Download An innovative solution to serve whom? ()

AN INNOVATIVE SOLUTION TO SERVE WHOM?
UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS AND THE IDEOLOGY THAT INFORMS THEM.
SOCIAL SERVICE PROVISION UNDER NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM
• Global austerity has lead to drastic funding cuts and changes to front line social service
provision
• Some of those changes involve:
• Competitive funding
• Payment-by-results
• Outcomes-based measurement
• We are seeing these structural funding changes affect the nature of front line work both
for service providers and service users
MY TOPIC: SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS (IN A NUTSHELL)
• A new funding method for social services that is popular in the U.K and U.S
• Allows governments to outsource social service funding to the private sector
• If a social program is determined to be "successful" at the end of its term, the
corporation(s) that provided funding will get their money back from the government
plus significant financial returns
• Proponents of SIBs see this as a win, win situation for all stakeholders involved
• Refuters of SIBs are concerned about their threat to community voice, civic engagement,
and collectivist citizenship
EXAMPLE OF A SIB
• A Peterborough Social Impact Bond has been rolled out with the intention of reducing
re-offending rates by 7.5% over 6 years at a facility near London holding 3000 short-term
prisoners. UK Ministry of Justice and Social Finance UK (intermediaries) raised $8million
from 17 investors to establish one service. Service providers were initiated to help
offenders navigate the system of supportive services and establish new services to
address unmet needs. The 17 investors will be paid back by the government if the
program is successful, meaning that re-offending rates decrease by 7.5% over 6 years for
3000 short-term prisoners. Investors can also earn returns on this program of up to 13%
each year the re-offending rates are cut by 7.5%.
CONCERNS WITH SIBS FROM A CRITICAL SOCIAL WORK PERSPECTIVE
• The growing interest in SIBs despite their inability to address structural social policy issues such as
• Universal health and child care
• Affordable housing
• Food security
• Good jobs and living wages
• SIBs focus on short-term programs that have limited capacity to address these policy areas
• SIBs allow the private sector (values, mandates, structure) to encroach further into caring
professions
MY ARGUMENT AND RESEARCH DESIGN
• The goal of SIBs is to save money while testing "innovative" social service programs – not to improve quality of
life or service for vulnerable citizens
• Critical social work attempts to reduce harm and power dominance as much as possible
• At its core, principles of human rights and social justice are imperative
• My argument: there is disparity between SIBs and the mandates of most non-profit and
social service agencies that may be implementing SIB projects
• Are SIBs more consistent with neoliberal ideology than evidence of best practice
within social work/social service? Do they devalue the social justice agenda of the
field?
CHOOSING A METHODOLOGY
• Developed a framework for measuring both social justice and neoliberalism
• Nancy Fraser's theory of social justice
• Includes the problem of distribution as well as recognition (i.e. Welfare)
• Social justice is not possible unless all participant voices are equally valued and respected in all
aspects of social life (participatory parity)
• Obstacles to participatory parity: economic and social inequities, and power relations that
privilege some while oppressing others
• The problem of recognition is addressed – to be misrecognized is to be denied status as a full
and equal partner in social arrangements due to institutionalized patterns that devalue certain
groups
CHOOSING A METHODOLOGY
• Greg Albo's theory of neoliberalism
• Thomas Friedman's Golden Rules of Neoliberalism
• Globalization, deregulation, downloading services, privatization, social austerity
• Neoliberal policies favour the wealthiest elite
• Drawing on my experience as a service provider at several non-profit organizations
• Impact of funding structures like SIBs that endorse competitive funding, payment-by-results,
and outsourcing to the private sector
• Has changed the relationship between myself and service users and the nature of my work
altogether
KEY FINDINGS AND RESULTS
• SIBs do not meet the criteria for Nancy Fraser's framework of social justice
• Participatory parity and the problem of recognition are not addressed
• SIBs are consistent with Freidman's golden rules of neoliberalism
• They privatize social programs, allow and promote competitive bidding on service, are
considered useful in balancing government budgets and deregulate service
• They limit government choice since program structure is limited and definite
• They open a profit margin for the private sector that contributes to the global capitalist
market
KEY FINDINGS AND RESULTS
• My findings challenge ideological dominant discourse around private sector elitism
• Selling public services in Ontario has resulted in lower quality service that costs Ontarians
more money (i.e. Hospital labs)
RELEVANCE TO SOCIAL WORK
• Ontario is about to pilot two SIB projects
• Mainstay Housing in Toronto (assist tenants living with mental health and/or addiction stabilize
housing)
• The Raft in Niagara (improve graduation rates for 900 youth)
• Knowing about SIBs and other neoliberal forces that affect our work
• Informed advocacy
• Do less harm
• Practice critically
TIPS FOR YOUR PRP JOURNEY
• Choose a topic you already know something about, or are passionate about;
• Don't feel boxed in by a methodology;
• Don't feel pressured to interview people;
• Talk about your topic, ideas, methodology and theories often, and bounce ideas off of
students and professors;
• Meet your assigned deadlines! This will help you stay on track;
• Enjoy your journey!