 All of these folks are incredibly inspiring. I hope you're thinking about what we can be doing better, what we can be doing more of. One of these areas that I think has really developed in the time that I've been at SoCAP is the conversation, this is not gonna sound exciting, about policy. And policy is a hugely important lever as we build this field, and it's a big piece of how we can do better and really do that at scale and do it in amazing ways. I get scared of these conversations. There are very smart people in this community who are working on this every day. And this year was the first time that I was on a conversation, a conference call earlier this year, and I heard about this policy, and it just clicked for me, the way that some of the things that our next group is gonna talk about really completely shift and move huge amounts of capital into projects in all sorts of regions of the United States, of the world, and I'm really excited for you to hear about this because it isn't something that I'm guessing the majority of folks in this room are focusing on most of the time. So consider this your 20 minutes of policy update, and you will be totally up to speed on policy in the impact investing world. They probably don't like that I'm setting that high bar. But listen closely, and please welcome to the stage Jim Sorenson, Jeremy Keele, and Andy Phillips. So good morning, everybody. It's really wonderful to be here. So we've all had an amazing couple of days, or maybe it actually hasn't been a couple of days, but feels like it's been a couple of days, really talking about social enterprises, impact investing, and really about how you can use capital in all of its forms to drive change in disadvantaged communities, improve the environment, and really lead to broad social impact. There is a key player, though, that often gets left out of these conversations, and that's government. And I think part of it is because, as Lindsay was saying, we all think, ugh, policy. That's not where the interesting work happens. That's about government and a morass in Washington. But if you step back and think about it, government globally, and certainly in the US, is probably the largest purchaser of services for the poor. The White House under Obama estimated that purchasing power at about $800 billion. Steve Ballmer, with his USA Facts, puts it more at maybe a trillion dollars. That's a lot of money flowing out into trying to change the lives of disadvantaged communities. Policy and government also play a critical role in creating an enabling environment to allow all of us to do the work that we do. And so what we wanna do in this panel is really talk today about some very concrete things that are currently happening in Washington. There's a broad group of people, the US Alliance for Impact Investing, the global steering group that are working on these policy issues. But today we have two of the people who are really on the ground and trying to make things happen in Washington. So, Jim and Jeremy, it's great to be here with you. I wanna ask Jeremy to kick it off and talk about the two initiatives that you're working on right now that have really begun to get some traction. Great, thanks Andy, it's good to be here. So just, I would preface this by saying that it's a nice coincidence that Richard Thaler won the economic prize, or sorry, the Nobel Prize in Economics, sorry, this week. For some of his insights into how policy can actually provide really sort of low cost behavioral nudges that gets incentives to line up really nicely in the private sector and the public sector. And these are the kinds of insights that have actually led to some of the policies that we're talking about today. So I'll just really briefly kind of describe these two pieces of concrete legislation that are working their way through the Congress right now that we've been involved with. One is called the Social Impact Partnership Act and it would basically create a $300 million fund at the U.S. Treasury that would repay investors, private investors who have invested into social programs that have measurably performed or measurably improved outcomes in the communities that they're targeting. What's really powerful and meaningful about this is that it would create really for the first time a mechanism for the federal government to pay for positive outcomes that relate to the federal government budget alongside state and local stakeholders. We've been living in an environment for those folks that have been working in the impact bond space, the impact financing space. We've been working in an environment which is effectively a market failure situation where local and state governments have had to pick up the full cost of these really successful performing programs even though in a lot of cases a significant amount of the financial savings or economic benefit from those programs actually accrues to the federal government. So this would be the first time we'd be able to actually change that. It would be game changing in the sense that you would have the ability to do a lot of deals in particular in public health related programs where most of the savings do in fact flow to the federal government if you think about cancer screening, diabetes treatment, asthma interventions. Those kinds of things can't happen right now at scale because the economics just don't work currently. So this fund would effectively solve that problem. So that's exciting. The other piece of legislation that we've been actively working on is called the Investing in Opportunities Act which basically creates a capital gains deferral scheme that allows investors to continue to defer capital gains on the investments that they've made so long as they invest that money into what are called opportunity zones which would basically be census tracks in each of the 50 states that are designated by the governors in each of those states as being communities that have been sort of largely passed over from a private investment perspective. So this would be again sort of a really powerful but low cost policy nudge that would direct up to $2.3 trillion if you can imagine. That's the total size of the pool of funds that would be eligible for this program. That's not to say that all of that money would flow but that's the total size of the pool but that would create a mechanism for a big chunk of that money to start to flow into some of these communities around the country that