Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Social Impact Bonds_ Lessons From the Field _ Stanford Social Innovation Review

Social Impact Bonds_ Lessons From the Field _ Stanford Social Innovation Review

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Housing1stSavh

More info:

Published by: Housing1stSavh on Nov 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





10/31/12 12:33 PMSocial Impact Bonds: Lessons from the Field | Stanford Social Innovation ReviewPage 1 of 3http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/social_impact_bonds_lessons_from_the_field
SocialImpact Bonds: Lessons from the Field
In piloting social impact bonds, governments have already yielded some lessons from the field.
ByMichael Belinsky| 7 | Jan. 23, 2012
 year after the British Ministry of Justice pilotedsocial impact bondsto reduce the 60 percentrecidivism rate for the 3,000 criminal offenders who passed through the doors of a private prison inPeterborough, UK, the innovative funding mechanism captured the imagination of many socialentrepreneurs. These bonds, also known as pay-for-success contracts, promise to transform the relationshipbetween governments, nonprofits, and funders. “Social impact bonds” became one of thetop ten buzzwordsof 2011. And local governments in England, Australia, Canada, andthe US have started exploring these contracts. As state governments at home and abroad prepare to pilot these bonds next year,the processes have already yielded some lessons from the field. The first lesson is that pay-for-success contacts may ultimately encompass several ways of engaging purefor-profit investors, impact investors, and foundations in producing social returns. Steve Rothschild, an Ashoka Fellow and CEO of Twin Cities RISE! has had some success in Minnesota with one form of pay-for-success contract, which he calls human capital performance bonds. In this mechanism, a state raisesfunds by issuing general obligation bonds, directs those funds to nonprofits that have generated positivesocial outcomes and created government savings, and uses cash unlocked by those savings to repay thebondholders. Because the full faith and credit of the state backs these bonds—and no state since World W ar I has defaulted on its bond obligations—these bonds will allow social entrepreneurs to access capitalmarkets. The$10 million designated toward human capital perf ormance bondsin Governor Mark  Da yton’s July 2011 budget made Minnesota the first—and so farthe only—state to pass legislation on pay-for-success contracts.Social Finance, Inc., in Massachusetts is exploring a different approach to engage capital markets. Like itssister organization in the UK, Social Finance might front working capital, raised from investors with arange of risk-return appetites, to nonprofits in return for a government promise to pay when thosenonprofits achieve predetermined outcomes. Unlike the UK operation, which attracted only philanthropic
10/31/12 12:33 PMSocial Impact Bonds: Lessons from the Field | Stanford Social Innovation ReviewPage 2 of 3http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/social_impact_bonds_lessons_from_the_field
investment for its Peterborough bond, Social Finance here might slice the expected revenue stream intotranches, offer the lower-risk tranches to foundations, and pitch the premium tranche to investors with thehighest appetite for return. (This idea might also work for UK’s second social impact bond, which plans totarget troubled families.) The New South Wales (NSW) Government in Australia, which plans to enter into a social impact bondin late 2012 to address either recidivism or foster care, is exploring attracting for-profit investors by offering to share some of the bond’s downside risk—essentially buying the lowest tranche of its own bond. The second lesson is that the very process of implementing social impact bonds yields valuable returns forthe government that engages in it. Governments that start thinking about how much return taxpayer dollarsgenerate in one area may take that thinking to its other investments. The process of paying a serviceprovider based on outcomes pushes the government to introduce data monitoring and evaluation systemsabove and beyond the ones it may be using today. Monitoring systems that it needs to set up to track leading indicators, as well as final outcomes, may then be used to track outcomes for populations notengaged through the pay-for-performance contract. And evaluation systems that rigorously compareoutcomes to counterfactual scenarios help push the conversation around performance measurement. The social impact bond is ultimately a learning tool for a society that is still discovering best practices. If governments already knew the most efficient uses of taxpayer money, they would not need to ask the serviceprovider to find the best solution, as pay-for-success contracts do. And if service providers delivered knownor similar outcomes, then delaying payment until we observe performance would be an unnecessary burden. Therefore, perhaps the largest lesson, and greatest success, of this young innovation has been its ability toanchor the conversation of governments, social entrepreneurs, and impact investors around measurement,metrics, and outcomes. Nick Hurd, Britain’s Minister for Civil Society,recently lamentedthe “massiveculture of risk aversion in the public sector,” that his use of social impact bonds has revealed. Impactinvestors across the board are starting to hold their investments to more rigorous standards of social returns.And as governments innovate, they are rewriting the social contact with their citizens and businesses, as Westminsterhas donethis month. The next half-dozen pay-for-success contracts that come online in 2012-13 will expand the number osocial services, types of investor, and bond structures that will, in turn, increase the size and complexity of the nascent social impact bond market. And, as that market evolves, we will come closer to thattransformational promise of a new social contract in which taxpayers, entrepreneurs, and governments holdeach other accountable for performance and impact.Update: On January 18,the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a series of requests for proposalsto

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->