Data for outcome payments or information for care? A sociotechnical analysis of the management information system in the implementation of a social impact bond

Abstract

Max (2020) Data for outcome payments or information for care? A sociotechnical analysis of the management information system in the implementation of a social impact bond. Public Money & Management,

Evidence-Based Analysis of Social Impact Bonds for Homelessness: A Scoping Review

“…These projects benefit from significant contributions by local housing, education, and other support organizations, enabling expertise to be joined and tailored to each vulnerable individual to obtain the best outcomes. Academic articles have also demonstrated that collaboration of several involved actors within a project is very important ( Smeets, 2017 ; La Torre et al, 2019 ; Jamieson et al, 2020 ). Projects in the United States realized that lack of stable housing is associated with significant health concerns and used the Home and Healthy for Good (HHG) model, in which supportive housing is paired with medical and mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and vocational training, all coordinated by a case manager ( Golden et al, 2015 ; Brown et al, 2019 ; Johnson, 2019 ).…”

“…For example, relationship building and partnership working with landlords and local authorities proved critical for widening access to housing options. Prior work has also reported that collaboration of several involved actors within a project is very important ( Smeets, 2017 ; La Torre et al, 2019 ; Jamieson et al, 2020 ). Intermediary organizations that help match providers with investors, structure the financial deal, and monitor programs use a Special Purpose Vehicle.…”

Managing the complexity of outcomes: a new approach to performance measurement and management

“…Reviews of payment by results initiatives (Clist 2019) and social impact bonds ) paint an underwhelming picture of effectiveness of OBPM. Other reviews (Perrin 2006;Mayne 2007;Wimbush 2011) of OBPM note ongoing difficulties in the implementation of technical management control systems, in particular around measurement and attribution problems (Boyne and Law 2005;Bovaird 2014;Jamieson et al 2020). More troublingly, empirical literature also documents a range of performance paradoxes, wherein OBPM implementation has actually undermined performance.…”

“…Studies have routinely demonstrated that, consistent with Campbell's Law (Campbell 1976) and Goodhart's Law (Strathern 2009), outcomes-based reforms have routinely created powerful perverse incentives for gaming and distorting performance information (van Thiel and Leeuw 2002;Bevan and Hood 2006). The distal, multi-dimensional nature of outcomes have also proved difficult to reconcile with the requirements for objective, unambiguous indicators and accounts for performance (Bovaird 2014;Jamieson et al 2020).…”

Theme: Futures in social investment? Learning from the emerging policy and practice of Social Impact Bonds (SIBs)

“…Next, Hevenstone and von Bergen (2020) explore the claims of government transparency as an outcome of the implementation of SIBs in five countries, examining how transparency differs between SIB and non-SIB financed programmes to critique the current positions. The third full paper in our themed issue is by Jamieson et al (2020) who report on a case study of a health SIB analysed through a sociotechnical systems lens. Jamieson et al explore the question of whether the data production processes required for SIB accounts can really be drawn from the information produced through the delivery of the care by service providers in practice.…”