Build Your Nest Egg, Support an Organic Farm

Making money and doing good aren’t mutually exclusive.
When it comes to investing, earning a significant profit is typically the No. 1 goal. For stockholders looking to do more than simply earn financial returns, impact investing can allow them to generate social and environmental impact while increasing the balance of their portfolio.
With 85 percent of Millennials stating that it’s important for their values to align to their investment decisions, impact investing is growing in popularity. A recent poll finds that more than half of Americans ages 18 to 34 plan to put money towards socially responsible and impact investments in the future but haven’t done so yet, while 24 percent already own socially responsible investments.
Here’s how to sink some cash into the companies, organizations and funds that are doing good and providing a financial return for their efforts.

1. Know your values.

Investors can make a difference in a number of different areas.
Some of the most common sectors for investing include sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, conservation, microfinance, and affordable basic services including housing, healthcare and education, according to the Global Impact Investing Network, a nonprofit dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing around the world.
Nonprofits are also open for investment dollars. “The nonprofit sector has [previously] been excluded from impact investing where the focus is investing in for-profit social enterprises or rebranding past investments with an impact lens,” says Catarina Schwab, NationSwell Council member and co-founder and co-CEO of NPX, a company that partners with clients to pioneer new ways of financing impact. “Until recently, the financial products that enabled investment in a nonprofit organization were largely limited to loans.”

2. Understand potential returns.

Impact investments aren’t more volatile than traditional investments — but there are inherent financial risks involved. As with all portfolio holdings, diversifying is the best way to minimize your exposure.
According to GIIN, most investors pursue competitive market-rate returns, although some intentionally invest in causes that align with their values but will likely deliver returns below market rate.
Impact investors also have access to another type of return not available with traditional holdings: the social performance and progress of their investments. Values-based investments measure these in several ways, including the setting of performance metrics and targets, monitoring and managing the performance of investees against those targets and reporting on the social and environmental accomplishments that stakeholders establish as relevant to their goals.

3. Choose your investments

In the U.S., responsible investing assets have more than doubled to 8.72 trillion from 2012 to 2016, reports the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment.
Because of this, investment options are plentiful.
You can opt to invest in a socially responsible mutual fund or an ETF sold by an investment firm, such as Fidelity, Vanguard or Merrill Lynch. Or you could purchase individual stock in, say, a sustainable farm or a wind power project. The app Stash allows investors to choose from more than 30 ETFs to create a portfolio that reflects their beliefs.
Tools like NPX’s Impact Security, as well as Social and Development Impact Bonds, provide new ways to invest in nonprofit organizations.
Impact investments can also be made through specific companies that specialize in socially responsible investing. One such organization, Wunder Capital, connects individuals, institutional and corporate investors with commercial scale solar energy projects across the U.S. To date, it’s completed more than 120 financings in 18 states.
“In most cases, the businesses who are transitioning to solar have in the past exclusively bought their energy from the local utility,” said Ilyas Frenkel, director of growth for Wunder Capital. “The local utility in most cases burns fossil fuels — natural gas or coal — to create that power. When a business is able to add solar to their energy mix, they’re reducing their reliance upon fossil fuels.”
For investors, this means their money is helping small businesses transition off fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all while making up to 7.5 percent annually on their investment.
If you’re not sure where to start, check out GIIN’s ImpactBase. Potential impact investors can use the searchable, online database to learn more about the businesses and organizations working to create a better future.

The Southern City That’s Creating a Diverse, Digital Hub; How the Public Library Provides a Lifeline to the Homeless and More

 
Is a Different Kind of Silicon Valley Possible?, The Atlantic
Deep in the heart of tobacco country, Durham, N.C. is fostering the next home for digital start-ups. Thanks to free or low-cost office space, business advice, tax credits and financial compensation, more than 400 jobs and $29 million have been added to the local economy. But will this latest tech hub, which is located south of the Mason-Dixon line, find a way to be more diverse than its California predecessor?
Humanizing Homelessness at the San Francisco Public Library, CityLab
Those in the Bay Area without a roof over their heads don’t head to the library to check out the latest page turner. They head to the public building to meet with Leah Esguerra, the library’s social worker — a first of her kind. Connecting at-risk patrons with social programs and outreach services including housing and medical care, Esquerra has provided assistance to almost 1,000 people. She’s also a trend setter: inspiring 24 libraries nationwide to hire their own social workers.
A New Twist on ‘Pay for Success’ Programs, Governing
Governments and the private-sector partnering to fund social programs (an agreement known as social impact bonds, or SIBs) is the latest — and one of the most buzzed about — types of investing.  These “pay for success” contracts are risky since investors only receive their money back if the operation achieves its goals. A new model, the social impact guarantee, is more enticing to potential investors while also eliminating some of the traditional complications that accompany SIBs.
MORE: The New Way to Govern: Paying for Progress
 
