovative. It must be allowed also to become established.

A Note on Non-faith Based Support Structures

Faith based organisations are also able to turn to secular VCS organisations at national, regional and local levels in the same way as other organisations can. It has been noted by Barnes and Berkeley (CUF 2007:6) that faiths are most likely to seek help from a faith organisation, local authority or local Council for Voluntary Service. This may reflect the fact that many of them feel their voice is heard by faiths themselves or at the local rather than national level.

There is also strong evidence from users that faiths appreciate and express a need for support that is informed by awareness of and sensitivity to the culture and practices of their organisations and, indeed, preferably by faith based organisations. Partners in the VCS and elsewhere need to develop faith literacy.

A 2007 report by the National Council for Voluntary Service concluded that while many of the support needs of the faith sector could be provided by generic VCS infrastructure organisations 'there may be a case for targeted support to meet the needs of particular constituencies'.

Whilst some communities and faith based organisations are aware of and will use voluntary, and occasionally public, sector support agencies, others are ignorant or suspicious of the support they provide and do not access them. Research based in Guildford for the Governance Hub concludes that smaller 'faith based organisations are unlikely to search for VCS support or belonging' and that 'existing faith sector infrastructure needs greater recognition and support'. (Jones, P 2007).

Some CVSs and culturally specific support agencies are well attuned to the needs of faith groups and report a significant take up of their services from faith communities, but there is still a mismatch with the perceptions of some faith groups who feel their faith-specific contexts are not adequately understood. A clear written compact between VCS structures and faiths would be of great value.

What do Support Structures Do?

At present there are five main ways in which faiths are supported. They:

• Provide mechanisms for communication with membership/clients/contacts: this may be through email/telephone help lines, attendance at events
• Conduct research: some organisations undertake specific research and consultation with faiths
• Facilitate dialogue amongst networks and between groups and individuals
• Disseminate literature, for example guides, toolkits and other sources and resources
• Formulate and interpret policies, information and opportunities around all parts of faith based activity

Many of these sources and resources are produced at local and regional level. While some are effectively and widely disseminated, others seem to be bound by their localities and it is likely that opportunities for support and learning could be more widely shared round.

Barriers to Using Support Structures

Some of the barriers to accessing support structures include:

• Many faiths do not see themselves as part of the VCS and therefore do not go to those wider structures for support
• There can be misunderstanding and, in some cases, hostility towards faiths from non-faith support structures
• Suspicion of official bodies, especially in the context of a focus on prevention of extremism
• Such suspicion can transfer from suspicion of government to suspicion of other 'official' sounding bodies such as CVS's
• Poor publicity/knowledge of support available
• In some cases there are limited resources and lack of capacity for seeking support
• A key barrier is lack of time where reliance is placed on volunteers with many other commitments. This is often consolidated by the perception by others that faiths are time and resource rich whilst in reality this may only apply to paid officers and within the more established traditions

‘Non-Faith Specific’ Central Government Funding

The Funding Environment

The Third Sector has had a key role in government policy for over a generation but it is only in the last ten years that

• the language of partnership has become all-pervading
• faith communities have been drawn into this framework alongside other sections of the Third Sector

To receive public funding, organisations, including faith organisations, must demonstrate that they are working in ways that enable key policies and strategies to be delivered. Within this context, whilst faith communities have increasingly been seen as groups with much to offer the government agenda, at the same time they are viewed in some quarters with suspicion as a result of:

• an historic assumption that public sector funding should not be used to 'promote' religion
• the perception by some that faith communities are in some sense culpable for some of society's ills such as discrimination, social disturbance, and violent extremism

Politicians have repeatedly stated the importance of faith communities for delivering social change but in practice the funding environment is potentially confusing both for public sector officers and for faith communities. From the perspective of public officials the sheer diversity of organisations and traditions amongst faiths can be overwhelming and the language of faith can be very different from the language of government. From the perspective of faith communities, there is a concern that their independence might be compromised, and about a lack of experience and capacity to engage.

The Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund and, with a much tighter policy focus, the Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund primarily aimed at supporting integration and positive civic engagement in the Muslim community, have made steps towards addressing these concerns. In the context of these specifically targeted funds, it is important also to identify the extent to which faiths have been successful in accessing mainstream government funding programmes too.

