Proprietary software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proprietary software is software that grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms.

Proprietary software is a subset of non-free software, a term defined in contrast to free and open-source software; non-commercial licenses such as CC BY-NC are not deemed proprietary, but are non-free. Proprietary software may either be closed-source software or source-available software.

Origin

Until the late 1960s, computers—especially large and expensive mainframe computers, machines in specially air-conditioned computer rooms—were usually leased to customers rather than sold.Service and all software available were usually supplied by manufacturers without separate charge until 1969. Computer vendors usually provided the source code for installed software to customers. Customers who developed software often made it available to the public without charge. Closed source means computer programs whose source code is not published except to licensees. It is available to be modified only by the organization that developed it and those licensed to use the software.

In 1969, IBM, which had antitrust lawsuits pending against it, led an industry change by starting to charge separately for mainframe software and services, by unbundling hardware and software.

Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" in 1976 decried computer hobbyists' rampant copyright infringement of software, particularly Microsoft's Altair BASIC interpreter, and asserted that their unauthorized use hindered his ability to produce quality software. But the legal status of software copyright, especially for object code, was not clear until the 1983 appeals court ruling in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.

According to Brewster Kahle the legal characteristic of software changed also due to the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.

Starting in February 1983 IBM adopted an "object-code-only" model for a growing list of their software and stopped shipping much of the source code, even to licensees.

In 1983, binary software became copyrightable in the United States as well by the Apple vs. Franklin law decision, before which only source code was copyrightable. Additionally, the growing availability of millions of computers based on the same microprocessor architecture created for the first time an unfragmented and big enough market for binary distributed software.

Licenses

A brief, written-out beta test software license issued by Macromedia in 1995

The tendency to license proprietary software, rather than sell it, dates from the time period before the existence, then the scope of software copyright protection was clear. These licenses have continued in use after software copyright was recognized in the courts, and are considered to grant the company extra protection compared to copyright law. According to United States federal law, a company can restrict the parties to which it sells but it cannot prevent a buyer from reselling the product. Software licensing agreements usually prohibit resale, enabling the company to maximize revenue.

Traditionally, software was distributed in the form of binary object code that could not be understood or modified by the user, but could be downloaded and run. The user bought a perpetual license to use a particular version of the software. Software as service (SaaS) vendors—who have the majority market share in application software as of 2023—rarely offer perpetual licenses. SaaS licenses are usually temporary and charged on a pay-per-usage or subscription basis, although other revenue models such as freemium are also used. For customers, the advantages of temporary licenses include reduced upfront cost, increased flexibility, and lower overall cost compared to a perpetual license. In some cases, the steep one-time cost demanded by sellers of traditional software were out of the reach of smaller businesses, but pay-per-use SaaS models makes the software affordable.

Mixed-source software

Software distributions considered as proprietary may in fact incorporate a "mixed source" model including both free and non-free software in the same distribution. Most if not all so-called proprietary UNIX distributions are mixed source software, bundling open-source components like BIND, Sendmail, X Window System, DHCP, and others along with a purely proprietary kernel and system utilities.

Multi-licensing

Some free software packages are also simultaneously available under proprietary terms. Examples include MySQL, Sendmail and ssh. The original copyright holders for a work of free software, even copyleft free software, can use dual-licensing to allow themselves or others to redistribute proprietary versions. Non-copyleft free software (i.e. software distributed under a permissive free software license or released to the public domain) allows anyone to make proprietary redistributions. Free software that depends on proprietary software is considered "trapped" by the Free Software Foundation. This includes software written only for Microsoft Windows, or software that could only run on Java, before it became free software.

Legal basis

Further information: Software law, Software copyright, Software patent, and End-user license agreement

Most of the software is covered by copyright which, along with contract law, patents, and trade secrets, provides legal basis for its owner to establish exclusive rights.

A software vendor delineates the specific terms of use in an end-user license agreement (EULA). The user may agree to this contract in writing, interactively on screen (clickwrap), or by opening the box containing the software (shrink wrap licensing). License agreements are usually not negotiable. Software patents grant exclusive rights to algorithms, software features, or other patentable subject matter, with coverage varying by jurisdiction. Vendors sometimes grant patent rights to the user in the license agreement. The source code for a piece of proprietary software is routinely handled as a trade secret. Software can be made available with fewer restrictions on licensing or source-code access; software that satisfies certain conditions of freedom and openness is known as "free" or "open-source."

Limitations

Since license agreements do not override applicable copyright law or contract law, provisions in conflict with applicable law are not enforceable. Some software is specifically licensed and not sold, in order to avoid limitations of copyright such as the first-sale doctrine.

Exclusive rights

The owner of proprietary software exercises certain exclusive rights over the software. The owner can restrict the use, inspection of source code, modification of source code, and redistribution.

Use of the software

Further information: Copy protection, Crippleware, and Price discrimination

Vendors typically limit the number of computers on which software can be used, and prohibit the user from installing the software on extra computers. Restricted use is sometimes enforced through a technical measure, such as product activation, a product key or serial number, a hardware key, or copy protection.

Vendors may also distribute versions that remove particular features, or versions which allow only certain fields of endeavor, such as non-commercial, educational, or non-profit use.

Use restrictions vary by license:

• Windows Vista Starter is restricted to running a maximum of three concurrent applications.
• The retail edition of Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007 is limited to non-commercial use on up to three devices in one household.
• Windows XP can be installed on one computer, and limits the number of network file sharing connections to 10. The Home Edition disables features present in Windows XP Professional.
• Traditionally, Adobe licenses are limited to one user, but allow the user to install a second copy on a home computer or laptop. This is no longer true with the switching to Creative Cloud.
• iWork '09, Apple's productivity suite, is available in a five-user family pack, for use on up to five computers in a household.

Inspection and modification of source code

See also: Open-source software and Crippleware

Vendors typically distribute proprietary software in compiled form, usually the machine language understood by the computer's central processing unit. They typically retain the source code, or human-readable version of the software, often written in a higher level programming language. This scheme is often referred to as closed source.

While most proprietary software is distributed without the source code, some vendors distribute the source code or otherwise make it available to customers. For example, users who have purchased a license for the Internet forum software vBulletin can modify the source for their own site but cannot redistribute it. This is true for many web applications, which must be in source code form when being run by a web server. The source code is covered by a non-disclosure agreement or a license that allows, for example, study and modification, but not redistribution. The text-based email client Pine and certain implementations of Secure Shell are distributed with proprietary licenses that make the source code available. Some licenses for proprietary software allow distributing changes to the source code, but only to others licensed for the product, and some of those modifications are eventually picked up by the vendor.

Some governments fear that proprietary software may include defects or malicious features which would compromise sensitive information. In 2003 Microsoft established a Government Security Program (GSP) to allow governments to view source code and Microsoft security documentation, of which the Chinese government was an early participant. The program is part of Microsoft's broader Shared Source Initiative which provides source code access for some products. The Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) and Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) are proprietary software licenses where the source code is made available.

