Alex Thomas and Teodor Grama: The Civil Service fast stream’s class problem is real – but scrapping it is not the answer

Alex Thomas is a Programme Director at the Institute for Government. Teodor Grama is a Research Assistant at the Institute for Government.

The fast stream is the civil service graduate programme, taking on around 1,000 people a year to do a mix of policy, diplomatic, scientific and other specialist jobs, but the government is reportedly toying with “replacing the fast-stream intake with a social mobility scheme”. The number of vacancies has doubled in recent years but the scheme remains highly competitive; only somewhere between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of applicants are successful. Briefing that ministers are thinking about scrapping the scheme is one piece in the patchwork of public service reforms that the Prime Minister has been talking up in his attempt to ‘rewire the state’.

We will come to the wisdom of replacing the scheme shortly, but social mobility is a real issue. The civil service in general – and the fast stream in particular – has a class problem. Data from the Civil Service People Survey suggests that about half of all civil servants come from higher socio-economic backgrounds. In the senior civil service that figure is over two thirds.

The success rate for fast stream applicants from higher socio-economic backgrounds was double that of applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds in the most recent application cycle. There is also a big gap between those who attended elite educational institutions and those who did not: the success rate for Oxbridge-educated applicants last year was 7.2 per cent, while that for non-Russell group-educated applicants was 1.1 per cent. The civil service has made major strides in ensuring its workforce is more reflective of the country on many counts, but class remains the clear outlier.

The data reflects the personal stories of fast streamers. As part of a current Institute for Government research project on the fast stream, we fielded a survey to understand what current, former and potential fast streamers made of the scheme. It was notable how many of our respondents from less privileged backgrounds felt the fast stream was not for them. One applicant told us: “I stand no chance as someone from a working class background from a state school. Fast streamers are from Oxbridge, middle to upper class backgrounds, who are trained to pass fast stream assessments”. They were not alone.

So it is tempting to scrap the scheme and start again, but that would be a bad mistake. The fast stream brand is hugely powerful – and, to our survey respondents, largely synonymous with meaningful work and public service. The brand succeeds in attracting substantial numbers of talented applicants every year despite (relatively) low pay prospects.

Successive reforms to the scheme have also changed it for the better. The quality of management on the scheme is improving and is rated more highly by current fast streamers than by ex-fast streamers. The fast stream’s learning and development opportunities are welcomed by those currently on the scheme, as well as by applicants. The weight of the scheme’s history and its incremental development has led to blind spots, but an attempt to start from scratch is likely to create many more.

Sir Keir Starmer and head of the civil service Chris Wormald should however take the fast stream’s shortcomings seriously. The fast stream application process needs changing. It is too long. An applicant from a lower socio-economic background told us that their biggest reservation when applying to the fast stream was about “failing towards the end of the process” because “it is incredibly long and I didn’t want to turn down other jobs in the process to not be offered a place”.

The substance of the process would benefit from a rethink too. Another respondent from a working-class background told us that they found their skillset in “analysis and policy advice has not proven particularly useful in the assessment centres wherein the tasks require applicants to essentially dominate group conversations”. Creating an application process with more compressed timescales, sharply focused on testing the skills fast streamers need on the job is important.

Location is another thing for fast stream reformers to think about. Current and former fast streamers and applicants alike told us that they were nervous when applying about the prospect of being posted to a far-away location. Many expressed particular reservations about the fast stream still being too London-centric. Location-specific tracks within the fast stream could be a way forward – and might help strengthen success stories of civil service relocation like the Darlington Economic Campus.

The fast stream is far from perfect. But our research shows that people’s experiences before, during and after they participate in the scheme are complex, and that there are many things it does well. Rather than scrapping it, some creative thinking about fast stream reform – working with those with experience of the scheme – is needed for the fast stream and the civil service to look more like the country they serve.