A concise letter to the editor today which hits at the heart of much of the issue for the legacy providers and workers who oppose PFS structures while clearly one taxpayer voter is more concerned about costs of service provision and sustainability of government funding:
Tom Letourneau: Financial Impact Of Social Impact Bonds
Tom Letourneau – Providence Journal
Katherine Gregg’s and Jennifer Bogdan’s article in the June 16th issue of the Providence Journal (Senate panel backs social impact bonds) tells a story within their story that I am sure was missed by many.
With the topic of social impact bonds up for debate it was pointed out that Jim Cenerini, a lobbyist for Council 94, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, expressed concern on behalf of the union’s membership as the social impact bonds are being perceived as a “back-door way to privatize the delivery of social services programs.”
Not said is the fact that these costly services could now be provided at far greater cost-savings.