When Does PFS Work?

How do we know when to deploy a PFS project? Not every social problem is a good candidate for a PFS financed program – and partners must undertake careful evaluation of various criteria before deciding whether or not to launch a PFS project. Our deep knowledge of the PFS financing market and instrument enables us to make a substantial contribution to this evaluation process.

These success criteria include weighing the following factors:

  • First, do no harm. Those initiating a PFS project must determine, first and foremost, that their work will not cause any negative unintended consequences to the population that they hope to serve. For example, could excluding some needy individuals from services in order to provide a control group cause harm? Could family restoration services actually prove counterproductive? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the PFS project must be redesigned or abandoned.
  • Do the right service providers exist? A successful PFS financed project rests upon the ability of dedicated and skilled service providers who have the capacity to deliver social interventions on a larger scale. It is essential that there be a ready supply of personnel with knowledge and roots in the community, as well as a toolkit of proven social programs.
  • Is the financial case convincing? Funders will expect to see a solid financial case for PFS financing; it must be clear that, barring unforeseen circumstances, the expected payout resulting from the program should be greater than the risk-adjusted costs of providing the program. In other words, projected returns should exceed the cost of setting up, running, and paying for the programs financed by a PFS project. This assessment is part of our due diligence process.
  • Are the outcomes measurable and verifiable? Evaluators should be able to measure outcomes by using clear, objective data. Outcomes should be measured against a counterfactual – either by projecting historical data forward, or by establishing a control group of people who do not receive the services – in order to demonstrate that benefits arose from the program itself rather than some external factor.