Despite best efforts, it is not always the case that major government departments co-ordinate their funding programmes. This often means that applicants are faced with a confusing range of potential targets and criteria. The broad policy streams that are supported by funding include:

• Economic development, social inclusion and regeneration
• Healthy Communities
• Community cohesion and integration
• Active citizenship and volunteering
• Delivering more effective public services

Some of the key funding programmes to deliver these objectives include:

• Cabinet Office - Futurebuilders, £150million over four years
• Cabinet Office - Capacitybuilders Improving Reach, £18million over three years
• Cabinet Office - Community Assets Programme, £30million (operated by Big Lottery Fund)
• DCFS - Local Network Fund, £150million over five years
• DCSF - Parenting Fund, £14million over two years.
• DCLG - Connecting Communities Plus, £18million over three years.
• Department of Health - Opportunities for Volunteering, £6.7million in current year.
• Department of Health - Section 64 Grant Scheme, £17.2million in current year.
• Home Office - European Refugee Fund, £1million in current year.
• Government Offices for Regions - Community Champions, £9million over three years.

The focus is on the six funds identified in bold italic in this list as these funds represent a considerable volume of funding for the Third Sector, four different government departments and a range of policy objectives.

It should also be noted that there are a number of other funding sources. These include:

• Government supported or mixed programmes in the arts and sport
• Lottery funding through programmes such as the Big Lottery Fund, Awards for All, and the Heritage Lottery Fund.
• Regional and local regeneration funds
• Learning and Skills Councils
• Connexions
• Primary Care Trusts
• Local authority funding

Some methodological considerations

Data

Given the limited resources for this study it was only possible to survey funds where information was publicly available (on the internet). Although the majority of funds do give good information in this medium, the format and quality varies from fund to fund so comparability is not possible. Some funds have insufficient information and have therefore been excluded from this study.

Websites of recipients of funding have also been used to determine whether they were faith-based organisations or not. This raised further questions, (see below), but in relation to the data itself it should be noted that not all organisations have a website and that the quality of those that do varies.

Timing

The initial time frame for the study was the 2006-7 financial year as it was assumed that this would be the most recent year in which all the funds would have full reporting information. In fact, some of the funds only give information for the most recent funding round (2007-8). Nevertheless all six of the funds have good information available for either one or both of the years from 2006-8 and cross-checking, where possible, showed that there was little difference in the broad patterns over this two-year period.

Classification

This important issue is not just a methodological inconvenience. It also goes to the heart of the discussion about the nature of faith-based organisations and recurs in the analysis of the funding programmes. An important aspect of this is that there is a significant confusion in some cases between ethnic minority organisations and faith based organisations. This points up a more general confusion between ethnicity and race. As far as possible all organisations that claim to be faith based have been classified as such. So, for example, with regard to major national organisations, The Children's Society, Barnardos and YMCA all still claim in their literature to be Christian or Christian-based and this is reflected in their long histories and current governance although it may not be reflected in their staffing, volunteers or users. On the other hand the YWCA, another historically important Christian agency, makes it very clear that they are not a faith-based organisation any longer. A more recent example of this confusion is the Bromley-by-Bow centre in East London. Although it is regularly hailed as one of the most successful faith based social enterprises and was based around the Bromley-by-Bow church, in current literature it is difficult to detect any remaining indication of its faith connections. Where it is not stated but historical information indicates a faith base, it has been included.

Analysis of funding programmes

In each funding programme this report presents a summary of the purposes, criteria and scope of the programme, together with some of the basic figures relating to faith-based recipients. This will be followed by a brief discussion of one or two salient issues that arise from the examination of the pattern of grant making. What is presented here is indicative. Each theme is identified in connection with just one of the funding schemes. There then follows a general summative discussion.

Cabinet Office - Futurebuilders
www.futurebuilders-england.org.uk

Summary

Start date: 05/07/2004 / End date: 30/01/2011

With an emphasis on service delivery, it has become important for government to invest in the Third Sector so that it can actually compete for service delivery contracts from statutory bodies. A key feature of Futurebuilders is that a significant proportion of any funding is in the form of low-interest loans. The loans are paid back with revenue from contracts with public sector agencies such as local authorities and primary care trusts.