Governments have also been accused of adding such malware to software themselves. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, the NSA has used covert partnerships with software companies to make commercial encryption software exploitable to eavesdropping, or to insert backdoors.

Software vendors sometimes use obfuscated code to impede users who would reverse engineer the software. This is particularly common with certain programming languages. For example, the bytecode for programs written in Java can be easily decompiled to somewhat usable code, and the source code for programs written in scripting languages such as PHP or JavaScript is available at run time.

Redistribution

Further information: Shareware

See also: Freely redistributable software

Proprietary software vendors can prohibit the users from sharing the software with others. Another unique license is required for another party to use the software.

In the case of proprietary software with source code available, the vendor may also prohibit customers from distributing their modifications to the source code.

Shareware is closed-source software whose owner encourages redistribution at no cost, but which the user sometimes must pay to use after a trial period. The fee usually allows use by a single user or computer. In some cases, software features are restricted during or after the trial period, a practice sometimes called crippleware.

Interoperability with software and hardware

Further information: Interoperability § Software

Proprietary file formats and protocols

Further information: Proprietary format and Proprietary protocol

Proprietary software often stores some of its data in file formats that are incompatible with other software, and may also communicate using protocols which are incompatible. Such formats and protocols may be restricted as trade secrets or subject to patents.

Proprietary APIs

A proprietary application programming interface (API) is a software library interface "specific to one device or, more likely to a number of devices within a particular manufacturer's product range." The motivation for using a proprietary API can be vendor lock-in or because standard APIs do not support the device's functionality.

The European Commission, in its March 24, 2004, decision on Microsoft's business practices, quotes, in paragraph 463, Microsoft general manager for C++ development Aaron Contorer as stating in a February 21, 1997, internal Microsoft memo drafted for Bill Gates:

The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead.

Early versions of the iPhone SDK were covered by a non-disclosure agreement. The agreement forbade independent developers from discussing the content of the interfaces. Apple discontinued the NDA in October 2008.

Vendor lock-in

Further information: Vendor lock-in

Any dependency on the future versions and upgrades for a proprietary software package can create vendor lock-in, entrenching a monopoly position.

Software limited to certain hardware configurations

Proprietary software may also have licensing terms that limit the usage of that software to a specific set of hardware. Apple has such a licensing model for macOS, an operating system which is limited to Apple hardware, both by licensing and various design decisions. This licensing model has been affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Abandonment by proprietors

Main article: Abandonware

Proprietary software which is no longer marketed, supported or sold by its owner is called abandonware, the digital form of orphaned works. If the proprietor of a software package should cease to exist, or decide to cease or limit production or support for a proprietary software package, recipients and users of the package may have no recourse if problems are found with the software. Proprietors can fail to improve and support software because of business problems. Support for older or existing versions of a software package may be ended to force users to upgrade and pay for newer versions (planned obsolescence). Sometimes another vendor or a software's community themselves can provide support for the software, or the users can migrate to either competing systems with longer support life cycles or to FOSS-based systems.

Some proprietary software is released by their owner at end-of-life as open-source or source available software, often to prevent the software from becoming unsupported and unavailable abandonware. 3D Realms and id Software are famous for the practice of releasing closed source software into the open source. Some of those kinds are free-of-charge downloads (freeware), some are still commercially sold (e.g. Arx Fatalis). More examples of formerly closed-source software in the List of commercial software with available source code and List of commercial video games with available source code.

Pricing and economics

See also: Commercial software

Proprietary software is not synonymous with commercial software, although the two terms are sometimes used synonymously in articles about free software. Proprietary software can be distributed at no cost or for a fee, and free software can be distributed at no cost or for a fee. The difference is that whether proprietary software can be distributed, and what the fee would be, is at the proprietor's discretion. With free software, anyone who has a copy can decide whether, and how much, to charge for a copy or related services.

Proprietary software that comes for no cost is called freeware.

Proponents of commercial proprietary software argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding or time available for the research and development of software. For example, Microsoft says that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.

Proprietary software generally creates greater commercial activity over free software, especially in regard to market revenues. Proprietary software is often sold with a license that gives the end user right to use the software.

Browser wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A timeline of web browsers

The most used web browser by country in 2020

A browser war is a competition for dominance in the usage share of web browsers. The "first browser war" (1995–2001) consisted of Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, and the "second browser war" (2004-2017) between Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Google Chrome.

With the introduction of HTML5 and CSS 3, a new generation of browser wars began, this time adding extensive client-side scripting to the World Wide Web (WWW), and the more widespread use of smartphones and other mobile devices for browsing the web. These changes have ensured that browser battles continue among enthusiasts, while the average web user is less affected.

Background

Usage share as of Q2 2009 by percent of layout engines/web browsers

Tim Berners-Lee along with his colleagues at CERN started the development of the WWW, an Internet-based hypertext system, in 1989. Their studies led to the creation of the HyperText Transfer Protocol, which would set the protocols for client-server communication. In 1990, he created the first web browser, WorldWideWeb, subsequently known as Nexus, and made it available for the NeXTstep Operating System, by NeXT.

Other browsers had started to surface by the end of 1992, many of which were based on the Libwww library. These included MacWWW/Samba for the Mac and Unix browsers including Line Mode Browser, ViolaWWW, Erwise, and MidasWWW. These browsers were HTML viewers that needed third-party helpers to display multimedia content.

Mosaic wars

In 1993, more browsers became available, including Cello, Lynx, tkWWW, and Mosaic. The most influential of these was Mosaic, a multi-platform browser developed at National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). By October 1994, Mosaic was "well on its way to becoming the world's standard interface", according to Gary Wolfe of Wired.

Several companies licensed Mosaic to create their commercial browsers, such as AirMosaic, Quarterdeck Mosaic, and Spyglass Mosaic. One of the Mosaic developers, Marc Andreessen, co-founded the Mosaic Communications Corporation and created a new web browser named Mosaic Netscape.

There are two ages of the Internet—before Mosaic, and after. The combination of Tim Berners-Lee's Web protocols, which provided connectivity, and Marc Andreesen's browser, which provided a great interface, proved explosive. In twenty-four months, the Web has gone from being unknown to absolutely ubiquitous.

— Mark Pesce, ZDNet

To resolve legal issues with NCSA, the company was renamed Netscape Communications Corporation, and the browser Netscape Navigator. The Netscape browser improved Mosaic's usability and reliability and was able to display pages as they loaded. By 1995, helped by the fact that it was free for non-commercial use, the browser dominated the emerging World Wide Web.

Other browsers launched during 1994 included IBM Web Explorer, Navipress, SlipKnot, MacWeb, and Browse.

While Netscape faced new competition from OmniWeb, Eolas WebRouser, UdiWWW, and Microsoft's Internet Explorer 1.0, it continued to dominate the market for 1995.

