Canadian Government explores ‘social impact bonds’ to finance services at a profit

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2013 4:34 PM GMT
    Kind of brilliant conceptually... but the devil will be in the details.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/09/kelly-mcparland-ottawa-explores-social-impact-bonds-to-finance-services-at-a-profit/

    Social impact bonds have been under development in a number of countries for several years. The idea is to find money to pay for social services that are badly needed, but can’t be provided by governments struggling to reduce deficits and pay for the services they already offer. Though approaches vary, under the basic model a private sector supporter finances a program to be run by a social agency or non-profit organization, that is structured with a firm set of performance targets. If the targets are met, the government agrees to return the cost, plus a profit, to the financing organization. The underlying doctrine is that successful social programs save the government money, so repaying the start-up costs is justified. At the same time, the government is freed from risking tax dollars on programs that sound good in theory, but might not work in practice.

    They’re not real bonds, since there is no fixed rate of return, but the name reflects the fact they’re designed to return a profit. They have been adopted in several countries, including Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S., where they’re commonly known as “pay for success” financing. In August, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the country’s first concrete program, which is aimed at reducing the rate at which young offenders return to crime after their release.

    “Currently, nearly 50 percent of adolescents who leave the New York City Department of Correction return within one year,” according to the press release unveiling the plan. “The new program announced today, ABLE, aims to reduce the likelihood of reincarceration by providing education, training and counseling to improve personal responsibility skills, including decision-making and problem-solving.”

    Goldman Sachs will finance the plan for four years, which will be operated by MDRC, a non-partisan New York non-profit organization. The loan will be partly guaranteed by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the mayor’s family foundation. To be judged a success, the program will have to reduce the number of youths returning to jail by 10%, as measured by an independent third party organization. If it works, the city will repay Goldman, plus a profit; if not, the city pays nothing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2013 4:01 PM GMT
    lol, Finley and a couple of others are in so much hot water now I'm suprised (well maybe not) at this diversion. icon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2013 5:03 PM GMT
    meninlove said lol, Finley and a couple of others are in so much hot water now I'm suprised (well maybe not) at this diversion. icon_lol.gif



    Heh - if you say so. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This has been an announcement 2 years in the making with only the specificity being announced. You've shown repeatedly that you don't understand (or care to understand) the impact of immigration or trade for the Canadian economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2013 5:48 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said lol, Finley and a couple of others are in so much hot water now I'm suprised (well maybe not) at this diversion. icon_lol.gif



    Heh - if you say so. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This has been an announcement 2 years in the making with only the specificity being announced. You've shown repeatedly that you don't understand (or care to understand) the impact of immigration or trade for the Canadian economy.


    *imagining you with whiny voice with hands on hips*

    How about getting in touch with your illustrious heroes and asking what happened to 3.1 billion dollars that has just, er, vanished?

    ...and how about that TWFP. icon_lol.gif displacing, among other people, those who have immigrated here.

    This is just too funny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2013 5:51 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said lol, Finley and a couple of others are in so much hot water now I'm suprised (well maybe not) at this diversion. icon_lol.gif



    Heh - if you say so. icon_rolleyes.gif

    This has been an announcement 2 years in the making with only the specificity being announced. You've shown repeatedly that you don't understand (or care to understand) the impact of immigration or trade for the Canadian economy.


    *imagining you with whiny voice with hands on hips*

    How about getting in touch with your illustrious heroes and asking what happened to 3.1 billion dollars that has just, er, vanished?

    ...and how about that TWFP. icon_lol.gif displacing, among other people, those who have immigrated here.

    This is just too funny.


    Which just goes to show how seriously you take these issues when it comes to political gains. You sad old man. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2013 5:59 PM GMT
    Ah, in with the ageist slur as fast as you can. icon_lol.gif


    So how about that 3.1 billion dollars, eh? For some inexplicable reason you argue on here a though RJ is separated from the rest of the world online.

    It isn't.

    As for the issues, I take them VERY seriously, but I don't take YOU seriously.

    P3s aren't new, and often very feasible, and this one could work well, however the exposed track record of bungling by our Federal leaders will likely make a mess of it.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2013 7:49 PM GMT
    meninlove said Ah, in with the ageist slur as fast as you can. icon_lol.gif


    So how about that 3.1 billion dollars, eh? For some inexplicable reason you argue on here a though RJ is separated from the rest of the world online.

