« | Home | »

Good for the Poor, Good for Goldman Sachs


Graham Allen, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, was commissioned by the coalition government last year to review the benefits of ‘early intervention’. In his first report, published in January, he found that many damaging and costly social problems can be averted or reduced by giving families the right support during a child’s first three years. It’s a persuasive argument, which has also been made in other recent reviews commissioned by the government from Frank Field, Clare Tickell and Eileen Munro.

The big question though is how to fund early intervention services when the government is committed to spending cuts. Field thinks the answer is to give people parenting courses instead of benefits. Allen’s second report, published earlier this month, sets out a way to pay for early intervention programmes by attracting extra funding from non-government sources. Private investors would be given tax breaks, to be paid for by the money saved as a result of early intervention: from children not being in care; from young people not being in the criminal justice system or on benefits.

The approach depends on being able to attach a price to an outcome, and on being able to link an early intervention programme to the achievement of that outcome many years later. Most of the time, the outcome will be negative – not being a teenage parent, a drug addict or a violent offender – which makes it hard to measure. Allen’s plan also depends on there being no additional demand on resources, so that ‘late intervention’ services can be decommissioned to generate the savings needed to pay back investors:

If social services no longer have to deal with family X, they would need to be able to pull that resource away rather than redeploy that resource to another family lower down the priority list.

Allen’s review team have spoken to a number of potential investors, both corporate and individual. One of them said: ‘Tax relief or tax incentives would encourage me to make an investment.’ It all seems oddly convoluted, and makes you wonder if it wouldn’t be simpler – as well as more reliable, and more just – to make them pay for early intervention programmes through taxation. Though such a naive proposal would surely never get the endorsement of someone like the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, who says in Allen’s review that he has been ‘delighted to help support the thinking around these concepts’. Good to know that when a Labour MP is asked to come up with a plan for improving the lives of the neediest he takes the time to make sure it will help the rich get richer too.

Comments on “Good for the Poor, Good for Goldman Sachs”

  1. Dartington says:

    Never mind the bollocks

    Laura Jones is right to ask questions about private investment in public services as advocated by Graham Allen MP. What can these consistently irresponsible, untrustworthy business people who have neglected social responsibility do to improve the lot of impoverished children?

    When I was helping Graham Allen with his first report, I overheard one minister describe one of the proposed financial instruments as ‘a social investment bond without the bollocks.’

    We shouldn’t get too excited. Nobody, in the near future at least, is going to make money out of children’s services. Allen’s two reports will result in the initiation of several experiments.

    What Allen and advocates of social finance like Sir Ronald Cohen are presaging is an increase in philanthropy — charitable trusts and socially-minded individuals have been the main market for social impact bonds so far, though of course that could change.

    The catalysts for change are metrics that package risks faced by impoverished children in forms that the business community can understand, by attaching a cost to them. But more importantly, these methods parcel risks and outcomes in a way that all investors in children’s services — taxpayers, parliament, local authorities, central government, the NHS — can understand and use to make better decisions.

    Some private investors are excited by this potential. But I would be surprised if as much as £500 million is realised annually. £200 million is a more realistic estimate. This is less than half of one per cent of the £55 billion that the public sector currently spends on children each year.

    The primary backers of children’s services work in the public sector, in local authorities, GP surgeries and schools. They are — and have been — as easily maligned as the business community. Some will welcome extra support from philanthropic or private investment. And some are going to implement Allen not only without the bollocks of social finance instruments but without the private sector altogether.

    In practice it is not the politics of making money out of poor kids that stands in the way of the reforms Allen advocates. The big obstacle is complexity. Predicting the economic benefits from any investment, public or private, has become relatively straightforward. Realising those benefits is really tricky.

    What drives Allen is helping children in his constituency and elsewhere in the UK to break out of a cycle of disadvantage that traps them into a life of poverty. More time spent stopping problems before they happen will help achieve that goal. Just one per cent of the £55 billion public purse allocated to policies and programmes that are proven to alleviate childhood disadvantage will go a long way to getting the job done.

    Closing the gap between rich and poor kids is the goal. Greater philanthropic investment is just one small way of achieving it.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement