Parish news as Third Sector Capital names Co-Presidents while there is more news from NZ, Oregon and South Africa.
Third Sector Capital Partners Names Caroline Whistler & John Grossman Co-Presidents
Third Sector
Third Sector Capital Partners has named Caroline Whistler and John Grossman Co-Presidents. Ms. Whistler heads Third Sector’s San Francisco office and co-founded the nonprofit in 2011 along with CEO George Overholser. Mr. Grossman leads the Boston office and serves as General Counsel for the organization. Both individuals are recognized authorities in the emerging Pay for Success field, and are sought by governments, funders, and social service providers for their respective areas of expertise. Together, they will oversee all aspects of the 31-person organization.
Investors Await Detail Of NZ’s First Social Bond
BusinessDesk – Jonathan Underhill
Potential investors in the government’s first social impact bond say they are open to the concept but are awaiting details, including how returns are structured.
A pilot delivering employment services to people with mental health conditions is to be the first of four social bond programmes allocated $28.8 million in Budget 2015. Details of how the mental health social bond is to be structured and which organisation are involved has still to be decided by the cabinet.
Uncertainties Mar Appeal Of Social Bonds
New Zealand Herald
In Britain, much is expected of social impact bonds. Advocates claim they could revolutionise public finances and be a catalyst for innovation, all while delivering returns to investors. That potential has been enough for President Barack Obama to dip the United States’ toe in the water with pilot schemes of what are called pay for success bonds. Here, the Key Government has also sensed the whiff of possibility. Last month’s Budget allotted $28.8 million for what will be known as social bond programmes. The first will expand a trial that delivered job support in the mental health sector. A scheme focusing on either cutting prisoner reoffending rates or helping people manage long-term health conditions will follow.
The theory behind social bonds rests on the obvious incentive for targets to be reached. This, says Health Minister Jonathan Coleman, “will sharpen everyone’s minds”. The Government has already shown its fondness for just that approach in setting public service goals. It will see the bonds appealing to investors who are keen for their portfolios to do some good as well as return a profit.
The jury, however, is still out on how the theory translates in practice. So far, promising but inconclusive results have emerged from the first British programme, which aims to reduce recidivism at a prison in Peterborough. There have also been concerns about elements of the bonds. Key among these are the need to define outcomes clearly and correctly and price them appropriately. Defining the result might be relatively simple in a matter such as prisoner reoffending, but far more difficult to measure in other social service areas.
SIBs Mooted For Tshwane
Dominic Skelton – Times Live
The cash injection to accelerate the Stellenbosch-based non-profit organisation Project Isizwe was provided by Mergence Investment Managers. Their manager for infrastructure investments‚ Kasief Isaacs‚ said: “Mergence Investment Managers seeks to invest in projects that will make a social impact as well as provide a competitive return for our institutional clients”.
Pay For Prevention, Not Financiers And Middlemen
Chuck Sheketoff – BlueOregon
Preventing social problems before they arise is a smart thing to do. Certainly, taking steps that prevent child abuse and neglect is better for the kids, better for the state budget and better for all Oregonians.
While Oregon should certainly invest more in preventing the behaviors that lead to children being placed in foster care, lawmakers should reject a proposal that goes by the name of Pay for Prevention.
This proposed $5 million pilot program has a worthy goal: keep kids safe in their own families and save the state money that otherwise would be spent on foster care, health care, the criminal justice system and other public services. Its financing mechanism, however, is flawed, unnecessarily involving financiers and giving these investors a cut of the taxpayer savings the prevention program yields.