First browser war (1995–2001)

Market share for several browsers between 1995 and 2010.

By mid-1995, the World Wide Web had received a great deal of attention in popular culture and the mass media. Netscape Navigator was the most widely used web browser and Microsoft had licensed Mosaic to create Internet Explorer 1.0, which had released with Microsoft Windows 95 Plus! on August 24, 1995.

Unlike Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer 1.0 was available to all Windows users free of charge, including commercial companies. Other companies later followed suit and released their browsers free of charge. Netscape Navigator and competitor products like InternetWorks, Quarterdeck Browser, InterAp, and WinTapestry were bundled with other applications to full Internet suites.

New versions of Internet Explorer (IE) and Netscape (branded as Netscape Communicator) were released often over the following few years. New features were routinely added, including Netscape's JavaScript (subsequently replicated by Microsoft as JScript) and proprietary HTML tags such as <blink> (Navigator) and <marquee> (Internet Explorer).

Internet Explorer 3 offered nearly identical services like its competitor, Netscape, offering scripting support and implemented the market's first commercial Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).

On September 22, 1997, Internet Explorer 4 was released. The release party in San Francisco featured a ten-foot-tall letter "e" logo. Netscape employees showing up to work the following morning found the logo on their front lawn, paired with greeting card signed "Best wishes, the IE team". The Netscape employees promptly knocked it over and set a giant figure of their Mozilla dinosaur mascot atop it, holding a sign reading "Netscape 72, Microsoft 18", referencing the companies' market share.

During these releases, it was common for web designers to display "best viewed in Netscape" or "best viewed in Internet Explorer" logos. These images often identified a specific browser and commonly linked to a source from which the stated browser could be downloaded. These logos generally recognized the divergence between the standards supported by the browsers and signified which browser was used for testing the pages. In response, supporters of the principle that websites should be compliant with World Wide Web Consortium standards and hence viewable with any browser started the "Viewable with Any Browser" campaign, which employed its logo similar to the partisan ones. Most mainstream websites, however, specified one of Netscape or Internet Explorer as their preferred browser while making some attempt to support minimal functionality on the other.

While Netscape had accrued about 75% of the market share within four months of its release, as a relatively small company deriving the great bulk of its income from what was essentially a single product (Navigator and its derivatives), it was financially vulnerable. Microsoft's resources allowed them to make Internet Explorer available without charge, as the revenues from Windows were used to fund its development and marketing. As a result, Internet Explorer was provided free for all Windows and Macintosh users, unlike Netscape, which was free for home and educational use but would require a paid license for business use.

Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with every copy of Windows, which had over a 95% share of the desktop operating system market in June 2004, allowing the company to obtain market share more easily than Netscape as customers already had Internet Explorer installed as the default browser. At this time, many new computer purchasers had never extensively used a web browser before. Consequently, the buyer did not have anything else to compare with and little motivation to consider alternatives; any difference in browser features or ergonomics paled in comparison with the set of abilities they had gained with access to the Internet and the World Wide Web.

During the United States Microsoft antitrust case in 1998, Intel vice president Steven McGeady testified that a senior executive at Microsoft told him in 1995 of his company's intention to "cut off Netscape's air supply", although a Microsoft attorney rejected McGeady's testimony as not credible. That same year, Netscape was acquired by America Online for 4.2 billion dollars. Internet Explorer became the new dominant browser, attaining a peak of about 96% of the web browser usage share during 2001.

Second browser war (2004–2017)

Decline of Netscape

Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.12 running on Ubuntu displaying Wikipedia

At the start of Netscape Navigator's decline, Netscape open-sourced its browser code and later entrusted it to the newly formed non-profit Mozilla Foundation — a primarily community-driven project to create a successor to Netscape. Development continued for several years with little widespread adoption until a stripped-down browser-only version of the full suite, which included new features such as a separate search bar (which had previously only appeared in the Opera browser), was created. The browser-only version was initially named Phoenix, but because of trademark issues that name was changed, first to Firebird, then to Firefox. Phoenix was chosen because "Phoenix", implied that it would rise like a phoenix after Netscape Navigator was killed off by Microsoft. This browser became the focus of the Mozilla Foundation's development efforts. Mozilla's Firefox 1 was released on November 9, 2004, and it then continued to gain an increasing share of the browser market until a peak of around 24% in 2010.

In response, in April 2004, the Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software joined efforts to develop new open-technology standards which add more capability while remaining backward-compatible with existing technologies. The result of this collaboration was the WHATWG, a working group devoted to the fast creation of new standard definitions that would be submitted to the W3C for approval.

The growing number of device/browser combinations in use, legally-mandated web accessibility, as well as the expansion of expected web functionality to essentially require DOM and scripting abilities, including AJAX, made web standards of increasing importance during this era. Instead of advertising their proprietary extensions, browser developers began to market their software based on how closely it adhered to standards.

On December 28, 2007, Netscape announced that support for its Mozilla-derived Netscape Navigator would be discontinued on February 1, 2008, suggesting its users migrate to Mozilla Firefox. However, on January 28, 2008, Netscape announced that support would be extended to March 1, 2008, and mentioned Flock alongside Firefox as alternatives to its users.

Internet Explorer

In 2003, Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 would be the last standalone version of its browser. Future enhancements would be dependent on Windows Vista, which would include new tools such as the WPF and XAML to enable developers to build web applications.

On February 15, 2005, Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer 7 would be available for Windows XP SP2 and later versions of Windows by mid-2005. The announcement introduced the new version of the browser as a major upgrade over Internet Explorer 6 SP1.

Microsoft released Internet Explorer 7 on October 18, 2006. It included tabbed browsing, a search bar, a phishing filter, and improved support for web standards (including full support for PNG) — all features already long familiar to Opera and Firefox users. Microsoft distributed Internet Explorer 7 to genuine Windows users (WGA) as a high-priority update through Windows Update. Typical market share analysis showed only a slow uptake of Internet Explorer 7 and Microsoft decided to drop the requirement for WGA and made Internet Explorer 7 available to all Windows users in October 2007. Throughout the two following years, Microsoft worked on Internet Explorer 8. On December 19, 2007, the company announced that an internal build of that version had passed the Acid2 CSS test in "IE8 standards mode" — the last of the major browsers to do so. Internet Explorer 8 was released on March 19, 2009. New features included accelerators, improved privacy protection, a compatibility mode for pages designed for older browsers, and improved support for various web standards. It was the last version of Internet Explorer to be released for Windows XP. Internet Explorer 8 scored 20/100 in the Acid3 test, which was much worse than all major competitors at the time.

In October 2010, StatCounter reported that Internet Explorer had for the first time dropped below 50% market share to 49.87% in their figures. Also, StatCounter reported Internet Explorer 8's first drop in usage share in the same month.

