Why is impact measurement abandoned in practice? Evidence use in evaluation and contracting for five European Social Impact Bonds

Debra Hevenstone*, Alec Fraser, Lukas Hobi, Gemma Geuke

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Despite broad consensus on the importance of measuring “impact,” the term is not always understood as estimating counterfactual and causal estimates. We examine a type of public sector financing, “Social Impact Bonds,” a scheme where investors front money for public services, with repayment conditional on impact. We examine five cases in four European countries of Social Impact Bonds financing active labor market programs, testing the claim that Social Impact Bonds would move counterfactual causal impact evaluation to the heart of policy. We examine first how evidence was integrated in contracts, second the overall evidence generated and third, given that neither contracts nor evaluations used counterfactual definitions of impact, we explore stakeholders’ perspectives to better understand the reasons why. We find that although most stakeholders wanted the Social Impact Bonds to generate impact estimates, beliefs about public service reform, incentives, and the logic of experimentation led to the acceptance of non-causal definitions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)91-109
JournalEvaluation
Volume29
Issue number1
Early online date15 Oct 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2023

Keywords

  • active labor market program
  • impact
  • Pay by Results
  • Social Impact Bonds

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why is impact measurement abandoned in practice? Evidence use in evaluation and contracting for five European Social Impact Bonds'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this