Category: Uncategorized

Three recent social impact bond developments

A lot of interesting things have been happening in the social impact bond space over the past several weeks. Here is a recap of three major events.

Early Education in New York City: Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer proposed a social impact bond to expand Early Head Start, an early education program. According to the New York Times report of his proposal, the idea appears to have political motivation to counter the tax-the-rich proposal of Bill de Blasio, a New York public advocate. Early Head Start offers educational services to children ages 3-5 through 250 centers throughout New York City. The program has been evaluated through rigorous trials at the national level and found to positive results: “Compared with controls, Early Head Start parents were more emotionally supportive, provided more language and learning stimulation, read to their children more, and spanked less.”

One of the biggest concerns about the applicability of the social impact bond model to Early Head Start is whether the program pays for itself through cashable savings at the city or state level. Existing designs of social impact bond programs (designs, since only one program is in operation) center on programs that generate government savings. This value proposition has made social impact bonds especially attractive as state struggle to fund social programs in a time of fiscal austerity. I will write more on early childhood social impact bond programs later.

Healthcare in New Jersey: Assemblyman Angel Fuentes (D-Camden/Gloucester) has introduced legislation to create program and studies and issues social impact bonds to improve healthcare to low-income residents. The bill does not propose a specific program, but rather appoints the NJ Economic Development Authority to study whether such a program is possible. The proposal has its own Twitter account at @NJ_SIB_Act.

Social investment in England: Across the pond, the first UK social investment bank Big Society Capital has announced its first round of funding. Big Society Capital is a hybrid for-profit/nonprofit organization that carries a government mandate to capitalize the social investment market in the UK on a sustainable basis. BSC invested $60 million into 12 providers of social finance. This set of investments includes $720,000 to Triodos Bank for its social impact bond program and the same amount to Think Forward for its social impact bond program. I analyze these investments in detail in subsequent blog posts.

Reflections on the SOCAP Conference in San Francisco

Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend SOCAP, the Social Capital Markets conference in San Francisco. I attended as a Social Entrepreneur Scholarship, which SOCAP graciously offers to a select number of social entrepreneurs for a full discount on the $1,300 ticket that other conference attendees have to purchase.

The conference highlighted the release of a report by Omidyar Network on impact investing titled Priming the Pump: The Case for a Sector Based Approach to Impact Investing. Attendees mentioned that each SOCAP conference centers on a particular issue or topic, with this year’s focus on impact investing.

Here are some insights I had from my amazing time at the SOCAP conference.

1. Figure out your goal. SOCAP will overwhelm you if you do not prepare in advance by defining a goal and using that goal to choose what to do as well as what not to do. This is true for many large events. With over 1,600 participants, three days of panels, and side-bar presentations, meetings and receptions, doing everything at SOCAP is impossible. The three step solution should be a) define your goal, b) select meetings and panels that advance your goal the most, c) keep away from events and meetings that do not meet you goal.

2. Prepare for meetings. The easy thing is to create a pitch, perfect it, and deliver it ad nauseum. The hard thing is to learn about your audience and tailor your pitch to their interests. One investor might like the geographical focus of your work. Another might be interested in an innovative way you structure your financing to achieve your objectives. A third may be fascinated by your use of mobile technology in a development setting. The same pitch might excite one investor and bore another. You might get a second chance to approach that investor or her company, but you shouldn’t bet on it.

3. Pace yourself. I spoke with several social entrepreneurs who had audacious goals for day one of the three-day conference and were devastated when they failed to meet those goals. Not everything must happen on day one. One of my most unexpectedly productive meetings happened when I decided to share a cab ride to the airport with two people leaving the SOCAP conference who I had not met before. After the initial meet and greet in the cab, I quickly realized that they are impact investors whose focus aligns with that of a close friend’s social enterprise. Just like that – a connection, a call, and the start of a due diligence process. The lesson is not to lose energy and enthusiasm if the first day does not go as planned.

These lessons sound simple and mundane, but they bear repeating because it is so easy to forget them. I thought I knew them going into the conference, but still I made mistakes on each front and can do better next time.

Overall the conference was a useful window into social enterprise. I met former Echoing Green applicants whom I had judged as part of Echoing Green’s Social Investment Council. I met former professors who taught me business in developing countries at Harvard Business School. And I made new connections with entrepreneurs in South Africa, Japan and Singapore, who I may not have met otherwise.

Harvard’s CID launches Building State Capability, features Instiglio

Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for International Development has launched a new research program, Building State Capability. The goal, as stated on their website, is to research “new strategies and tactics that can be used to escape capability traps and build the capability of public organizations to execute and implement.”

The website features practitioners that build state capabilities, including Instiglio, the nonprofit I co-founded that advances social impact bonds in developing countries, and IDinsight. Research papers can be found here.

Published in Colombia’s Portafolio

My Instiglio colleagues Michael Eddy, Avnish Gungadurdoss and I were recently published in the op-ed section of Portafolio, Colombia’s Wall Street Journal. The article is available in Spanish here and in English here.

