Search

Jon Egging Trust (JET) believe that every young person should have access to the same quality of opportunities and leave school with the confidence, resilience, and self-belief to succeed and fulfil their potential. With this objective in view, JET offers long-term support to young people from vulnerable backgrounds who are likely to struggle to engage at school. JET delivers outreach programmes named Blue Skies (Level 1,2,3) and Inspirational Outreach (bespoke impact days) to young people to raise their aspirations and empower them. The programmes are delivered with a range of partners, including the RAF (Scampton, Odiham, Wittering, Waddington, Brize, Coningsby, Marham, Valley, Honington, and Cranwell), NATs, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Microsoft, QinetiQ, Boeing, Rolls Royce, and Ascent(see Appendix E for a full list of partners). JET’s provision is unique nationally in the breadth and scope of its work which complements the school curriculum. Indeed, the research team is not aware of another third sector organisation that provides such in-depth support within schools at the secondary education level; this means that JET has a Unique Selling Point through its work to support young people. The evaluation of JET’s Youth Programme has been undertaken by the Institute for Social Innovation and Impact (ISII) at the University of Northampton. This report presents the full evaluation of the JET Youth Programme and includes a literature review; methods; data collection and analysis; limitations; and recommendations sections. The data showcases data collected between April 2021 and January 2022, including qualitative data (semi-structured interviews, and the implementation of Photostories), and quantitative data (the ISII questionnaire and data from JET). Overall, the ISII’s evaluation indicates that JET activities provide students with the feeling of being confident and empowered. Participating in initiatives such as those delivered by JET contributes to young people’s self-esteem and empowerment, as the initiatives build young people’s confidence. It strengthens relationships with the people around them and their organisations and helps young people in their education and personal development.

Social enterprises address social and environmental problems by developing innovative solutions to improve communities, societies and the lives of individuals. The meaning of social enterprise is fluid, with Teasdale (2012:100) arguing that social enterprise is “politically, culturally, historically and geographically variable”. The British Council’s global social enterprise programme draws on the UK experience in social enterprise and the Council’s work across the world to promote its growth around the world. This research investigates the social enterprise landscape in Mexico, specifically to explore how Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) utilise their resources and expertise to develop social enterprise ecosystems. Thomson Reuters Foundation (2019) research on the “Best Country to be a Social Entrepreneur” ranked Mexico last (43rd), a drop of 15 places from its 2016 position of 28th overall . This drop was based on worsening conditions for accessing non-financial business support (a key area that HEIs can assist with), as well as deteriorating sales to the public. However, Mexico does perform well in the involvement of youth in social enterprise, ranking 9th in this area and illustrating how universities’ key resource (i.e. students) could be utilised to support growth. Thus, understanding the social enterprise ecosystem in Mexico, and the role of HEIs, creates an opportunity for promoting social entrepreneurship and social innovation in Mexico and improving the ecosystem opportunities in the country. This research seeks to analyse the status of integration between Mexican Higher Education Institutions and the wider social enterprise ecosystem, exploring current challenges and opportunities from the academic, institutional and system level perspective. The core objectives of the research are: •To update on the status of HEIs contributions to Social Enterprise initiatives in Mexico, as well as their participation on international and multinational collaborations. •To identify HE institutional / HE-system policy innovations designed to open spaces for Universities or Research Centres to integrate SE as a strategy to engage with non-HE communities. •To determine how HEIs are prioritizing financial, technical, physical, and human resources, as well as networks, knowledge, and expertise to consolidate their participation in SE related programmes and activities. •To analyse HEIs best practices on assessing the impact of SE activity, from the academic perspective (students, staff) and from the external community engagement perspective. •To identify relevant challenges for HEIs to actively participate in the promotion of social value, with a focus on SE from an institutional perspective.