 
 

The New Way to Govern: Paying for Progress

For too long, government has dumped millions of dollars into treating the effects of social ills without ever addressing their causes. Lacking funds or political will, it’s routine for legislators to salve the symptoms rather than cure the disease — let alone prevent new outbreaks. But the pioneers of a new public financing model claim there’s a better way for government to do business.
New partnerships between public and and private, known as social impact bonds (SIBs), are fronting the money for much-needed, underfunded social programs. More importantly, the sponsors argue, these bonds introduce data-driven performance metrics in order to find the greatest return for taxpayers.
These bonds redefine our conception of government. Striving to better the public good doesn’t cut it anymore. SIBs require programs to be successful and to do the work at a cheaper price. They also tilt the emphasis from activities to outcomes. Chances are, there won’t be a second New Deal or Great Society these days. But the innovators of this new form of financing hope to change government, using data to reshape it into an agile, efficient and performance-driven machine that can achieve our most ambitious goals.
[ph]
SIBs are generating buzz nationwide as an innovative way to fight the most intractable social problems, ones that indiscriminate government spending — without demanding innovation or results — has yet to make a dent in. The bonds (or as they’re now often called, “pay for success” contracts) allow nonprofits to scale their operations with private investment dollars. If their programs prove more efficient at solving problems than the current public services, corporate funders turn over long-term financial responsibility to the government. Taxpayers repay the investors’ up-front capital (with interest and a small return) only if the program works. Otherwise, if agreed-upon benchmarks aren’t met, the public’s off the hook — and backers lose their entire investment.
Governments are already using these bonds to address juvenile justice, chronic and family homelessness and early childhood education. Advocates say the alternative funding model allows cash-strapped governments to experiment with preemptive action that’s normally cut from tight budgets, rather than paying for expensive remedial programs later.
“If we procured music the same way we did social services, we’d all be listening to 8-track recording machines. Thirty years ago, we would have said, ‘This is great technology,’ and there’d be a law that you could only play music if it was on great technology just like this. That really is what social services look like in America,” says George Overholser, CEO and co-founder of Third Sector Capital Partners, a nonprofit with the goal of bringing data-driven performance metrics to government. The public sector has “a hard time recognizing when something new and better comes along,” he believes, but pay for success provides that for communities with “measurable ways that lives can be improved.”
Overholser’s firm serves as a “project intermediary” (essentially, a middle man) between lenders, the government and a nonprofit for the country’s largest SIB to date, an initiative that is aimed at reducing recidivism among at-risk young male inmates in Boston, Chelsea and Springfield, Mass., through behavioral interventions, educational prep and job training.
Here’s how it works: Third Sector Capital raised $18 million in cash from private investors — such as Goldman Sachs’s Social Impact Fund, plus five charitable foundations. Third Sector turns all of that money over to a service provider, in this case, Roca, Inc., a nonprofit that’s been around for 25 years and has developed a four-year program to help young men exit prison’s revolving door and enter the workforce. Over the next seven years, Roca will target a group of 929 men, ages 17 to 23, who are either on probation or aging out of the juvenile justice system.
“This project can be viewed as a laboratory. We are testing and evaluating the types of interventions to prove their worth, quantify their impact, and determine whether . . . this would make a meaningful impact on other young people,” Glen Shor, the state’s former secretary of Administration and Finance, tells The Boston Globe.
[ph]
With this bond, the investors are repaid by the government (which does not provide any initial funding) only if the program reduces re-incarceration by at least 5.2 percent compared to a control group. The goal, however, is to reduce recidivism by 40 percent. That may seem like a huge discrepancy, but it’s the level at which the Bay State will start saving money. Any less than that, and the program breaks even; any more, and the investors are entitled to a fraction of the savings — which are called “success payments.” That’s because the bonds operate just like any stock market investment, providing a return on a successful investment (though at a much more modest rate, given the risk compared to the market). For Roca and the nonprofit brackers (like Third Sector Capital, the criminal justice-focused The Arnold Foundation or Boston-based New Profit, Inc.), most of that return would be recycled into further scaling or future bond projects.
For a social impact bond to work, “so much needs to be just right: a rigorous way to evaluate impact, a strong cost-benefit analysis, a service provider that can scale with quality, government partners that are willing (and able) to engage deeply, investors and boards that have an appetite to understand and embrace new financial constructs, and last but not least, a willingness by all parties to communicate, communicate, communicate as the multiparty problem-solving process tumbles forward,” Overholser reflected as the Massachusetts initiative began.
The pay-for-success model has been thrown around among policy wonks as “the next big thing” since the early 2000s. During a time when public and charitable coffers are hard pressed to respond to all the existing need, SIBs emerged as a new stream of funding. Shortly after the first pilot project in England (also targeted at recidivism) launched in 2010, the model journeyed across the Atlantic. In 2012, New York City embarked on the first American bond to provide therapeutic treatment to teenagers locked up on Rikers Island, its central correctional facility.
