Pay for Success. Innovative New Concept. Better Results. An Overview for Connecticut

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Pay for Success. Innovative New Concept. Better Results. An Overview for Connecticut"

Candace Gibbs
6 years ago
Views:

Pay for Success An Overview for Connecticut February 2014 Innovative New Concept Private investment funds needed human services Government pays only for successful outcomes

1 Pay for Success An Overview for Connecticut February 2014 Innovative New Concept Private investment funds needed human services Government pays only for successful outcomes Requires rigorous focus on measurement and outcomes Fifteen states considering, several executing Measuring Outcomes Funding upstream preventing negative costs Better Results 2 1

Social Impact Bonds & Pay for Success Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) are not bonds in the traditional sense, because payment is contingent upon achieving agreed goals that save the government money.

2 Social Impact Bonds & Pay for Success Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) are not bonds in the traditional sense, because payment is contingent upon achieving agreed goals that save the government money. The term Pay-for-Success (PFS) is used to describe emerging transactions that emphasize outcomes over outputs, including Social Impact Bonds and similar projects. 3 Intense Interest PFS and SIBs garner enormous attention Potential to align incentives Rewarding outcomes rather than outputs Requiring greater coordination, rigorous evaluation, and focus on quality Message also attracts attention in current funding climate Shrinking budgets at all levels of government pit worthy service providers against each other in competition for scarce resources 4 2

Government only pays after agreed-upon outcomes, which will save money, have been attained. Government pays only for services that work. 5 A Comprehensive History is Short.

3 Three Key Elements 1. High-quality preventative services 2. Rigorous measurement of results 3. Capturing savings or avoided costs Most attract private investment to pay for proven, highquality preventative social services. Government only pays after agreed-upon outcomes, which will save money, have been attained. Government pays only for services that work. 5 A Comprehensive History is Short. The first SIB: 2010, Peterborough England Investors pay for comprehensive services that begin prior to release for all inmates in Peterborough county. Investors are repaid if and when recidivism drops as agreed. Services involve numerous providers; begin pre-release and continue with participants into community. Outcomes closely and continuously tracked. 6 3

A New Architecture New roles critical to PFS/SIB transactions: Intermediary, investor & evaluator All parties agree at outset

usually several years, avoiding need to continually fight budget cuts NEW 7 Recent Developments 2012: New York City/Rikers

prevention Cuyahoga County OH: First county-level PFS Request for Responses for Interventions 2013: SIB Labs in 10 states

Fresno CA health impact bond CT DCF RFI Santa Clara County CA announces two deal constructions in chronic homelessness and

4 A New Architecture New roles critical to PFS/SIB transactions: Intermediary, investor & evaluator All parties agree at outset to goals, metrics & timeline Classic PFS / SIB Model NEW NEW Providers get stable funding for the life of the contract, usually several years, avoiding need to continually fight budget cuts NEW 7 Recent Developments 2012: New York City/Rikers Island SIB for youth Commonwealth of Massachusetts issues two RFRs; opts to fund juvenile recidivism and homelessness prevention Cuyahoga County OH: First county-level PFS Request for Responses for Interventions 2013: SIB Labs in 10 states including CO, IL, SC, CT, NY and OH US DOL awards $23 million PFS contracts in NY and MA Utah United Way Early Childhood SIB Fresno CA health impact bond CT DCF RFI Santa Clara County CA announces two deal constructions in chronic homelessness and acute mental health New York state SIB 2014: MA juvenile justice initiative finalized WA, CT and SC are among states considering bills CT DCF issues RFP 8 4

5 Not for Everything Needed Conditions 1. Potential for government savings or societal benefit 2. Measurable outcomes and savings that can be agreed upon by all parties 3. Defined population 4. Reliable comparison groups or counterfactuals 5. Safeguards against harm for target population 6. Issue ranks high among government priorities 7. Effective, replicable programming Pay for Success should NEVER replace a society s safety net. 9 Most Promising Focus Areas 1. Recidivism 2. Health Care 3. Workforce Development 4. Homelessness Recent RFPs and RFIs also allow for programming in areas of public safety, avoiding foster care and substance abuse treatment. 5. Early Childhood 10 5