An excerpt from the article:

Social impact bonds hold promise for addressing some of Colombia’s most complex problems. With a youth unemployment rate over 19 percent governments increasingly focus on creating stable upward trajectories for young Colombian. These trajectories must resolve multifaceted and interconnected challenges that range from lack of money, to unstable families, to inadequate educational opportunities. […] Colombia has an opportunity to become the first Latin American country to pilot social impact bonds, and spark policy innovation for the region and the world. At Instiglio, we hope to help Colombia realize that opportunity.

US Department of Labor Social Impact Bond Update (cross-posted from Instiglio.org)

Cross-posted from Instiglio.
In this blog post, we comment on the recent information regarding savings and intermediation released by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regarding its $20 million social impact bond (SIB) solicitation.
DOL has released selected answers to questions that were asked by the public regarding its solicitation for a SIB program in workforce development. As we understand, DOL must have a comment period, and must respond to questions, but may choose whether it answers the question in whole or in part, and may address several questions with one answer.
Background on the DOL SIB Solicitation: DOL has made approximately $20 million available for pay for success programs out of its Workforce Innovation Fund. It expects to fund one to three grants, up to $12 million per grant. Responses are due by December 11, 2012 and funding will be disbursed by September 2013. The goal of any proposed program should be to create “positive workforce outcomes.” DOL is “particularly interested in projects that focus on expanding the availability of social services to address difficult workforce system problems, such as strategies intended to eliminate significant barriers to employment faced by at-risk, disadvantaged, and hard-to-employ populations (e.g., high school dropouts, homeless individuals, long-term unemployed, former prisoners).” (Source: DOL SIB Solicitation)
In this solicitation, government entities must apply jointly with an intermediary. New York City has indicated that it may reply to the DOL solicitation by requesting proposals for collaboration from intermediaries.
The savings question:
“Q1. In the Peterborough pilot, savings are described as recoverable, cashable savings. Can you please confirm if savings must be cashable savings or is it sufficient to identify/show evidence of savings but not have them isolated and converted to cash at the end of the Period of Performance? Can savings be expressed in terms of return on investment?
[Government’s Response] A1. While we do not use the phrase “cashable savings” Section V. Criterion 5, Factor 1, Bullet 4 states: You must calculate the savings that will accrue to the public sector based on successful achievement of each outcome target through the intervention. Savings must be shown in dollars. If public sector savings accrue at multiple levels of government, you must break out the savings by each level of government. However, you must be able to demonstrate some savings at your level of government. Savings may accrue through preventative programs that reduce the customer burden on existing services. […] These savings for the local government could be based on reduced need for workforce system services by the target population, increased efficiency due to a decreased intensity of service delivery needs, or a better allocation of resources. […] Pay for Success models are best viewed from this cross-sector assessment; accordingly, you should describe any cross-sector savings or additional non-monetized benefits. As a result we expect applicants to calculate in dollars the anticipated savings as a result of the project. Savings must still accrue to the government, including at the applicants level of government, even after the return on investment has been paid out. The savings do not need to be cashable.”
Commentary: We read this answer to mean two things. First, savings will accrue to different budgets across different governments, both during the lifetime of the SIB program and afterwards. This is in line with the savings analysis that was published by McKinsey several months earlier. Second, the government is interested in programs in which direct “cashable” savings do not fully cover the cost of implementation. This means that, at least in the short run, the government expects to spend more on the SIB program that it will save.
The intermediation question:
“Q6. Can a government entity separate of the applicant act as the intermediary?
[Government’s Response] A6. While the SGA does not define the type of organization that may be an intermediary, applicants should be mindful of the complications that could arise if another government entity acts as the intermediary. As stated above, the intermediary must be in a position to actively and quickly manage service providers and delivery strategy based on real time information. A key benefit of the PFS model is that it allows governments to pay for outcomes that are achieved through service delivery methods that they may be unable to undertake themselves. Furthermore, while it is not inconceivable that one state agency, “the applicant,” could subcontract another agency to act as the “intermediary,” such an arrangement between government applicant and government intermediary must be governed by the Federal contract guidelines of the funding stream, which do not allow for sub-grant authority.”
Commentary: We believe this answer conflates programmatic and financial intermediation in the SIB model. By programmatic intermediation, we mean activity related to selecting, managing and scaling-up service providers over the lifetime of the SIB project. By financial intermediation, we mean activity related to raising capital from private investors on behalf of service providers. An intermediary can engage in one or both activities. In some cases, no financial intermediation is necessary because the service provider is better positioned to raise funds. In other cases, no financial intermediation is needed because, for example, only one provider may be delivering services.
The answer suggests that the government would make a poor programmatic intermediary because it would have trouble nimbly managing the operations of several nonprofit organizations.
But the answer does not rule out financial intermediation by a government entity. In this case, a government entity would offer financial sponsorship to social service organizations while they implement the program, after which the line agency that commissioned the SIB would pay for any program outcomes. In fact, several government entities worldwide have already started exploring the potential to inject capital into organizations that would act as financial intermediaries for the SIB. Although Big Society Capital in the UK is not a quasi-governmental organization, it was created by a group of political and financial actors for the purpose of catalyzing the impact investment space. A portion of BSC’s work may include capitalizing financial intermediaries and potentially acting as a financial intermediary.


