Group items tagged

The full transcript of the proceedings can be viewed online and provides a very helpful update on all the key issues surrounding Social Impact Bonds and Big Society Bank.[i]

Background to Big Society bank

Stephen Bubb’s comprehensive article ‘A new financial landscape’ in Caritas, March 2011  sets out the gestation and remit of what has been a long-awaited social investment bank and a useful summary can be found in the chapter 5 (page 37) of the Cabinet Office’s report, Growing the Social Investment market: A vision and strategy.[ii]

State aid legislation and other hold-ups

Cohen told the PASC that the Big Society Bank’s opening target of July 2011 would be missed “by a matter of some months” because of delays from the Cabinet Office in steering it through the complexities of EU state aid in financing public service provision legislation (in place to prevent the warping of the rules of competition between member countries). He said he encountered exactly the same thing with Bridges Ventures, his own organisation, and that he was confident that not only would the necessary permissions be given but that “the EU will turn out to be a big proponent of social investment.”

He also explained that the other complications was that the government had no agreement with UK banks the £200m of funding they had agreed on as part of the Project Merlin settlement, and that these details were still being sorted out.

In the meantime and agreement has been signed with Big Lottery so that it could fund some of the projects that Big Society Bank would eventually take over.

Long-term delivery  

When he was reminded that nine out of ten new enterprises end in failure, he countered with the response that everything ‘involves a risk’ and that failure in social enterprise was a form of philanthropy anyway. However, Cohen is a seasoned venture financier who does not set out to lose money. He added: “we see our objective as getting the social sector going. We have to preserve the value of our capital in doing it but we don’t have to maximise its value – we would like to be proactive.”   Cohen was confident of the Social Enterprise Bank’s long-term viability, explaining that real success could take ten or 20 years to materialise with cash positivity projected in seven years’ time.

Commentators on one side of the political spectrum attribute this failure to the lack of resources available to the state and to the state’s reluctance or inability to act appropriately. Commentators on the other side attribute government’s shortcomings to the inherent inefficiency of the state itself. The truth is that the political process, which focuses on short-term gains, does not favor long-term, preventative investment of the type required to address major social problems.

The social sector, which is also called the voluntary, non-profit or third sector, has done its best, with the support of philanthropic donations and government, to address the social problems that fall through the gaps in government provision.

Some argue that the social sector’s problem is that it is significantly under-resourced. Others argue that the insufficiency of resources is in part a consequence of the sector’s reliance upon philanthropy — from foundations and from individual donors — that can be unpredictable. Both critiques may be correct: the social sector has a problem in accessing capital, often because of a lack of a reliable revenue stream, and, as a consequence, it is inefficient, especially in respect of building sustainable organizations, securing funding and utilizing assets to support large-scale activity.

Recent moves to make the social sector more efficient, by focusing on improvements to the management of both the donors and the recipients of grants, are an important development. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation applies rigorous criteria to the assessment of the performance of organizations in receipt of its grant funding. Michael Dell’s philanthropic work is similarly rigorous. Their goal, according to Harvard professors Robert Kaplan and Allen Grossman, is, essentially, “to find and fund the Microsofts and Dells of the non-profit sector.”

In fact, such moves are more necessary than ever, as deficit-ridden governments seek to pass greater responsibility onto the shoulders of the social sector. An example of this is the UK Coalition Government’s strategic objective to foster the “Big Society.” In essence, the Big Society agenda seeks to pass a significant portion of responsibility for social cohesion back to the community via the voluntary sector, and, at the same time, to confer greater legitimacy upon such community work and to provide incentives and support for it. However, the social sector as currently constituted is unlikely to be able to address the scale of the social need; or, to put it another way, to meet the scale of the social challenge.

