Outcomes as ethos

A common goal for the service providers funded through Social Impact Bonds, and indeed throughout the venture world (social or otherwise), is this idea of scalability. That is, a venture knows, at least in part, that it's successful if it is able to sustainably expand in both operations and reach. Bigger must mean that it was better.

There's something to this logic, especially within an environment shaped by market forces. For consumers buying things they more or less are able to elevate the ventures they deem the best to levels of scale above other ventures. The narrative is competitive and singular.

The question is, should this be true for social ventures, especially when thinking about the priorities of Social Impact Bonds? Should we look for the best (as in, best outcomes) service provider and scale that singular narrative? Or should we look to a collection of providers whose multiple narratives create a theme or ethos of improved outcomes?

Given that Social Impact Bonds in particular are at their core motivated by social improvement (albeit cleverly using profit motive to make that happen) it's important to think about the fact that society itself is a complex network. It comprises multiple identities and contexts and narratives, the relative success or failure of which is contingent on their unique intersection. As such, although there is efficiency to be found in scaling a singular service provider narrative, the smarter (i.e. more adaptable, empowering, and resilient) approach would be to use funds to support the development of a social impact community.

Consider models such as the Strive Partnership in the Cincinnati area and the Pittsburgh Kids+Creativity Network. Instead of finding the education non-profit that had the best outcome data compared to others in the region and funding that to spread, these networks identified assets in the work of numerous education-focused organizations. The narratives of these partners, the successes and failures they experienced with their particular constituents, were instructive in the very development of desired outcomes and therefore ethos of this community.

One could argue that the data shows that some of the partners in this community fail to meet necessary standards of success, and in certain cases that may be true to the extent that a particular organization should not get any social impact funding. However, we need to keep in mind history and trust built over time, not to mention local empowerment versus imposed action. Yes, it will take longer for the outcomes ethos to permeate a community fully, but the resiliency and respectfulness of such an approach is well worth the investment...both in money and time.

Let's not forget the "danger of a single story."