Private Investment in Social Impact Bonds

I just published some thoughts about the Goldman Sachs social impact bond deal in the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Private Investment in Social Impact Bonds

Stanford Social Innovation Review
August 8, 2012
Michael Belinsky
This past week marked the introduction of social impact bonds to the United States. Government officials, businessmen, and academics who have been working diligently to develop this policy innovation have announced progress on two social impact bonds (SIBs), one in Massachusetts and another in New York…

Justice Project Pakistan wins the Echoing Green fellowship

I am so excited that Sarah Belal, founder of Justice Project Pakistan, won the Echoing Green fellowship this past month. As a member of the Echoing Green Social Investment Council, I had the pleasure of meeting Sarah several times during her application process.

JPP defends death row inmates in Pakistan, combating cruel and usual detention (in poor conditions and in secret prisons), interrogation by torture, and wrongful conviction. It distinguishes itself in the Pakistani context by having an investigative team, interviewing the inmates it defends, and operating as a woman-run legal shop in a male-dominated legal culture. I personally think that Sarah is doing important and impactful work.
I called Sarah to congratulate her last week. She was in the Pakistani mountains (a less dangerous feat that I imagine, I was assured), but her happiness at winning the award was apparent even through the choppy reception. Before the fellowship, she was being funded in part by two Open Society Institute grants, and hopes that the fellowship will increase her ability to secure grants from organizations that fund criminal justice activities worldwide.

Imitator protests: Hong Kong, Middle East, and elsewhere

There have been many political protests over the past twelve months, from the Middle East to Wall Street, from Russia during the elections to swearing in of the new Hong Kong chief executive. The reasons for these protests are several and different across the political contexts. Russians feel cheated by Prime Minister Putin’s pass-the-baton dance around the country’s constitution. Many hoped that Putin would eschew the presidency. Egyptians are upset that the country’s military leadership is tending toward dictatorship as it stripped the newly elected prime minister of much of his political authority. Yet many had hoped for a better slate of presidential candidates so that breaking up with Hosni Mubarak didn’t mean entering into a relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. And, in a microcosm of the anti-Communist wave in China, the people of Hong Kong are lashing out against their newly elected chief executive, a “close ally of the Communist party,” much like the mainland politburo lashed out against the Bo Xilai, the Community party-affiliated governor who wire-tapped Hu Jintao.
These protests, however, have not accomplished their political goals. Putin has assumed the presidency seemingly unscathed. The Egyptian military authorities have ignored the (confused and confusing) political demands of the recent protests. And the Leung Chun-ying, the Hong Kong chief executive, will start his job protests notwithstanding. Not to mention Occupy Wall Street, which apparently fizzled out.
Perhaps this recent wave of protests are insufficiently large, insufficiently motivated and lack a coherent agenda. Russian wanted recounts, disliked the typical corruption of their electoral process, and were generally upset at Putin. But the alternate candidate was uninspiring. They did not necessarily want him; they just didn’t want Putin. The current Egyptian throng is a shade of the previous protest movement that ousted Mubarak and transformed Egypt. And Hong Kong is one of China’s pressure valves: You protest on its streets because you cannot protest on the mainland, you circumvent the mainland’s one child policy in Hong Kong hospitals, and you enjoy the city’s several distinct freedoms.
So maybe we are seeing the rise of imitator protests, ones that are sparked by the large successful movements in Egypt and elsewhere, but lack their strength, direction and perseverance.

SEC wants vote on money market mutual fund regulation

It’s interesting that SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro is only now increasing regulation of money market mutual funds. MMMFs are mutual funds that hold fixed income assets, usually short-term (less than one year) assets like commercial paper. Their liability side has a fixed value claim of $1. When Lehman collapsed, Reserve Primary Fund, a large MMMF, broke the buck, meaning it lowered its share price below $1. This caused a run on the Fund, and subsequently a general run on money market mutual funds. The government had to step in and guarantee all existing MMMF claims.
Now Schapiro is proposing several regulations:
– capital buffer against the assets in the MMMF portfolio
– limit amount of shared that can be redeemed at any one time
– or, in lieu of the limit, make funds float their net asset values, meaning they will no longer be fixed to $1
The limit on the number of shares is curious since, as I understand, money market mutual funds can already hold money back for 90 days, although they rarely do this. Also, I am not sure how the limit-or-float mechanism would prevent an imitator run like the one that happened in 2008 when Reserve Primary Fund broke the buck. Presumably the limit prolongs the run, but the float encourages it, as a falling share price may spook investors and spark a run.
The capital buffer is also curious. I presume, although I have not checked, that the size of the 2008 run exceeds the size of the capital buffer than Schapiro is proposing. This means that her proposed regulation would not have stopped the 2008 run from occurring. A friend recently mused that financial regulation is always designed to avoid the previous crisis. Well, it should do at least that.
Source: http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577482994218057410.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews&mg=reno64-wsj