| Notes |
Investing in America’s Workforce | 1
Pay for Success: How Emerging
Finance Tools Are Supporting
Workforce Development
Richmond Baltimore Charlotte
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF RICHMOND
2019 Federal Reserve System
By Jeanne Milliken Bonds
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
2019 Special Topic Brief
www.investinwork.org/reports
Improving Outcomes for Workers and Employers
Investing in America’s Workforce | 2
Topic Overview
Pay for Success (PFS) is a public policy tool that may be used in the workforce development
sector to test new programs guided by predetermined outcomes for a target population or
a community. PFS is a contractual arrangement that ties payment for delivery of services to
specific, measurable outcomes. Through the contract, it ensures quality and effective services
that hopefully will lead to long-term positive change for both the individuals and communities.
For example, outcomes may be measured by participants in job training programs finding and
sustaining employment, and ultimately experiencing wage increases.
As Figure 1 indicates, in a PFS contract, the payor
for outcomes is usually government (local, state, or
federal). In this case, the government entity enters
into an agreement with the investors to pay for
services with an agreed-upon result, and provides
funding to the investors if and when the services
are delivered and the result is achieved. Investors
may be commercial, philanthropic, or community
development organizations that provide the capital
to designated service providers. An independent
evaluator determines at the end of the contract
whether the agreed-upon outcomes have been met.
Because evaluation results determine whether
or not investors are repaid and may contribute to
evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention,
early PFS projects in the United States have
included rigorous evaluation methods.
Whereas governments typically fund pilot programs
up-front to test new ideas and outcomes, PFS only
funds services or projects that bring about results
consented to in the contract. Because payment is
not made until the specific outcome is achieved,
taxpayers no longer bear the risk of paying for pilot
programs or other services that may or may not
be effective.
Over the past few years, there has been an increase in substantive commitments from the
philanthropic community and the federal government, enabling state and local governments
to partner with high-performing service providers with access to private investments. As
shown in Figure 2, since 2011, more than 20 projects have launched and nearly 50 more
are in development.1 Private investors create financial and social impact incentives for
service providers to deliver the outcomes that capitalize the highest return on any taxpayer
investments. As is the case in any financing scenario, different funders tolerate varying levels
of risk, such that some may be less apt to finance projects that target the most challenging
social issues. Research on the challenge being addressed and rigorous evaluations throughout
the process deter practices that eliminate hardest-to-serve populations from the equation.
Adapted from these publications: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/social_impact_bonds_brief.html;
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/social-impact-bonds/;
http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/resources/social-finance/new-tool-scaling-impact-how-social-impact-bonds-can-mobilize-private-capita
3. Provide services to
beneficiary populations
7a. Repay principal + ROI
1. Make long-term investments
INTERMEDIARY
Social Impact Financing
2. Designs, builds, and coordinates the project
to achieve measurable outcomes, including
by funding, assisting, and supervising
service providers
4. Receive services designed
to improve social outcomes
5. Verifies outcomes and quantifies
savings or revenue gains
6. Pay agreed amounts only for achieved
outcomes, while retaining balance of
savings or revenue gains
INVESTORS
7b. In exchange for
anticipated ROI,
investors bear the
risk that outcomes
may not be achieved
RISK
PROVIDERS
BENEFICIARY
POPULATIONS
GOVERNMENTS AND
LARGE SYSTEMS
INDEPENDENT
EVALUATOR
Figure 1. Social Impact Financing
Adapted from these publications:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/social_impact_bonds_brief.html
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/social-impact-bonds/
http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/resources/social-finance/new-tool-scaling-impacthow-social-impact-bonds-can-mobilize-private-capita
Source: MDC
Investing in America’s Workforce | 3
The Pay for Success Ecosystem
While PFS is a promising policy tool to
address some of the most persistent issues
communities face, the amount of time and
resources to launch a project is extensive.
All parties must first reach a consensus
on the best measures of outcomes, and
then it can take years to achieve results.
There are several examples of nonprofits
and academia working in partnership with
community organizations to adopt the PFS
model in their communities.
