States seek private financial help to fix social problems

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

States seek private financial help to fix social problems

Susan Haigh, Associated Press

Updated 5:45 pm, Saturday, February 20, 2016

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A growing number of states and local governments are turning to an unconventional method of financing possible fixes to big social problems, motivated by tight budgets and little incentive to take a chance on initiatives without a guarantee of results.

On Tuesday, officials in Connecticut, South Carolina and Colorado announced new public/private arrangements to fund so-called "pay for success" projects that aim to help families struggling with drug addiction, improve health outcomes for poor mothers and their children and reduce chronic homelessness.

The concept, often referred to as "social impact bonds," involves a government entity teaming up with a private intermediary that develops the project, identifies effective programs already being used and raises the capital from philanthropic-minded investors. If the initiative produces specific results over multiple years, then the state or local government pays back the investment with a small rate of return. But if the project doesn't meet those results, the taxpayers typically are not on the hook financially.

"It's critically important in this time, when, as our governor has said many times, we're facing a new reality — a new reality of budget restrictions, but the same if not growing challenges in our communities and the need to invest even more," said Hartford, Connecticut Mayor Luke Bronin, at Tuesday's announcement of the "Connecticut Family Stability Pay for Success Project."

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/States-seek-private-financial-help-to-fix-social-6844257.php

[bemildred]

1. Taxes, it's called taxes, that is how you get "private financial help" for social problems. nt

[Igel]

4. The details differ, but this kind of thing has been around for a long time.

The main difference is one of final control. Who controls the project, some government official or agency (whether at the county/township level or federal/national level)? Some want shared control, some insist that the government have the ultimate authority.

Lots of people don't like these. There are those that don't trust government. There are those that don't trust anybody but government.

There are those that assume "private" must mean corporate. It usually does, but remember that the NAACP is a corporation, and so is the Social Workers Party. They both have articles of incorporation. The church I worked for was a corporation, the start-up company that I worked for in the late '90s, the translation company I contracted with, and the ISD I work for now. (Oddly, one entity I was part of dated to 1919, had $80 million in revenues, and was not a corporation; it was an unincorporated non-profit that pre-existed the IRS regs for incorporation and consequently was grandfathered in.)

When you read about levees and dams often what you're looking at aren't Army Corps of Engineers projects but joint private-public partnerships dating back a century or more. In some cases the private side collapsed and isn't doing maintenance; in other cases it's the public side that walked away.

There were a number of public-service initiatives in the '60s and '70s that were public-private partnerships. I think of government as a tool, not as a goal. Like a screwdriver, it can be used as intended (driving in screws), used as not intended but in a satisfactory way (ice pick) or in a bad way (for murder). I won't be put into a "big screwdriver" versus "little screwdriver" category because, well, I think it's pointless.

[bemildred]

6. Private means "not public".

Like when a company is privately held, that means that they don't sell shares to the public, and when you take the company public you are offering shares up for public sale.

Now the point is that the government is public, not private, it belongs to everybody, at least in theory in the USA, and when it taxes it taxes in the name of everybody, so it is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with issues that concern everybody, unlike say Apple Computer or the NRA.

[Uponthegears]

2. And when

we look to the "generosity" of the oppressor class to meet basic needs . . . then what?

[meow2u3]

3. Ever heard of taxing the rich more heavily?

They're the ones who can afford to pay more in taxes and still live more than comfortably. Try it--it works!

[mountain grammy]

5. Because the wealthy don't control enough already.

The best solution of all: TAX THE RICH!

[valerief]

7. Charter shit, like the fuckin' charter schools. Incremental privatization is what it is. nt

[glinda]

8. All done with the Corporate rewards of other people's own money to hurt themselves.

Our Country is a very sad destructive joke.

[silvershadow]

9. Private means "at greater cost and with less benefit" as compared to public financing.

Disaster capitalism is well under way. In this case, the disaster is just the routine functioning of government.

[potone]

11. Yep.

I am afraid that I am cynical about many of these projects.

[passiveporcupine]

13. And quite often involves religion eom

[Uponthegears]

10. Somebody needs to tell

the .1% that we aren't asking for their generosity, we're demanding back WHAT THEY STOLE.

[Paulie]

12. Socialism for the corporations

Capitalism for the masses.

[november3rd]

14. Let's All Grovel

Let's all grovel for money to the oligarchs.