Total Fund Value: £150,000,000. The Total Fund Value represents the amount allocated to Futurebuilders for 2004-08. The minimum amount offered is £50,000 in the main programme although smaller development grants are also available.

The website reports that since its launch in 2004, Futurebuilders has offered over £108 million of investments in over 235 organisations, although these figures are increasing all the time as funding decisions are made at any point.

Basic figures

The publicly available information on the website shows funding of £69.2million from the start of the funding, spread over 164 projects. Of these, there are 14 projects that are identifiably faith-based - either by name (League of British Muslims) or clearly stated on their website. These projects are in receipt of approximately £9.5million.

Discussion

In the Futurebuilders criteria, unlike many other funding programmes, there is no mention of faith or religion, either as a qualifying or disqualifying factor. The implication seems to be clear - as long as an applying organisation can show that they can deliver the outcomes required it makes no difference to the funder whether they are faith based or not. Perhaps because of this 'faith neutral' approach, Futurebuilders has attracted a rather different range of recipients than some of the other programmes.

They appear to fall into three main categories.

• Organisations which are clear about, both their faith base and the intention to serve a primarily, although not exclusively, faith-connected community where this is meeting a real need that is unmet in other ways. This includes the Bayis Sheli project for children with special needs in the orthodox Jewish community, and the League of British Muslims offering a range of services to Muslims and others in east London.
• Physical and social regeneration projects centred around church re-building programmes. These include InSpire at St Peter in Walworth, London which, like many inner-city churches is reconstructing its building to serve local needs, and Cottingley Cornerstone Centre in Bradford and All Saints in Birmingham which are both concerned with re-developing 'village' communities on the edge of major cities.
• Most interesting are a third group whose faith and operational profile are significantly different from a previous generation. Primarily Christian, these organisations, are confidently 'up-front' about their religious motivation, but serve a wider community regardless of faith. These include the following (which have been anonymised):
  ******* Christian ******* Project ... Practical, emotional and spiritual needs are cared for during and beyond a person's residency.
  ******* Enterprise is a charity which seeks, out of Christian conviction, to help the most disadvantaged in the local community.
  ******* As a Christian organisation we prayerfully seek to bring out the best in the people we serve, pursuing excellence in all we do.

Clearly the model of 'investment' and loan operated by Futurebuilders has attracted some exciting initiatives but it is equally likely that it has discouraged others who might otherwise be well able to deliver local services. In a mixed funding environment it may be a positive factor to have a range of funding approaches. It is noted that the format of Futurebuilders may change, although it is unlikely to be substantive, from 2008 when the operating authority changes to the Adventure Capital Fund.

Cabinet Office - Capacitybuilders Improving Reach
www.capacitybuilders.org.uk

Summary

Start date: 30/10/2007 / End date: 31/03/2008

Capacitybuilders has grown out of the government's ChangeUp programme to build up infrastructure, support and capacity building services in the voluntary sector. The focus of the Improving Reach programme is to ensure that this initiative is accessible to “frontline organisations working in and with excluded communities; including BME communities, refugee and migrant communities, faith communities and isolated rural communities”. The first round of funding under this programme applied to 2006-8, and it is this round that is discussed here, and a second round of applications for funding in 2008-9, has just closed.

Basic figures

In the two year period of 2006-8 allocations equivalent to a total fund of £10.5million are listed. This fund is spread over 126 projects. The programme currently proposes that in the three year period beginning April 2008 the total fund value will be £18million.

For a break down of funding amongst different groups see the discussion below.

Discussion

The analysis of the Improving Reach funding programme highlights the confusion between the category of 'faith' and the category of 'BME'.

In the funding criteria for 2006-8, four priority categories were identified

• Black and minority ethnic groups (BME)
• Refugee and migrant groups
• Faith groups
• Isolated rural groups

In addition, the fund specified that grants “may not be used to support or promote religious activity.” This phrase or similar phraseology in other programmes has often served more to confuse than to clarify. As has already been seen in the Futurebuilders discussion, there are many organisations which see serving the community as central to their religious activity.

In the end a judgement on these issues needs to be made and more than one approach is possible. In this report the view has been taken that if an organisation did not mention any faith connection anywhere in their self-description, and were not otherwise known as a faith-based organisation, then they were not a faith-based organisation.

