A “Reset” of Russian-Jewish Relations?

A “Reset” of Russian-Jewish Relations?

By Michael Belinsky

November 2012

When I was ten years old and our Jewish family still lived in St. Petersburg, my father took me to the State Hermitage, then the world’s largest museum. I marveled at its vast collection – and, through it – at Russia’s awesome grandeur. It was the year when my father took me to cultural and historical landmarks throughout the city and supplemented their narratives with stories of Jewish contribution to Russian society. It was the year our family left Russia for America.

Last week, a very different Russia opened a very different museum, one dedicated to the history of the Jewish people in Russia. This $50 million project, the Jewish Museum and Center for Tolerance in Moscow, is the largest museum of Jewish history in Europe and the first such museum in Russia. In a symbolic gesture, President Putin contributed a month of his salary to the museum; Israeli President Shimon Peres attended the opening.

Museums are a complex construct. Built in the present, they offer perspectives on the past with a view toward the future. And so, too, Russian society, in a rare moment of increased tolerance, has decided to revisit the past with the goal of resetting the Russian-Jewish relations for the future.

Yet the museum confronts a difficult task. It speaks today to different Jews than the ones who left Russia years ago. Diaspora Jews carry a heavy burden of their parents’ and grandparents’ stories of pervasive Soviet and Russian anti-Semitism. To many of them, Russia is not the country that liberated the Jewish race from the genocidal clutches of Nazi concentration camps. Rather, Russia appears as the country that mistreated its Jewry, reluctantly and slowly opened its borders after the Soviet Empire collapsed, and has consistently picked the wrong geopolitical friends.

From America, Jews read of Russia imperial ambition in the sandbox of the post-Soviet space. Russian newfound tolerance seems at odds with a government that turns off Ukraine’s heat in the winter as a foreign policy tool. Republican-leaning Jews see an American political culture in which the right labels Russia America’s “number one geopolitical foe,” while Democrat-leaning Jews see an America frustrated at each attempt to collaborate with a Russian president who ignores the “reset” and exits the Nunn-Lugar treaty that was designed to safeguard nuclear weapons.

So will Russia succeed in resetting Russian-Jewish relations? This may depend on at least two factors. The first is the extent to which Russia’s political establishment will allow Russian society an honest look at the history of Jews in Russia. In doing so it will face a tension between its ingrained desire to control the historical narrative and the new backlash that such control inevitably generates (even in Russia’s illiberal democracy). So far, control and revision have prevailed. Putin has slowly closed state archives and opened a political propaganda machine that tells Putin’s Russian History through state mouthpieces such as the Commission to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia’s Interests. The Soviet Empire was a masterful political historiographer, erasing faces from photographs and rewriting classroom history books in a flash. My parents are still learning the truth about the country from which they left.

The second may be Russia’s ability to pursue policies that align with Jewish interests. According to the exit polls in the U.S., 69 percent of American Jews, or 3.6 million, voted to re-elect President Obama, with whom Putin has chilly relations. In the Middle East, Russia continues to support regimes that threaten Israel. And in Russia, although tolerance is at an all time high, 8 percent of people polled by the Levada Center prefer that Jews are barred from living in the country; in other words, 11 million Russians want the remaining 200,000 Jews out. There is a Russian Jewish joke: “’Where is the best place for Jews?’ ‘Why, where there are none of us!’”

Russia lacks the geopolitical presence of the Soviet Union. The Diaspora of Jews who emigrated from Russia will not live in fear of a rising anti-Semitic state. We will face, instead, a post-Soviet society in search for an identity in a largely anti-Semitic past – from the Romanov empire to the Soviet empire, from the czar to the general secretary. Acknowledging a guilty past is hard; moving from it is harder still. But unless the Russian government continues its attempts to reset Russian-Jewish relationship not only through museums but also through policy, for most Jews, Russia will remain just that: history.

