Reading the Charity Times article on social investment models (Charity Times p 42 et seq, Vol 9 issue 5) reminds me of this tale.
As the author (David Adams) reports “this is not some short-term sticking plaster”. But it is even that?
The article helpfully indicates that social investment is a loan or investment – so is capital funding and not revenue – and it is money that is loaned to you – and so has to be paid back somehow – from incoming revenue perhaps or as grants and other funding is received. And everyone is silent about interest or returns.
So it is not revenue funding – and what do we all need? !!
Of course that is not quite true – we do need capital funding sometimes – not the least to try and earn some income.
The Quaker Housing Trust (www.qht.org.uk) has been making grants and loans for 30 years, to promote social housing development. QHT helps to get schemes off the ground with a mixture of grant (for the “at risk” elements e.g. planning permission), soft loan (loan at below market rate) and hard loan (market rent) with the so-called covenant (requirement to pay back) met by rent – so income earnt.
So important question one is will this new social investment provide “soft” money. If it will not it will be commercial, not “social”. And you can always get commercial money providing you are prepared to put the shirt on your back into hock and can meeting the repayment schedule – even in today’s financial climate.
As with the notion of social enterprise (not defined anywhere) social investment could be useful if a “rebadging” of a pre-existing set of options draws in more investors to join e.g. those already investing in the Quaker Social housing account which lends at “soft” rates through QHT.
And that is my second question is there new “social” money?
Because if there is not, the emperor has no clothes
