> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • An Update for Readers on Our New Nonprofit Status
Sign In
  • Latest
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • Latest
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • Latest
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Researchers Question Success of Utah Social-Impact Bond

November 4, 2015

A Utah preschool program funded by investment bank Goldman Sachs that was touted last month as the first “social-impact bond” to yield returns for an investor may have significantly overstated the results on which the payout is based, according to The New York Times.

Social-impact bonds leverage private funding for social programs, with governments paying investors if the efforts achieve measurable results. Goldman received $260,000 from Utah when the program it paid for was credited with keeping 109 “at-risk” kindergartners out of special education — 99 percent of the students whom school officials believed, based on testing, would need costly special services.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from v144.philanthropy.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

A Utah preschool program funded by investment bank Goldman Sachs that was touted last month as the first “social-impact bond” to yield returns for an investor may have significantly overstated the results on which the payout is based, according to The New York Times.

Social-impact bonds leverage private funding for social programs, with governments paying investors if the efforts achieve measurable results. Goldman received $260,000 from Utah when the program it paid for was credited with keeping 109 “at-risk” kindergartners out of special education — 99 percent of the students whom school officials believed, based on testing, would need costly special services.

Early-education experts consulted by the Times questioned the success rate, saying that better-funded preschool programs have been found to cut special-education rates by 50 percent at best and that most efforts produce a reduction rate of 10 to 20 percent. They said the Utah program’s rate was predicated on faulty assumptions of how many of the children would have needed special education without preschool.

Clive Belfield, an economics professor at New York’s Queens College who studies early education, said Goldman “either performed a miracle, or these kids weren’t in line for special education in the first place.” Brenda Van Gorder, head of preschool services for the district involved in the program, acknowledged that officials lacked some basic data on the children’s likely course without preschool but said she was happy with the bond because it induced the Wall Street bank to fund a program the state would not have otherwise supported.

ADVERTISEMENT

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Government and RegulationFinance and RevenueInnovation
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Organizational Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Organizational Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Philanthropy
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • pinterest
  • facebook
  • linkedin