Fraser A, Tan S, Boaz A, Mays N. (2020). Public Money & Management.
Hosted by the Government Outcomes Lab at the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, in partnership with the Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Newcastle University Business School.
Dayson C, Fraser A, Lowe T. (2019). Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice.
Tan S, Fraser A, McHugh N, Warner M. (2019). Journal of Economic Policy Reform.
Fraser A, Tan S, Mays N. (2019). “To SIB or not to SIB? A comparative analysis of the commissioning processes of two proposed health-focused Social Impact Bond financed interventions in England”. Journal of Economic Policy Reform.
Hosted by the Government Outcomes Lab at the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, in partnership with the Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Newcastle University Business School.
Public service reform can benefit from outcome-focussed approaches to commissioning. However, we should avoid assuming that Social Impact Bonds are likely to have wide application, explain PIRU’s research team.
This is the final report of the Social Impact Bonds for Health and Social Care evaluation. The report is in two volumes: 1) the final report and 2) appendices.
This is the final report of the Social Impact Bonds for Health and Social Care evaluation. The report is in two volumes: 1) the final report and 2) appendices.
SIBs are emerging as a way to reconfigure relationships between the state and civil society in ways that their Western inventors may not have anticipated but may wish to replicate.
Evaluation should test key SIB promises to government: greater collaboration, prevention and innovation, argue two researchers from Oxford University’s Government Outcomes Lab.
A major investor highlights the vital role that research and evaluation should play in developing this form of outcomes funding.
A wide range of approaches can help identify causality and effectiveness even in complex environments.
In the run-up to the 3rd International Conference on SIBs, PIRU held a 6-part, weekly blog debate, entitled “Do Social Impact Bonds work?” from cutting edge thinkers and researchers.
Social and Development Impact Bonds require enormous effort for the partners involved, but they have a potential to transform the financing and delivery of social services across the globe.
A report on the four factors that determine whether a social impact bond is launched, also includes an infographic.
SIBs bring promises of extra cash and reduced fragmentation but also concerns about private sector interests, practicality and governance.
The experience of Social Impact Bonds can inform a wider set of relationships to help address social needs, argues a key innovator in the field.
Supporting change through social policy is an iterative process which develops participatory relationships with users. Social Impact Bonds fail on this front, rendering them unfit for purpose.
In the US, SIBs are the height of social policy fashion, but the risks are clear and numerous.
Social Impact Bonds and similar financial vehicles may seem guaranteed to deliver key values, but they raise important moral dilemmas.
Some claimed benefits of Social Impact Bonds remain unproven. But they tackle long-term weaknesses in public service delivery by concentrating on outcomes, early intervention and collaboration.
A literature review on SIBS was published in Social Policy & Administration.
New academic, critical, and interdisciplinary contributions on the use of Social Impact Bonds in public service delivery.
This is the interim report of the SIBs Trailblazer evaluation.
Department of Health Services Research & Policy
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
15–17 Tavistock Place
London WC1H 9SH
Noreen Seyerl
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Keppel Street
London WC1E 7HT
Tel: +44 (0)20 7927 2872