The South Australian Government opened its second round of Social Impact Investments, with a focus on better outcomes for children and young people in out-of-home care, and after leaving guardianship. This follows South Australia's first social impact investment in the Aspire homelessness program delivered by The Hutt St Centre.
Interestingly, the Commonwealth Government is providing $5m as partner with the South Australian Treasury Department, as an early foray into learning and engaging in the social impact investment space.
Latitude Network is assisting with the preparation and development of an application focusing on improved outcomes from the residential care context.
New South Wales
The NSW Office of Social Impact Investment (OSII) is reviewing proposals from three organisations focusing on Indigenous employment and empowerment. Latitude Network was been supporting one Indigenous organisation through the 'co-development phase' where OSII collaborated with the social organisation to advise and develop a proposal together. The intent is to support organisations to prepare robust proposals that are more likely to meet Treasury's requirements and be successful through what can sometimes be an arduous 'Joint Development Phase' of financial and contract negotiations to conclude a social benefit (impact) bond legal agreement.
The Victorian Treasury is a long way through negotiations with two organisations in the 'Joint Development Phase' for its next round of social impact bond investments. This round focuses on primary and secondary school aged children who have become disengaged from school and have a variety of other complexities in their lives. Latitude Network is supporting Melbourne City Mission and the Hester Hornbrook Academy in the negotiations.
The NSW Government's Office for Social Impact Investment (OSII) has been busy. While they are about to close a tender round for a formal social impact investment based on homelessness, they have also kicked off an exciting new funding process called 'Social Impact Investment - Evolve' (SII Evolve). The SII Evolve process invites social organisations to propose an outcomes-based project based on any cohort and social policy area. This is a significant step forward for outcomes-based funding in Australia as it is, essentially, an open invitation for organisations to come forward with great ideas about how to address social disadvantage and lowers the barriers to apply.
This advance is important because it recognises that social organisations (and their clients) need to be the initiators of progress and innovation - and often are. But not every idea or initiative with promise can fit into either the narrow criteria of a large funding round nor the complexity of a formal social impact investment (think 'Social Impact Bonds').
This funding round is different because it simplifies the first step; by requiring only a 5 page submission, rather than the 30+ pages that are behind a social impact bond-type application that is typical of the Australian funding rounds so far. The OSII understands that the complexity of preparing an outcomes-based project proposal is higher than a standard tender and can therefore be a barrier for smaller social organisations (and even larger ones) to spend the time developing the proposal.
While we aren't, yet, at the stage where social organisations have strong incentives to invest in new, outcomes-focused service delivery, initiatives such as SII Evolve mark the start of what could become a structural change in our system which recognises and rewards social organisations that invest in testing and building new models that are proven to work to shift disadvantage.
Latitude Network is supporting social organisations and communities to develop proposals for the 'Evolve' funding round in NSW as well as current social impact investment rounds in Victoria. In our experience, most social organisations are excited by the opportunity to build new or adapt existing systems free from the output-focused shackles which currently hold them and their staff back. We would encourage organisations to start working on suitable proposals now, whether for this round or future rounds of funding.
The proposals are due by 12 October 2018, so now is the time to develop an application.
Find out more from the Office of Social Impact Investment's announcement here.
As governments and service providers around the world learn from the early years of Social Impact Bonds, a wider outcomes-based contracting landscape is emerging. Originally published in Pro Bono News.
If there’s one thing most people in the social sector agree on, it’s that they want to “make a difference”. This underpins the desire to move from a focus on outputs (where we may not have evidence about whether we are making a difference), to a focus on outcomes that matter to the social service user.
Not-for-profit boards are starting to drive an outcomes focus because part of good governance is to know whether the organisation is doing something that works. An ideal social service system ensures all participants are aligned around improving outcomes for those who need it.
Yet, the social service system is still a long way from that goal.
There are plenty of pitfalls in this transition to outcomes: debates about what and how to measure; costs of data collection; worries about unintended consequences and cherry picking; and the political hurdles in shifting resources to prevention. Yet while difficult, these are technical problems that can be solved with good outcomes-based contract design and a collaborative, co-design approach with government.
We recently attended the ICS (Institute for Child Success) Pay for Success Conference in North Carolina – a conference to support outcomes-based learning with a focus on early childhood disadvantage. We heard from an early intervention project successfully preventing at-risk kids from requiring costly special education services at school. We heard of the shift of $100 million of social service spending to an outcomes basis in the state of Rhode Island. We learned about a project that prevents hospitalisations of high risk asthma patients through allergen removal in the home – saving lives and money. These are some of the dozens of projects in operation now that are based around outcomes.
Should social organisations pursue growth, and if they do, how should they do it?, asks Dale Renner. (First published Pro Bono News 13 June 2017)
“Growth” can be a controversial word in the social sector. Social service leaders sometimes say “our job is eventually to go out of business”, implying that in some unspecified way, social problems will be solved and will remove demand for assistance. Yet, as the sector moves from grant-based to individualised funding, it becomes important to have a view on what growth means to social services organisations.
The ethical case for growth
Growth in this context doesn’t mean growing the amount of money spent on social programs in the aggregate. The focus is on growth at the program, or possibly organisation, level.
To understand the case for growth, agreement is first needed on what outcomes the community desires – many are obvious such as reducing crime, family violence, homelessness and Indigenous disadvantage. It is also important to understand what programs are proven to achieve that outcome for a certain cohort of people (noting there are levels of proof from anecdote through to randomised controlled trial). Growing the reach of those proven programs to benefit a greater number of people is surely an ethical pursuit as it reduces human suffering and harm. So at first blush, if a program is successful, for example, in helping to improve universal child literacy, it has a prima facie case for growth.