Microsoft released Internet Explorer 9 on March 14, 2011. It featured a revamped interface, support for the basic SVG feature set, and partial HTML video support, among other new features. It dropped support for Windows XP, and only ran on Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows Phone 7. The company later released Internet Explorer 10 along with Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 in 2012, and an update compatible with Windows 7 followed in 2013. This version dropped Vista and Phone 7 support. The release preview of Internet Explorer 11 was released on September 17, 2013. It supported the same desktops as its predecessor.

Starting in 2015 with the release of Windows 10, Microsoft shifted from Internet Explorer to Microsoft Edge (Commonly referred to as Edge). However, the new browser had failed to capture much popularity by 2018. Microsoft Edge switched from its own browser engine, EdgeHTML, to Chromium's Blink engine in 2020 for all platforms except for iOS, where it kept relying on WebKit due to platform restrictions.

Competing desktop and mobile browsers

Share of usage for top 7 used browsers between 2009 and 2021 according to StatCounter

Opera had been a long-time player in the browser wars, known for being lightweight and introducing innovative features such as tabbed browsing and mouse gestures. However, the software was commercial, which hampered its adoption compared to its free rivals until 2005, when the browser became freeware. On June 20, 2006, Opera Software released Opera 9 including an integrated source viewer, a BitTorrent client implementation, and widgets. It was the first Windows browser to pass the Acid2 test. Opera Mini, a mobile browser, has a significant mobile market share. Multiple ports, such as Opera 8.5 for the Nintendo DS and Opera 9 for the Wii, were also released.

On October 24, 2006, Mozilla released Mozilla Firefox 2. It included the ability to reopen recently closed tabs, a session restore feature to resume work where it had been left after a crash, a phishing filter, and a spell-checker for text fields. Mozilla released Firefox 3 on June 17, 2008, with performance improvements and other new features. Firefox 3.5 followed on June 30, 2009, with further performance improvements, native integration of audio and video, and more privacy features.

Apple created forks of the open-source KHTML and KJS layout and JavaScript engines from the KDE Konqueror browser in 2002. They explained that those provided a basis for easier development than other technologies by being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly designed, and standards-compliant. The resulting layout engine became known as WebKit and it was incorporated into the Safari browser that first shipped with Mac OS X v10.3. On June 13, 2003, Microsoft said it was discontinuing Internet Explorer on the Mac platform, and on June 6, 2007, Apple released a beta version of Safari for Microsoft Windows. On April 29, 2010, Steve Jobs wrote an open letter regarding his Thoughts on Flash, and the place it would hold on Apple's iOS devices and web browsers. Web developers were tasked with updating their web sites to be mobile-friendly, and while many disagreed with Steve Jobs's assessment on Adobe Flash, history would soon prove his point with the poor performance of Flash on Android devices. HTML4 and CSS2 were the standard in most browsers in 2006. However, new features being added to browsers from HTML5 and CSS3 specifications were quickly making their mark by 2010, especially in the emerging mobile browser market where new ways of animating and rendering for various screen sizes were to become the norm. Accessibility would also become a key player for the mobile web.

Google Chrome's entry

Google released the Chrome browser on September 1, 2008, using the same WebKit rendering engine as Safari and a faster JavaScript engine called V8. Shortly after, an open-sourced version for the Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux platforms was released under the name Chromium. According to Net Applications, Chrome had gained a 3.6% usage share by October 2009. After the release of the beta for Mac OS X and Linux, the market share had increased rapidly.

During December 2009 and January 2010, StatCounter reported that its statistics indicated that Firefox 3.5 was the most popular browser when counting individual browser versions, passing Internet Explorer 7 and 8 by a small margin. This was the first time a browser surpassed the Internet Explorer since the fall of Netscape Navigator. However, this feat, which GeekSmack called the "dethroning of Microsoft and its Internet Explorer 7 browser", could largely be attributed to the fact that it came at a time when version 8 was replacing version 7 as the dominant Internet Explorer version; no more than two months later Internet Explorer 8 had established itself as the most popular browser again. Other major statistics, such as Net Applications, never reported any other browser having a higher usage share than Internet Explorer if each version of each browser was looked at individually: for example, Firefox 3.5 was reported as the third most popular browser version from December 2009 to February 2010, succeeded by Firefox 3.6 since April 2010, each ahead of Internet Explorer 7 but behind Internet Explorer 6 and 8.

Google Chrome's dominance and evolving web standards

Usage share of web browsers according to StatCounter

Google Chrome, initially released in 2008, had a rapidly increasing trend in usage share since its creation, dominating the browser wars in 2017.

On January 21, 2010, Mozilla released Mozilla Firefox 3.6, which introduced a new type of theme display, 'Personas'. This allowed users to change Firefox's appearance with a single click. Version 3.6 also improved JavaScript performance, overall browser responsiveness, and startup times.

Google released Google Chrome 9 on February 3, 2011. New features introduced included support for WebGL, Chrome Instant, and the Chrome Web Store. The company created another seven versions of Chrome that year, finishing with Chrome 16 on December 15, 2011. Google Chrome 17 was released on February 15, 2012. In April 2012, Google browsers (Chrome and Android) became the most used browsers on Wikimedia Foundation sites. By May 21, 2012, StatCounter reported Chrome narrowly overtaking Internet Explorer as the most used browser in the world. However, the market share between Internet Explorer and Chrome meant that Internet Explorer was slightly ahead of Chrome on weekdays up until July 4. At the same time, Net Applications reported Internet Explorer firmly in first place, with Google Chrome almost overtaking Firefox as the second. In 2012, responding to Chrome's popularity, Apple discontinued Safari for Windows, making it exclusively available on OS X.

The concept of rapid releases established by Google Chrome prompted Mozilla to do the same for its Firefox browser. On June 21, 2011, Firefox 5.0 was the first rapid release for this browser, finished a mere six weeks after the previous edition. Mozilla created four more whole-number versions throughout the year, finishing with Firefox 9 on December 20, 2011. For those desiring long-term support, Mozilla made an Extended Support Release (ESR) version of Firefox 10 on January 31, 2012. Contrary to the regular version, a Firefox ESR received regular security updates plus occasional new features and performance updates for approximately one year, after which a 12-week grace period was given before discontinuing that version number. Those who continued to use the rapid releases with an active Internet connection were automatically updated to Firefox 11 on March 15, 2012. By the end of 2011, however, Chrome overtook Firefox to become the world's most used browser, and the competition between Chrome and Firefox intensified.