Though none of those projects have been completed, the purpose of the model is already shifting from its early origins. For one, insiders now shy away from the initial term “bonds” since it’s a misnomer because investors aren’t guaranteed payback. More importantly, proponents argue that SIBs are not merely a new revenue stream, like municipal bonds, but a new way of doing business. Because all the funding is centered on data-based outcomes, it forces all the partners involved to rethink their programs. The public is paying for success, not services.
Many of the first bonds focused on recidivism and homelessness because they could be measured with simpler data sets and figures that were readily available — a person’s either in jail or not, for instance — but they are now targeting increasingly complex problems. Projects in Massachusetts and Denver, for example, started out with simple Housing First programs to provide homes to the chronically homeless. But a project launched in December in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, is targeting the much thornier issue of helping mothers who have been in homeless shelters avoid being separated from their children. Additionally, as data capabilities increase, pay for success programs promise to find the best investment of funds for problems like asthma, maternal depression and child welfare, advocates say.
“Historically, the obstacle was that we had no way of measuring social outcomes, but the information revolution has finally reached government,” Overholser says. “It’s now tuned not to what sounds good, but to what’s actually helping communities advance their goals. … We are, in a sense, retooling the way folks get paid to deliver services to the community.”
At city halls and statehouses across the country, lawmakers are studying whether to implement the pay-for-success model in their own jurisdictions. Currently, there’s seven projects underway in five states — rural and urban areas, red as Utah and blue as California — and at least 30 more on the horizon, says Nicole Truhe, government affairs director for America Forward, the nonpartisan public policy arm of New Profit, a venture philanthropy fund. Even the federal government is getting in on the action. Congress already approved legislation appropriating $600 million to assist in repaying bonds related to workforce development from successful state or local projects. Another bill pending would do the same for education dollars, Truhe adds.
“Elements of pay for success resonate with both conservatives and liberals,” she says. “There’s the cost savings efficiency piece to it, and there’s the focus on issue areas that are important to both parties, whether it be juvenile justice, early childhood education or healthcare.”
The question of whether social impact bonds will prove a lasting model or just the latest fad will likely depend on results from these early projects. Some skeptics say that private sector dollars are only being fronted for the bonds to boost a corporation’s image or even to make a profit. These observers say governments could realize the savings through their own pilot projects, innovation labs and direct contracting with established providers. Advocates respond, however, that mustering bipartisan political support for multi-year, multi-million-dollar projects hasn’t happened before and likely won’t anytime soon — especially since, as critics point out, the government must budget for full repayment of the bonds anyways, when a program is successful.
There’s also the question of how to calculate a government’s savings, some analysts worry. One problem stems from the concept of “fixed cost fallacy.” Calculating the expense for each day a prisoner spends in jail, for example, is often done by dividing the total cost of running the facility by the population. Keeping one person out of jail might mean saving on food and medicine, but there’s still the overhead costs, which don’t decrease unless the location is closed, argues David Juppe, senior operating budget manager for Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services. Another criticism leveled at SIBs is “creaming” — resolving the easiest cases or creating short-term gains in order to win success payments — and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill for the long-term problems that remain unsolved, Juppe adds.
[ph]
While the full-scale calculations and evaluations are yet to be completed, Roca’s work is already improving the lives of those it reaches. Ralph Bonano, a 20-year-old who grew up across Boston’s Mystic River in the dense suburb of Chelsea, had been assigned to probation after an unarmed robbery. He tried to dodge Roca’s counselors, but they tracked him down and talked to him every chance they had.
After more than a year, Bonano finally softened and started attended Roca’s job training program. He now has a job in a manufacturing plant that makes military equipment and is working toward his G.E.D. Bonano says it gave him and “other kids an opportunity to change and to be treated as a normal person, not just a criminal.” He credits the program with helping him “stay out of jail.”
Before, Bonano’s story would be evidence of success. A life changed. Case closed. The intervention worked. But today, arbiters will consider Bonano as just one data point among many. Along with hundreds of other men, he’ll be entered into a complex calculation of avoided incarceration costs, Roca’s price of services, interest rates and income tax. Analysts will see whether Bonano fits the trend or is an outlier and question whether he changed enough to become a profitable member of society. In the emerging era of data-driven governance and payment for success, social good is only worth it if it saves us cash.
It’s still too early to tell whether Bonano is worth the price.
[ph]

