1. Financing What Works http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/financing_what_works....
Financing What Works: Social Impact Bonds Hold Promise
SOURCE: Center for American Progress
Judith Rodin, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation and the only American investor invovled in
the Peterborough project so far, believes that Social Impact Bonds "unlock new flows of capital and
have the potential to revolutionize the manner in which a variety of persistent social problems are
funded and addressed."
By Jitinder Kohli | November 18, 2010
Is it possible to reduce crime and save taxpayers money at the same time? That’s exactly the question an experiment in the English
town of Peterborough set out to answer—with implications far beyond its city limits.
Peterborough is a town with 170,000 people about 80 miles north of London. Its prison houses up to 1,000 offenders who are largely
serving short sentences. In most ways, they are an unremarkable group of prisoners. But they are also subjects of a groundbreaking
experiment in public policy, which if successful could not only bring down crime but also save taxpayers’ money. The key to the
experiment: Social Impact Bonds.
Social Impact Bonds how do they work?
The first set of Social Impact Bonds is being issued by the British Ministry of Justice. The bonds promise to pay a nonprofit organization
called Social Finance up to $13 million over eight years if the nonprofit can work with the prisoners (both while they are inmates and
after their release) to reduce reoffending. To receive the full payment, the nonprofit has to reduce recidivism by at least 10 percent more
than other prisons with similar populations (a nationwide control group). If the reoffending rates do not come down more in
Peterborough than other similar prisons, the government pays nothing.
Social Finance does not itself work with ex-offenders. Instead, it finds charities that are likely to be successful at reducing recidivism,
and it gives them money to fund their work. In deciding which charities to back, it makes judgments about what approaches are most
1 of 3 12/7/2010 9:59 AM

2. Financing What Works http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/financing_what_works....
likely to work. And because it is heavily incentivized to reduce reoffending, it is likely to constantly look at which approaches are
working. Those that are would get more money, and those that aren’t might need to be rethought.
Investors in Social Impact Bonds are mostly socially aware institutions who want a return on their capital but also want to do good. One
investor is the Rockefeller Foundation, the only American foundation to be involved so far. If Social Finance is able to choose
approaches that are effective, they cash in their “Social Impact Bond” and get the promised funds from government to distribute to their
investors. If the nonprofit cannot accomplish major reductions in reoffending, then the investors lose their money and the taxpayer is
no worse off.
Advantages for government
There are two major advantages for government. First, it does not need to decide which approaches to back. Instead, it decides only
what outcome to target. It is for Social Finance to work out the most effective approach to reduce reoffending. Social Finance and
investors in the bonds bear essentially all of the risk.
Normally, government allocates funds to program activities rather than outcomes. So, for example, there might be funding for a
program that aims to cut reoffending through drug rehabilitation, and distinct funding for another that works to help offenders get back
to work. But if the job training program gets ten times more money than the drug rehab program, is that because government thinks it
is ten times more effective? No. Normally it is just a reflection of how much money was available when it was set up.
What if the job-training program proves to be less effective than drug rehab? Does that mean money can be easily reallocated? No
again. The program allocation is likely to be set in stone at the Ministry of Justice and changing the allocation would likely take some
considerable time.
Indeed, in the United States, the detail might be set out in the congressional appropriations process, which makes reallocation even
more cumbersome. By issuing Social Impact Bonds, the money should transfer from approaches that are less effective to those that are
more effective.
A second advantage is that the approach could save government money. Jonathan Slater, director general for transforming justice at the
British Ministry of Justice, oversees the Peterborough pilot. He says that:
“Reducing reoffending has the potential to save government money through lower police, court, and prison costs. And reduced
crime is something that communities all want. Through Social Impact Bonds we have promised to share our savings with Social
Finance—money they can pass back to their investors. But if they do not succeed, our funding commitment is nil.”
The bottom line: Social Finance either manages to reduce reoffending, which saves the government money (and has social benefits
too), or doesn’t, in which case government’s outlay is nil.
But will it work?
Could the experiment in Peterborough revolutionize the way government funds are allocated? Could government only release money
when approaches have been shown to work, and rely on funding from others to fund the experimentation stage? The Peterborough
experiment is the first in the world to pioneer this approach, and is in very early days. The program began in August.
But if it could work, then the potential is enormous. Speaking at an event at the Center for American Progress in July, Judith Rodin, the
president of the Rockefeller Foundation, said that it is essential for the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to work together and find
new financing vehicles to address the problems of the future. On Social Impact Bonds, she says they “unlock new flows of capital and
have the potential to revolutionize the manner in which a variety of persistent social problems are funded and addressed. Because
today’s challenges are vast, complicated, and interdependent, they require new financing vehicles that go beyond what government and
philanthropy currently have to offer.”
Many are watching the Peterborough experiment with interest. They are right to do so, but other pilots need to emerge too. They need
to cover a wider range of policy areas and different budgeting systems. Perhaps socially aware investors could be drawn to fund, say,
different approaches to reducing truancy or helping the long-term jobless back into work.
Indeed, there needs to be more thinking about when Social Impact Bonds are most likely to work, and what pitfalls need to be avoided.
And if this new financing model were to be tried in the United States, there needs to be work to win support for the concept in Congress,
2 of 3 12/7/2010 9:59 AM

3. Financing What Works http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/financing_what_works....
which is accustomed to funding narrowly defined programs setting out what government will do, not what it will achieve.
Despite these cautionary words, there is the real possibility that the prisoners of Peterborough will be pioneers—if their recidivism rate
comes down sharply. Not only will their neighbors feel safer, but the taxpayers of England will be better off and a new form of
government financing will have emerged.
Jitinder Kohli is a Senior Fellow with the Doing What Works project at the Center for American Progress. Prior to joining the Center, he
worked in the British Government. The Center recently published two reports on public sector innovation: “Capital Ideas” is a practical
guide for public sector organizations on how to generate a flow of ideas, and “Scaling New Heights” looks at the scaling process for
successful innovations. Social Impact Bonds are featured in that report.
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Megan Smith (health care, education, economic policy)
202.741.6346 or msmith@americanprogress.org
Print: Anna Soellner (foreign policy and security, energy)
asoellner@americanprogress.org
Print: Raúl Arce-Contreras (ethnic media, immigration)
202.478.5318 or rarcecontreras@americanprogress.org
Radio: Laura Pereyra
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org
TV: Andrea Purse
202.741.6250 or apurse@americanprogress.org
Web: Erin Lindsay
202.741.6397 or elindsay@americanprogress.org
3 of 3 12/7/2010 9:59 AM