Social Impact Bonds: The Role of Evaluation

2017 ◽  
pp. 147-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gilchrist ◽  
Peter Wilkins
Author(s):  
Kevin Albertson ◽  
Chris Fox ◽  
Chris O’leary ◽  
Gary Painter ◽  
Kimberly Bailey ◽  
...  

This chapter reviews the current state of evidence on what works in outcomes-based commissioning using published evaluations of Payment by Results (PbR) and Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) in the UK and SIBs in the US. Findings from these evaluations are arranged under the following broad headings: designing and commissioning, development of markets, performance management, innovation, the role of incentives, and overall outcomes. The evaluations address issues such as the complexity of PbR commissioning models compared to other commissioning exercises, the impact of PbR on the market for social goods, and the development of new or enhanced performance management systems as a result of outcomes-based commissioning. Two areas of innovation are also highlighted: innovation in service design and delivery, and innovation in financing.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Jas ◽  
Barbara Allen

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) attract global interest as tool for financing welfare services using investment from outside the public sector. They aim to incentivise innovative services that prevent future needs, reducing the future demand on services, and thus make savings. The literature on the practice of SIBs is still scarce and this paper provides new insights into the role of commissioners, based on in-depth interviews. It concludes that although the prevention of future needs through innovative approaches are welcome, commissioners are cautious about this leading to cashable savings.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Jas ◽  
Barbara Allen

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) attract global interest as tool for financing welfare services using investment from outside the public sector. They aim to incentivise innovative services that prevent future needs, reducing the future demand on services, and thus make savings. The literature on the practice of SIBs is still scarce and this paper provides new insights into the role of commissioners, based on in-depth interviews. It concludes that although the prevention of future needs through innovative approaches are welcome, commissioners are cautious about this leading to cashable savings.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 134 (2) ◽  
pp. e331-e333 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. Crowley

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 2884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosella Carè ◽  
Riccardo De Lisa

The financial crisis has put pressure on governments throughout the world to reduce deficits with severe budgetary cuts in many welfare areas by reinforcing the need to modernize social policies and optimize their effectiveness and efficiency. Social impact bonds (SIBs) have rapidly become one of the most innovative financial schemes used by governments to privatize the upfront costs of welfare interventions by reducing taxpayer expenditure. Our analysis focuses on healthcare impact bonds (HIBs) that correspond to the adaptation of SIBs to health programs and are considered to be a viable way to fund out-of-pocket and preventive programs, especially considering the recent cuts to public healthcare expenditure. By using an in-depth qualitative analysis of existing practices based on a multiple case study approach, this study contributes to the ongoing debate on the role of SIBs for the future sustainability of welfare systems by proposing reflections and indications for the scalability and replicability of SIBs. With respect to the existing literature, this paper provides a theorization of the main scaling ingredients to be considered for the development of the SIB market as a supporting financial approach for new and emerging welfare needs by also proposing suggestions and insights and serving as a guide for scholars and practitioners.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-47
Author(s):  
Hannah Jun ◽  
Hyojin Kim ◽  
Songhee Han

While it has become clear that the global community needs to utilize partnerships between the public and private sectors to achieve broader economic and development goals, there has been less discussion about the potential role of investors in shaping and participating in this movement. Part of this may be due to familiarity with traditional methods such as official development assistance (ODA) and relatively less understanding about recent innovations in socially responsible investing (SRI), including social impact bonds and development impact bonds. As economies like Korea have begun to show greater interest in harnessing various investment strategies to achieve broader social goals, we find it critical to better understand what financial tools are available within the context of encouraging sustainable development. As such, this paper highlights the potential role investors can play in contributing to broader social issues both at home and abroad through an examination of recent innovations in SRI – specifically, the category of so-called “socially responsible bonds.”


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
KEVIN ALBERTSON ◽  
CHRIS FOX ◽  
CHRIS O’LEARY ◽  
GARY PAINTER ◽  
KIMBERLY BAILEY ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 000183922110206
Author(s):  
Christiane Bode ◽  
Michelle Rogan ◽  
Jasjit Singh

Firms increasingly offer employees the opportunity to participate in firm-sponsored social impact initiatives expected to benefit the firm and employees. We argue that participation in such initiatives hinders employees’ advancement in their firms by reducing others’ perceptions of their fit and commitment. Because social impact work is more congruent with female than male gender role stereotypes, promotion rates will be lower for participating men, and male evaluators will be less likely than female evaluators to recommend promotion for male participants. Using panel data on 1,379 employees of a consulting firm, we find significantly lower promotion rates for male participants relative to female participants, female non-participants, and male non-participants. A vignette experiment involving 893 managers shows that lower promotion rates are due to lower perceptions of fit, but not commitment, and greater bias against male participants by male evaluators. Taken together, the results of the two studies suggest that the negative effect of participation on promotion is conditional upon participant and evaluator gender, underscoring the role of gender in evaluation of social impact work. In settings in which decision makers are predominately male, gender beliefs may limit male employees’ latitude to contribute to the firm’s social impact agenda.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document