During this era, all major web browsers implemented support for HTML video. Supported codecs, however, varied from browser to browser. Then versions of Android, Chrome, and Firefox supported Theora, H.264, and the VP8 version of WebM. Older versions of Firefox omitted H.264 due to it being a proprietary codec, but it was made available beginning in version 17 for Android and version 20 for Windows. Internet Explorer and Safari supported H.264 exclusively on March 14, 2011 with Internet Explorer 9, and on March 18, 2008 with Safari 3.1. However, Theora and VP8 codecs could be manually installed on the desktop versions. Given the popularity of WebKit for mobile browsers, Opera Software discontinued its Presto engine upon the release of Opera 15 on July 2, 2013. The Opera 12 series of browsers were the last to use Presto with its successors using WebKit instead. In 2015, Microsoft discontinued the production of newer versions of Internet Explorer. By this point, Chrome overtook all other browsers as the browser with the highest usage share.^[69][70] Chrome had supported Windows XP until the end of 2015.

By 2017 usage shares of Opera, Firefox and Internet Explorer fell well below 5% each, while Google Chrome had expanded to over 60% worldwide. On May 25, 2017, Andreas Gal, former Mozilla CTO, publicly announced that Google Chrome won the Second Browser War.

Beyond the browser wars

Due to Google Chrome's success, in December 2018, Microsoft announced that they would be building a new version of Edge based on Chromium and powered by Google's rendering engine, Blink, rather than their own rendering engine, EdgeHTML. The new Microsoft Edge browser was released on January 15, 2020. Though Firefox showed a slight increase in usage share as of February 2019, it continues to struggle with less than 10% usage share worldwide.^[76] By April 2019, worldwide Google Chrome usage share crossed 70% across personal computers and remained over 60% combining all devices. In June 2022, Microsoft permanently retired Internet Explorer in favor of Microsoft Edge as their sole browser. As of January 2023, Microsoft Edge was the 3rd most used web browser having 4.46% as market share. In 2023, Internet Explorer was permanently disabled by Microsoft on many versions of Windows 10.

As of 2023, Microsoft Edge has been noted to promote itself when visiting or searching for Google Chrome. Ignoring user settings, links from Windows integrated features, such as widgets, open in Edge.

In February 2024, Microsoft silently released the User Choice Protection Driver for Windows 10 and 11 that prevent software changes to the default Browser, requiring users make the changes only through Windows settings.  In May 2024, a Chrome extension by Microsoft maintains Bing as the default search engine.

Social impact bond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_impact_bond

SIB functioning process diagram

A social impact bond (SIB), also known as pay-for-success financing, pay-for-success bond (US), social benefit bond (Australia), pay-for-benefit bond (Australia), social outcomes contract (UK), social impact partnership (Europe), social impact contract (Europe), or simply a social bond, is a form of outcomes-based contracting. Although there is no single agreed definition of social impact bonds, most definitions understand them as a partnership aimed at improving the social outcomes for a specific group of citizens. The term was originally coined by Geoff Mulgan, chief executive of the Young Foundation. The first SIB was launched by UK-based Social Finance Ltd. in September 2010.

By July 2019, 132 SIBs had been launched in 25 countries, and they were worth more than $420m. As of May 2023, 23 countries use SIBs, with (as of 2022) 276 projects in place and capital raised to the value of $745m.

History

The social impact bond is a non-tradeable version of social policy bonds, first conceived by Ronnie Horesh, a New Zealand economist, in 1988. Since then, the idea of the social impact bond has been promoted and developed by a number of agencies and individuals in an attempt to address the paradox that investing in prevention of social and health problems saves the public sector money, but that it is currently difficult for public bodies to find the funds and incentives to do so.

The first social impact bond was announced in the UK on 18 March 2010 by then Justice Secretary Jack Straw, to finance a prisoner rehabilitation program. In the UK, the Prime Minister's Council on Social Action (a group of ‘innovators from every sector’ brought together to ‘generate ideas and initiatives through which Government and other key stakeholders can catalyse, celebrate and develop social action’) was asked in 2007 to explore alternative models for financing social action. The group began to develop the idea of a social impact bond, and the work is being taken forward by a number of organisations including Social Finance, an organisation committed to increasing investment in the third sector, the Young Foundation, the Center for Social Impact in Australia, and other NGOs and private firms. In the UK, the Government Outcomes Lab was set up through a partnership between the UK government and the University of Oxford to investigate evidence around the use of social impact bonds and outcomes-based contracting approaches more broadly.

The idea of a social impact bond has generated significant interest from across the political spectrum in multiple countries, including US, UK, and Australia. Social impact bonds have generated a particularly large amount of interest in the United States. In February 2011, Barack Obama’s proposed 2012 budget stated that up to $100m would be freed up to run social impact bond pilot schemes. In August, 2012, Massachusetts became the first US state to create a policy which encourages the creation of Social impact bonds, called "Social innovation financing". The state legislature authorised spending up to $50 million on the initiatives. In Australia, the intention to trial social impact bonds was announced in New South Wales in November 2010 by Premier Kristina Keneally of the Australian Labor Party. The policy direction was continued by the Coalition after a change in Government in 2011.

In November 2012, Essex County Council became the first local authority in the UK to commission a social impact bond in Children's Services, with the aim of providing therapeutic support and improving outcomes for adolescents at risk of going into care. Nick Hurd, the minister for civil society, commented: "Social impact bonds are opening up serious resources to tackle social problems in new and innovative ways. This is about communities, businesses and charities all working together to change people's lives, whilst at the same time making savings for the taxpayer."

In February 2013 Allia, a charitable social investment organisation, announced the first public opportunity in the UK to invest in a social impact bond. Although the product was later withdrawn from sale due to lack of investors, the Future for Children Bond combined a relatively low-risk ethical investment into affordable housing to provide the funds to repay capital to investors, with a higher risk investment into a social impact bond with the aim of delivering a high social impact and providing an additional variable return. It would have invested into the social impact bond for Essex County Council to ‘improve the life outcomes’ of children aged 11–16 at risk of going into care.

In July 2016, the Social Finance Global Network launched a white paper on the state of the SIB market, "Social Impact Bonds: The Early Years". Social Finance also released a live global database of SIBs. The database can be sorted by country, issue area, investor, payor and service provider, providing a comprehensive overview of SIBs launched to date and a snapshot of the many in development.

Definitions

SIBs as partnerships: partners and responsibilities

There are a range of interpretations of what the term ‘social impact bond’ means. Broadly speaking, social impact bonds are a type of bond, but not the most common type. While they operate over a fixed period of time, they do not offer a fixed rate of return. Repayment to investors is contingent upon specified social outcomes being achieved. Therefore, in terms of investment risk, social impact bonds are more similar to that of a structured product or an equity investment. Third Sector Capital Partners describes social impact bonds as “a potential financing option available to support pay-for-success programs. Social impact bonds bring together government, service providers and investors/funders to implement existing and proven programs designed to accomplish clearly defined outcomes. Investors/funders provide the initial capital support and the government agrees to make payments to the program only when outcomes are achieved. So government pays for success.”

Social Finance UK describes social impact bonds as: “a social impact bond is a public-private partnership which funds effective social services through a performance-based contract.” Social Finance, therefore, specifies that the investment is from non-government bodies.

