The endorsement of Democrat Congressman John Delaney in “The Hill” (an influential publication for Washington insiders) is another welcome step forward for the SIB revolution. Moreover, the key factor is the apolitical nature of SIBs: they are not an instrument to be channeled by any one party over another but on a truly bipartisan basis to build a better nation.
Other articles more broadly on social impact today but one notes sensibly the problem of managing expectations especially amongst the NGO sector.
Interesting reading, have a good day whichever side of the polar vortex you are currently residing.
How SIBs Can Improve Public Services While Lowering Taxpayer Costs
Rep. John K. Delaney (D-Md.)- The Hill
Quietly, after bottoming out with a damaging and wholly unnecessary government shutdown last fall, Congress is starting to function again. Republicans and Democrats came together to avoid default earlier this month, we passed a bipartisan Farm Bill, and most importantly, agreed on a two-year budget framework. For the first time since 2010, we don’t have any looming crises on the calendar.
Early next month the White House will release their initial budget recommendations for 2015. I strongly encourage the White House to build on recent bipartisan momentum and include robust support for the Pay For Success (PFS) model, also known as Social Impact Bonds (SIB).
With stronger federal support for SIBs, we can save taxpayer dollars, ensure policy decisions are evidence-based and accountable, and achieve better outcomes for the public in important areas like education, health care, and social services.
PFS is already working in the states and has garnered praise from both Republican and Democratic governors, including Nikki Haley (R-S.C.), John Kasich (R-Ohio), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), and Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.). Often, policymakers are presented with a choice between cutting spending or implementing policies to improve public services. PFS marshals private sector expertise to do both.
Beware The Social Investment Buzz
John Gillespie – Third Sector
In the course of delivering workshops to voluntary organisations on various topics related to business development, the topic of social investment often comes up. When it does, I notice myself tightening a little, often wondering how the conversation will go, and preparing to feel a little apologetic about what I will go on to say. I expect some of this communicates itself to my audience.
It’s not that I feel unable to talk competently about social investment – as is more often the case when I find myself tightening at workshops. That would perhaps be easier! It’s more a sense that whatever I might say could easily end up contributing to the unrealistic expectations amongst voluntary organisations, particularly smaller ones, about the opportunity that social investment truly presents to them. This is particularly the case when it comes to some of the more pie-in-the-sky visions projected onto the social impact bond concept.
Despite all of the buzz about social investment, I can’t help believing that it is unlikely to present realistic financing options in the near future to many of the organisations I liaise with.
What’s Impact Investing? Good question.
Christen Graham – Bangor Daily News
I’ll bet you don’t know about Impact Investing. That’s ok. According to a recent poll conducted by the CFA Institute not even financial advisors are clear on what it is – only 14 percent said hey know. That jibes with the audience that attended the Impact Investing conference in Boston this fall, part of a continuing series put on by FA Magazine. The majority were there to learn the basics.
What is clear from both this poll and that event is that even before engaging in an Impact Investing 101 conversation, there needs to be a basic definition for what Impact Investing even means. While everyone agrees Impact Investing is meant to make a positive social impact, the ways to invest are varied.