Since 2008, the number of children and young people entering the youth justice system has reduced, as has the use of custody (YJB, 2018). Despite this decrease, the youth justice system exists in a wider context with austerity measures reducing available resources and provisions for children and young people (UK Children’s Commissioner, 2015), which in turn increases the requirements for effective and sustainable interventions that improve outcomes. Measuring the social impact of custody for children and young people is a nascent area academically, with current measurement approaches focused on output and outcome rather than social impact (Paterson-Young et al., 2017). This research employed a sequential mixed method approach that promoted the active participation of children and young people, as well as staff members in Secure Training Centres (STCs). Results supported the development of a social impact measurement framework to examine the outcomes and social impact of custody on children and young people, and illustrate that the current STC model lacks the multi-stakeholder approach that promotes stakeholder engagement, individual focused interventions, evidence based approaches and service redesign (Hazenberg, Seddon and Denny, 2014). Failure to develop such an approach limits the STCs’ ability to measure the social impact of services which, inevitably, reduces opportunities for developing effective and sustainable services. Before embedding the measurement framework developed from this research, the STCs require significant overhaul to ensure their purpose and direction are clear. Although significant overhaul is required before implementing the SIM framework, research findings contributed to the development of a rehabilitative environment model that identifies the measurement factors contributing to positive outcomes for children and young people.

Explicit attention on measuring social impact dates back to the 1970s; however, the fundamental ideas date back to the Renaissance era through notions of an ordered universe (Hornsby, 2012). The historical foundations of SIM have been revisited over the past decade, with UK governments focusing on establishing effective measurement practices (Hornsby, 2012). Definitions for social impact and social value contain subtle differences, with the definitions offered by Vanclay (2003) and Clifford et al. (2014) covering intended/unintended positive/negative consequences. For example, the potential to prevent harm relies on robust measurement in order to identify the negative consequences of interventions. Combining these definitions allows for identification of adjustments for alternative attribution, deadweight and drop-off (Hazenberg & Clifford, 2016). This edited book seeks to explore the history of social impact measurement, social impact measurement approaches, and offer justifications for the use of social impact measurement in modern society. Furthermore, the book seeks to uncover the tensions inherent in social impact measurement, especially between creating and measuring social value creation. As the world becomes ever more globalised in its focus to deliver sustainable solutions to social and environmental problems, frameworks such as the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide potential frameworks through which to assess and compare impact globally. Nevertheless, constructive critiques of such approaches are required to ensure that they do not misinform stakeholders, disenfranchise the disadvantaged and exacerbate existing social problems. In providing this overview, the book seeks to offer a theoretically critical review of the social impact measurement field centred on Weberian concepts of ‘empowerment’ and ‘social action’ (Weber, 1978), whilst also demonstrating best practice and potential pitfalls to policy-makers and practitioners globally. Each chapter will therefore explore a different facet of SIM, with special reference to the SDGs relevant to the chapter area and the global implications for better understanding social impact measurement. All chapters will make reference to ‘SDG17: Partnerships for the Goals’, as this is the key SDG underpinning the other 16 SDGs within the UN’s framework. In doing so, the book aims to both critique existing theory, policy and practice around SIM, whilst also offering solutions to identified problems to help improve the SIM and sustainable development sectors. Each chapter will begin with a textbox overview of the key features of the arguments to be made, and end with a synopsis of how the criticisms of SIM made can best be overcome.

Social impact measurement has received increasing attention, with organisations under pressure to evidence outcomes and impact of activities (specifically, activities aligned with SDGs). Obtaining evidence requires interaction with beneficiaries and stakeholders to understand the impact of activities on their lives, as well as information gathered from big data. This chapter will identify how the processes for collecting data (to measure social impact) can result in ethical violations that directly impact individuals and society. It will explore the decision processes in obtaining data which is essential in promoting research that is underpinned by strong ethical principles. The chapter will end with the provision of an ethical framework for measuring social impact [Relevant SDGs: SDG16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; SDG17: Partnerships for the Goals].

This chapter will explore the development of social impact measurement, with a focus on how social value and social impact measurement has amplified, both within academia and within policy and practice. Whilst much of this growth has been in Europe, North America and Oceania, there is rapidly increasing government support in this area now in Asia, Africa and South America. This chapter will set the scene for the subsequent chapters, with their thematic focuses on measurement (specifically in the framing of measurement within the SDGs), finance, collaboration, power and ethics. It will finish with a section on the potential for development in the social impact measurement sector moving forwards, in a way that will set the scene for subsequent chapters. [Relevant SDGs: SDG17: Partnerships for the Goals].