James Timpson, former CEO of the high street cobbler and keycutter that bears his family name, was appointed this summer as the UK’s new minister for prisons, probation and reducing re-offending.
It was a surprise move that was generally applauded by politicians of all persuasions as well as prison reform advocates, criminal justice stakeholders and former prisoners themselves.
As a company, Timpson is renowned for its support and investment in the vulnerable and disadvantaged. Most notably, this is evident in its employment of ex-offenders.
It is reputed to be the largest employer of ex-prisoners in the UK with 10% of its workforce made up of staff with criminal convictions. James Timpson led this novel strategy in his former roles as the chair of the Employers Forum for Reducing Re-offending and the chair of the Prison Reform Trust.
But Timpson now has his work cut out, given the state of overcrowding in UK prisons, decline in the physical condition of the estate, and the lack of public finance to address these challenges in the short to medium term.
Read more: The UK's prisons aren't just overcrowded – they need to be better designed
This is an opportunity for him to combine his entrepreneurial leadership and his ministerial powers to bring about reform.
So, what can he do? There are many third-sector organisations that support ex-offenders to integrate or reintegrate into society through legitimate economic activity. Most of these focus on getting ex-offenders to becoming financially independent to reduce rates of recidivism, often by starting their own businesses as an alternative to difficult-to-get employment.
Yet good-quality entrepreneurial help is limited and fragmented. There are some great examples such as ReMAKE and RIFT Women into Self-Employment, which both support ex-prisoners into self-employment with great success rates. But these are few and far between.
So our first ask of Timpson is: can he enable the UK prison system to deliver effective entrepreneurship development that helps ex-offenders reintegrate into society and the economy?
Our research provides an illustration of what he might do. Funded by the Scottish Government, we set up a pilot entrepreneurs programme for women prisoners who were months away from release. This programme, delivered in a Scottish custodial unit for women, was organised and evaluated by us in cooperation with a third-sector organisation.
The initial findings were positive. Nearly all of the women:
– became part of a self-organising community, which built its own support groups, networks, and friendships
– felt increasingly empowered, hopeful and confident, directly attributing these feelings to participation in the programme
– learned new transferable skills and relearned how to make use of other skills
– recognised the possibility of starting their own business as a career option they had never explored.
On top of this, the women became focused on not losing the skills they had prior to their convictions (things like cooking, for example). They wanted to pass these on to their children, grandchildren and community.
When we followed up with the women after they were released, half had the intention of starting their own business.
Next steps
As we have shown, entrepreneurship development in prisons can shift the mindsets of prisoners as well as giving them the knowledge and skills to meet the demands of self-employment. After release, ex-prisoners need follow-up programmes to support them with practical skills and securing funding or grants.
Entrepreneurship programmes should not take place in a vacuum. Rather they should be seen as part of wider packages supporting ex-prisoners to find a place to live, understand benefits and manage their finances.
An entrepreneurship programme is not a quick fix, it is a longer-term strategy designed to integrate ex-prisoners into society and reduce re-offending. However, they can be scaled up quickly to reach many more prisoners seeking rehabilitation.
Like all ministers, Timpson will be challenged to justify his spending. Given the prevention aim, we suggest the most obvious rationale is that the immediate beneficiaries pay. This includes the criminal justice system itself shifting more of its resources into prevention rather than increasing the prison estate. The Dutch system of keeping offenders at home illustrates this point well.
And government departments should contribute additional resources, given the potential economic benefits to society.
One thing is certain, Timpson is going to meet stiff opposition from vested interests and institutionalised ideas about offenders. But the strategy of imprisoning more offenders without rehabilitation has not worked thus far and is not likely to work in future either.
Timpson is a man who knows about business. He says the way to make money is to have people in the business who are “happy, motivated and treated as an equal”. This echoes what we found in our programme, when many of the women spoke about not feeling judged. Every one of them told us that they felt empowered, confident and with a renewed sense of hope about their release.
The real test of Timpson’s impact will be whether he can take the lessons learned from his groundbreaking workplace initiatives and embed them into the criminal justice system.