Three U.S. universities have created
programs to support and streamline the
process for PFS projects. The Harvard
Kennedy School Government Performance
Lab provides technical assistance to
government entities on the design and
implementation of projects with a focus on
next stage development. Harvard’s Social
Impact Bond2 Technical Assistance Lab,
established in 2011 with support from the
Rockefeller Foundation, was the precursor
to the current PFS model. The Social Impact
Bond Technical Assistance Lab helped
Massachusetts and New York become
the first two states to use the PFS model
as a public policy tool. The Government
Performance Lab also worked with the
South Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services to address lowering rates
of preterm births and child injuries. The
state agency used Medicaid waivers to
provide nurse home-visiting services to lowincome, first-time mothers from the second
trimester of pregnancy until their child’s
second birthday.3
At the University of Utah’s David Eccles
School of Business, the Sorenson Impact
Center is a “think-and-do tank” that engages
social impact financing, connects research
with programmatic design, as well as
executes and evaluates social impact
projects. Sorenson provides a competitive
grants program. In September 2018, the
Sorenson Impact Center in partnership
with Social Finance, Inc.4 awarded a
PFS transaction structure contract to
Philadelphia Works, Inc. to develop a publicprivate partnership for skills training
for low-wage workers in jobs at risk of
automation in order to move the workers
into technical, middle-skill jobs.5
The University of Virginia Pay for Success
Lab launched in September 2015 to identify
promising PFS projects and refer them to
advisory firms for implementation. Teams
of students work under the direction of
a staff director.6 Also in Virginia, a PFS
Council formed in 2013 with business and
industry partners, as well as human service
and government organizations, to initiate a
model for early childhood programs. Third
Sector Capital Partners, Inc., the University
of Virginia Pay for Success Lab, and other
organizations are working together to
determine project feasibility.
In addition to academia, a nonprofit, the
Non-Profit Finance Fund, is a Learning Hub
site in partnership with the PFS community
that serves as a central resource where
individuals can share ideas, learn from one
another’s experiences, and collaborate in
the search for best practices. Organizations
and communities interested in learning
BOSTON | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON DC © THIRD SECTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC. 4/11/19
Launched Projects
Feasibility/In Development
Figure 2. PFS Momentum Across the Country
Source: Third Sector Capital Partners, Inc.
Investing in America’s Workforce | 4
about ongoing PFS projects can receive
updates via their web portal. Currently, the
site serves as the national repository for
PFS strategies and research.
Public Sector Support for
Workforce Development
Projects
Early childhood and other child educationfocused programs offer excellent testing
grounds for PFS strategies. PFS removes
the risk of paying for services that are
ineffective, and may ultimately lead to
higher returns on taxpayer investment in
education. As a result, the U.S. Department
of Education (ED) manages a competitive
process for PFS projects, including
preschool for three- and four-year olds;
services for younger, disabled children;
dual-language learning; and new and
expanded career and technical education
for underserved youth.7
As federal funding for workforce
development has trended downward
over the past 20 years, the workforce
development community at large has
sought new and effective training and
development opportunities to respond to
shifting industry and skill demand. More
often than not, programs lack evidence
for successful outcomes and long-term
effectiveness remains uncertain. PFS is
one pathway to provide innovative and
outcomes-oriented financing options.