This is where social entrepreneurs come in. We know that entrepreneurs create jobs and foster innovation. In that sense, they already make a substantial social contribution. But entrepreneurs have special qualities that could make a significant beneficial impact were they to be applied to social issues. The entrepreneurial mindset embraces leadership, vision, the ability to attract talented people, drive, focus, perseverance, self-confidence, optimism, competitiveness and ambition. To these one might add an appetite for taking informed risks, an unwavering focus on results, a willingness to take responsibility, a grounded sense of realism, astute judgment of opportunities and people, and a fascination with the field of enterprise in question. The engagement of entrepreneurs in the social sector, bringing in their wake high expectations of performance, accountability and innovation, could lead to significantly increased social impact.

Could the social sector be transformed to allow the emergence of entrepreneurs from within its own ranks and attract social entrepreneurs and capital on a large scale? The answer is yes, provided that we can create an effective system to support social entrepreneurship, by linking the social sector to the capital markets and introducing new financial instruments that enable entrepreneurs to make beneficial social impact while also making adequate financial returns for investors. Given these conditions, it is possible that social entrepreneurs and impact investors will significantly fill the gap between social need and current government and social-sector provision. Indeed, were social enterprise to achieve significant scale, it would transform the social sector and lead to a new contract between government, the capital markets and citizens.

In this process, charitable, institutional and private investors, attracted by the combination of social as well as financial returns, would bring into being a new asset class: impact investment. In a recent report, JP Morgan came to the conclusion that impact investments already constitute an emerging asset class: “In a world where government resources and charitable donations are insufficient to address the world’s social problems, impact investing offers a new alternative for channeling large-scale private capital for social benefit. With increasing numbers of investors rejecting the notion that they face a binary choice between investing for maximum risk-adjusted returns or donating for social purpose, the impact investment market is now at a significant turning point as it enters the mainstream… We argue that impact investments are emerging as an alternative asset class.”

This new asset class requires a specific set of investment and risk-management skills; it demands organizational structures to accommodate these skills; it must be serviced by industry organizations and associations; and it must encourage the development of standardized metrics, benchmarks and even ratings. As has been observed by the impact-investment firm Bridges Ventures in the UK, such an asset class should provide welcome diversification for capital markets: at times of economic stress, price-sensitive business models appropriate to lower income neighborhoods can prove more resilient and also find wider applications in the mainstream market as both margins and consumer spending power are squeezed.

Not surprisingly, politicians as well as academics, entrepreneurs and investors are paying increasingly close attention to these developments. In the US and in the UK, and now also in Canada and Australia, steps are being taken to provide social entrepreneurs with access to the same kinds of resources as business entrepreneurs. The USA’s Social Innovation Fund ($173 million) and the Investing in Innovation Fund ($644 million) are notable examples; as is the proposed creation of the UK’s Big Society Bank. In Canada, the Federal Government recently received the report of the Canadian Task Force on Social Finance, whose recommendations include requiring public and private foundations to devote a proportion of their funds to mission-related investments; clarifying fiduciary obligations so that pension funds and others can invest in social programs; introducing new financial instruments for social enterprise; and marshalling government support for social enterprise, directly through seed investment and business support services and indirectly through fiscal engineering.

How likely is it that such steps will succeed? In answering this question, we would do well to consider that the global economy faced a similar moment of challenge and opportunity in the 1970s and 1980s, when many of the most familiar names in the post-war corporate world started to decline and shed jobs, among them General Motors, American Motors, Courtaulds, ICI, Smith Corona, Olivetti, US Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Kodak and International Harvester. The question then was: what would take their place?

What took their place was a new wave of business enterprise helped by venture investing, mostly focused on high-tech industries. This is the wave that brought us Intel, Cisco, Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Sun Microsystems and Genentech. The hi-tech wave has since swept the world, taking us into the embrace of Google, Wikipedia and Facebook and ushering in a communications and information revolution based on global access to information from multiple sources. It has thereby profoundly changed global culture.

Just as hi-tech business enterprise and venture capital, working in tandem, have attracted increasing numbers of talented risk-takers since the 1970s, so social enterprise and impact investment are now attracting a new generation of talented and committed innovators seeking to combine new approaches to achieving social returns. Social enterprise and impact investing, in short, look like the wave of the future.