Roundup of Social Impact Bond News Around the World

In the United States…

Connecticut has started to explore SIBs. This week the Connecticut state government convened a panel of SIB experts, including Tracy Palandjian (Social Finance US), Jeffrey Liebman (Harvard Kennedy School) and George Overhosler (Third Sector Capital Partners). The panel spoke before service providers and government officials, including Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Mike Lawlor who oversees criminal justice initiatives (Source 1, Source 2).

New Jersey: Assemblyman Angel Fuentes had introduced legislation to create a five year program and pilot for SIBs addressing preventative healthcare initiatives. This bill will receive hearing this Thursday, December 6, 2012. (Source)

Los Angeles County had been exploring SIBs for several months now. Last week Mark Ridley-Thomas, member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, filed a formal motion to create a SIB addressing recidivism. (Source)

Bank of America hinted at potentially following Goldman Sachs and financing SIBs this week. (Source)

 

In England…

Essex County in England officially launched its $5 million dollar SIB to deliver Multi-Systemic Therapy to about 380 youth over five years (Source). See also my analysis of the Essex program written in February 2012.

The Social Investment and Finance team at the British Prime Minister’s Cabinet Office launched the Centre for Social Impact Bonds “to increase understanding of SIBs across government and to provide support to SIB developers.”

 

Over in the international development space…

Ashoka Fellow Tamzin Ractliffe wrote an interesting blog post about Nexii’s proposal for a SIB addressing “solar water heater roll-out in South Africa.”

 

PM Cameron’s speech on social impact bonds / pay for results programs

Here is the relevant part of UK Prime Minister Cameron’s speech made on October 22, 2012 after he saw the intermediate data coming out of the Peterborough SIB pilot.

We’re going to pay people by the lives they turn around. Just think of what this means for the taxpayer.

When this Government came to power we were spending £40,000 a year (per person) just on banging people up. With payment by results, your money goes into what works: prisoners going straight, crime coming down, our country getting safer.

It’s such a good idea I want to put rocket boosters under it; indeed today I have an announcement to make.

By the end of 2015, I want to see payment by results spread right across rehabilitation. Of course, there will be some high-risk offenders for whom this is not appropriate but this approach should be the norm rather than the exception. And I want to see rehabilitation reach more of those who would benefit from it.

Link: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/crime-and-justice-speech/

President Obama’s victory speech

Beautiful words from President Obama’s victory speech last night that hearken back to Obama’s keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

Cuyahoga County Pay for Success Contract

Cuyahoga County Issues Social Impact Bond

For the past five months, Ohio’s Cuyahoga County has been evaluating whether the social impact bond (a k a pay-for-success contract) is an appropriate mechanism to fund its social programs. They have been helped in this investigation by Third Sector Capital Partners, with funding from the George Gund Foundation (source).

This evaluation seems to have produced a positive result: On October 29, Cuyahoga County issued a Request for Response for a pay-for-success program to addresses its human services and produces cashable savings for the County (source). The response deadline is December 14, 2012.

In this RFR, the County is proposing to contract with a “program intermediary” that conducts the following activities:

“1) enters into a Pay For Success contract with the County
2) is responsible for achieving the negotiated outcome(s) for the target population by contracting with service delivery providers,
3) has the flexibility to change or modify its service delivery methods and providers; and
4) collects and shares data with the County to fulfill the grant agreement” (RFR p. 4).

Investors and independent program evaluators are encouraged to submit support letters as part of this RFR.  Third Sector’s role will be to “support the County in the review of response proposals and discussions of potential structuring of projects.  Third Sector will also assist the County with the identification of potential local and national funders that have interest in supporting a Pay for Success project in Cuyahoga” (RFR p. 4).

Comparison to Other Pay for Success Contracts in the U.S.

The process that Cuyahoga County is using to create its social impact bond program differs from the processes being used elsewhere in the U.S. In examples described below, states issued separate requests for service providers and intermediaries, contracted with the service provider directly, or asked the intermediary and a smaller government to apply jointly. Cuyahoga County, however, is issuing one contract to which intermediaries or service providers can respond.