6 CT PFS/SIB Landscape June 2012 special session budget implementer authorized the state s application for $750,000 for a Social Impact Bond. The legislation was tied to a US Dept. of Justice grant, which state did not receive. PFS conference in Dec explored topic. 2013, SB 854 would have authorized social innovation vehicles for outcomesbased contracts. Was not called to Senate floor. Also in 2013, CT wins SIB lab: Harvard fellows, under Professor Jeffrey Liebman, working with DCF to develop projects. CT DCF issues Request for Information. CCSI and Nonprofit Finance Fund host incubator training and provide continuing education and advocacy. 2014: SB 105 would allow social innovation investment. DCF issues RFP for an intermediary to help structure project to address substance abuse. 11 U.S. PFS/SIB Progress and Status Since 2010 Six US-based SIB projects Numerous others underway Next chapters in the U.S. Pay-for-Success story not yet written. Fifteen states considering or have passed enabling legislation providing for various forms of PFS/SIB financing With each, we learn more about how to structure and implement projects 12 6

Projects to Date in US New York City Recidivism Project: Adolescent Men at Rikers Island Jail Commonwealth of Massachusetts PFS Initiatives: Juvenile Justice and Homelessness Fresno County

7 Projects to Date in US New York City Recidivism Project: Adolescent Men at Rikers Island Jail Commonwealth of Massachusetts PFS Initiatives: Juvenile Justice and Homelessness Fresno County California: Asthma Intervention Project Pilot Utah Early Childhood: Special Education Intervention Pilot New York State Social Impact Bond: Employment of Reentry Populations Cuyahoga County, Ohio: First County government project: services in child welfare system to keep families together For details on each, visit connecticutcenter.org 13 Why Bother? Connecticut s non-profit sector struggles to provide core services. CT nonprofit service providers: 50% report deficits 5 th highest in U.S. 66% froze or reduced salaries Highest in the U.S. 53%: late payments from the state: 3 rd highest in U.S. 77%: payments don t cover cost of service: 7 th highest in the U.S. Many employees eligible for state assistance themselves 14 -Institute for the 21 st Century 7

8 Why Bother? and the system is not able to attain desired outcomes Seven purchasing agencies, $1.3 billion annually in services: the current service model is a confusing, non-integrated, inconsistent and out of balance system. Damaging the economy: Cutting line items for private service providers obscures the bigger picture holding down payments can lead to higher costs for other government programs. 15 PFS Investors & Supporters Include: U.S. Department of Labor California Endowment J.B. Pritzker United Way of Salt Lake Harvard s Kennedy School of Government MDRC Center for American Progress Rockefeller Foundation, investing to develop capacity and knowledge of Pay-for Success and guaranteeing transactions ReadyNation Cleveland Foundation James Irvine Foundation George Gund Foundation Goldman Sachs: New York, Utah, and $250 million fund Merrill Lynch/Bank of America White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation 16 8

9 Spillover Benefits What are we learning? The new measurement tools and systems required for these transactions prove useful for ALL services As governments see quality preventative services prove their value and ROI, they may well opt to fund them directly Additionally, when providers ready themselves for the increased evaluation and performance elements of a PFS transaction, their outcomes and functioning for ALL contracts improves. 17 The Future? Investor interest and provider capacity to offer proven services and document outcomes all need to develop in a coordinated sequence in which key elements from various sectors reinforce each other. Investor confidence must be bolstered, demanding both rigorous evaluations showing cost savings of programming and the right regulatory and legislative environment; service providers must be able to offer and scale programming that can be shown to prevent future costs; risk must be spread fairly among the various sectors. ~CCSI Executive Summary 18 9

10 CCSI offers consultation to non-profits, funders and other parties in locating and developing promising PFS projects, developing and designing metrics, and identifying and aligning investors and funders with providers. CCSI also educates staff, boards of directors and stakeholders on how to improve operations and outcomes through preparation for a PFS environment. Dr. Sandra Martin Liz Dupont-Diehl (203) (860) sandramartin@connecticutcenter.org lizdupont-diehl@connecticutcenter.org Pay for Success Informational Conference February 20, 2014 Planning Committee Liz Dupont-Diehl Dr. Sandy Martin Ed Nevins Brian O'Shaughnessey Lyle Wray Special thanks to all our sponsors! 20 10

Social Impact Bonds 101

Social Impact Bonds 101 I. Introduction As of February 2017, 15 Pay for Success (PFS) contracts using social impact bonds (SIBs) have been launched in the U.S. In combination, these projects are scheduled