    It isn't.

    As for the issues, I take them VERY seriously, but I don't take YOU seriously.

    P3s aren't new, and often very feasible, and this one could work well, however the exposed track record of bungling by our Federal leaders will likely make a mess of it.


    P3s like this *are* new - which kind of goes hand in hand with your supposed serious understanding of the issues. icon_rolleyes.gif

    As for the 3.1 billion - how much press did it make? Not much - because if you actually understood the accounting (which again you've shown you repeatedly do not) - it was a difference between what was actually spent versus what was allocated - and further to this, it wasn't like the money went missing. Feel free to create a topic on this pressing issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 12:14 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Ah, in with the ageist slur as fast as you can. icon_lol.gif


    So how about that 3.1 billion dollars, eh? For some inexplicable reason you argue on here a though RJ is separated from the rest of the world online.

    It isn't.

    As for the issues, I take them VERY seriously, but I don't take YOU seriously.

    P3s aren't new, and often very feasible, and this one could work well, however the exposed track record of bungling by our Federal leaders will likely make a mess of it.


    P3s like this *are* new - which kind of goes hand in hand with your supposed serious understanding of the issues. icon_rolleyes.gif

    As for the 3.1 billion - how much press did it make? Not much - because if you actually understood the accounting (which again you've shown you repeatedly do not) - it was a difference between what was actually spent versus what was allocated - and further to this, it wasn't like the money went missing. Feel free to create a topic on this pressing issue.


    Of course, Auditor General wrong, Riddler right. icon_lol.gif

    And in case you're floundering, our previous Liberal government is also partly culpable.

    Anyway, do go on with your polarising of politics.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 1:41 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Ah, in with the ageist slur as fast as you can. icon_lol.gif


    So how about that 3.1 billion dollars, eh? For some inexplicable reason you argue on here a though RJ is separated from the rest of the world online.

    It isn't.

    As for the issues, I take them VERY seriously, but I don't take YOU seriously.

    P3s aren't new, and often very feasible, and this one could work well, however the exposed track record of bungling by our Federal leaders will likely make a mess of it.


    P3s like this *are* new - which kind of goes hand in hand with your supposed serious understanding of the issues. icon_rolleyes.gif

    As for the 3.1 billion - how much press did it make? Not much - because if you actually understood the accounting (which again you've shown you repeatedly do not) - it was a difference between what was actually spent versus what was allocated - and further to this, it wasn't like the money went missing. Feel free to create a topic on this pressing issue.


    Of course, Auditor General wrong, Riddler right. icon_lol.gif

    And in case you're floundering, our previous Liberal government is also partly culpable.

    Anyway, do go on with your polarising of politics.




    Wrong again. You must either enjoy being deceptive or you are really that dumb. Auditor = right. Again, you entirely misunderstood (or took from sources that just didn't understand) what the issue the auditor had a problem with.

    3.1 billion wasn't spent on the attributed program. Let me break this out for you since you apparently have an unwillingness to understand the issue: the government announces a new spending program - it's a large widespread program that touches several departments. That amount is divvied up and then allocated to those departments.

    Those departments also spend a lot of other money, and they allocated it to their general funds combined it with other programs some of which may not have been new, and at the end of the day, the government finds that 3.1 billion less was accounted for and tagged as the original spending program.

    This doesn't mean that the money was stolen or lost. This money was spent within those departments - but either not categorized as that original line item or spent on other priorities.

    Interesting however that you would prefer staying on topic when it suits you but diverge when it suits you. But that kind of goes hand in hand with your being a hypocrite, liar and well, not altogether that bright. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 2:12 PM GMT
    icon_lol.gif

    Sorry Riddler, if that kind of sloppy accounting for where the money went happened at a financial institution whoever was responsible would be fired pretty swiftly.

    As for the P3, Baird handed over welfare admin in Ontario to accenture - what a mess that was. Let's hope if this is tried it's not with the same buffoonery (although I suspect it would).


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 2:21 PM GMT
    meninlove said icon_lol.gif

    Sorry Riddler, if that kind of sloppy accounting for where the money went happened at a financial institution whoever was responsible would be fired pretty swiftly.

    As for the P3, Baird handed over welfare admin in Ontario to accenture - what a mess that was. Let's hope if this is tried it's not with the same buffoonery (although I suspect it would).




