MOJ Seeks to Tap into Social Enterprise

In a recently released Green Paper it set out a vision for integrating work, punishment and rehabilitation into the prison system. It is, without doubt, a worthy aim and not before time. An exploding prison population at considerable cost to the UK tax payer means an alternative solution is definitely required. The question is: can social enterprise deliver?

Last week the MoJ consulted a small group of social enterprises involved in this space on the Green Paper. Chatham House rules make it difficult to reveal too much of what was said, but the event raised some interesting questions.

First, it is refreshing to see the government looking to engage with the sector in this way. At ClearlySo we’ve seen some of the great work taking place. In the past we’ve blogged about the outstanding Inside Job Productions. Meanwhile, London based Foundation 4 Life attracted considerable interest at our most recent Social Investment Pitching Event. These are exactly the kind of organisations the government hopes can take drive their strategy forward. However, a number of obstacles remain. Here are just a few:

1. How will social enterprises work with the government? Organisations cite resistance from prison authorities fearful of extra work or responsibility. A great deal depends on the attitude of individual governors. Finding a way to help organisations replicate operations across multiple institutions will be crucial.

2. Can we secure private sector investment? The Social Impact bond is the shining light of this sector. However all capital so far invested has been philanthropic. It will not realise investment from the private sector until it can demonstrate tangible results. That, given the long term nature of the project, will take some time. Interest in social investment is rising, which suggests there is potential for greater amounts of private capital. However, unlocking this remains a challenge.

3. Prison culture: With average working hours in prisons at around 25 hours it is difficult to engage inmates in meaningful projects. One of the aims of the MOJ is to acclimatise prisoners to a regular working week. Achieving this entails a radical restructuring of daily life inside prisons.

4. Can we handle the media? Press reaction is difficult to judge. The easiest stance for any editor to adopt is that ‘prison is for punishment’. Efforts at rehabilitation are often seen as a waste of tax payers’ money or a sign of ‘going soft’. Both the government and the sector need to be brave and argue their case. There is an appetite for good news stories in the mainstream press. If handled correctly it is possible for social enterprises working in the prison sector to get their messages across.

In this final respect the government is proving helpful. Its activities have helped raise the profile of social enterprise and shine a spotlight on how it can become involved in public service provision. One might argue past failures have even helped, demonstrating with remarkable clarity the failure of traditional approaches.

One thing, though, is clear. If the government is to tailor its approach effectively it will need all the input from the social enterprise sector it can get. One often wonders how the organisers of events such as these make contact with invitees. There is always the danger of control being confined to a particular ‘in’ club.
This would be a shame because, as any glance around our business directory would show, the sector is replete with excellent organisations working in this arena.

The onus, therefore, is on the sector to make itself heard. The pressure on government to yield results will inevitably foreshorten any consultation process. We have arrived at a window of opportunity in which the government is unusually receptive to outside ideas. The problem is: this may not last very long.

By Tom Cropper for Rodney Schwartz