What happens when capitalism and charity intersect? Innovation and financial investment to tackle some of the most complex social issues, or monetising services for some of society’s most vulnerable people? The Invisible Heart is the first documentary about Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) and explores these polarising perspectives.
The GO Lab team were given a preview of the film before its release, and we were excited to interview the Director and Producer, Nadine Pequeneza. This blog series will give you a sneak preview of the themes of the film. The first part explores Nadine’s intentions for the film and the importance of exploring different points of view, and the second part explores the stories she never told and what the future holds for SIBs.
On 25th July we will be hosting a screening at Phoenix Picturehouse in Oxford, followed by a panel discussion and drinks reception at the Blavatnik School of Government. We would like to invite you to join us there, click here to register for your free ticket.
Over to you, Nadine…
As a documentary filmmaker, I have spent the last 20 years exploring social issues across society. I became interested in Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) as a way to address these social issues. I was really encouraged by their focus on prevention because from doing other films, I saw that often help was coming too little and too late. I thought that SIBs could focus government and those who deliver services on the root cause of the problems.
And why now, because outcome-based policy making is being talked about everywhere. It is on every government and politician’s lips. I think the timing is right as no matter where people fall on the debate around SIBs, everyone thinks that we can do better in the delivery of social services. People on all sides of the debate see the value of social intervention, and the value of measuring impact so that we can determine what works.
Before I started this film three years ago I went to a number of conferences and board room meetings where people were designing and discussing SIBs and there just wasn’t a critical voice. Even when making the documentary when I was trying to find informed critical voices I had to scour the earth to find them. I did eventually find them in academia and some from the labour community. I think that a lot of governments are jumping on the SIB train without really investigating them. Similarly, the mainstream media are not raising the key questions. This is why I thought it was really important to make the documentary and to look at SIBs with a critical gaze.
I wanted to get the many different perspectives from stakeholders into the documentary as there needs to be a more open, honest discussion about SIBs. In the film you see two very different worlds, the people delivering or receiving the services and those who are the investors and policy makers. The former tended to be more critical of capital markets and were not comfortable with the idea. The latter often didn’t have that background and thought it was a wonderful idea as they saw the philanthropy, the giving, the generosity, the collaboration.
As I mentioned, I saw no representation or voice from the people in the field and I found this to be problematic. It is easy to lose sight of the people you are trying to assist and I thought that it really had to be juxtaposed – the two worlds. Saying that, I do think that the people behind SIBs who are the real proponents are well intentioned. Whilst I don’t think people have a lot of sympathy for an investor who is worth $3.4 billion [referring to be JB Pritzker], I think you have to appreciate that most are not doing this to make money, a lot of it is philanthropic investment rather than commercial.
I didn’t try to keep the perspectives separate, that was the reality that I was profiling. There was no interaction between those sides and in fact many of the frontline workers and the recipients of the services didn’t even know their programme was being funded by a SIB. In one way the people who were evaluating the programme want the blinders on so it doesn’t impact the way they deliver the service. On the other hand, there are ethical questions around that; if people are subject to a programme that is funded in a way that they might consider questionable.
People’s opinions stood out for different reasons, but I think they were all equally valuable which is why I wanted to include all the perspectives. I found JB Pritzker to be a very interesting person in the film because he is a philanthropist and a venture capitalist and is now running for governor. He honestly believes that the financial market can bring millions if not billions of new money to the delivery of social services. As this is one of the main premises of SIBs I thought it was important to include. He is also very involved in the Democratic party and his family are very connected in the political scene so he has an understanding of that world too. He is a very complex character and I found his perspective interesting.
I also found Caroline Mason’s perspective very interesting as she was on the ground developing these SIBs and invested in the very first one. She has also invested in others so has been involved in a lot of negotiations. She has seen how an investor mindset impacts the design of a social service and its delivery so she really brought to the film a perspective and experience that we don’t have anywhere else in the world. She has all but abandoned the SIB model but sees a lot of potential for other social finance tools which I think is interesting and may be worth a film. It could be the next one…
Initially going into it I did not have a bias because I was hopeful that SIBs could really change public policy in the direction of preventative programmes. So, I would say that I was pretty open to what I was going to see and hear from people. It is when I got into the details of the deals that I started to question things. For example, when I interviewed Andrea Phillips from Goldman Sachs she argued that with SIBs, it is more about scaling up than innovating, but I didn’t understand the business case for it. For government to finance social programs on a large scale through SIBs, once you already have a proven, tested program for is very expensive. In my opinion, the return on investment, the legal and accounting fees are unnecessary costs once a program has been proven to work. But I wouldn’t call this a bias as it was an opinion based on the information I was getting and despite my opinion I ensured that there were a range of view points in the film.
The second part of our interview with Nadine will be published shortly. To find out more about our screening and panel discussion, and to book your tickets click here.