PLY: The 4 P’s of Policy continue from Living Cities with a look at Policy while Emma Tomkinson in Sydney discusses looking at what if there wasn’t a SIB for that problem. Then there is a mirror image of the same thing – the glass which can be topped up discussed in terms which will make the reactionary weep, and we round off with a roundly blinkered view which precisely demonstrates the ‘the poor are better off poor” argument which now passes for the left wing which sees constant struggle and penury as opposed to a potential for a better world. Interesting reading in every one – including the angle taken by the foes of SIB progress.
Developing A Counterfactual For A SIB
Emma Tomkinson
The following was taken from a presentation by Sally Cowling, Director of Research, Innovation and Advocacy for UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families. The presentation was to the Social Impact Measurement Network of Australia (SIMNA) New South Wales chapter on March 11 2015. Sally was discussing the measurement aspects of the Newpin Social Benefit Bond, which is referred to as a social impact bond in this article for an international audience.
The social impact bond (called Social Benefit Bond in New South Wales) was something very new for us.
The Newpin (New Parent and Infant Network) program had been running for a decade supported by our own investment funding, and our staff were deeply committed to it. When our late CEO, Jane Woodruff, appointed me to our SIB team she said my role was to ’make sure this fancy financial thing doesn’t bugger Newpin up’.
One of the important steps in developing a social impact bond is to develop a counterfactual. This estimates what would have happened to the families and children involved in Newpin without the program, the ‘business as usual’ scenario. This was the hardest part of the SIB. The Newpin program works with families to become strong enough for their children to be restored to them from care. But the administrative data didn’t enable us to compare groups of potential Newpin families based on risk profiles to determine a probability of restoration to their families for children in care. We needed to do this to estimate the difference the program could make for families, and to assess the extent to which Newpin would realise government savings.
4 Ps Of Pay For Success: Policy
Ellen Ward – Living Cities
To get comfortable investing in a Pay for Success project, it’s important to be confident that the government will be an engaged, long-term partner; committed to both launching and funding the project.
In our last few posts, we explored how, Pay for Success (PFS), an innovative model that drives new resources toward better, more effective programs, requires that project investors consider the “4Ps”—Partnerships, Program, Policy and Process—to evaluate the likelihood that the project will succeed in meeting the social impact targets and, in turn, payback investors. Today, we’ll examine “Policy.”
See previous posts here, here and here.
Good Reasons To Overcome Ideological Resistance To Private Infrastructure
Jamal Simmons (Principal at the Raben Group, and a former communications aide on several presidential campaigns) – NY Times
Liberal Democrats traditionally cast a wary eye at big bankers and big business, but in an era of tight budgets and resistance to raising taxes, private sector investment might be the best option left to fix America’s infrastructure. Recently the White House brought together local government leaders and representatives from private equity and sovereign wealth funds to entice private investment in roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects.
Governments are being forced to be more creative. Textbook public sector investments call for citizens to pay for new projects with more tax dollars to repay bonds. These days raising taxes is tough political potion that doesn’t go down easily, while repaying investors from higher user fees or tolls on highways is a lighter lift.
This creative spirit is being unleashed on social policy as well. A few governments like New York City and Massachusetts are pursuing social impact bonds to get private money to pay the upfront costs for a social program — like one that would stem recidivism. Nonprofits run the programs on behalf of the investors and if they are successful, the private investors are paid back their initial investment plus a percentage of the cost savings.
The Wrong Impact
Chery Stadnichuk – Leader Post
On April 1, the Saskatchewan government announced that June Draude was appointed the legislative secretary responsible for expanding social impact bonds (SIB) (reported here). I only wish this had been an April Fool’s Day joke.
Unfortunately, the Wall government has decided to develop a casino approach to social programs. Instead of simply funding worthy social projects, the government will hand the financing over to private investors who will get paid back in full and with interest at the end of the project. The two investors in the first SIB in Saskatoon are set to earn five-per-cent interest on their investment – that’s better than any rates the banks are offering.