Why the Social Innovation Fund is on the right track
Posted on 14. May, 2009 in Public Innovation, Role of Government, Social Innovation
There has been a great deal of chatter since the Social Innovation Fund appeared, first in the Serve America Act, then in the President’s budget, and recently in some high-profile mentions by the First Lady, the Secretary for Health and Human Services and the Director of Domestic Policy Affairs.
Since then, a post by Allison Fine caught my attention when it was featured in a column in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Ms. Fine presents three critiques of the Fund for which I offer an alternative point of view.
First, she says on her blog that Mrs. Obama’s description sounds an awful lot like the focus of venture philanthropy in the late 1990s on measuring the performance of organizations and trying to grow high-performing groups.
“But the reality is that real social change is too hard to measure in the bite-size pieces that the risk-averse government needs,” Ms. Fine says.
The venture philanthropy movement has had its critics from the start. It has, however, brought to bear three crucial new practices in the nonprofit sector that I believe have accelerated social impact: growth funding, more rigorous measurement systems, and long-term funding. Is one organization going so solve an entire social problem on its own? No; but at the same time, organizations that do grow and are given the opportunity to showcase their results can generate attention on a social issue and, in doing so, increase the potential for talented practitioners and policy makers to address that social issue. Teach for America is one good example: in becoming nationally recognized, they have dramatically increased the dialogue, and thereby moved the dial, on a focus on teacher quality. Permitting these organizations to thrive under practices taken from the venture capital model has accelerated dialogue on a number of social issues as well as recognition for successful organizations and solutions.
Secondly, Ms. Fine is concerned about the White House’s emphasis on market-based solutions to social problems. “This is exactly what hasn’t worked in large part in the social sector in the last 10 years; that’s why for-profit schools are a bust,” she writes.
I’m not sure I really understand this point − it seems like quite an overstatement. Different solutions to social issues working with different constituents offer distinct approaches, and some may be able to use market-based solutions. In a chapter I wrote for the SBA, “Social Entrepreneurship and Government,” I outline no-market, limited market, and low profit market approaches. Market-based solutions, when utilized well, are an incredible opportunity to make better use of tax dollars while also serving a critical societal need, which allows tax dollars to now move on to meet other critical areas of need. Bonnie CLAC is a great example of this.
Finally, Ms. Fine says the administration is taking the wrong approach by supporting the scaling of nonprofit organizations. She suggests that, rather than trying to help charities build new offices and expand nationally, it should be creating “networks of problem solvers.”
“This is a heck of a lot less expensive than bricks and mortar,” she says. “The way you do it is provide intensive leadership development for creative people.”
This last point is, for me, an and, not an or. I am not quite sure why we would want to avoid scaling something that works − it may be more how you do it in terms of ensuring the local community is involved, not whether you do it. What we should also be doing a lot more of is thinking in terms of spread − the spread of the most effective, efficient and sustainable solutions and practices.
While I am not sure exactly what is meant by “networks of problem solvers,” this is a good concept if the idea is to bring synergies to organizations that are working on the same issue by streamlining successful approaches. However, this is very difficult in practice because the nonprofit sector is currently set up in extreme silos with little incentive for organizations to collaborate as a network. This does present a prime opportunity for both the White House and the Social Innovation Fund to ask groups to come together in a more unified approach to an issue.
As we explore what Government’s role might be in a society in which the citizens take primary responsibility for developing innovative solutions to social and economic problems, we are posing a very complicated question. For so long, Government has played the role of service provider, and it will take a massive adjustment on everyone’s part to envision it as anything else. We must all realize that we are standing at the base of Mt. Everest and we have just put on our crampons: there are few answers yet, but we have an amazing opportunity to listen, learn, and adjust.
| Share | | Previous Post | Next Post |
8 Responses to “Why the Social Innovation Fund is on the right track”
Leave a Reply
-
What are YOUR ideas? Let Andrew Wolk take them to D.C.
-
Why the Social Innovation Fund is on the right track
- Does Measurement = Randomized Control Trials?