When the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) was reauthorized
in 2014, PFS emerged as an eligible use of
formula funding. Two federal agencies led
efforts to deploy PFS. The U.S. Department
of Labor (DOL) funded the first PFS
workforce development projects in New
York and Massachusetts the year prior
to WIOA for training and employment
services. One of the programs funded
by PFS in the DOL, My Brother’s Keeper
(MBK), was launched to address “persistent
opportunity gaps faced by boys and young
men of color and ensure that all young
people can reach their full potential.”8 MBK
targets various milestones focused on
children entering school ready to learn.9
The second federal agency, ED, funded
Social Finance, Inc. and Jobs for the
Future10 to support the development of
PFS K–12 career and technical education
opportunities. ED also funded the American
Institutes for Research to study evidencebased interventions for early learning dual
language models and to identify how PFS
could help improve outcomes for children
learning English as a second language. 11
A U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) 2015 report reviewed 10 PFS
projects to assess risk, as well as the
design and implementation of the contracts
to ensure entities involved are not
incentivized to address less challenging
projects, resulting in higher success rates
and skewed evidence. GAO recommended
that federal agencies could collaborate on
PFS projects, which would help build a body
of evidence on the effectiveness of specific
PFS strategies. The GAO report was
instrumental in informing policymakers
of how projects are structured and what
potential benefits may accrue, as well
as how the federal government can be
involved. The GAO recommendations
included the need for leading practices and
collaboration among federal agencies.12
The GAO report was supportive of PFS
methodology as a financing method, and
may certainly be considered a catalyst for
the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for
Results Act of 2018 (SIPPRA), enacted in
February 2018, which generated a $100
million U.S. Department of the Treasury-
Investing in America’s Workforce | 5
controlled fund for state and local PFS
projects. The federal government acts as
the end payor for projects undertaken.
SIPPRA creates a nine-member standing
Commission on Social Impact Partnership
that will work with Treasury to review PFS
funding applications. The first requests
for proposals were in February 201913 for
employment and workforce development,
high school graduation, early childhood
education, and resilience planning for
weather-related events in cities and rural
areas. Funding for projects, feasibility
studies, and evaluations will be available
for 10 years after the date of enactment
so that state and local governments may
propose projects with outcome goals over
a 10-year time period.14
With the passage of SIPPRA in 2018, the
federal government has renewed support
for PFS and there is new momentum
for this financing option. State and local
governments have the opportunity to
identify programs that could produce
the highest federal costs savings and
reduce long-term expenditures. It is
therefore more important than ever to
undergo rigorous evaluations to ensure
PFS projects are feasible, undertake
challenging social issues, achieve maximum
impact, and document the results.15
Current Challenges
There remain challenges in implementing
the PFS model for workforce development
projects. For one, research shows that
while PFS has had a positive impact on
educational outcomes, labor market
outcomes are mixed, with increased
earnings in some states and less significant
changes in other states.16
In 2014, the Joyce Foundation published
learnings from a 2013 summit on PFS
activity in the workforce field, following
DOL’s June 2012 Solicitation for Grant
Applications. The foundation sought to
learn from national stakeholder teams
from across the country who participated
in the grant applications about the state
of workforce-related PFS projects and
current opportunities, challenges, and
needs.17
The summit conversation provided insight
about the challenges of workforce-related
project interventions and the diversity of
projects such as stage-based programming
for at-risk young men, mentorships for
families on public assistance, career
pathways education and job training
support for low-income adults on public
assistance, life skills training, and social
enterprise employment. Each project
aimed to increase employment for target
populations and was based on multiple
years of implementation by the service
provider, where evidence exists. Questions
remain as to whether or not workforce
stakeholders will be able to use the PFS
model to support innovation and risk-taking
in interventions based on the projects
to date.
Summit participants discussed the
two aforementioned DOL programs in
Massachusetts and New York, which both
had strong internal government champions,
as well as resources and staff support
from Harvard University’s Social Impact
Bond Technical Assistance Lab. Both
programs had strong performance data
and third-party evidence and “a dedicated
intermediary organization—Social Finance
in NY and Third Sector Capital Partners in
MA—able to provide financial structuring
and modeling expertise, investor
management, contract management,
project management, and other stakeholder
negotiation services.”18 The services
helped support innovation and risk. Both
models achieved recidivism reduction and
employment target goals. Participants in
the summit highlighted that the recidivism-
Investing in America’s Workforce | 6
cost savings are easier to quantify in
the context of a PFS transaction than
savings related to workforce development
measures like job placement, which remain
a challenge.
Discussion of other PFS challenges at the
summit included how to analyze complex
data to measure outcomes; find sufficient
capacity among service providers,
government, and intermediaries; create
flexibility in PFS structures; and build
collective support from philanthropy and
government entities. While PFS is still
considered to be an emerging model for
financing complex social issues, similar
challenges are expected to remain for the
projects submitted under SIPPRA. Figure 3
provides a structure for determining when
PFS makes sense as a financing tool.
