Try & Buy (If it works of course...)

My submission this week touches on redefining how we assess the impact of social impact bond (SIB) interventions within the criminal justice. This relates to this week’s theme because I explore the usefulness and applicability of SIBs within the context of criminal justice reform.

My hometown of New York City was the first city in the United States to test social impact bonds. In 2012, the city was able to secure a $9.6 million loan from Goldman Sachs to pay for a program intended to reduce the rate at which adolescent men incarcerated at Rikers Island reoffended after their release. The program set a goal of reducing recidivism by 10 percent and was ultimately found to not have no impact on the recidivism at all. Goldman Sachs to Invest.

Though the program was unsuccessful, I contend that its impact was substantial. For one, because the program failed to meet its goal, the city was able to avoid spending taxpayer money. Additionally, because of the comprehensive evaluation requirements of SIBs, the city was able to determine the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the program, and ultimately end it before throwing more money at an ineffective intervention. Lastly, there was anecdotal evidence that the program was not a complete failure for some participants that felt the program worked for them. Wall St. Meets Rikers.

According to From Potential to Action: bringing Social Impact Bonds to the US, SIBs are primarily a vehicle for scaling up a preventive program that delivers significant social impact rather than a reliable source of cost savings. In 2012, the United States spent more than $265 billion on criminal justice, including corrections, policing, and judicial expenses. Corrections Spending. As was the case in New York City, SIBs could lead to huge savings by shifting the spending on our criminal justice system from tax payers to private investors. This seems like it would be an outcome that would attract buy in from people on both sides of the political isle.

However, given the current administration's "tough on crime" rhetoric, one question stands out for me; would there be enough political will and buy in to implement more SIB interventions, regardless of their efficacy?