The SIB has bipartisan congressional support and the support of prominent think tanks like the Center for American Progress, global investment banks like Goldman Sachs, famous consulting firms like the McKinsey Institute, and U.S.A Today's top policy institution, the Harvard Kennedy School [2].
In the finance and public policy realms these are huge names. However, each and every article does not include hard facts about non-profit SIB support.
The closest direct references are:
1) Hypotheticals in context of Social Impact Bonds: The introduction from McKinsey's "From Potential to Action: Bringing Social Impact Bonds to the U.S." [1]
2) Digital Divide Data's inability to receive adequate funding. However, there was no reference to Digital Divide Data wanting SIBs to fulfill their funding needs [3].
To me, this is a serious problem. How many McKinsey analysts have tried to end youth violence, end homelessness and support victims of rape in the same 'on the ground' capacity as non-profits? Non-profit organizations deliver on the ground social impact not purely analyze it. Thus, to ensure the success in a switch to SIB funding mechanisms, non-profit organizations must be excited about SIBs and support the measure.
I have worked for two non-profit organizations. One that addressed youth development in St. Louis, Missouri and another that addressed homelessness through job training in Appleton, Wisconsin. SIB's never proved topics of discussion.
I have worked for two non-profit organizations. One that addressed youth development in St. Louis, Missouri and another that addressed homelessness through job training in Appleton, Wisconsin. SIB's never proved topics of discussion.
Throughout the social innovation course, we have discussed the success and failures of non-profits, social ventures, and for profit companies addressing social welfare. Many successes surrounded a company's use of human centered design. The main tenant in human centered design is a conversation between those who can provide a good or service and those who will be receiving a good or service. In my opinion, this dialogue is not occurring in regards to SIBs and the effects may be detrimental for various reasons.
1) SIBs rely on quantitatively determining social impact in a market system. This inadvertently puts greater value on some human life and a lesser value on other human life. I believe many non-profits would be vehemently opposed or at least strongly question this type of discourse.
2) SIBs require a standardized way of determining social impact. I do not believe this is best practice. Each non-profit serves a different goal. Even if the goals seem similar, the people served differ culturally and geographically. This makes standardization impossible or requires a very flexible model that may not meet investor or government demands.
3) SIBs require a non-profit cultural shift. Having worked in and directly benefited from smaller non-profit organizations, I have seen that general computer, math, and economic skills are more difficult to find or are less valued. Even if the directors do have quantitative and standardized tendencies, efficiency measures may just not work. For example, when I worked for a job-training venture, I suggested standardizing the sign-in and sign-out procedures, saving me hours of work. However, the director, a math major, responded that they've already attempted it, but the community they served never standardized their behavior: Marie may want to be Maria one day and Margaret or Mariaaa another.
For SIBs to be all that McKinsey, the Harvard Kennedy School, and Goldman Sachs crack them up to be, the SIB conversation must more actively include the people they will serve, non-profit organizations. Otherwise, SIBs will be another failed attempt to increase social welfare, similarly to social innovation start-ups that begin in a lab versus in the field.
1) SIBs rely on quantitatively determining social impact in a market system. This inadvertently puts greater value on some human life and a lesser value on other human life. I believe many non-profits would be vehemently opposed or at least strongly question this type of discourse.
2) SIBs require a standardized way of determining social impact. I do not believe this is best practice. Each non-profit serves a different goal. Even if the goals seem similar, the people served differ culturally and geographically. This makes standardization impossible or requires a very flexible model that may not meet investor or government demands.
3) SIBs require a non-profit cultural shift. Having worked in and directly benefited from smaller non-profit organizations, I have seen that general computer, math, and economic skills are more difficult to find or are less valued. Even if the directors do have quantitative and standardized tendencies, efficiency measures may just not work. For example, when I worked for a job-training venture, I suggested standardizing the sign-in and sign-out procedures, saving me hours of work. However, the director, a math major, responded that they've already attempted it, but the community they served never standardized their behavior: Marie may want to be Maria one day and Margaret or Mariaaa another.
For SIBs to be all that McKinsey, the Harvard Kennedy School, and Goldman Sachs crack them up to be, the SIB conversation must more actively include the people they will serve, non-profit organizations. Otherwise, SIBs will be another failed attempt to increase social welfare, similarly to social innovation start-ups that begin in a lab versus in the field.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.