    How sloppy was this accounting? These were classification errors at best - it wasn't misappropriation or malicious use of funds that you seem to have inferred.

    As for Baird - we have a much larger history replete with Liberal failures in spending and actual misappropriation of funds. One need only look at Quebec. And as for mess? Given that the work was contracted out, it ended - but that's not what happens for usual government employees - as you must have missed.

    But yet again, social impact bonds are something quite different given that they depend on objective metrics to be met. It's something that is in the very least interesting to anyone who is interested in solving social problems as opposed to scoring political points as you seem so intent on doing despite your considerable lack of knowledge in such basic areas as accounting and finance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 2:30 PM GMT
    *looks at gaping holes in Riddler's post*

    Ohh Kayyyyyyyyy....... O.o
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 2:33 PM GMT
    meninlove said *looks at gaping holes in Riddler's post*

    Ohh Kayyyyyyyyy....... O.o


    Says the man who consistently aims to mislead or simply ignore evidence that doesn't go his way...

    It's kind of funny watching you flounder.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    May 10, 2013 2:46 PM GMT
    It is a concept that it not new, but also not very common. From a contract perspective it is simply a private placement of bonds. What is different in this article is that the Canadian government is marketing the concept and managing the packaging.

    I do not think that politics will allow this to become common. After all, it places the burden of social funding on those who desire the social funding. In other words it allows liberals to have their social funding and gives them the opportunity to pay for their desire. icon_biggrin.gif What a concept.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 2:49 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said *looks at gaping holes in Riddler's post*

    Ohh Kayyyyyyyyy....... O.o


    Says the man who consistently aims to mislead or simply ignore evidence that doesn't go his way...

    It's kind of funny watching you flounder.


    Oh I'm not floundering.

    I think you attack me the most because what I have to say makes you uncomfortable in your throne. Truth has a way of doing that.

    You like polarizing politics which is the weapon of divisiveness. Most Canadians look at politics as shades of gray, but I'll play your silly little game. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 2:50 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said *looks at gaping holes in Riddler's post*

    Ohh Kayyyyyyyyy....... O.o


    Says the man who consistently aims to mislead or simply ignore evidence that doesn't go his way...

    It's kind of funny watching you flounder.


    Oh I'm not floundering.

    I think you attack me the most because what I have to say makes you uncomfortable in your throne. Truth has a way of doing that.


    Lol if that's what you really believe. icon_lol.gif

    Truth? Do you even read your own posts - and you have your causality wrong here sweetie. And yes, you're floundering. The truth *does* have that effect on you. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 2:54 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidIt is a concept that it not new, but also not very common. From a contract perspective it is simply a private placement of bonds. What is different in this article is that the Canadian government is marketing the concept and managing the packaging.

    I do not think that politics will allow this to become common. After all, it places the burden of social funding on those who desire the social funding. In other words it allows liberals to have their social funding and gives them the opportunity to pay for their desire. icon_biggrin.gif What a concept.



    I think the interesting part of the social impact bonds is that they basically put out a prize for coming up with effective solutions that are better than the current ones. It's sort of an end run in a way around government largesse because it puts implementation outside government.

    And I do think there are worthwhile social objectives that need to be resolved. If we agree in law and order and we agree that there kids who commit crimes, then how do we punish, how do we reform? How do we encourage the reform of adults (beyond just the punishment)? For kids I think it's more of an issue because we presume they have not met the age of consent and do not have the ability to judge for themselves... whereas adults are different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:01 PM GMT

    Here's something to note, Riddler, while you face me and roar like a pumped up lion, your backside is exposed for others to observe.

    I enjoy making myself an easy target for you at times, and it's quite deliberate, as you should have figured out by now (others have).

    It makes for a welcome distraction for others from your endless attacks on the US.

    We get that you hate Obama. We get that hate anyone older than probably 45 (unless they're far right conservative). We get that you want to dismantle Canada's social safety nets.


    icon_lol.gif

    ...and as you can see by looking back on this topic, I've been rather effective.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:05 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Here's something to note, Riddler, while you face me and roar like a pumped up lion, your backside is exposed for others to observe.

    I enjoy making myself an easy target for you at times, and it's quite deliberate, as you should have figured out by now (others have).

    It makes for a welcome distraction for others from your endless attacks on the US.

