Votre recherche

The UK government has called for a rehabilitation revolution in England and Wales and put its faith in market testing. It hopes this will lead to greater innovation, resulting in reductions in re-offending while also driving down costs. However, many of the most innovative developments in criminal justice over recent decades have come through social innovation. Examples include restorative justice and justice reinvestment. In this article we argue that while social innovation will respond to some extent to conventional economic policy levers such as market testing, de-regulation and the intelligent use of public sector purchasing power it is not simply an extension of the neo-liberal model into the social realm. Social innovation, based on solidarity and reciprocity, is an alternative to the logic of the neo-liberal paradigm. In policy terms, the promotion of social innovation will need to take account of the interplay between government policy, social and cultural norms and individual and social capacity. Current proposals for reforming the criminal justice system may not leave sufficient scope to develop the conditions for effective social innovation.

Offender mental health is a major societal challenge. Improved collaboration between mental health and criminal justice services is required to address this challenge. This article explores social innovation as a conceptual framework with which to view these collaborations and develop theoretically informed strategies to optimize interorganizational working. Two key innovation frameworks are applied to the offender mental health field and practice illustrations provided of where new innovations in collaboration, and specifically co-creation between the mental health system and criminal justice system, take place. The article recommends the development of a competency framework for leaders and front line staff in the mental health system and criminal justice systems to raise awareness and skills in the innovation process, especially through co-creation across organizational boundaries.

This paper describes how the Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) model was successfully used to reduce male violence against women in an intimate relationship. The women in the study who worked with advocates (the key feature of the program) were significantly less likely to be abused again compared to their counterparts in the control condition. They also reported a higher quality of life and fewer difficulties in obtaining community resources even 2 years after the short-term intervention. The advocacy provided consisted of five phases: assessment, implementation, monitoring, secondary implementation, and termination. Assessment collected important information on the client's needs and goals. This involved asking the women what they needed and by observing women's circumstances. In response to each unmet need identified, the advocate worked with the woman to access appropriate community resources. This was the implementation phase. The third phase involved monitoring the effectiveness of the intervention. The advocate and client assessed whether the resource had been obtained and whether it met the identified need. If it was not effective, advocates and clients initiated a secondary implementation to meet the client's needs more effectively. Termination of the intervention consisted of three components. First, advocates emphasized termination dates from the beginning of the intervention in order to prevent termination from surprising the client. Second, beginning about week seven of the 10-week intervention, advocates intensified their efforts to transfer the skills and knowledge the women had acquired throughout the course. Third, advocates left families with written “termination packets,” which contained lists of community resources, helpful tips for obtaining difficult-to-access resources, and useful telephone numbers. A total of 143 women participated in the experimental condition, and women in the control group were not contacted again until their next interview; they received services-as-usual. 30 references

We conjecture that adoption of agricultural biotech innovation imposes relationship-specific investments that exacerbate hold-up costs between biotech producers and farmers. Moreover, the increasing presence of biotech reduces biodiversity, which is a significant negative externality on food production across farms. As such, increasing biotech has the potential to exacerbate food insecurity. By contrast, certified organic operations have the potential to have the opposite effect. We examine 15 agrarian states in the U.S. and find evidence strongly consistent with these propositions. We discuss implications for policy, practice, and future research.

The idea of social innovation has become increasingly popular in recent years, and as often happens with popular concepts it risks become overloaded. This happens, for instance, when social innovation is seen as the “soft” and humanistic alternative to versions of innovation dominated by science and technology. There has been a fast growing literature on social innovation, some of it in academic publications but perhaps most of it published by think tanks, semigovernmental agencies, and other organizations. Many different institutional fields for social innovation are discussed in the literature (Moulaert et al. 2013). Education is one of them, but much less frequently treated than fields like housing, intercultural relations, environmental issues, and childcare.

Corporate social innovation is also called sustainable innovation. Corporate social innovation is about creating a good business by having sustainability as a focal point when the corporation develops a new product or service. This entails developing products or services which may relieve some of the world’s problems, such as disease, contaminated water, CO2 emission, hunger, or the lack of education. CSI is also referred to as CSR innovation. CSI is useful for businesses which work with innovation and/or CSR (corporate social responsibility).

Social innovation is not well understood within the context of macro-social work. Frameworks for understanding social innovation as having dimensions of social entrepreneurship, social intrapreneurship, and social advocacy are elaborated. Challenges to the comprehensive understanding and utility of social innovation for macro social work are discussed, especially an overemphasis on social entrepreneurship as the only typical expression of social innovation as well as a mistargeted, deficit-based approach which assumes that contemporary social work is dysfunctional and can only be made functional through social innovation and entrepreneurship. Global and multidisciplinary insights and applications of social innovation for macro social work are reviewed. Finally, how the macro-social work approach to social innovation builds on and advances business approaches to social innovation is discussed.

Social business is a new kind of business model, which integrates multiple dimensions and meanings, including management experiences from private, public, and nonprofit organizations. Social business has a goal of solving social problems through entrepreneurship, combining efficiency, innovation, and resources from a traditional enterprise with mission and values of a nonprofit organization

Social innovation refers to the processes and outcomes that develop a novel approach to addressing a social problem or need. Compared to commercial innovation, it poses some distinctive challenges, particularly with regard to the incentives to invest in it, assessment of performance, and diffusion of effective innovations. Scholars began paying attention to this phenomenon in the late twentieth century, but many open research questions remain. The term ‘social innovation’ has had two meanings in the academic literature. In its earliest scholarly uses, primarily in sociology, it was used to refer to the creation of new patterns of human interaction, new social structures, or new social relations. The second focuses on innovations designed to address a social or environmental issue or to meet a specific social market failure or need. Often, both types of innovation are combined to establish new patterns of social relations that have positive social outcomes.

Définition. "The attention paid to social innovation and the resources involved in the promotion, research, and implementation of social innovation increased, most remarkably after 2008, when the concept became the subject of mainstream policies in high places."

Social entrepreneurship is one of the most notable innovations in the global era. By challenging the conventions of established social and environmental organizations and building new models of cooperation and exchange between the public, private, and civil society sectors, social entrepreneurship aims to provide systemic and scalable solutions to some of the most pressing threats and urgent issues that currently impact billions of people around the world. It is concerned with the effects of climate change and environmental degradation, new health pandemics, water and energy crises, growing migration, seemingly intractable issues of inequality and endemic poverty, the rise of terrorism and nuclear instability, and the “challenge of affluence” in many developed countries. The impact and influence of social entrepreneurship can be identified across the world in terms of direct interventions and action on the ground and also in terms of its wider, political influence as a movement for societal change that aims to reframe debates and alter institutional logics to increase the effectiveness of the provision of public goods and grow the positive externalities of social and environmental action. This entry defines social entrepreneurship as a global-level phenomenon and locates it as a new set of logics and institutions that aim to achieve systemic change and address market failures across the public, private, and civil society spheres.