Project
| ID | INDIGO-POJ-0003 |
|---|---|
| Impact Bond Name - (Value) | Benevolent Society Social Benefit Bond (New South Wales) |
| Alternative Names - (Value) | Resilient Families Services |
| Stage of Development - (Value) | Complete |
| Stage of Development - (Source ID's) | source15 |
| Dates - Start date of service provision - (Value) | 2013-10 |
| Dates - Actual end date of service provision - (Value) | 2018-06 |
| Dates - (Source ID's) | source3, source15 |
| Overall project finance - Total investment commitment - Currency - (Value) | AUD |
| Overall project finance - Total investment commitment - Amount - Exact - (Value) | 10000000 |
| Overall project finance - Total investment commitment - Amount USD - Exact - (Value) | 9653971.758 |
| Purpose and classifications - Intervention - (Value) | The Resilient Families Program is a therapeutic, evidence informed program that seeks to improve outcomes for children by building a protective network around them. Senior child and family practitioners develop a support plan in collaboration with each family to address the risks identified and meet the individual support needs of the family. The support plan goals are achieved through a mix of practical and therapeutic support. This includes training in the use of skills to manage stress and conflict, encouraging positive child behaviour, improving understanding of the child's develomental needs, and building the confidence necessary to tackle problems early before they become entrenched. The Program delivers a flexible twelve week intensive phase with access to 24/7 support if required. This is followed by less intensive support for up to 12 months to address a range of issues such as parental mental health issues, domestic and family violence, substance misuse, and neglect of their children. |
| Purpose and classifications - Policy sector - (Value) | Child and family welfare |
| Purpose and classifications - (Source ID's) | source8,source1 |
| Service and beneficiaries - Target population - (Value) | Families are eligible for referral to the service if they have at least one child less than six years old who is living at home and has been assessed by NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) as at Risk of Significant Harm (ROSH) but ‘Safe with Plan’. |
| Service and beneficiaries - Targeted number of unique service users or beneficiaries (total) - (Value) | 354 |
| Service and beneficiaries - Unit type of targeted service users or beneficiaries - (Value) | Other |
| Service and beneficiaries - Unit description of targeted service user or beneficiaries - (Value) | Families |
| Service and beneficiaries - Actual number of unique service users or beneficiaries engaged (total) - (Value) | 303 |
| Service and beneficiaries - Unit type of actual service users or beneficiaries engaged - (Value) | Other |
| Service and beneficiaries - Unit description of actual service user or beneficiaries engaged - (Value) | Families |
| Service and beneficiaries - (Source ID's) | source9, source15 |
| Service and beneficiaries - (Notes) | In total, 354 families were referred to the RF service from the commencement of the programme, from October 2013 to the end of June 2018. Of these families, 303 were eligible in the SBB population for outcomes measurement. |
| Notes - (Value) | The outcome measures are combined into a composite 'Improvement Percentage'. Ultimately, investor payments depend on the Performance Percentage which is based on the following: • Average of the Improvement Percentage for each Annual Cohort* (“AvgIP”); • Treatment Percentage – where children referred to the Program have been matched to a control child (“TreatP”); • Unmatched Children Percentage – where children referred by FACS cannot be matched with a similar control child (“UnmatchedP”); and • Guaranteed Referrals Shortfall Percentage – where FACS is unable to fill vacancies notified by The Benevolent Society within the agreed period of time up to a guaranteed minimum (“GRSP”). The 'intenton to treat' evaluation design aims to estimate the effects of the programme as it is offered, or as assigned, and ignores any noncompliance or withdrawal that occurs following the random allocation. This approach was selected in order to minimise 'cherry-picking'. Final performance information is expected later in 2019. Further sources of information include: https://www.benevolent.org.au/about-us/innovative-approaches/social-benefit-bond and https://www.benevolent.org.au/ArticleDocuments/269/Social%20Benefit%20Bond_investor%20report_Oct2018.pdf.aspx |
| Delivery Locations 1: Service Provision ID - (Value) | deliverylocation1 |
| Delivery Locations 1: Location - Name - (Value) | New South Wales, Australia |
| Delivery Locations 1: Location - Country - (Value) | AU |
| Delivery Locations 1: Lat/Lng - Lat - (Value) | -33.947645 |
| Delivery Locations 1: Lat/Lng - Lng - (Value) | 151.166437 |
| Sources 1: Id | source1 |
| Sources 1: Name - (Value) | Resilient Families Impact Report 2013-18 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/about-us/innovative-approaches/social-benefit-bond#heading3 |
| Sources 2: Id | source2 |
| Sources 2: Name - (Value) | Resilient Families Impact Report 2013-18, p. 2 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/about-us/innovative-approaches/social-benefit-bond#heading3 |
| Sources 3: Id | source3 |