    We get that you hate Obama. We get that hate anyone older than probably 45 (unless they're far right conservative). We get that you want to dismantle Canada's social safety nets.


    icon_lol.gif

    ...and as you can see by looking back on this topic, I've been rather effective.



    Do I hate Obama? That's news to me icon_rolleyes.gif

    And as for endless attacks, they certainly aren't on the US. Your myopia isn't unique but I have to attribute it in part because of your age - for which you've chided others for their youth.

    This thread *is* a good example of how ignorant you are on the issues you think you have a grasp on. You've chosen to take a diversionary path when it suits you - but that again just shows what a hypocrite you are. And if you want to bring others into it, others have pointed out IRL how much respect they've lost for you in these threads.

    And do I want to dismantle Canada's social safety nets? No - as I even pointed out in my last response to conservativejock - of course it's really too bad I don't fit in the neat little box you'd like me to sit in. But that's pretty typical for you sweetie. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    conservativejock saidIt is a concept that it not new, but also not very common. From a contract perspective it is simply a private placement of bonds. What is different in this article is that the Canadian government is marketing the concept and managing the packaging.

    I do not think that politics will allow this to become common. After all, it places the burden of social funding on those who desire the social funding. In other words it allows liberals to have their social funding and gives them the opportunity to pay for their desire. icon_biggrin.gif What a concept.



    I think the interesting part of the social impact bonds is that they basically put out a prize for coming up with effective solutions that are better than the current ones. It's sort of an end run in a way around government largesse because it puts implementation outside government.

    And I do think there are worthwhile social objectives that need to be resolved. If we agree in law and order and we agree that there kids who commit crimes, then how do we punish, how do we reform? How do we encourage the reform of adults (beyond just the punishment)? For kids I think it's more of an issue because we presume they have not met the age of consent and do not have the ability to judge for themselves... whereas adults are different.


    This is a classic. I can't think of another example of two lunatic posts together in one quote, lol.

    But then I imagine Riddler has bought into the rhetoric from CJ about being a multi- multi millionaire who is pumping out babies in Switzerland.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:08 PM GMT


    Riddler lied that, " for which you've chided others for their youth. "

    Oh goody. Examples of this please.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:09 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    conservativejock saidIt is a concept that it not new, but also not very common. From a contract perspective it is simply a private placement of bonds. What is different in this article is that the Canadian government is marketing the concept and managing the packaging.

    I do not think that politics will allow this to become common. After all, it places the burden of social funding on those who desire the social funding. In other words it allows liberals to have their social funding and gives them the opportunity to pay for their desire. icon_biggrin.gif What a concept.



    I think the interesting part of the social impact bonds is that they basically put out a prize for coming up with effective solutions that are better than the current ones. It's sort of an end run in a way around government largesse because it puts implementation outside government.

    And I do think there are worthwhile social objectives that need to be resolved. If we agree in law and order and we agree that there kids who commit crimes, then how do we punish, how do we reform? How do we encourage the reform of adults (beyond just the punishment)? For kids I think it's more of an issue because we presume they have not met the age of consent and do not have the ability to judge for themselves... whereas adults are different.


    This is a classic. I can't think of another example of two lunatic posts together in one quote, lol.

    But then I imagine Riddler has bought into the rhetoric from CJ about being a multi- multi millionaire who is pumping out babies in Switzerland.


    And that's your problem you seem to want to commit ad hominem at every turn instead of actually examining the underlying issues. You had nothing really good to say so you instead claimed that these social impact bonds were a distraction from some 3.1 billion in "missing funds" which turn out not to really be missing after all.

    You don't actually want to consider the innovation and instead you label both of us as "lunatics". Yeah, this does say far more about you than you'd like. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:10 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Riddler lied that, " for which you've chided others for their youth. "

    Oh goody. Examples of this please.



    I'm waiting Riddler. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:11 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Riddler lied that, " for which you've chided others for their youth. "

    Oh goody. Examples of this please.



    Says the buffoon, hypocrite and liar. There have been more than a few that I've recalled over the years and sorry if this hurts your feelings but I don't care enough about you to reference and tag the problems with your many postings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2013 3:11 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    meninlove said

    Riddler lied that, " for which you've chided others for their youth. "

    Oh goody. Examples of this please.



    I'm waiting Riddler. icon_lol.gif


    Oh you can keep waiting. icon_lol.gif