This State May Have Discovered the Secret to Saving Tax Dollars While Doing Good

In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick has launched a $27 million initiative that he hopes will keep at-risk youth out of jail, reduce crime, and promote safer communities. That may sound like a tall order — after all, it’s more difficult than ever to get funding for social services these days — but the government isn’t fronting the cost, and neither are the taxpayers. Instead, the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Pay for Success Initiative will be funded by organizations like Third Sector Capital Partners, New Profit Inc., Living Cities, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and Goldman Sachs, among other private and nonprofit investors, through the largest social impact bond ever created in the U.S.

Social impact bonds are a new type of philanthropy that involves a partnership among the government, nonprofit organizations and private-sector investors. Here’s how  they work: a government identifies a social problem in the community and contracts with private investors who raise money to fund a solution and (hopefully) achieve a pre-determined goal. Participating nonprofits manage the project — in the case of the Massachusetts’s initiative, Third Sector Capital Partners, a nonprofit advisory firm, will serve as the project intermediary, while Roca, a local charity that aids high-risk young men, will provide the services — while a third party conducts a rigorous independent evaluation at the conclusion to determine if it achieved the desired outcome. Only then will the government (and taxpayers) pay the investors back. Therefore, Social impact bonds (otherwise known as Pay for Success initiatives) is a minimal risk to taxpayers, while allowing nonprofits to use their already-established resources to make a significant societal change.

MORE: In the Do-Nothing Congress, These Lawmakers Got Things Done

In Massachusetts, the new Pay for Success initiative will allow Roca to provide job training, counseling and other services to 929 at-risk young men between the ages of 17 and 23, all of whom are currently in the juvenile justice or probation system. Roca has a specific model that it uses to keep its participants out of jail and employed. Its four-year program consists of two years of intensive support from a youth worker, followed by two years of follow-up, and has a proven track record. Out of 115 young men participating in the final two years of the program, 89 percent had no new arrests, 69 percent retained employment for three months and 95 percent had no new legal violations, according to Fast Company. The social impact bond’s success will be determined by Roca’s ability to reduce the number of days participants spend in jail by 40 percent, and improve these young mens’ employment options. If Roca’s services are proven to produce these positive outcomes — in turn saving Massachusetts millions — the government will begin making “success payments” to the investors. “By working with our partners at Roca, the Pay for Success initiative will allow us to marry smart financial solutions with programs proven successful in helping high-risk youth become employed, stay employed, and break the cycle of violence,” Patrick said in a press release.

ALSO: How to Get People to Save When All They Want to Do Is Play the Lottery

Massachusetts recently received an $11.7 million grant — the first of its kind — from the Department of Labor to help fund this Pay for Success initiative.  The additional funding will help with success payments and enable the state to extend the project, should it be successful, to an additional 391 young men, thereby serving a total of up to 1,320 young men over nine years. On a larger scale, these social impact bonds are an innovative way for governments to try to fix some of the largest social issues facing the nation, without risking taxpayer backlash. Colorado, New York, Ohio, South Carolina and other states are pursuing Pay for Success initiatives. The only question is: which state will be next?

MORE: Seattle Readies ‘Financial Empowerment Centers’ for Low-Income Residents