Listening Session Perspectives
During various stakeholder roundtable
listening sessions in North Carolina
and Virginia, community development,
academic, and investor participants
shared their perspectives on the flexibility
of WIOA approaches with respect to PFS.
Individuals also spoke about the small
number of universities engaged to help with
PFS projects, as well as the need to “train
the trainer” and enlist more university
expertise and assistance. Concerns were
also raised about how to best relay the
knowledge about the PFS process from
philanthropy and government to new
participants.
Common among stakeholders was the
desire to learn about SIPPRA projects
in real time. Roundtable participants
suggested a platform with information
about past PFS projects as well as current
SIPPRA models, from which stakeholders
could learn and implement promising
practices.
Promising Strategies
The Northern Virginia WIOA Youth
Program is a PFS targeting opportunity
youth, defined as 16- to 24-year-olds who
are neither in school nor working. The
challenge being addressed is that once a
youth ages out of foster care, taxpayers
will pay approximately $300,000 over
that young person’s lifetime through
public assistance, incarceration, and
lost wage costs. If these youth are redirected to education, training, and gainful
employment, benefits accrue to the
individuals and taxpayers.19
The SkillSource Group is a nonprofit
organization of the Northern Virginia
Workforce Development Board (NVWDB),
serving Northern Virginia employers,
incumbent workers, and job seekers with
job placement, training, and educational
services. The group’s six One-Stop
Employment Centers serve 64,000 clients
each year. SkillSource works with Fairfax
County, the One-Stop Operator for Northern
Virginia Workforce Area #11, including
Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William
counties, and the cities of Manassas,
Manassas Park, Fairfax, and Falls Church.
In 2015, SkillSource applied for technical
Figure 3. When Does PFS Make Sense?
Source: Third Sector Capital Partners, Inc.
Investing in America’s Workforce | 7
assistance from Third Sector Capital
Partners to explore the intersection of PFS
and WIOA funding for improved outcomes
for youth.
As part of the PFS opportunity youth
project, the Northern Virginia Team
Independence Initiative, a partnership
between SkillSource, Fairfax County
Division for Family Services (DFS), and
social service and justice organizations
across Northern Virginia, has created a
new mobile unit, meeting young adults
at nontraditional locations. The contract
is designed to increase the number of
young adults engaged in education and
employment programs and to improve
skills development and employment
outcomes for economically disadvantaged foster care and justice-involved young adults using
the Northern Virginia Workforce System. By leveraging new provisions in the 2014 WIOA (see
Figure 4), the project will attempt to serve 100 out-of-school and unemployed foster care and
justice-involved young adults through mobile outreach and enrollment in the community, as
well as targeted case management focusing on hard-to-reach young adults in the region. Pay
for performance, or bonus payments, can be earned by Fairfax County DFS—one bonus for
each successful outcome achieved over the course of the project. Measures being tracked for
the participants are skills gained during programming; placement in training, employment, or
education six months and a year after exit; and attainment of a degree or certificate within a year
after exit.
In 2015, eight young adults were enrolled, and in 2017, 25 were enrolled. As of March 2018, 67
young adults participate in the Northern Virginia program: 63 percent of participants are out of
school; 76 percent are basic skills deficient; 47 percent have a documented disability; 15 percent
engaged with the juvenile justice system; and 6 percent are in foster care.20
Conclusion
While PFS for workforce development financing is a promising practice, it does not come without
challenges. With respect to projects focused on reducing recidivism, tracking in real time is
not possible and detailed case level information is not easy to obtain. Metrics like long-term
employment status are particularly difficult to follow.
There are also challenges in creating performance targets that are feasible but that also account
for lasting impact. For example, if initial job placement is an agreed-upon program outcome,
then a payment related to job placement would indicate success. However, participants may not
actually remain employed beyond a short time period, necessitating goals around retention with
longer-term benchmarks. These nuances around target outcomes indicate that time dedicated to
performance management can be extensive and should be accounted for in the budget.
