• Steven E. Mayer

    Would “pay for performance” be good for the social services? See this post from JustPhilanthropy.org


  • Darwin

    Finally a bit of critique of SIBs. The irrational exuberance of SIBs is off the chart.

  • Elizabeth

    All excellent points, but it is worth noting that many programs are local because they are adapted to a specific context and have buy in from the people performing them. That is why you would not automatically make them broad-based programs. Kind of like why you would not invest the same amount in air conditioners in Seattle as you would in Atlanta. It doesn’t make sense.

    That said, I really appreciate this article. There are many issues with social impact bonds and this is a great starting point.

  • Steve Goldberg

    Please see my response at http://bit.ly/1m3EszD.

  • Richard Guske

    Both this and the May 2014 article by Rick Cohen highlight important matters for consideration while fostering the SIB and I appreciate his points being made. The idea that private investments can have culture influences as well as financial gains may not, however, be a new concept. Certainly the last 1000 years of the capital/culture alliance, despite the tragedies, have put us here to discuss the capital/culture alliance, still. This alliance allows that the process is not simple and clean, but is a genuine requirement for a community that considers itself civilized, has always been so. There is a “meta” position that needs bending private capital to serve culture for the better of us, as we are able, through all the messiness.