About Sir Ronald Cohen Sir Ronald Cohen is chairman of Bridges Ventures and The Portland Trust. He chaired the UK’s Social Investment Task Force and the Commission on Unclaimed Assets and he is a founder-director of Social Finance. Until 2005, he was executive chairman of Apax Partners Worldwide LLP, which he co-founded in 1972.

Another potential barrier to this pay-for-success approach is that the funding to pay investors their return ultimately comes from government. These investments are not necessarily creating a new pot of money. Rather, they’re transferring the risk from taxpayers to private investors. In the past, government funding for social projects would pay for everything upfront, regardless of outcomes. Now, under impact bonds, they will only pay for results from non-profits after they have been achieved. So, are pay-for-success bonds a truly revolutionary way to fund charitable work, or is it just government funding repackaged?

espite potential shortcomings, these pay-for-success bonds are forcing people to rethink how the not-for-profit sector operates and funds its work. Applying private sector principles to charities is not necessarily a bad thing – many non-profits can benefit from working more efficiently and measuring their results. But whether these new bonds are the mechanism that will transform philanthropy remains to be seen.

“We have a sustainable matrix system that allows us to invest in high-impact sectors like oil only if the company is exceptionally sustainable,” Mr Straehle says.

It remains to be seen how permanent that caution is, but the political shift away from nuclear in Europe, particularly in Germany, could restrain European banks from funding such projects further afield.

This may just be current pragmatism, but it reflects homegrown changes in business strategies by banks with international reach.

For example, in recent months mainstream British banks have been drawn, sometimes screaming, into doing more to assist the broader society. The so-called Project Merlin agreement between the big UK banks was centred on government lending targets, but it also bound the banks into several other do-good projects that are more ambitious in their scope than standard government-sponsored financing initiatives.

The biggest idea is the creation of a £2.5bn ($4.1bn) private equity-style Business Growth Fund to kick-start small business investment, while a further £200m has been committed to the Big Society Bank, a project conceived by David Cameron, UK prime minister, to support regional development ventures.

There is a theoretical promise of commercial returns for the banks, but few expect them to be generous.

Some specific observations:  No such thing as the Big Society? – considering that at one stage this was supposed to give policy substance to the Big Society, it is striking how absent the Big Society is from the White Paper. That’s one cut it didn’t make.  I did a control search and only came across one Big Society reference in the whole report, and this was not to the idea but to the Big Society bank. So this leaves an obvious question about how central the Big Society now will be to the Government? One practical effect of there being no Big Society strand is that the tenor of the White Paper is much more consumerist, gone appears to be the emphasis on social citizenship and responsibility.  This leaves a big gap because, as our Commission on 2020 Public Services argued, the big challenges of the future will need to be met through citizens and the state working together to create better social outcomes.  Very few concrete proposals – This is about direction of travel, rather than specific proposals. In fact, there are very few concrete proposals. Instead this is much more like a Green Paper in which general propositions are put out for consultation, with the question being what specific policy changes would these require? This is clearly a long way from what some of the Big Society evangelists had originally wanted to see.  No short term wins for the voluntary sector – Earlier in the year there had been speculation that the White Paper might contain some specific guarantees for the voluntary sector to help offset the consequences of Council grant cuts.  But, whilst there are warm words for the role of the voluntary sector, and some new development money and support to help develop social social enterprises, there is no specific commitment to, for example, a quota of Council services to be subject to voluntary sector right to bid.   Diversity of provision – the boldest statement in the White Paper is that there is no case for monopoly state provision of services, except for the special cases of defence, criminal justice and policing.  The case is made for all public services to be run on the basis of autonomous institutions such as Academies and Foundation Trusts, which could be run by businesses, mutuals or social enterprises.  However, there are no specific proposals to apply this to any particular service area.  Local government is the big winner – this is the most pro-local government policy paper to have been published by the Coalition.  Whereas, the distinct impression in previous policy developments on public service reform has been that local government was being sidestepped, now it is much more central to the Coalition’s plans for decentralisation.  The principle of decentralisation which is set out in the white paper bears some similarity with the subsidiarity principle developed in the 1990s by the European Union, under which decisions should be devolved to the lowest possible level of government.  The new twist to this is the emphasis in the white paper on establishing neighbourhood councils in urban areas to mirror parishes and to be responsible for the same types of very local, community and public space services.  But the White Paper also makes the case for more powers and greater financial autonomy for local authorities and, in one of its few specific proposals, also recommends that skills funding should pass to some Councils, something which cities like Manchester have been strongly pushing for.