A potential confusion arises where an organisation is working in settings where there is an overlap of the BME and faith identification (e.g. Bangladeshi or Somali) and where there is no indication that it is a faith-based organisation. More than one possibility exists - they have made a deliberate choice to focus on ethnicity rather than faith as their distinguishing characteristic, or they may have downplayed their faith character either deliberately or accidentally. Following an 'inclusive' approach which acknowledges applicants as faith based where there is evidence of either dimension, the analysis of the Improving Reach recipients shows several groupings:

• Secular organisations whose target is BME communities including those who mention faith communities. There are 26 of these organisations who are in receipt of £2.2milliion.
• Secular organisations who specifically mention faith communities in their target groups i.e. a sub-set of the above. There are 8 of these organisations in receipt of £644k.
• Faith-based organisations working with any of the priority groups (i.e. including BME, refugee and faith groups). There are 14 of these organisations in receipt of £1.2million.
• Faith-based organisations who are working specifically with faith groups (as opposed to the other target groups) i.e. a sub-set of (c). There are 9 of these organisations in receipt of £710k.

Department of Children, Schools and Families - Parenting Fund
www.familyandparenting.org/ParentingFundHome

Summary

Start date: 09/12/2005 / End date: 31/03/2008

Deriving from the policy emphasis on education - in its broad sense - and enabling children to fulfil their potential, good parenting is seen by the Government as an important strategy. This fund assists voluntary and community sector organisations who support parents where families are at risk, for one reason or another, and who may have not been able to get hold easily of the services they need. The Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) is managing the Parenting Fund on behalf of the DCSF. Funds examined here were allocated in 2006 for a two year period from 2006-8.

Basic figures

In this two year period just over £14milliion has been allocated to 131 organisations.

Of these there are twelve projects working with BME communities which might include faith communities but which are not specified. These organisations are in receipt of £1.2million.

There are six faith-based projects in receipt of funds totalling £724k.

Discussion

Of the six faith based projects, all are Christian organisations - two are Barnardos, two are YMCA and one is the Southwark Diocese in London. The sixth is also a Christian organisation based in south London. This spread of recipients does raise some questions, particularly if it may be assumed that in the locations identified as priorities for parenting support work there is an over representation of BME populations and, whilst the overlap between faith and ethnicity is not clear cut, it could be assumed that many of these people would come from faiths which are newer to Britain.

Is it assumed that either the secular organisations or the Christian organisations work most effectively with those whose prime identification is with their non-Christian faith? In practice this is unlikely to be the case and it may well be therefore that there are existing local parenting support groups who are receiving no support from this fund.

Department for Communities and Local Government - Connecting Communities Plus
www.cdf.org.uk

Summary

Start date: 10/04/2006 / End date: 31/03/2009

The policy focus is the Government's strategy to increase race equality and improve community cohesion. There are two parts of the Connecting Communities Plus programme. A fund for “strategic and project grants” (£12million) and a fund for community grants. We will be focusing on the latter.

The four themes for the fund are

• Improving access and outcomes for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities in education, employment, health, housing and the Criminal Justice System.
• Increasing BME communities' confidence in public services.
• Tackling racism and extremism.
• Bringing together communities from different races and faiths, and promoting a shared sense of belonging (community cohesion).

Basic figures

The total fund value over a three year period is £3million.

In the first round (2006-7) a total of 122 organisations were in receipt of £1.1million. Of these 17 projects mentioned faith or religion at some point in their project description, and were in receipt of £143k. There were five specifically faith based organisations in receipt of £37k.

In the second round (2007-8) a total of 99 organisations received £999k. 20 organisations mentioned faith or religion and were in receipt of £190k. There were eight specifically faith based organisations in receipt of £79k.

Discussion

This fund emphasises ethnic minorities as the prime target for funding so it is not surprising that there is a relatively low level of funding to faith based organisations. But, questions might be raised as follows.

