The big society requires some sort of investment

Back in October, I estimated that a mere £40m a year would enable us to do the same for all children in our care as we do for our own children — provide extra help when it is needed. And I proposed that this sum was a mere one-tenth of a percent of bankers' bonuses and that they could contribute this without even noticing. Well, the net effect of months of lobbying has been... nothing. While many ordinary people give a great deal to charity, there is a real suspicion that the wealthiest do not do their bit.

So one of the legs of the big society — philanthropy — looks decidedly wobbly. The second leg, volunteering, is also under threat, as the infrastructure is being dismantled. And where there is corporate volunteering, we often see a willingness to arrange photogenic special projects, rather than the day-to-day grind of working with young people.

That leaves social investment. As I understand it, investors will be invited to put money into initiatives that will result in later savings. The theory is that the savings will be greater than the investment, so the investors will make a profit. Let's ignore the red rag of profit, and focus on the savings.

If we invest to improve the educational outcomes of children in care, who will make the investment, and where might the savings come from? The activity is carried out by local authorities or charities, so they will need the cash. But the future savings — and they are real — are not in local authority budgets but in reduced costs to the health service, the justice system, and the benefits system. The notion, say, of funders agreeing a contract with the prison service — where their investment in looked-after children's education leads to outcomes that reduce offending and save on costs in the justice system — seems fanciful. But perhaps it can be made to work. Let's hope so.

John Freeman, chief executive of the National Children's Bureau

Read his blog at cypnow.co.uk/freemansthinking.