Figure 4. Illustrative WIOA Funds Flow
WIOA funds are set aside through the Governor’s Reserve and local workforce boards across
three streams (Adult, Dislocated Workers, Youth):
Source: Nonprofit Finance Fund; https://www.payforsuccess.org/
Investing in America’s Workforce | 8
The growth in PFS projects has the potential to increase opportunities to finance workforce
programs for both youth and adults. More recent federal and philanthropic support
can help to grow and improve upon this model around the country. Yet, there remains
limited expertise through entities such as academic labs to support project design. More
resources are needed to take on the complex and dynamic challenges of education and
training in relation to how to most effectively structure, finance, and implement PFS models.
Acknowledgments
This special topic brief is part of a series and the result of a collaborative effort across
the community development departments in the Federal Reserve System. The Federal
Reserve community development function thanks the participants of the 2018 regional
listening sessions, who generously shared their time, knowledge, and insights to inform this
research. We would also like to acknowledge individuals across the Fed System responsible
for hosting the 2018 regional listening sessions and/or writing special topic briefs.
Elizabeth Sobel Blum, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Jeanne Milliken Bonds, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Ashley Bozarth, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Joselyn Cousins, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Tony Davis, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Kyle D. Fee, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Jen Giovannitti, formerly with Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Todd Greene, formerly with Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Rob Grunewald, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Heidi Kaplan, Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Jason Keller, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Craig Nolte, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Drew Pack, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Ashley Putnam, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
David Radcliffe, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Edison Reyes, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Alexander Ruder, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Anjali Sakaria, formerly with Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Alvaro Sanchez, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Javier Silva, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Noelle St.Clair, formerly with Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Whitney M. Strifler, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
A special thank you to Noelle St.Clair and her team at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia for their work to create the 2017 Investing in America’s Workforce: Report on
Workforce Development Needs and Opportunities. That work highlighted the need for more
research and discussion on specific topics, culminating in this series of briefs.
Finally, thanks also to the team at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, including Cecilia
Bingenheimer, Jack Cooper, Latonya Duncan, Shannon McKay, Doug Sampson, and
Investing in America’s Workforce | 9
Rodney West, for designing the special topic briefs, as well as to Stuart Andreason, Ashley
Bozarth, and Jeanne Zimmermann at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and Edison Reyes from
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for reviewing this brief.
The views expressed in this special topic brief are those of the listening session participants, as
summarized by the authors, as well as the author’s own insights, and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the Federal Reserve System.
Methodology
In 2017, the community development departments at each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks
organized regional meetings at locations around the country with nearly 1,000 workforce
development leaders to confer on the status of the nation’s workforce development system
and the challenges it faces. The community development team at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia gathered and analyzed the information from those meetings, and it subsequently
published Investing in America’s Workforce: Report on Workforce Development Needs and
Opportunities.
In 2018, the Federal Reserve’s community development departments conducted a second
series of regional meetings with stakeholders across public, private, and nonprofit sectors. The
meetings focused on several workforce-related topics that impact communities, which originated
from themes captured in the 2017 report. A series of special topic briefs were created based on
regional meetings and community development research interests. Briefs include research and
insights from workforce development organizations, experts, and community development staff.
About the Initiative
Investing in America’s Workforce is a Federal Reserve System initiative in collaboration with
the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, the Ray Marshall
Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas at Austin, and the W.E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research. Led by the community development function of the Federal
Reserve System, the initiative aims to reframe and reimagine workforce development efforts as
investments that can lead to scalable solutions and measurable outcomes. Components of the
initiative to further this goal include:
• A series of listening sessions and subsequent report and special topic briefs aimed at
gathering and analyzing information and ideas from people who work at the intersection of
workforce training, recruiting, and finance.
• A national conference in Austin, Texas, in October 2017, where over 300 attendees discussed
promising approaches to workforce development.
• A three-volume book that offers research, best practices, and resources on workforce
development from a wide range of experts in various fields.
• A training curriculum for Community Reinvestment Act bank examiners on qualifying
workforce investments under new Interagency Q&A clarifications for the regulation.