• In order to include as many projects as possible we have included all projects that have even a passing reference to faith. In some it is clear that this is just seen as an extra term to use in a package of other characteristics and there would be some doubt regarding whether the project actually linked to faith communities in any meaningful way.
• Did the funding criteria actively deter faith based applicants? Although faith is mentioned in one of the themes, the following were specified as activities which 'could not be funded'
• services or events where the key purpose is to promote a religious doctrine; mission or proselytisation;
• promotion of the beliefs of a particular faith (beyond basic religious/cultural awareness raising);
• acquisition of religious artefacts or publications for the use of followers in worship;
• the cost of supporting religious personnel in their normal duties in their place of worship;

Although these are all legitimate in themselves, together they give a very off-putting impression and are not necessary for the fulfilment of the programmes objectives. As has been seen in the Futurebuilders criteria, an emphasis on the positive characteristics can be equally effective.

In addition, at a time when government was actively pursuing faith based groups as potential partners it might be assumed that a changing pattern might be witnessed between the first and second round of funding. But, although there is a change, it is relatively small - from five to eight faith-based groups funded.

The total fund is relatively small and the majority of grants were in the £5k-£10k range. Yet there are a huge number of BME and faith-based organisations. This sets up a competitive environment which often leaves those who 'fail' with strong emotions, often directed at successful recipients and at government. This is unlikely to result in a positive environment to foster partnership working.

Department of Health - Section 64 Grant Scheme
www.dh.gov.uk

Summary

Start date: 01/01/1968

This is a long-standing grants programme which originated in the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. For the 2008/09 funding round there was an over-arching aim of 'making a difference to the quality of people's lives'. The Section 64 scheme then identifies a range of priorities - in 2008-9 there were 32 separate priority themes - in line with departmental policies. Within these themes projects of national significance are prioritised. The Section 64 scheme provides for both project funding and core funding. It is very common for organisations to have several projects funded at the same time as well as a core grant.

Basic figures

In both of the years 2006-7 and 2007-8 the total funds made available were in the region of £17.2million.

In 2006-7 311 projects were funded and 113 core grants made. Of these there were eight projects from faith-based organisations (seven separate organisations) receiving £202k in funding. There was one core grant to a faith based organisation of £140k (this grant is unusual in nature and arose from particular historical circumstances).

In 2007-8 287 projects were funded and 91 core grants were made. Of these there were eleven projects from faith based organisations (ten separate organisations) receiving £437k in funding.

Discussion

National and strategic funding.

The Section 64 scheme is unusual amongst the schemes surveyed in that it places most emphasis on funding national organisations or, at least, projects with national significance.

Clearly for those organisations operating in the health sector - broadly defined - the core funding provided by this scheme is of significance. The majority of the funded organisations are directly related to health provision but there are a few who are receiving a core grant and whose aims are more generally related to a 'healthy society'. But this does raise questions regarding the funding of national or strategic organisations in other sectors.

Department of Health - Opportunities for Volunteering
www.dh.gov.uk

Summary

The purpose of Opportunities for Volunteering is to use the expertise of the Third Sector “to identify new health and social care needs and to contribute to the development of innovative service models that involve volunteers”. Unlike other programmes described in this report, the main channel for distributing the funds is through sixteen 'national agents'. These agents include many 'household names' including the Children's Society, Barnardos and Churches Together in England.

Basic figures

In the year 2006-7 £6.7million was distributed to the national agents who in turn funded 311 local projects.

Discussion

Regional variation.

Several of the funding reports break their narrative down into regional categories so this analysis for this particular fund could be repeated for the others.

In the table (below): column one shows the total amount in grants given for that region, and below that the number of actual projects; column two shows the amount channelled through the faith-based organisations. Below that is the percentage channelled through faith-based organisations and to the right is the number of organisations.

The Children's Society and Barnardos use the majority of their funding to support local projects within their organisations. Churches Together encourages applications from local groups - they say that they should be Christian groups although there appear to be some exceptions to this rule. In addition are a small number of faith based groups who receive grants from one of the other national agents.

The analysis above appears to show considerable regional variation. The most obvious is the case of the West Midlands with no faith-based projects. (The 2007-8 figures were also checked and showed two faith based projects in the West Midlands.)

Without knowing the detailed approach adopted by each of the national agents it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the clear variation between regions - and it should not be assumed that the national organisations were failing to engage in important work in these regions - possibly, only that they were not using this particular funding stream to support their work. Yet, even at the most basic level, the variation raises some questions about its possible causes. Although not part of this exercise, a parallel analysis was undertaken of projects that indicated work with BME communities and this showed a similar regional variation.