Of all pay-for-success contracts being designed in the U.S., Massachusetts, New York City, and the U.S. Department of Labor are the furthest along. In the Massachusetts process, the government issued RFRs for two pay-for-success programs: one to address recidivism and another to address chronic homelessness. For both programs, the government initiated procurement by issuing one RFR for intermediaries and another RFR for service providers. The policy rationale for this somewhat-confusing process was to ensure that an otherwise-successful intermediary doesn’t enter into an exclusive contract with a subpar service provider, or vice versa. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts then selected (and is currently in negotiations with) Third Sector Capital Partners to be financial advisor for the homelessness program and to be both program manager and financial advisor for the recidivism program. In this model, the intermediary and the service provider either apply independently or hold informal partnership discussions during the procurement process.

In the New York process, the government has eschewed a financial intermediary and contracted directly with a service provider. This service provider, MDRC, will work with two other providers and receive up-front financing from Goldman Sachs to deliver services to juveniles leavings the Rikers Island prison facility.

Finally, in the U.S. DOL process, the Department is asking municipal or state governments to apply for pay-for-success funding jointly with an intermediary that will provide financial and/or program-related advisory services.

Cuyahoga County’s process differs from the ones outlined above. The County is asking intermediaries and service providers to respond to one RFP. An intermediary may respond alone, then subcontract service providers to execute a proposed program model. Alternatively, a service provider may respond without an intermediary. Or an intermediary may partner with a service provider for a joint response. As the RFR says, “a single organization [may] play the role of both investor and intermediary, or both intermediary and service provider” (RFR p. 5).

In this RFR, a partnership between a provider and an intermediary has the greatest chance to offer a strong application. Providers alone may have insufficient know-how or simply lack the capacity to respond to this contract, whereas intermediaries alone are left proposing a program model without the certainty that they can execute the model they describe.

Another difference in this contract is around investors. Because Cuyahoga County did not specify a particular focus area, such as prevention of recidivism or reduction of homelessness, the RFR proposes that once a program is selected, “the County and its partners will propose the projects to local and national funders” (RFR p. 3).

Early Head Start social impact bond in New York City

Recently the New York Times reported that Scott Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, is proposing a social impact bond to address early education. Today the NY Daily News published an op-ed by Stringer with high-level outline of his proposal. Here are the details of Stringer’s proposal:

Using a Social Impact Bond structure, an investor could fund 1,000 Early Head Start slots for New York City children. If the program helps to foster thriving, successful students — as defined by metrics the city would establish in collaboration with teachers, principals, community organizations and other stakeholders — the investor will profit and the city will save money in the long-term.

Early Head Start is a great program and social impact bonds are a hot innovation. But this does not imply that they are right for each other. Here are some questions that are important to understand whether social impact bond are the most appropriate financing mechanism for Early Head Start.

1. Does the proposed program produce results?

Yes. Early Head Start is a well-evaluated program that has shown results. Some evaluations can be found here: http://ccf.tc.columbia.edu/earlycare01.html

2. Would results-based financing improve program outcomes?

The answer to this is unclear, although better outcomes are certainly possible. If the city can improve the social outcomes of this program by conditioning the payment on program outcomes rather than on adherence to the program model, then there is a policy rationale to fund existing Early Head Start through a social impact bond.

The other possibility is that the program is underfunded. In this case, a social impact bond may introduce additional funding to the program. Even if social impact bonds produce the same outcomes as have been seen in the evaluation, the ability to expand coverage through SIBs would create a policy rationale for the program.

2. Do improved outcomes create lower costs for taxpayers?I believe this is not the case for Early Head Start. Several early childhood development programs create significant social benefits. But those benefits do not translate to reductions in government costs in the short run. Over the long run, a person enrolled in an early childhood development program may commit less crime, attend better schools, become a happier and more productive citizen, and so on. But the government – and taxpayers – would not see these benefits in 3-4 years after the program.

If this program improves outcomes, but does not create cost savings, then the government may still have a policy rationale for funding it through a social impact bond if other funding is unavailable. However, the premium the government would have to pay for this program in a social impact bond (to attract investors) will have to be weighed against the potential for improved outcomes that the incentive-based program creates.