The Young Foundation describes social impact bonds as: “a range of financial assets that entail raising money from third parties and making repayments according to the social impacts achieved.” The Young Foundation envisages that public bodies could be potential investors.

The Non-Profit Finance Fund describes social impact bonds as: “PFS financing agreements, in which private investors provide upfront capital for the delivery of services and are repaid by a back-end, or outcomes payor (usually a government), if contractually agreed-upon outcomes are achieved, are often referred to as ‘Social Impact Bonds’ ... Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) are a mechanism by which to shift financial risk from service providers to investors, with investors underwriting service providers’ based on their ability to deliver on positive social outcomes.”

The Government Outcomes Lab identifies four main dimensions along which SIBs might vary: “the nature and outcome of payment outcomes”, “the nature of capital used to fund services”, “the strength of performance management”, and “the social intent of service providers”. According to the GO Lab, a 'core' SIB is therefore defined by “100% payment on outcomes”, “independent and at-risk capital”, “a high degree of performance management”, and “a strong social intent of service providers”.

In developing countries, a development impact bond (DIB) is a variation of the SIB model. DIBs are outcomes-based funding structures for the delivery of public services in low- and middle-income countries. As with SIBs, investors would provide external financing and only receive a return if pre-agreed outcomes are achieved. Funds to remunerate investors come from donors, the budget of the host country, or a combination of the two. Financial returns to investors are intended to be commensurate with the level of success. DIBs have the potential to improve aid efficiency and cost-effectiveness by shifting the focus onto implementation quality and the delivery of successful results. In October 2013, Social Finance Ltd. and the Center for Global Development released a report outlining the findings of a high level working group set up to explore the potential of this new mechanism.

Arguments in favour

Social impact bonds being a new program, the hypothetical benefits projected by its advocates have not been measured or verified yet. Advocates of these performance-based investments claim that they encourage innovation and tackle difficult social problems, asserting that new and innovative programs have potential for success, but often have trouble securing government funding because it can be hard to rigorously prove their effectiveness. This form of financing allows the government to partner with private service providers and, if necessary, private foundations or other investors willing to cover the upfront costs and assume performance risk to expand promising programs, while assuring that taxpayers will not pay for the programs unless they demonstrate success in achieving the desired outcomes. The expected public sector savings are used as a basis for raising investment for prevention and early intervention services that improve social outcomes. Advocated also believe that SIB programs can achieve positive social outcomes, may create fiscal savings for government, but also involve changes in funding arrangements that bring risks to service agencies.

The benefits of social impact bonds depends on the definition being used, but the broad benefits (though not measured and verified yet) are:

• Prevention — more funds are available for prevention and early upstream intervention services.
• Risk transfer — the public sector only has to pay for effective services; the third party investor bears all the risk of services being potentially ineffective.
• Innovation — risk transfer enables innovation since investors and service providers have an incentive to be as effective as possible, because the larger impact they have on the outcome, the larger the repayment they will receive.
• Performance management — the SIB approach imbeds vigorous ongoing evaluation of program impacts into program operations, accelerating the rate of learning about which approaches work and which do not. Governments will therefore fund "what works"; repositioning government spending to cost-effective preventive programs. Additionally, independent evaluation creates transparency for all parties.
• Collaboration — enable collaboration across multiple commissioners and within service provider networks and attract new forms of capital to the social, educational and healthcare sectors.

Criticism

Critics note that because the outcomes-based payments are dependent on governmental funds which must be budgeted, social impact bonds do not actually raise additional capital for social programs, but instead displace funding for other programs. Given the need to budget for a return on investment, a program evaluation, middle managers, and the expenses of designing the complex financial and contractual mechanisms, social impact bonds, according to critics, may be an expensive method of operating social programs. Other criticisms include:

• Criteria for success — donors will seek to fund that which can be observed and measured, the outcomes (not just the outputs). This will leave agencies addressing the huge structural problems in society unable to access these funds. This is going to be particularly true for advocacy, arts and alternative organizations. It will be difficult for social coalitions to get funding as their contributions are dispersed through member organizations and the effect they have on government policies, for example. The terms of these instruments may be set to overpay for more readily achievable goals. Doing so would increase long term government spending and divorce such spending from direct deliverables.
• More donor influence — donors, or now investors, will want to make sure their money is being used according to contract, and will therefore want to be more involved in the delivery of social services. They may want NGOs to adopt a style of delivery used in for profit business.
• Unfair competition — among NGOs will emerge. Agencies that secure funds will be able to operate in areas where NGOs now operate, but they will have greater resources, more narrowly defined goals (and therefore successes to publicize) and will set the standard for government funded agencies and their actions.
• Reduces public responsibility — by reducing the government's responsibilities and accountability for delivering services. Though governments may not genuinely represent their societies, they are still the best representatives of the public will and governments play an important role in maintaining a civil society sector. Devolving Social services to businesses risks this social contract when other tax and program options can be made available.
• Non-tradability — New Zealand economist Ronnie Horesh argues that because SIBs are not tradable, SIBs favour existing institutions, are inherently narrow and short-term in scope, and impose relatively high monitoring costs.
• Not required — Social Programs targeted to be transferred into social impact bonds are targeted because they are compatible with the SIB structure, not because of the merits of SIB or out of dire need.
• Financialization of public services — social impact bonds require a clear measurement of the costs and outcomes of the programs, which encourages SIB projects to "focus on financial targets rather than eliminating the underlying cause of the social problem at hand".

Existing SIB initiatives

Governments across the world are currently piloting SIB initiatives. Below are a few examples of these initiatives.

Public safety and recidivism

United Kingdom

On 18 March 2010, Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw announced a six-year Social Impact Bond (SIB) pilot scheme run by Social Finance that will see around 3,000 short term prisoners from Peterborough prison, serving less than 12 months, receiving intensive interventions both in prison and in the community. Funding from investors outside government will be initially used to pay for the services, which will be delivered by Third Sector providers with a proven track record of working with offenders. If reoffending is not reduced by at least 7.5% the investors will receive no recompense. The Social Impact Bond in Peterborough was launched by Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke MP and Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt on 10 September 2010.

United States

New York City: In February 2012, the City of New York issued a $9.6 million social bond for prisoner rehabilitation to be run by The Osborne Association with support from Friends of Island Academy. Goldman Sachs bought the bond and will profit if recidivism decreases. While the City of New York did not actually issue bonds or put up-front capital for MDRC to run the program (this was done by Goldman Sachs directly with MDRC), the City may be liable for some amount if the program is successful. An independent evaluation, performed by the Vera Institute of Justice, found the goal of reducing teenage recidivism by ten percent had not been met, at all, and the city paid nothing to Goldman Sachs.

New York State: In mid-2012, the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) selected Social Finance US as its intermediary partner in structuring an application for federal funding for a Social Impact Bond. In 2013, New York approved $30 million in its budget to support social impact bonds over the subsequent five years. In September 2013, New York State received a $12 million grant from the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) to fund a Pay for Success project designed to increase employment and reduce recidivism among 2,000 formerly incarcerated individuals in partnership with Social Finance US and the Center for Employment Opportunities. This was the largest grant awarded by USDOL for Pay for Success projects. Initial outcomes indicate that, at least in the first phase of these PFS projects, the interventions did not produce the desired impacts on reducing recidivism and improving employment among the target populations.

Massachusetts: On 1 August 2012, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts announced that Third Sector Capital Partners will serve as lead intermediary, in partnership with New Profit Inc., for the youth recidivism initiative. Roca, United Way of Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley, and Youth Options Unlimited will also participate in the youth recidivism project.The program, called Social Innovation Financing, operates on a simple "pay for success" model, in which nonprofits must demonstrate that by keeping youth from being reincarcerated. According to the state's press release, the juvenile justice contract "will be designed with the specific goal of reducing recidivism and improving education and employment outcomes over several years for a significant segment of the more than 750 youth who exit the juvenile justice system, and the several thousand who exit the probation system annually."

Federal: The U.S. Department of Justice gave "Priority Consideration" to Fiscal Year 2012 Second Chance Act grant applications that include a Pay for Success component. The Second Chance Act (P.L. 110-199) authorizes federal grants to support services that help reduce recidivism. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor awarded nearly $24 million in grants for Pay for Success projects that provide employment services to formerly-incarcerated individuals in order to increase employment and reduce recidivism.

Australia

The Government of New South Wales, Australia, announced on 20 March 2012 that it will develop a pilot to reduce adult recidivism with Social Ventures Australia and Mission Australia. Several States in Australia have now launched social impact bonds - the latest of which is Victoria which, on 21 December 2017, announced the conclusion of a SIB deal with Sacred Heart Mission. Key external advisers to Sacred Heart Mission were Latitude Network. Also in 2017, Social Ventures Australia funded the Aspire Social Impact Bond, marking the first SIB in South Australia.

Rough sleeping and chronic homelessness

United Kingdom

Housing Minister Grant Shapps and London Mayor Boris Johnson announced in March 2012 that a Social Impact Bond would be launched to help London's persistent rough sleepers off the streets and into secure homes. The two bonds issued under this programme were launched in December 2012.

One successful SIB in the UK is the GM Homes Partnership in Manchester which took on 356 long-term rough sleepers. According to The Guardian, three years on, in 2021, 79% of those are still accommodated with several having started employment or training and other receiving help for their mental health.

United States

Massachusetts: In the second of two pilots launched by Massachusetts in 2012, Third Sector Capital Partners joined with the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance (MHSA), lead intermediary for a chronic homelessness project, as well as the Corporation for Supportive Housing and United Way. The Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance represents nonprofit housing organizations that provide housing and support services, such as medical care and vocational training. The consortium' goal was to raise the number of housing units it provides to around 600 from 220.

Australia

Australia's second Social Impact Bond focused on chronic homelessness was launched on 21 December 2017 by the Victorian Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing. The SIB will be focused on three cohorts of 60 individuals, providing rapid housing and wrap-around, individualised, case-management support for three years each. The SIB provides expansion capital for Sacred Heart Mission's 'Journey to Social Inclusion' program which had previously been through pilot testing. Lead external advisors for this SIB deal were Latitude Network.

Health

United States

Fresno, CA: In April 2013 Social Finance US and Collective Health launched an asthma management demonstration project in Fresno, California. Fresno is one of the nation's asthma hot spots; around 20 percent of its children have been diagnosed with the disease, which takes an especially heavy toll among poor communities. Two service providers, Central California Asthma Collaborative and Clinica Sierra Vista, will work with the families of 200 low-income children with asthma to provide home care, education, and support in reducing environmental triggers ranging from cigarette smoke to dust mites.

Communities

United Kingdom

The chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, announced that Social Impact Bond trials could be expanded across government departments. "The Department for Children, Schools and Families have pledged to explore the potential of SIBs to lever in additional resources to support early intervention approaches with children and young people", he said in Parliament. "Communities and Local Government are also working with Leeds City Council and NHS Leeds to enable them to use a SIB approach to reduce health and social care costs among older people. Similarly Bradford Metropolitan District Council are considering applying this model as part of their involvement in the government's Total Place programme."

United States

Federal: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced in 2013 it will provide $5 billion in grant dollars to assist in the rebuilding and strengthening effort following Hurricane Sandy and encouraged the five states impacted by the storm to make use of Pay for Success strategies where appropriate. In 2013, the Department of the Treasury issued a Request for Information (RFI) that will help design a proposed $300 million Incentive Fund to further expand Pay for Success. The Fund is intended to encourage cities, states and nonprofits to test new Pay for Success models. This same Fund was also part of the President's commitment of nearly $500 million in the 2013 Budget to expand Pay for Success strategies.

Children and families

United Kingdom

Social Finance worked with UK local authorities to assess the potential for social impact bonds to improve family support services. These studies assessed the potential of social impact bonds to fund preventive and early intervention services which improve outcomes for children and generate cost savings for Local Authorities.

In March 2012 Manchester City Council announced a social impact bond to fund multi-dimensional treatment foster care.

Australia

New South Wales: The Government of New South Wales, Australia, announced on 20 March 2012 that it will develop three pilots in the area of child protection, foster care and juvenile justice. One of the child protection pilots is with a consortium involving the Benevolent Society, Westpac Bank and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The other child protection pilot is led by UnitingCare Burnside, a division of UnitingCare Australia. The juvenile justice pilot to be delivered by Mission Australia did not go ahead.

United States

Utah: In August 2013, the Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group (UIG) together with the United Way of Salt Lake and J.B. Pritzker formed a partnership to create the first ever Social Impact Bond designed to finance early childhood. Goldman Sachs and Pritzker jointly committed up to $7 million to finance The Utah High Quality Preschool Program, a high impact and targeted curriculum focused on increasing school readiness and academic performance among at-risk 3 and 4 year olds in Utah.

Illinois: On 5 May 2014, the State of Illinois announced the state's first Pay for Success (PFS) contract will increase support for at-risk youth who are involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems in Illinois. The first contract awarded under this innovative initiative will go to One Hope United, in partnership with the Conscience Community Network (CCN).

Canada

Saskatchewan:

"[In 2014], Saskatchewan announced its first SIB, a $1 million project to provide assisted living to young single mothers at risk in Saskatoon, designed to reduce the number of children taken into care. [...] This is a five year project which will return the original investment and a 5% return to the funders if 22 children remain with their mothers for six months after leaving the Sweet Dreams assisted living home. The return will be pro-rated if 17 to 21 children stay with their mothers and nothing, neither the original investment nor the return, will be paid if fewer than 17 children remain with their mothers."