As Nick Timmins noted in the FT today, there are a number of tensions within the White Paper, which are not even acknowledged, let alone resolved.  He cited the principle of promoting diversity whilst at the same time needing to guard against failure, a weakness of successive health reforms and a particularly current concern given the collapse of Southern Cross.   But this isn’t the half of it. Other questions which the White Paper doesn’t confront, but which a credible reform plan would have to resolve, include:  Service integration vs institutional autonomy – how can local government integrate services in the way that the white paper suggests, whilst at the same time vertical service silos are being strengthened through the promotion of institutional autonomy in schools, hospitals, and now in every other service?  Consumerism vs social citizenship – how can a consumerist approach to public services help strengthen the co-productive relationship which there will need to be between citizens and services to meet the social challenges of 2020 and beyond?  Ideas vs practice – how can the Coalition move from exhortation to implementation? The White Paper may contain a framework of principles but it does not set out a convincing strategy as to how reforms based on these could be implemented.  Over the coming weeks we at 2020 will be analysing the Coalition’s reform agenda in more detail and looking to see where the opportunities exist for developing better social productivity practice.  Please let us have your comments and ideas.  Ben Lucas

In the interim, nonprofits seeking to grow their operations have been stuck in a state of arrested development.

Elizabeth Berger, president of the Downtown Alliance, which supports economic development in lower Manhattan, welcomed the mayor's announcement as a necessary step in enabling nonprofits to play their part in promoting the city's economic vitality.

According to the mayor's office, more than 13 organizations have gone to out-of-state funding sources for assistance in financing capital projects totaling more than $337 million since June 2009. The administration also estimates nonprofits have at least 20 shovel-ready capital projects stuck in the development pipeline with a combined price tag of more than $400 million.

While the city's nonprofits don't enjoy quite the same cachet in terms of revenue-generating potential as either financial services or leisure and hospitality, the group exceeds both sectors with respect to employment. While the other sectors employ approximately 434,000 and 320,000, respectively, the more than 42,000 health, human services and cultural nonprofit (HHSC) organizations throughout the five boroughs support approximately 470,000 employees, according to the mayor's office. That sector is the largest private employer in city—employing more than 15% of New York's non-governmental work force.

“New York City is home to tens of thousands of nonprofits that are looking to expand, create jobs or move into new facilities, but for the past few years they have faced more expensive financing costs, while some have had to forgo expansion altogether,” Mr. Bloomberg said, in a statement. “This new entity will make it easier and more inexpensive for our critical nonprofit sector to grow and expand.”

“At a time when many not-for-profits are struggling to make ends meet amid the nation's fiscal woes, this new issuer will serve to strengthen and support an increasingly important sector in our city's economy,” Ms. Berger said in the mayor's office statement. “In lower Manhattan, not-for-profits represent a vital and growing sector, and this action recognizes their value.”

Capital projects and investment in expansion and facilities upgrades have been curtailed as the volatile economy takes a toll on nonprofits struggling to make up for reductions in funding support. “For over three years, nonprofits like ours have faced far too many obstacles in obtaining financing to grow and expand,” Sisi Kamal, chief financial and operating officer at the Friends Seminary School, said in the statement. “The ability to locally access necessary financing in an efficient and cost-effective manner would be a significant investment in the future of our organization and that of many others serving the residents of New York City.”The administration said the new entity, a local development corporation, will open in the next four to six months and that financing requests will be based on board approval. The five borough presidents, in conjunction with the comptroller, will be charged with nominating directors to serve on the board.