have really been passed over from an investment perspective. Great, that's really, really exciting and really interesting on all fronts. So Jim, I've had the pleasure of talking to you and Jeremy about this over the last couple months and you both are pretty optimistic that these are gonna get across the finish line and I'd love to hear you talk a little bit about your perspective on why that is in Washington and maybe sort of how you think that these can get moved forward. Well, I think it's really been great to be involved in this because frankly, these are really bipartisan issues. We find that they resonate with both Republicans and Democrats and one of the areas that they can work together in a policy change that I think really addresses kind of core issues with both of the parties. And in the case of the Investment in Opportunity Act, there are about 70 bipartisan congressmen and senators that have lined up to support that legislation and in fact, it's been presented to President Trump and he really likes the legislation. So those are really good signs as it relates to the SIPA legislation. Again, very good bipartisan support. These are issues that the Democrats feel strongly about and I think a much better way of allocating social services in the eyes of Republicans. So good bipartisan support and in speaking with, I had the opportunity to speak with Speaker Ryan and some of the Senator cosponsors, Senator Hatt, Senator Young, Congressman Delaney, all of them are very, well I would say confident that this legislation will ultimately pass this year. So hopefully, this comes together. The vehicle's been set for this. I think it's a good vehicle in terms of it being the chip reauthorization. That's something that will need to be passed by the end of the year and it seems to have pretty good momentum. Well, that's incredibly exciting. I know that last year, you guys or we, I should say, got very close to making this happen. So hopefully as we sort of move forward, we'll really get another win. So those are two very real opportunities that are being looked at in real time. What do you see on the horizon when you think about the next area of policy that we ought to be focusing on collectively? Maybe I'll start in if Jim has thoughts. I'd love to hear those as well. But I think there's some interesting things happening here in the US clearly. There are some interesting things happening in other countries. And when you reference the global steering group and when you think about that as a platform for sort of cross-border learning about what's happening in the policy environments in each of these different countries that are focused on, again, sort of creating the regulatory or enabling environments that will facilitate and stimulate private investment into the social sector, I think there was a lot of opportunity to sort of learn from other countries what they're doing. There are some things in the UK and in Japan around capital wholesalers, so public-private partnerships where some public money flows in, but also attracting some private capital to take some concessionary positions in investments, social investments in those countries. I think that's a really interesting idea. Other countries have been more progressive around relaxing fiduciary duties for institutional fund managers, so pension fund managers that are bound by traditional fiduciary duties to their shareholders and their investors. Other countries have just been more progressive about sort of letting those fund managers factor impact into their investment decisions. Like the Netherlands is the best example. They have something like three trillion dollars or three trillion euros under management with a view towards addressing the SDGs. So those are pension fund managers in the Netherlands that have the ability to really factor the SDGs into their investment decisions. That's pretty powerful. In France, they have a 10% carve-out rule, so the fiduciary duty applies to 90% of the portfolio of these managers, but there's a 10% carve-out where they can, in fact, factor impact into their decision-making. So there's some ideas there that could potentially be brought to bear here in the US, but I think what's interesting, and this goes to Jim's point, is that there's incredible inertia and momentum in the Congress, and I would argue even within the administration itself, although it's early days there still, but real opportunity with, I would say, kind of a small cadre of 30 or 40 centrist thought leaders on both the Democratic and the Republican sides who are just really, really interested in all the concepts that we're talking about here at SOCAP and thinking about ways that they can pull policy levers in Washington to facilitate and incent the deployment of private capital to get better results in the social sector. That to me is an opportunity that we all have to take very seriously, just because if you're thinking of catalytic opportunities of ways that you can really sort of move the needle, as Andy said at the outset, this is really, government's just a big part of the equation that you really ought to factor in. So Jim, do you have anything to add to that in terms of what you see on the horizon as the next big thing? I think there are a couple of other areas. I'm a firm believer of program-related investments in terms of their capability to really catalyze and be used as a tool to crowd in capital, and not many foundations use them because there isn't a lot of clarity around the IRS regulations surrounding them. And I think that there needs to be more and could be more clarity and perhaps some type of a safe harbor so that foundations would be able to engage more in making that very catalytic, early-stage capital and investment. I think that's one area. I know that the Impact Investing Alliance is very engaged in this area, and in fact, next week in Washington, D.C., they've organized a congressional roundtable where there will be several senators there and congressmen that I think this will be part of an education for them about impact investing and about this movement and what's happening and the importance of this legislation, that'll be a part of it, but there will also be a discussion about other areas that hopefully will lead to policy discussions that ultimately lead to good policy in the future. Well, that's really exciting and it's nice to hear that there's some concrete action. I would echo what you said about