-
Michelle Rhee, Public Innovator
-
A Historic Day - Are you 'all in'?
-
Mark: I only wish I had a nickel for every time someone ...
-
Lawrence Baker: Social Innovation? What a concept! What we need in...
-
JBRootCause: Hi Rhesa, You can find the interview here: ...
-
Rhesa J: Looking for updated link to an interview mentioned...
-
E Favorite: Hi, Tom - if you're talking about a teacher f...
Daniel Bassill
14. May, 2009
Andrew, what would be some suggestions for overcoming this "nonprofit sector is currently set up in extreme silos with little incentive for organizations to collaborate as a network"?
Can bloggers write about groups who are building networks, and give them attention that a) draws resources to their efforts; and b) encourages others to duplicate those; and c) encourages others to join them?
Chris Warren, a Public Service Intern from Northwestern University, who is with my organization this year, wrote an article to show how the Tutor/Mentor Connection is doing such network building. http://chrispip.blogspot.com/2009/05/forces-for-g...
Can you and others profile organizations who you feel do great work of breaking down silos, or spreading the attention to others doing good work in their sector?
Nathaniel Whittemore
15. May, 2009
Great post Andrew!
I think your questions about the opportunity of silos is right on. Particularly, what's both implicit and explicit in your post is the need to reward cross-silo collaboration when it happens as a part of the goal of inspiring more future collaboration. Thanks for highlighting that important point!
Daniel Bassill
15. May, 2009
Andrew, what would be some suggestions for overcoming this "nonprofit sector is currently set up in extreme silos with little incentive for organizations to collaborate as a network"?
Philanthropy Daily Digest | Tactical Philanthropy
15. May, 2009
[...] Andrew Wolk: Why the Social Innovation Fund is on the right track Andrew Wolk of Root Cause responds to Allison Fine's recent critique of the Social Innovation Fund being designed by the White House. (tags: philanthropy) This entry was written by Sean Stannard-Stockton and posted on May 15, 2009 at 5:01 pm. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment. [...]
Jeff Mowatt
21. May, 2009
That's a difficult one Daniel (hello again), the leading a horse to water and making it drink variety. With social enterprise adopted here in the UK since 2002, there is still great reluctance to communicate. All focus is on celebrity or MBA led initiatives and one soon discovers nothing particularly social about social enterprise.
In one of this blog's earlier posts, I mention an example of social enterprise leveraging government investment. This was the Tomsk initiative which began in Russian in 1999, where $6m was invested in a microfinance bank with full cost recovery.
The approach, coincidentally was based on a model put to Pres. Clinton which described a profit for purpose model, with seed capital to replicate it provided by a social trust fund. In the paper, proposing this to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 3 years ago, a similar strategy was offered as a model for national scale investment in social enterprise and broadband deployment, with a high impact social target, in the area of childcare reform.
http://www.p-ced.com/projects/ukraine/national/
This appears to have influenced policy in two governments, as intended, with the US launching the East Europe Foundation to support sustainable community enterprise (another social investment fund, perhaps?) and Ukraine deciding to create 400 rehab centres and double the allowance for adoption of orphans.
Not invented here, is a typical response.
Jeff
Link Roundup: America Forward Coalition Members Weigh in on the Social Innovation Fund | America Forward
12. Jun, 2009
[...] Why the Social Innovation Fund is on the Right Track Andrew Wolk answers some critiques of the Fund posed by blogger Allison Fine, and highlights three crucial new practices brought to the nonprofit sector through venture philanthropy—”growth funding, more rigorous measurement systems, and long-term funding.” [...]
Social Innovation Fund Round-Up « ServeNext.org Blog
24. Jul, 2009
[...] Andrew Wolk from Common Cause provides an equally thought-provoking reply to Allison. Social Innovation Fund flow chart from the Corporation for National & Community [...]
Back from the Future Trends Forum in Madrid | Andrew Wolk
07. Aug, 2009
[...] too focused on scale by replication, and have not thought enough about scaling ideas. While this is not new for this blog, I heard a new angle on what should be an increased emphasis on collaboration. As one [...]