Early stage exploration

United States

States across the country are currently exploring opportunities to use social impact bonds to achieve their social goals, including:

• California: In August 2013, Santa Barbara County released a Request for Information on social impact bonds and approved a feasibility study to explore the potential use of pay for success financing in reducing prisoner recidivism; additionally, Santa Clara agreed to fund a pilot project exploring SIB feasibility. By 2015, Santa Clara County had implemented an SIB known as Project Welcome Home, administered by a local non-profit and focused on housing the highest-need homeless people over six years.
• Colorado: In June 2013, Colorado and Denver were selected to receive support from a Harvard Kennedy School SIB Technical Assistance Lab (SIB Lab) fellow. Both jurisdictions have released a "Request for Information" (RFI) on SIBS. Denver's was implemented by February 2016. This, like Santa Clara's, focused on reducing chronic homelessness and the negative social phenomena associated therewith.
• Connecticut: In 2013, the Department of Children and Families released a Request for Information to explore how social impact bonds might be used to address substance abuse among families involved in the child welfare system.
• Illinois: In April 2013, Governor Quinn announced that the State would pursue a Social Impact Bond program with technical support from the Harvard SIB Lab. In September, Illinois issued a "Request for Proposal" (RFP), focused on youth engaged in the juvenile justice and/or foster care systems.
• Maryland: In 2013, Social Impact Bond legislation was introduced to the Committee on Appropriations in the Maryland House of Delegates.
• Michigan: In September 2013, Michigan was selected to receive support from the SIB Lab to develop pay for success programs funded by social impact bonds. The state initiated an RFI to obtain initial input about potential projects.
• New Jersey: In December 2012, the State Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee approved the New Jersey Social Innovation Act, which would establish a five-year pilot program to attract private funding to finance social services. The target areas are prevention and early intervention health care for low-income and uninsured people, in order to reduce government health care spending.
• North Carolina: In 2013, the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University began exploratory work around using SIBS for dissemination of a universal home visiting program known as Durham Connects found to reduce emergency care in infants.
• Ohio: In November 2012, Cuyahoga County released an RFP on funding social service programs through pay-for-success contracts. In the summer of 2013, the state of Ohio was selected to receive assistance from the SIB Lab.
• Oregon: The Governor's 2013-2015 budget proposal included $800,000 for the Early Learning Division. The funds are intended to cover start-up costs for a "Pilot Prevention Health and Wellness Demonstration Project for Social Impact Financing."
• South Carolina: In June 2013, South Carolina was selected to receive assistance from the SIB Lab and looks to use the support to develop a home-visiting program. In September 2012, the state issued an RFI related to Social impact bonds.
• Washington, D.C.: The District of Columbia initiated a Request for Qualifications in September 2013 for a feasibility study of DC Social impact bonds.

Canada

• In 2014, the government of Alberta created the Social Innovation Endowment Account to "fund the promotion and development of social impact bonds in Alberta".
• The government of Ontario included Social Impact Bonds in the list of innovative social financial tools to be explored as of 2016.

Mexico

• "El Futuro en Mis Manos" was piloted in 2016 in the Guadalajara metropolitan area and, over 30 months, provided support to more than 1300 female-headed households.

Education

Russia

• Yakutia: During the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2019, VEB.RF, the Far East Development Fund, Higher School of Economics and the Government of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic formally agreed to carry out the first pilot SIB in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). The project is scheduled for implementation in 2019–2022 and designed to improve schoolchildren's academic performance. The project aims to improve the quality of general education, make human resources more competitive and transform the management mechanism of general education. About 5,000 children from 28 schools (including eight underfilled and three small-scale establishments) in the Khangalassky Municipal District are involved in the project. The project's social outcomes are measured using an educational performance index calculated as a weighted total of grades in the State Final Examinations (Basic State Examination and Unified State Examination) and academic competitions. Higher School of Economics was selected to implement the project. During three years, HSE leading experts will give the schoolchildren additional lessons (including under a distance learning programme), assist the schools in preparing personal education plans, train project managers and teachers, help the schools to organise professional communities, partnerships and educational networks, act as mentors for teachers and principals, and engage parents, the local community and businesses. The project should have a sustainable model, enabling local teachers and managers to develop their own education systems on completion of the project. The project should be able to be extended to other Russian regions. “The Far East and Baikal Region Development Fund is the project’s investor. This project is important to us, because if we achieve positive social outcomes, the project’s approaches and methods can be implemented across the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) and in other Far Eastern regions,” CEO of the Far East and Baikal Region Development Fund Alexei Chekunkov said. The Russian Ministry of Finance drafted a Government resolution with guidelines for the regions on the implementation of pilot social impact projects in 2019–2024 in order to promote pay-for-success financing for social outcomes.

International Development Assistance

United Nations Development Programme and EBRD pilot social impact bond in Armenia with the focus on improving the lives of smallholder farmers in the Shirak region, Slovak Republic (Ministry of finance) provided funding for the donor study.

Intermediaries and technical assistance providers

A list of over 20 intermediaries and providers of technical assistance in the UK is maintained as part of the Big Lottery Fund's Commissioning Better Outcomes programme.

Publications

Social Finance UK (2009) Social Impact Bonds: Rethinking finance for social outcomes

Social Finance UK (2010) Towards a New Social Economy: Blended value creation through Social Impacts Bonds

Young Foundation (2010) Social Impact Investment: the challenge and opportunity of Social Impact Bonds

Social Finance UK (2011) A Technical Guide to Developing Social Impact Bonds

Centre for American Progress (2011) Social Impact Bonds

Impact Economy (2011) Four Revolutions in Global Philanthropy

Social Finance (2011) Technical Guide to Commissioning Social Impact Bonds

Social Finance (2011) Social Impact Bonds: The One Service, One Year On

Rand Corporation (2011) Lessons learned from the planning and early implementation of the Social Impact Bond at HMP Peterborough, RAND Europe, 2011

Social Finance US (2012) A New Tool for Scaling Impact: How Social Impact Bonds Can Mobilize Private Capital to Advance Social Good

Benjamin R. Cox (2012) Financing Homelessness Prevention Programs with Social Impact Bonds

Maryland Department of Legislative Services (2013) Evaluating Social Impact Bonds as a New Reentry Financing Mechanism: A Case Study on Reentry Programming in Maryland. 

Third Sector Capital Partners (2013) Case Study: Preparing for a Pay for Success Opportunity

Social Market Foundation (2013) Risky Business: Social Impact Bonds and public services

The New Zealand Initiative (2015) Investing for Success: Social Impact Bonds and the future of public services

Government Outcomes Lab (2018) Building the tools for public services to secure better outcomes: Collaboration, Prevention, Innovation.

Government Outcomes Lab (2018) Are we rallying together? Collaboration and public sector reform.