Social policy kitemark proposed2

Governance | Adam Martin | 12 Jan 2012

Cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood has proposed a kitemark to vouch for the effectiveness of social policy schemes.

The proposal centres on the formation of an independent arbiter that could encourage third party investors to back proven social enterprise schemes such as rehabilitating prisoners or drug addicts. Potential private investors would be advised of quality thresholds which would enable them to back effective schemes.

The introduction of such standards would also lead to social enterprise schemes improving efficiency as they sought out private funding. This new organisation would be the social policy equivalent of drugs advisory board Nice.

The scheme was devised by Heywood alongside Sir Bob Kerslake, head of the civil service. The pair are looking at various ways of combining the needs of the public sector with private sector money.

Social Enterprise UK chief executive Peter Holbrook welcomed the concept: “Potential investors need to be able to easily identify organisations that have developed a successful model and are investment-ready.”

A timescale for the new body’s introduction is still to be put into place. A spokesman for the Cabinet Office said the scheme was still at an “embryonic stage”.

Who's Who: Peter Holbrook

Place a comment

Keith
Development Manager
Airedale Computer Recycling
13 Jan 2012

The only people achieving these sort of kitemarks are those social enterprises willing to divert funds from doing their social enterprise work, to pay for some accreditation scheme to tell them how good they are at it. Does this not fly in the face of what is Social Enterprise? Not for me, sorry.

[Reply]

Mike Storey
md
informnorth
12 Jan 2012

Another bloomin' kitemark or accreditation scheme aye? Is that all we can muster at a time when we need real solutions? Okay, maybe a kitemark of some form might be welcomed in general, but larger organisations almost gain accreditation just by paying a registration fee irrespective of the quality of their offerings or values and smaller social enterprises often have neither the staff nor resources to compete, even if they are doing a better job with little or no funding in comparison.
I bet Charity Business had accreditation and validation by the bucket load and look what's just happened to them, never mind the pity and help their clients deserve after being thrown in to the lurch.
Perhaps the revenues raised from a kite mark scheme could pay in to some sort of emergency rescue pot of funding that could have the infrastructure in place to step in and help alleviate some of the heartache and problems that occur when this sort of things happens but given where we are, the pot would have to be quite some size to work?

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.