Public Safety committee  First of all, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. As an organization, we certainly deeply appreciate that. What I intend to provide as testimony today is a little bit of what we do as an organization, the landscape we're seeing in social finance as it applies to crime prevention, and some of the particular initiatives we're seeing in working within and across Canada.

Public Safety committee  Yes, I would just add that what we've encountered in previous examples of social impact bonds that have been implemented, and even those that we are engaged in the development of, is an understanding that within the delivery model what we focus on is very much driven by outcomes.

Public Safety committee  Part of that, certainly, is the public commissioning process. The social impact bond can't proceed without an agreement by a public commissioner to pay for outcomes. So there is that final check, at least, at some stage of accountability, in engaging the public sector. But I think it's equally important to think about these tools, the social finance space, as being oriented very broadly to the efficient allocation of social investment toward impact.

Public Safety committee  To briefly respond to that, what I would initially say is, when you think about that notion like a movement to a private space that is less inclusive, that ultimately that would likely result, in fact, in worse outcomes for at least some subset of the population, perhaps for those who didn't participate in this sort of programming.

Public Safety committee  We see models where that is used and those where it's not. Generally speaking, the notion of having multiple thresholds, or even a kind of continuous form of performance payment, such that for each x%, you have x% of return, can be and have been used. So the short answer is yes.

Public Safety committee  It's certainly a balance of evidence. What we look at are cases where there tends to be a body of evidence—and ideally one that is growing—and an organization that has a culture of continuous performance improvement. However, that broader question around feasibility is something that we were actually very happy to address.

Public Safety committee  What I would mention is that there are certainly cases where a social impact bond can be service-provider-initiated, where a non-profit can recognize that this is something it really wants to do and may contact as. Equally though, and in many cases, social impact bonds are something that is publicly led, in processes such as requests for proposals that actually delineate exactly these parameters: which population, where, which communities, and why that's a policy priority.

Public Safety committee  There is a social impact bond [Inaudible-Editor] in Saskatchewan, but it is not our social impact bond.

Public Safety committee  The investors in the financing models with whom we've interacted in the development of social impact bonds across Canada are predominantly socially motivated investors. These are high net worth individuals who are very concerned about issues in their community; they are also foundations; and in some cases they are commercial businesses or commercial financial institutions as well.

Public Safety committee  Investors as participants in a social impact bond are governed essentially by the terms of the contracts they sign in engaging in a social impact bond.

Public Safety committee  The monitoring in the interim, as a social impact bond is being implemented, is usually done by an intermediary such as ours. However, when we actually think about the payment of outcomes, outcomes thresholds that would trigger payment, that's almost exclusively done by third parties.

Public Safety committee  Just to briefly respond, as an organization we actually do have internal policies, in fact, to tell us and to guide us, to serve as a guide to the idea that there are areas, particularly in areas of emergency service of various sorts, where we feel that this sort of kind of greater risk tolerance may be inappropriate just to the severity of potential damages for the vulnerable population.

Public Safety committee  Sure. For example, we think it would be inappropriate perhaps to use a social impact bond to deliver emergency room care. We'd want that service handled in a very standardized way, so that we know and can have great confidence that it will be there when people need it. Inasmuch as these are more risk-tolerant and innovative approaches, there are areas where it may not be as appropriate.

Public Safety committee  I would add to that, just with some more specificity, that we are seeing organizations come to us equally, and we recognize the rigour of the cases they're bringing forward in areas such as substance abusing offenders. Offenders who are incarcerated due to substance abuse have very high rates of reoffending, partly because of the nature of their addictions in many cases, so potential supports and programming in that area for rehabilitation oriented towards their particular unique needs would be good.

Public Safety committee  I would add that certainly I think it's true that having an intermediary in place can provide the confidence for investors that the upfront case that's been developed has been so certainly with rigour and with some semi-independence, at least, as that case itself has developed and has moved forward.