NP Rank:
Social impact bonds
Help for "victims"
Victims may claim they have been “blighted by crime and poverty.” Some victims may not have the resources to even make the claim. Someone else must do it for them.
Who or what inflicts the “blight?”
Well, that would be the government.
Government leaders and bureaucracy is responsible for regulating the match of people to resources such that all people have minimum care and opportunity to improve their circumstances based on their individual initiative and personal capacity for improvement. Government attempts to provide a fair foundation.
Government works to move people forward and to minimize the number of people on the bottom or otherwise stagnant in the process.
When government works effectively, few will be “blighted” by crime and poverty.
“Social impact bonds launched by government to help poor
Private investors are being asked to fund a new government drive to help families blighted by crime and poverty.
Ministers want philanthropists, charities and other groups to put cash into "social impact bonds".
It is hoped a trial of the scheme in Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham in London, as well as Birmingham and Leicestershire, could raise up to £40m.
It aims to help break the cycle of deprivation, without costing the taxpayer any more money.
The government has put the annual bill for assisting the UK's most deprived families at more than £4bn a year, representing an average of nearly £100,000 per family.
They are often affected by multiple issues, such as poor education and drug or alcohol addiction, and ministers are concerned the current focus on treating the problems of individuals creates a costly cycle of deprivation which they find almost impossible to break.
'New partnership'
It is hoped the use of social impact bonds, where investors get paid a return for successful projects, can intensively tackle several problems in a family setting.
Continue reading the main story
HOW WOULD BONDS WORK?
Philanthopists and social enterprises will be asked to provide advance funding to support schemes commissioned and delivered by public bodies, such as prisons and local councils
They would be remunerated by the taxpayer on the basis of the scheme's results, in line with targets agreed in advance
The "return on investment" - the amount repaid on top of the initial outlay - could range from 2% to 13% depending on how well the schemes perform
Benefactors will get nothing back if targets are missed
The first pilot was launched a year ago with four more planned by next Spring
Announcing the trial, expected to be up and running next year, Civil Society Minister Nick Hurd said it would focus on delivering concrete, measurable outcomes.
"We must not be afraid to do things differently to end the pointless cycle of crime and deprivation which wrecks communities and drains state services," he said.
"Social impact bonds could open serious resources to tackle social problems in new and innovative ways."
Mr Hurd went on: "We want to restore a stronger sense of responsibility across our society and to give people working on the front line the power and resource they need to do their jobs properly.
"Social impact bonds could be one of many Big Society innovations that will build the new partnerships between the state, communities, businesses and charities and focus resources where they are needed."
Sir Ronald Cohen, co-founder of Social Finance - a company which helped develop the bonds - said the scheme could "revolutionise" the way UK charities deal with social issues.
Civil Society Minister Nick Hurd: "It will be very rigorously focussed on hard outcomes"
Social impact bonds, based on the theory that early intervention can help stop more serious problems later on, are already being used to tackle reoffending in Peterborough Prison.
An initial evaluation of the scheme, published in May, found there was demand from the voluntary sector for the idea and it had helped to generate new sources of funding. But it also warned that the contractual relationships underpinning the scheme were "complex".
Citing the scheme as an example, Sir Ronald said not-for-profit organisations with expertise in the justice system would be funded through investments rather than grants.
"If they achieve a reduction of more than 7.5% in the rate of reoffending by these prisoners for a period of six to eight years, then the government pays the capital back," he said.
"Below that, the capital is lost, and above that the capital gets a yield of 2.5% to 13%."
'Questions to answer'
For Labour, shadow Cabinet Office minister Tessa Jowell welcomed the thinking behind the initiative but said much more detail was needed on how it would work.
Case study: The cost of crime
In Birmingham, one of the trial areas announced by the government, an investigation uncovered two crime families in the city had cost taxpayers £37m over four decades.
Rival gangs the Burger Bar Boys and the Johnson Crew became notorious after the murders of teenagers Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis, in 2003.
Members indulged in petty street crime at first, but, as they moved into the city's growing drugs market, gang violence and gun crime flared up, causing misery for many families.
The Be Birmingham group put the cost of investigating a murder or attempted murder at £1.4m.
Since then, Birmingham City Council has been working to tackle the problem, and it hopes social impact bonds will help ensure the next generation is steered away from joining gangs at a young age.
"The devil is in the detail," she said.
"What criteria will be applied to financial backers? How will the government ensure they are serious about tackling these problems long term?
"What indicators will be used to judge the success of these projects and how will the government ensure the payments by results model does not just allow providers to cherry-pick members of the target group who are the easiest to help?"
Prime Minister David Cameron set a target to "turn around" up to 120,000 families with multiple problems by the end of the current parliament, a goal critics have warned could be hard to achieve.