| Sources 3: Name - (Value) | Evaluation of the Resilient Families service (Social Benefi Bond Pilot) NSW Treasury and ARTD Consultants, 2017 p. 6 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/ArticleDocuments/269/Info-sheet-Evaluation-of-the-Resilient-Families-Service-Progress-Report.1.pdf.aspx |
| Sources 4: Id | source4 |
| Sources 4: Name - (Value) | The Potential and Limitations of Impact Bonds, Brookings, 2015 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/impact-bondsweb.pdf |
| Sources 5: Id | source5 |
| Sources 5: Name - (Value) | The Potential and Limitations of Impact Bonds, Brookings, 2015 p. 121 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/impact-bondsweb.pdf |
| Sources 6: Id | source6 |
| Sources 6: Name - (Value) | Own calculation based on Amount committed |
| Sources 7: Id | source7 |
| Sources 7: Name - (Value) | Resilient Families Impact Report 2013-18, p. 14 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/about-us/innovative-approaches/social-benefit-bond#heading3 |
| Sources 8: Id | source8 |
| Sources 8: Name - (Value) | Social Benefit Bond Investor Report, 30 October 2017 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/about-us/innovative-approaches/social-benefit-bond#heading3 |
| Sources 9: Id | source9 |
| Sources 9: Name - (Value) | Evaluation of the Resilient Families service (Social Benefit Bond Pilot) NSW Treasury and ARTD Consultants, 2017 p. 11 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/ArticleDocuments/269/Info-sheet-Evaluation-of-the-Resilient-Families-Service-Progress-Report.1.pdf.aspx |
| Sources 10: Id | source10 |
| Sources 10: Name - (Value) | Social Benefit Bond Investor Report, 30 October 2017 p. 10 accessed on 22/07/2019 at |
| Sources 11: Id | source11 |
| Sources 11: Name - (Value) | Evaluation of the Resilient Families service (Social Benefit Bond Pilot) NSW Treasury and ARTD Consultants, 2017 p. 6 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/ArticleDocuments/269/Info-sheet-Evaluation-of-the-Resilient-Families-Service-Progress-Report.1.pdf.aspx |
| Sources 12: Id | source12 |
| Sources 12: Name - (Value) | Evaluation of the Resilient Families service (Social Benefit Bond Pilot) NSW Treasury and ARTD Consultants, 2017 p. 13 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/ArticleDocuments/269/Info-sheet-Evaluation-of-the-Resilient-Families-Service-Progress-Report.1.pdf.aspx |
| Sources 13: Id | source13 |
| Sources 13: Name - (Value) | Evaluation of the Resilient Families service (Social Benefit Bond Pilot) NSW Treasury and ARTD Consultants, 2017 p. 13 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/ArticleDocuments/269/Info-sheet-Evaluation-of-the-Resilient-Families-Service-Prog |
| Sources 14: Id | source14 |
| Sources 14: Name - (Value) | Evaluation of the Resilient Families service (Social Benefit Bond Pilot) NSW Treasury and ARTD Consultants, 2017 p. 16 accessed on 22/07/2019 at https://www.benevolent.org.au/ArticleDocuments/269/Info-sheet-Evaluation-of-the-Resilient-Families-Service-Prog |
| Sources 15: Id | sourcehackandlearn2021-08 |
| Sources 15: Name - (Value) | Hack and Learn - August 2021 |
| Sources 16: Id | source15 |
| Sources 16: Name - (Value) | Evaluation of the Resilient Families Service Final Evaluation April 2020.pdf |
| Service Provisions 1: Id | serviceprovision1 |
| Service Provisions 1: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0567 |
| Outcome Payment Commitments 1: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0571 |
| Outcome Payment Commitments 2: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0572 |
| Investments 1: Id | investment1 |
| Investments 1: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0567 |
| Investments 1: Investment Type - (Value) | 0% maximum potential loss |
| Investments 1: Notes | Senior Investors include Benevolent Society, Westpac Foundation, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The Westpac Institutional Bank and Commonwealth Bank of Australia raised funds from their investors, including high net worth individuals, self-managed super funds, trusts, small foundations, and institutions. |
| Investments 2: Id | investment2 |
| Investments 2: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0568 |
| Investments 2: Notes | Subordinate Investors include the Benevolent Society, Westpac Foundation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. |
| Investments 3: Id | investment3 |
| Investments 3: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0569 |
| Intermediary services 1: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0568 |
| Intermediary services 2: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0569 |
| Intermediary services 3: Organisation ID - (Value) | INDIGO-ORG-0570 |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Id | outcomemetric1 |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Outcome Definition - (Value) | Out-of-home care entries. Entries into out-of-home care (OOHC), defined as ‘statutory’ removals of children to OOHC i.e. excluding supported care, voluntary care, temporary care or respite. Compared to control group. |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Target Population - (Value) | Children |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Targeted number of service users Or beneficiaries (total) - (Value) | 303 |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Unit type of targeted Service users or beneficiaries - (Value) | Individual |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Policy sector - (Value) | Child and family welfare |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Primary SDG goal - (Value) | 16 |