For more information about the initiative, and to read chapters from the three-volume book and
other special topic briefs, please visit www.investinwork.org.
Investing in America’s Workforce | 10
1 Croan, Jerry. “Planning and Conducting a Feasibility Study” (presentation, Pay for Success Discussion Meeting, Cary, North Carolina, September 23, 2016). https://www.richmondfed.org/community_development/community_highlights/2016/20161018_north_carolina_cary.
2 Social Impact Bonds is another way to describe Pay for Success financing. Other names include pay for success bonds, social benefit bonds,
and social bonds.
3 Government Performance Lab. “South Carolina Nurse Family Partnership Pay for Success.” Harvard Kennedy School. https://govlab.hks.
harvard.edu/south-carolina-nurse-family-partnership-pay-success.
4 Social Finance is a nonprofit organization that moves capital to social
progress through social impact financing by managing public-private
partnerships.
5 The Sorensen Impact Center. 2018. “The Sorenson Impact Center and
Social Finance Announce Awardee of Pay for Success Structuring
Grant.” University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business. https://sorensonimpact.com/pfs-structuring-grant-awardee-press-release.
6 Giovannitti, Jen and Joshua Ogburn. 2018. “Growing the Pipeline of Payfor-Success Projects,” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Community
Practice Paper. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/community_development/practice_papers/2018/practice_papers_2018_no2.
7 U.S. Department of Education. 2016. “Pay for Success (PFS).” https://
www.ed.gov/category/keyword/pay-success-pfs https://www.ed.gov/
category/keyword/pay-success-pfs.
8 The White House. “My Brother’s Keeper 2016 Progress Report: Two
Years of Expanding Opportunity and Creating Pathways to Success.”
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/
images/MBK-2016-Progress-Report.pdf.
9 Ibid.
10 Jobs for the Future is a national nonprofit organization working in education and workforce systems to analyze issues and design strategies.
11 O’Connor, Brendan. 2018. “Pay for Success Legislation Moves Government to Fund What Works.” The Urban Resilience Project, published in collaboration with the Island Press Urban Resilience Project,
supported by the Kresge Foundation and the JPB Foundation. Originally
published March 28, 2018 in Morning Consult. https://medium.com/@
UrbanResilience/pay-for-success-legislation-moves-government-tofund-what-works-e140cb05abbb.
12 U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2015. “PAY FOR SUCCESS: Collaboration among Federal Agencies Would be Helpful as Governments
Explore New Financing Mechanisms.” GAO-15-646. https://www.gao.
gov/products/GAO-15-646.
13 U.S. Department of Treasury. “SIPPRA – Pay for Results.” https://home.
treasury.gov/services/social-impact-partnerships/sippra-pay-forresults.
14 “S.963, Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act,” 115th Congress, 2017–2018. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/
senate-bill/963.
15 See endnote 12 (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2015).
16 Milner, Justin, Matthew Eldridge, Kelly Walsh, John Roman. 2016.
“Research Report: Urban Institute Project Assessment Tool.” The Urban
Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/pay-success-project-assessment-tool.
17 Nonprofit Finance Fund and the Joyce Foundation. 2014. “Pay for Success in Workforce Development: What We’ve Learned and What’s Next.”
https://payforsuccess.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/PFS%20
in%20Workforce%20Development.pdf.
18 Ibid.
19 Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2013. “Aging Out of Foster Care in America.”
Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative. https://www.aecf.org/resources/aging-out-of-foster-care-in-america/.
20 Croan, Jerry. “Planning and Conducting a Feasibility Study” (presentation, Pay for Success Discussion Meeting, Cary, North Carolina, September 23, 2016). https://www.richmondfed.org/community_development/community_highlights/2016/20161018_north_carolina_cary.
Revised 2018.
References
2019 Special Topic Brief
www.investinwork.org/reports
Improving Outcomes for Workers and Employers
Pay for Success: How Emerging
Finance Tools Are Supporting
Workforce Development
Richmond Baltimore Charlotte
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF RICHMOND
2019 Federal Reserve System
By Jeanne Milliken Bonds
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond |