Over on the Tactical Philanthropy blog, Sean Stannard-Stockton has provided some great arguments in support of the Social Innovation Fund. I’d like to add in a few additional thoughts and concerns of my own:
First, we have to be careful not to get too caught up in the dollars − because in reality, $50 million (or even $150 million after the 2-1 match) is not much. If we only look at this fund as increasing dollars spent, we’re missing a BIG opportunity. Rather, the money should be seen as a way to influence the actions of all sectors and thus achieve greater systemic change. And, in my view, this can only be done if recipients of these funds are actually interacting with the public systems (i.e., education, transportation, economic development, etc.) that have a far broader reach than any nonprofit ever will.
Second (and related to the first), accessing these public systems mean interacting with government. While we all know of really great models that have significant impact on their social issue, these organizations’ innovations rarely find their way back into the public system. For example, the innovations in education are not, by and large, changing the way the general public school system is run; the progress made by some programs in stemming recidivism once people get out of prison is not informing a widespread change in the entire judicial system. The Social Innovation Fund should be looking for organizations with proven models who actively engage with government in an attempt to incorporate the best parts of their model into the broader system where change can really be widespread.
Third, states seem to be the natural level of government to promote a social innovation agenda. The federal government is pretty far removed from most people’s daily lives (and necessarily moves more slowly). Cities, meanwhile, are so numerous that trying to engage with every one would be overly burdensome. Several states – including Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, and Minnesota − have started offices or passed legislation to find and grow what works. The Social Innovation Fund should encourage more of this − even giving funding priority to collaborations that include a state-based entity committed to ensuring the creation and growth of the most effective and sustainable models.
By supporting organizations that are no longer satisfied with benefiting just one group of clients and work instead to change entire systems, and by encouraging government efforts to work with these organizations to effect such change, the Social Innovation Fund could live up to its name − driving a true paradigm shift in the way the nation attacks social problems.
For more about my perspective on government support for social innovation, visit Public Innovators at www.publicinnovators.com/publications.