| Outcome Metrics 1: Primary SDG target - (Value) | 16.2 |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Id | outcomemetric2 |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Outcome Definition - (Value) | Safety and risk assessments. Safety and Risk Assessments (SARAs) commenced by Family and Community Services (FACS), excluding those made in the first six months (180 days) of each child’s referral to the service. Compared to control group. |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Target Population - (Value) | Children |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Targeted number of service users Or beneficiaries (total) - (Value) | 303 |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Unit type of targeted Service users or beneficiaries - (Value) | Individual |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Policy sector - (Value) | Child and family welfare |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Primary SDG goal - (Value) | 16 |
| Outcome Metrics 2: Primary SDG target - (Value) | 16.2 |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Id | outcomemetric3 |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Outcome Definition - (Value) | Helpline reports. Helpline reports, in which calls are made by NSW Police or health care professionals to the child protection Helpline to report a concern about the safety of children. Compared to control group. |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Target Population - (Value) | Children |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Targeted number of service users Or beneficiaries (total) - (Value) | 303 |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Unit type of targeted Service users or beneficiaries - (Value) | Individual |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Policy sector - (Value) | Child and family welfare |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Primary SDG goal - (Value) | 16 |
| Outcome Metrics 3: Primary SDG target - (Value) | 16.2 |
| Results 1: Outcome Metric Id - (Value) | outcomemetric1 |
| Results 1: Result level - (Value) | Outcome level |
| Results 1: Result type - (Value) | Final |
| Results 1: Period - Start - (Value) | 2013-06 |
| Results 1: Period - End - (Value) | 2018-10 |
| Results 1: Outcomes achieved - (Value) | The RF service was effective in reducing the likelihood of OOHC placements, with 184 fewer Index Children compared to Control Children entering care during the measurement period. This difference was statistically significant (p<.05) and driven by a higher number of entries into care by the children in the Control Group in the first three months of the measurement period |
| Results 1: Number engaged In impact bond - (Value) | 303 children and their families |
| Results 1: Evaluation Documents - (Value) | source15 |
| Results 2: Outcome Metric Id - (Value) | outcomemetric2 |
| Results 2: Result level - (Value) | Outcome level |
| Results 2: Result type - (Value) | Final |
| Results 2: Period - Start - (Value) | 2013-06 |
| Results 2: Period - End - (Value) | 2018-10 |
| Results 2: Outcomes achieved - (Value) | The RF service had a limited impact on the number of SARAs commenced for Index Children relative to Control Children. Similar to Helpline reports, Index and Control Children had an absolute reduction in the number of SARAs commenced over the measurement period. |
| Results 2: Number engaged In impact bond - (Value) | 303 children and their families |
| Results 2: Evaluation Documents - (Value) | source15 |
| Results 3: Outcome Metric Id - (Value) | outcomemetric3 |
| Results 3: Result level - (Value) | Outcome level |
| Results 3: Result type - (Value) | Final |
| Results 3: Period - Start - (Value) | 2013-06 |
| Results 3: Period - End - (Value) | 2018-10 |
| Results 3: Outcomes achieved - (Value) | The RF service had a limited impact on the number of Helpline reports received for Index Children relative to Control Children. While the total number reduced over time, Index Children received more Helpline reports in the first nine months after RF service start than Control. Children over the same period. After nine months, both groups received a similar and declining number of reports. This finding was consistent with previous evaluation reports, which noted that Index Children may have experienced higher numbers of reports than Control Children due to surveillance bias (i.e. the number of helpline reports is linked to the level of contact with service providers) |
| Results 3: Number engaged In impact bond - (Value) | 303 children and their families |
| Results 3: Evaluation Documents - (Value) | source15 |
| Documents 1: Title - (Value) | The Benevolent Society SBB - Factsheet |
| Documents 1: URL - (Value) | https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/documents/The-Benevolent-Society-Factsheet-FINAL-October-2017.pdf |
| Documents 2: Title - (Value) | Final Evaluation Report - The Benevolent Society SBB |
| Documents 2: URL - (Value) | https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/documents/Evaluation-of-the-Resilient-Families-Service-Final-Evaluation-April-2020_b1DRVxn.pdf |