Involvement of minority faith communities.

The three faith based national agents are all Christian organisations. All would claim to deliver their scheme across all sectors of society - although through different mechanisms. Barnardos and Children's Society mainly use this funding to deliver their own programmes, and Churches Together takes applications from local Christian groups who are responsible for delivering local projects. While there is no doubt of the high quality of the work undertaken, there must be a question regarding the ability of these organisations to deliver these services in areas of high need where minority faith communities form a significant part of the population.

General questions and issues arising from the data

What is a faith based organisation?

This study has focused on the receipt of funds from government funding schemes by faith based organisations. But it raises the question, 'What is a faith based organisation'? It may be that a worship congregation (church, mosque, gurdwara etc) is easily defined as such - but there are very few of these who are in receipt of government funds. Is an organisation which was founded 200 years ago out of a strong faith conviction, but is now seen as part of the general voluntary sector, still a faith based organisation? Is an organisation that defines itself in terms of its ethnicity (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Somali, for example) but is rooted in what otherwise would be recognised as a faith community, a faith based organisation? Is an organisation that includes the name of a faith tradition in its title but, in practice operates on a purely secular basis (i.e. there is no religious motivation to its work) a faith based organisation? Is an organisation founded by a religious cleric, and still with clerics among its staff, but otherwise completely secular in nature, a faith based organisation?

A clear working out of what makes an organisation 'faith based' would be extremely useful. It would have to be developed in partnership and consultation with faiths, however, in order to ensure credibility.

A useful typology might include the following determining characteristics:

• by its governance,
• by the nature of its volunteers, staff and activists,
• by the nature of its users,
• by the nature of its history.

But all of these important policy initiatives will be futile if faith based organisations do not have the capacity and supporting infrastructure to enable them to engage properly with government programmes. Discussions informing this report suggest that much of the good work started under the FCCBF programme will simply cease to exist at the end of this financial year, with little replacement support available.

Some strategic considerations.

Government programmes are far from being the only potential funding source for faith based organisations. But the crowded funding environment does not work to the advantage of organisations and sectors which are low on capacity and experience in the first place. While, in theory, a diverse funding environment may be a good thing, in practice, those who are experienced in negotiating this territory will continue to be more successful, leaving many smaller or less experienced organisations struggling.

Just looking at a small number of Government funding programmes will lead an outside observer to ask why there is such a confusing number and type of schemes. From the perspective of Government the answer is simple - there are many Government departments, each with a variety of policy and strategic objectives and each operating in its own way to engage with the Third Sector as appropriate. From the perspective of faith based organisations, and other Third Sector bodies, it appears to be a confusing and uncoordinated world. At the same time it is a very important world to the Third Sector and the faith communities, as funding is one of the main ways that policy is turned into practice.

There is clearly a need for a mixed funding environment but there is a danger that important organisations may fall between the cracks. These may be local organisations which are unaware of funding streams or lack the capacity to apply to them, but it may also be organisations whose principal function is strategic rather than service delivery. There are a small number of grants being made available at national level for organisations, including faith based organisations, but, as yet there is little funding for regional organisations which often provide a unique role - in touch directly with local 'front-line' groups, and able to take a strategic view on policy and delivery issues.

What Government and Faiths Can Do

In extending the public policy table to include faiths, government must clearly play an active role in helping to make that work. Faiths are generally very welcoming of the policy agenda that is unfolding in their direction and many recognise that there have been significant efforts to support them, for example through the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund, the Faith Communities Consultative Council and the Cohesion & Faiths Unit in CLG.

At the same time our discussions indicate that there are a number of important perceived unmet needs:

• There could be much understanding and openness between faith and non-faith partners, and this must be cascaded down to the local government level where it is currently largely unheard
• There needs to be better evidence and research which is nationally comparable as well as locally and regionally descriptive so that the added value of faiths, and the challenges and opportunities for engagement, can be communicated and addressed
• There needs to be a clear understanding of what faith networks and infrastructure already exist. Developing new structures risks creating parallel spaces which duplicate effort, dilute support and introduce competition where there has been partnership. This would result in the breakdown of trust and reciprocity in contexts where years of work have been done to build them up
• The wider VCS should make a stronger commitment to reaching and engaging faiths at local, regional and national levels, working in partnership with existing faith agencies rather than setting up their own new 'faith units' or equivalents
• There is also a significant need for intensive, face-to-face, medium to longer term, tailored support to build capacity, developing what has already been started under the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund
• Support is needed to help faiths engage in extended forms of governance, especially among minority faiths and smaller community projects which are stretched
• Faiths need to have time to reflect on practice in order to maintain the crucial relationship between their worshipping communities and the social action which arises from them. Meanings matter greatly to faiths and reflection upon them is the bedrock of their social action. This will support a continuing creative grassroots constituency of 'active citizens'

Our interviews and discussions with faith groups, and our review of the evidence and other sources, indicates that faiths have some strong views on what would help government and faiths to work together within an effective framework for interfaith dialogue and social action, in a range of areas:

Network & communicate

Opportunities for sharing information and learning should be resourced and embedded in neighbourhoods and supported by the regions. Regional infrastructure should be consolidated by national networking to ensure the dissemination of good practice.

Make available clear channels of communication up and down the policy/practice/research ladder which are sensitive to the lived experiences of faiths at community levels, for example through regular focus groups in local situations, perhaps facilitated by bodies such as the Faith Communities Consultative Council.

Ensure that organisations and agencies, whose policies and practices have a major impact on faith based social action, work together positively.

Promote effective working between faiths and VCS structures at all levels but especially the local.

Faiths themselves need to work to ensure effective relationships between worshipping communities, which are the bedrock, and the wider social activities in which they engage. They could do so using techniques such as 'congregational development'.

They also need to work to ensure that there is trust and confidence in leaders and representatives as they increasingly work in new public spaces.

Resource & support

Signal clear support for faiths at the public table at all levels of government, especially the local where it is largely unheard. Articulate clear rationale which emphasise respect for faiths as well as the value they can add.

Continue to provide resources for building capacity, distributed in partnership with local and regional partners.

Provide resources for maintaining effective and established infrastructure for faiths' engagement, in consultation with the regional faiths forums.

Promote opportunities for faiths to be represented and develop and resource training for skills to engage effectively (eg 'mutual concepts and values literacy' training, and training for participating in formal structures such as LSPs and other partnership bodies)

It should be recognised that there is a need for funding as well as for extending social enterprise approaches to faith based social action. Faiths often work with the hardest to reach and with approaches which will not attract self-sustainability.

In some cases, particularly amongst faiths which are newer to Britain, help is needed to build up infrastructure to ensure effective engagement.

Research & evidence

The building and maintenance of an evidence base on the added value of faiths is key to identifying what needs they are fitted to respond to and how to address them. It is also a key part of communicating added value to partners and funders.

A national dataset requires the development of a shared language for measurement and a process needs to be gone through with faiths to achieve this.

Faith based social enterprise activities should be mapped, their benefit audited and activities categorised in order to establish the potential for extending a social enterprise dimension to faith based social action, and for understanding its limits.

Contact theory has potential as a tool for understanding and promoting better interfaith relations and community cohesion. A programme of research would be required prior to an effective application of contact theory in this area.

Policy & processes

Building on broad support for the Faith Communities Consultative Council, work with it to identify an effective practical and grounded role

Work with and build up existing structures at national, regional, sub-regional and local levels Avoid introducing new ones which do not have the networks, trust, confidence and track records and which risk duplicating effort and introducing competition where there is currently effective partnership

Make support structures more faith friendly, for example through funding and monitoring criteria which reflect what is valuable to faiths as well as how faiths are valuable to wider society

Build the faith dimension into all new policies and initiatives to ensure that their contribution is part of the natural and established landscape of policy formation and implementation

But make efforts, working with faith communities, to refresh, renew and 'grow' the people who appear in that landscape to ensure that they reflect what is really happening at local level - the likelihood of hearing repeatedly from a small number of the same people is higher amongst some faiths where there is growing demand for 'voices' to be heard and a limited number of people available to respond. This compromises representativeness at the same time as 'burning out' key figures

Bibliography and Further Reading

Barnes, S. and Berkley, N. ((2007)
Church Urban Fund Impact Study
London CUF

Baker, C. and Skinner, H. (2006)
Faith in Action; the dynamic connection between spiritual and religious capital
Manchester: William Temple Foundation

