From Visions of Promise to Sign of Struggle: Exploring Social Impact Bonds and the Funding of Social

These range from the struggles of the model to live up to the promises of cost savings, risk transfer from government to investors, and the funding of innovative and prevention-oriented programs, to issues with its underlying assumptions including the inherent challenge of attributing changes in complex social conditions to a single program or provider and the resistance of social programs to quan. [...] Despite the allure and promise of SIBs, my discussions with those engaged on the frontlines of the market in Canada, the US, and the UK revealed frustration with the slow growth and take-up of the model as well as uncertainty, and in some cases downright skepticism, as to its long-term future. [...] Ultimately, these initiatives speak to the critical role of the UK central government in supporting the SIB enterprise, a role which also includes the participation of central agencies, namely the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government,10 in some of the early rate cards and outcomes funds, as well as policy and strategic support through the Centre. [...] US While the UK and US are world leaders in SIBs/PFS, the former based on the number of deals and the latter the average size and total value of transactions, the agendas and influences shaping the development of PFS in the US have been very different. [...] Thus, to the extent that the UK market has been subsidized by government, PFS in the US has been heavily dependent on philanthropy with the role of BSC and Big Lottery played by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation,12 the latter referenced by many in the US space as the most active funder in the field and a key market catalyst, “They were really behind this whole fie.