Westminster Council said it welcomed the chance to speak to potential financiers about supporting its family intervention programme.
"The kind of outcomes they would be thinking about would be avoiding public care for children because what we know it is very expensive and we do not always have the best results," Natasha Bishop, the council's head of family recovery, said.
"They would also be looking at getting children who have been out of school back into school, pushing up attainment and children not becoming young offenders or reducing their offending."”



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (12)
at 05:43 on August 28th, 2011
- Sign In or Join to post comments
well.... (not verified)at 06:07 on August 28th, 2011
"70% of Bangladeshi children in the UK are poor.boo hoothey can go home if they dont like it.
at 06:42 on August 28th, 2011
First, governments have immigration policies that are supposed to control the inflow based on certain criteria. The intent is to optimize human resources, control population growth, and align with resource capacity.
In the USA, we may have the right criteria and laws, but politicians don't enforce them because they do not want to offend sects within the voter public.
Communities sometimes create and enforce local laws that amount to discriminating against certain people.
Discrimination is wrong.
The cause, ultimately begins with immigration policy and enforcement.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
well.... (not verified)at 06:59 on August 28th, 2011
good point. we should stop letting them in then they wont be poor anymore.if they dont like it they dont have to live there, why should they get special consideration or dictate policy
at 07:06 on August 28th, 2011
Once immigrants are accepted as legal citizens, they have equal rights.
If they are illegal or are on temporary visas, then there are procedures to 1) determine if they meet the criteria for legal immigration, 2) determine if they are able to work and have the capability to provide for themselves ( a part of #1), 3) if their legal status as visitors has expired, they can be deported.
President Obama deported over 450,000 people from the USA last year, and that is 100 times more than President George W. Bush in any year of his term in office.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
well.... (not verified)at 07:21 on August 28th, 2011
Once immigrants are accepted as legal citizens, they have equal rights. if they are legal citizens with equal rights why refer to them as bangladeshi? they are the same as everyone else and deserve no special attention.
at 07:51 on August 28th, 2011
Excellent point. The person or persons using the term may be considered racists.
However, another view is that profiling by origin is a way to understand the specific problems, needs, and attributes for management purposes.
Governments are inevitably involved in the process that may well be described as social engineering.
Diversity among population is proven to be a good thing.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
well.... (not verified)at 08:32 on August 28th, 2011
Diversity among population is proven to be a good thing. to a certain extent yes.however you cannot simply throw together vastly different cultures onto a small island and expect constant group hugs.not only that but diversity in itself is a poor reason to simply let all and sundry in.the mere fact that they are different from other groups is not a particular virtue and there are advantages and disadvantages to be considered.
at 10:34 on August 28th, 2011
We have a bigger island and bigger group hugs.
at 03:11 on August 29th, 2011
This is a very useful string of comments on an important subject. However, it is clear to me that there is a lack of scholarship on the subject of poverty and the economics of preventing it, as through the program well understood by our late 19th century ancestors and developer Henry George. George's 1876 Progress and Poverty as well as organizations that promote his ideas today identify the problem of poverty being linked to society's failure to capture land rent (primarily in successful, high population density cities such as NYC), then plow that back into the needs of society, such as employment, infrastructure maintenance, and cooperative and sustainable communities. Had a land value tax been in place during the 2008 fiscal crisis, there would not have been the opportunity for the Federal Reserve to bail out foreign banks, let alone the scumbag money men of America. Everyday another university Economics School whistles by the graveyard by promoting the neoliberal non-sense of the Chicago School economists, is another day poverty is entrenched. We attempt to grasp higher and higher to the walls of a bottomless economic sinkhole only to find it has no floor, when maps of where the sinkholes are, are in the public domain. A sad state of affairs. QE3? Wall Street should be roped off as a crime scene first.
at 13:09 on August 29th, 2011
DrMarty, that's a fantastic wrap up. I often trot out Henry George and the single tax theory.
Progress & Poverty was published by Daniel S. Appleton. By pure chance, I became Daniel S. Appleton's publisher -- YankeeJim George.
Appleton wrote the Principles and Rules of Business Engineering.
at 14:45 on August 29th, 2011
"Had a land value tax been in place during the 2008 fiscal crisis, there would not have been the opportunity for the Federal Reserve to bail out foreign banks, let alone the scumbag money men of America. Everyday another university Economics School whistles by the graveyard by promoting the neoliberal non-sense of the Chicago School economists"
I assume that rightwing rhetoric, is strictly some Tea bag idealism politics maybe Bachmann or Paul might profess. What I would call 'neo-rightwing non-sense'. Lets destroy our banking system and economy, not pay our bills, let the government default and see what happens_genius !