Berkeley et al, (2006)
Faithful Representation: Faith representatives on local public partnerships
London: Church Urban Fund

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984)
Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on segregation
(pp. 281-302). in N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Commission on Integration and Cohesion. (2007)
Our Shared Future

Communities and Local Government
The Government's Response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion
(2008)

Dinham, A. (2006)
The Mustard Seed Effect
London: CUF

Dinham, A. (2007)
Faiths and Frontiers on the Starship Social Enterprise, boldly going as faith based entrepreneurs
London: Faith Based Regeneration Network UK

Dinham, A. (2007)
Priceless, Unmeasurable? Faiths and community development in 21st century England
London: Faith Based Regeneration Network UK

Faithworks (2005)
Building the capacity of London's faith groups
London: Faithworks

Field J. (2003)
Social Capital
London: Routledge

Finneron, D and Dinham, A. (2002)
Building on Faith: faith buildings in neighbourhood renewal
London: Church Urban Fund

Furbey, R. et al, (2006)
Faith as Social Capital: Connecting or Dividing?
Bristol: Policy Press and Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989)
Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization
in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239-249.

Greater London Enterprise & London Churches Group for Social Action (2002)
Regenerating London: Faith communities and social action

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986)
Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the 'contact hypothesis'
In M. Hewstone and R. Brown (Eds.). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

James M (2007)
Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: an evaluation report from the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund
London: CDF/CLG

Jochum, V. (ed.) (2007)
Faith and Voluntary Action: an overview of current evidence and debates
London: NCVO

Jones, P. (2007)
The Guildford Report: governance support needs of smaller and local faith based organisations
an unpublished report to the Governance Hub

Lowndes, V and Smith, G. (2006)
Faith Based Voluntary Action
ESRC in the Mapping the Public Policy Landscape series

Lowndes, V. and Chapman, R. (2005)
Faith, Hope and Clarity: Developing a model of faith group involvement in civil renewal
Leicester: Local Government Research Unit, De Montfort University

Regional Sources for Faith and Social Action

Booton.B & Hindley.A (2004)
Supporting Faith and Community Action in the East Midlands - feasibility study report
(December 2004)

Churches Together in Hastings and St Leonards, (2004)
Faith Action Audit

Derby Diocesan Council for Social Responsibility, (2006)
Faith in Derbyshire: Working towards a better Derbyshire; faith-based contribution

Diocese of Liverpool (2003)
Faithful to Knowsley's Communities

Diocese of Liverpool (2004)
Faithfully Serving Rural Communities - A Survey of the Contribution by Rural Churches in Greater Merseyside to their Communities

Diocese of Liverpool (2003)
Living Faiths in Sefton - Report & Recommendations on a mapping exercise of faith commuities in Sefton

East of England Faiths Council and the University of Cambridge (2005)
Faith in the East of England: a research study on the vital role played by faith communities in the social, economic and spiritual life of a region

Greater London Enterprise and London Churches Group (2002)
Neighbourhood Renewal in London: the Role of Faith Communities

Greater London Enterprise and London Churches Group (2002)
Regenerating London: Faith Communities and Social Action

Jackson.M & Kimberlee.R (2004)
Daily Service: How faith communities contribute to neighbourhood renewal and regeneration in the South West of England
University of the West of England

Northwest Forum of Faiths (2003)
Faith in England's Northwest: the contribution made by faith communities to civil society in the region

Patel.P (2006) Faith in Action in the South West - a survey of social and community action by faith groups in the SouthWest of England DCLG

Ravat.R (2004) Leicester Faiths Regeneration Project
Embracing the present, planning the future: social action by the faith communities of Leicester

Regional Action West Midlands (2006)
Believing in the Region: a baseline study of faith bodies across the West Midlands

SE England Faith Forum (2004) Beyond Belief? - Faith at work in the community

Smith. K, North East Churches Regional Commission (2002)
Faith in the North East: Social action by faith communities in the region

West Midlands Faiths Forum (2005)
Believing in the West Midlands: Report of the first conference of the West Midlands Faiths Forum

Yorkshire & the Humber Churches Regional Commission (2002)
Angels and Advocates: Church Social Action in Yorkshire and the Humber

Appendices