In his piece entitled “Social Impact Bonds: why they don’t work and why we still need them”, David acknowledges that SIBs in “isolation won’t address serious underlying issues which require multiple commissioners, [but] attempts at a more systemic solution could be funded from the centre”. He also proposes the creation of a Social Outcomes Fund aimed at exploring “disruptive social innovations” that could be “explored collaboratively by commissioners and providers”.
In summary David argues that “SIBs will never be the panacea and they’re unlikely to live up to the hype from some quarters. But they should not be dismissed outright. Whether they’re refined versions of current models, or next-generation variants, in the absence of meaningful engagement with the systemic challenge of poverty they have an important role, even if it’s a transitional one.”
If you’d like to take a look at the rest of David’s arguments, you can read the rest of his CFG piece here.
This information is necessarily of a general nature and doesn’t constitute legal advice. This is not a substitute for formal legal advice, given in the context of full information under an engagement with Bates Wells.
All content on this page is correct as of November 12, 2018.