PRIs. I think they're an incredibly powerful tool, yet sort of so boxed in by all the rules that are not particularly clear and so that would be a really exciting mechanism to be set free. So I do wanna circle back to something that I feel like we sort of let go as you were talking about getting this legislation passed. So I have to say, in my experience when Speaker Ryan started showing his support for social impact bonds and pay for success, which is the work I've been doing for about the last five or six years, I was a little shocked because I never expected to agree with Speaker Ryan on anything and I'm guessing that there may be other people in this room who also felt that way. I would love to hear from you because I know you've had conversations with Speaker Ryan about this. What do you think it is that he finds compelling and not to put you on the spot or him on the spot, but really I think I'm intrigued by this notion of bipartisan support for this work and particularly in these days of a lot of complicated things. There's a euphemism happening in Washington that this is a very small area where we're having some progress and success. Yeah, my sense that he really is very interested, I would say almost passionate about this notion that we're not getting what we should from the dollars that are being spent or allocated in social services, that they're not measured, they're not focused on outcomes and really pretty inefficient. And so this is all in his mind and I think in the mind of many, a better way to reform and to bring better practice and performance measurement and really innovation to how social services are spent. And social impact bonds, pay for success initiatives, whatever you wanna call them, I think they see as a really great device to be able to do that, but they see it as part of really an overall reform that needs to take place in how social services are procured and delivered and measured. Well, that's exciting. A little shocking and exciting. Anything you'd add to that, Jeremy, in terms of the bipartisan nature? No, I think Jim said it well. I think that when we first met Speaker Ryan on this, one of the more memorable quotes was him saying that he would like to see the entire social sector sort of transformed into something that is more results oriented and more measured. And that really sort of resonates with us because we tend to agree. And it's not to say that nothing's working out there, but it is to say that we don't do a lot in the way of measuring how effective what we're doing actually is. And so I think there's a lot of alignment there. And again, just to reiterate the point that Democrats see this concept and say, we're spending money on social services. We want to help folks. Let's make sure that spending is actually getting us the bang for the buck that we hope it does. And then Republicans saying, let's not waste money. If we're going to be spending money to address social problems, let's make sure that we're actually spending those dollars effectively. So there's just a really sort of nice kind of overlapping Venn diagram style sort of consensus on this. And I think it's, in a gridlocked Washington on so many other issues, this is a real sort of focal point where you can make some progress, I think over the next few years. Well, it's really exciting. And I think just the work that I know you too as individuals has done, I know that Jim, there have been key moments in all of this when you have been willing to pick up the phone and make a call to people that you've had long-term relationships with that has been invaluable, but also the work of the Impact Investing Alliance has really been there as well. So very, very exciting. And I would hope that the sort of group here at SoCAP can be tapped into to help provide support for this area that we can move forward. So we have two minutes left and Jim requested that we open up for questions. So I'm going to open up for questions because there's been a lot of talking at you. So who has a question? Oh, I'm going to call on somebody. There we go. I'm going to give you a mic so you can ask your question. I just want to challenge this idea. I know it's popular. I know it has bipartisan support that social services are inefficient. They need to be optimized. And those of us who are in the social service sector, we work our hearts out to do just that. We respond to that. And yet, we don't get any credit for it. In fact, that critique comes up over and over again. And when I benchmark the work of my organization to private for-profit companies, I see that we're far more efficient in the way we're using money and the way we steward money. And yet, the social service sector doesn't get credit for that. So I just want to challenge that assertion. Thank you for that. And if you two will indulge me as the moderator, I'm going to respond. So I think the idea behind pay for success and social impact bonds is actually to help redirect dollars to social service organizations that are high performing. I have run a social service organization. I am the recipient of social services for my son who is severely disabled. And what people are talking about here is not to undermine social services. And in fact, oftentimes when you talk to other human service leaders, they welcome the idea of paying for performance. Muzzy Rosenblatt is incredibly articulate on this. He runs a game-changing homeless services organization in New York City. And what he will say is the hardest work he does is bringing someone into the shelter and helping transition them to permanent housing. Yet his contract with the city pays him to keep people in a bed. He would rather if he got paid to get people into permanent housing. So while I hear what you're saying, I hope what you can do is sort of open your mind that this is a way of helping free service organizations up from some of the compliance burden and some of the ticking the boxes. I can't tell you how many times I personally have met with a social worker and have had to sign my name on an attendance sheet because I went to that meeting on behalf of my son and nothing has happened. I would much rather have the service provider be held accountable for helping him get the services he needs. So I think that is the context from where this is coming. So other questions? I think we're out of time. Nope, we're out of time. Thank you so much everybody. Thank you, Jim and Jeremy. You're welcome. Thank you.