The Importance of the Serve America Act: Part I
Posted on 26. Mar, 2009 in Public Innovation, Role of Government, Social Capital Markets, Social Entrepreneurship, Social Innovation
As I get ready to head back to Washington for another trip to Capitol Hill, this time I can’t help but feel a sense of promise ahead. This week the Serve America Act makes its way to the Senate floor for debate. Judging by the email alerts I get (sometimes on an hourly basis), there are two coalitions that have stewarded this through, Voices for National Service and America Forward. I urge you to visit their websites and find ways to help pass this legislation.
Why? For two reasons:
First of all, this is the only piece of legislation that I know of that has a critical social innovation agenda item in it − the establishment of what is called a “Community Solutions Funds Pilot Program.” As Shirley Sagawa, who is currently a Fellow at the Center for American Progress working on recommendations for a national service policy, said while testifying earlier in March, “When an organization takes an out-of-the-box approach to solving a problem, it often finds few sources available for sustainable funding…For this reason, it makes sense that Serve America includes funding to support a social innovation fund network, called the ‘Community Solutions Funds Pilot Program,’ [otherwise known as the social innovation fund] that will use federal dollars to leverage other public and private sector contributions to take our most innovative and effective organizations to scale.”
A social innovation fund is a critical element for advancing social innovation. By allocating some portion of federal dollars to focus specifically on investing in what works, we will begin to shift the way in which resources are allocated by the government − which is, in fact, where most of the resources are being allocated from.
We can expect countless discussions and opinions about how the fund should work, if it actually makes it through with funding. One critical point I would argue for is that some of the money should flow through the states. Each state would then be required to provide some sort of match in both public and private dollars. As I wrote in a report for the Aspen Institute, a model already exists to guide us: the SBA’s Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program. We do not have to recreate the wheel.
Stay tuned for the second reason…
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehogg/ / CC BY 2.0
| Share | | Previous Post | Next Post |




This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.