Dan Gregory Chief Officers Feb 2011
-
Upload
ncvys -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
535 -
download
0
Transcript of Dan Gregory Chief Officers Feb 2011
Local PartnershipsThe DH Social Enterprise Investment Fund, case study and lessons learned
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
Background
• Capital, finance, investment vs. revenue, funding, income
(debt, grants, equity) (grants, contracts, fees)
• Investment need to respond to / be tailored appropriately to the potential for income generation. E.g. you only lend to someone if they can afford to repay. And you should only borrow to invest for the future.
• So what is the potential for revenue generation? In other words, what is the ‘state of the market’…?
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
Case study: The market for community health services
• Immature commissioning
• Uncertain future commissioning landscape
• Cuts
• Provider side dominated by state providers but opening up
• Payment by results?
• Comparison with youth services?
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
The Social Enterprise Investment Fund
• £100m fund
° To support the delivery by social enterprises of innovative health and social care services and products;
° To provide start-up funding and longer term investment to emerging and existing social enterprises in the health and social care sector with a view to securing their sustainability.
° For the SEIF to become financially sustainable through returns on non-grant investments and through leverage of funds from external investors.
• For emerging and existing social enterprises
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
SEIF investment policy – the theory
• Viable but not bankable
• Products
° Business development grants
° Loans
° Grants
° Convertible grants
° Quasi-equity
° Guarantees
° Equity
• Co-investment
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
SEIF – challenges in practice
• Politics
• EYF
• Perverse incentives for fund manager and Department:
° co-finance
° fund sustainability
° Innovation
° products
• Investment approach vs. programme model
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
A youth sector spin-out fund?
• NESTA call for proposals
• Proposal:
° to use BSB capital to attract co-investment into a sustainable fund, which will provide financial support to youth services which wish to spin-out of the local public sector into viable social enterprises.
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
What is the opportunity?
To provide the financial means to catalyse, nurture and support the spin-out of youth services from the local public sector, into viable social enterprises.
• To accord with an overall national and local policy direction, a move to a plurality of local services provision, moving services closer to the communities who rely on them.
• To focus on youth services in particular, an area of national and local priority where there is evidenced demand for alternative means of delivery.
• To leverage BSB capital by attracting co-investment into a fund which will provide the financial support for local youth services to spin-out into social enterprises.
• To fill a gap in the market, fledgling spin-outs are typically un-bankable but spinning-out takes both human and financial resources.
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
Who will invest and how?
Investor Investment Example
a Stakeholders Equity Staff and community?
b Public sector Grant Local Authority?
c Social Investors Grant CAN? SFCT?
d Social VC (quasi-) equity Bridges? Baxi?
e Commercial Lenders Debt HSBC? CFS?
f Nesta (quasi-) equity Big Society Fund? Bank?
© Local Partnerships LLP 2010
Questions
• Does this investment model respond to / is it tailored appropriately to the potential for income generation?
• Could this offer an opportunity to create a social investment fund for the youth sector?
• Market dynamics particular to the youth sector:
° Already mixed market of provision?
° Asset rich, cash poor?
° Untapped potential for social enterprise models?