2010 and the Future of the Social Sector

Lucy Bernholz, head of Blueprint Research and Design, a philanthropy consulting firm, and thought-leader on trends in philanthropy is preparing a monograph on what 2010 will hold for the social sector. As a true adopter of social media, she is asking others to contribute, in essence crowd-sourcing answers, this year to her annual “what will next year bring” treatise. Last week, she asked her blog readers, Twitter followers, and all others the question: “What trend, change, entity, or idea will matter most to the social sector in 2010?”

She’s gotten a great set of responses, in blog, email, Tweet, and other forms, which she and others are collecting. It’s kind of an interesting experiment to ask a broad question to the universe and see what you get back, and whether it is intelligible and adds anything to what she may have already been planning to write. It is also interesting to navigate the very fine line between future-telling and wishful thinking. I probably tend to fall into the latter category, but if we don’t envision the future we want to see, we probably won’t get there.

I submitted my thoughts to Lucy via Twitter, but it is difficult to distill broad ideas into 140 characters, so I will elaborate on my thoughts here.

There are three things that I think will matter most to the social sector in 2010:

1. Increased Philanthropic Dollars Will Go to Organization Building. Donors will increasingly realize that they can achieve a greater social return on their investment (more social impact) when they invest in the capacity, or growth of a successful nonprofit.  That is to say that donors will increasingly realize the power of BUILDING organizations rather than BUYING services.  I don’t think donors will move away from buying services, there will still be a majority of that.  But I think donors will start to understand the difference between a “donation” where they are simply supporting an organization’s current program, versus an “investment” that makes the organization stronger, healthier, better positioned to address the social problem head on.




2. Nonprofits Will Move From Outputs to Outcomes. And in order to meet this trend of donors wanting to invest rather than donate, nonprofits will begin to understand that they will attract more capital if they can demonstrate a social return on investment, or a change in outcomes, not just outputs.  Outputs have been a favorite of the nonprofit sector, i.e. 500 kids went through our after-school program, 1,000 meals were served in our kitchen. But outputs don’t demonstrate social impact, or a change to a problem.  Outcomes do, which is what investors increasingly will want to see.  Outcomes are about changed lives, changed trajectories.  It is so much more powerful and compelling to be able to say that the 500 kids that went through our after-school program stayed in school and increased their academic achievement which was a marked difference from their cohorts that didn’t attend our program.  Then, if you can continue to track those children and demonstrate that they continued to stay in school at a higher rate than their contemporaries, you have a compelling change to a trajectory.  You begin to show how your organization is an intermediary between donors who want to invest in social change and a change you are making in the community.  I believe that philanthropic capital will begin to flow more readily to those nonprofit organizations that can demonstrate outcomes as opposed to outputs, and those nonprofits that can comply will be more successful at attracting capital.




3. The Social Capital Market Will Increasingly Include Philanthropic Capital. The social capital market to date has focused mostly on investing in social businesses that provide both a social and financial return. Philanthropy and nonprofit organizations have been somewhat left behind. But this will change with a growing recognition of the benefits of broadening the definition of social capital markets to include nonprofits and philanthropy.  There is much to be gained when ALL organizations working towards social impact and ALL investors interested in social return can pool resources and work towards closer collaboration, creation of new financial vehicles, sharing of ideas and information.

Perhaps 2010 is too early for all three of these trends to really take hold, but I think the beginnings are there. It will be interesting to see what Lucy comes up with, and what actually starts evolving in a few short months when the new year begins.

But in the meantime, what are your thoughts?  Where do you see the social sector going in the coming year?

Tags: 2010, Blueprint Research and Design, Lucy Bernholz, nonprofit, outcomes, philanthropic capital, Philanthropy, social capital market, social impact, trends

Making Donors Organization Builders

The “starvation cycle” of nonprofit organizations doing more and more with less and less has to end.  But how can nonprofit organizations break out of this cycle when donors won’t fund nonprofit capacity?

The news last week that the Boston Foundation will shift the majority of their competitive grants to unrestricted operating support, which in reality means capacity building, is fantastic.  The Boston Foundation is one of the few foundations that understands that strengthening nonprofit organizations, through money to support technology, infrastructure, fundraising, top talent, management expertise, strategic planning, evaluation, research and development, is absolutely key to making social change possible.

But the Boston Foundation is just one in a sea of foundations and individual philanthropists who have yet to understand the importance of money to build nonprofit organizations.

But perhaps there is hope.  Social Velocity has seen some great early signs that when approached in the right way, foundations and individual donors, who previously may have only provided direct service funding, can become organization builders.

I have discussed before Social Velocity’s work to help Heart House, an after-school program for at-risk kids in Austin and Dallas, strengthen their plan to grow statewide and create a pitch for growth capital.  Heart House could not pay for this planning work through their operating budget, so they went to a foundation that was already supporting their program and asked them to invest in this growth planning.  When the foundation understood that a small investment in organization building would help this organization that they love improve the lives of even more children, they were happy to invest.

Another example is Social Velocity’s newest client, English at Work, a nonprofit that teaches ESL classes to the employees of restaurants and hotels.  English at Work is a subsidized social enterprise where the hotels and restaurants pay them a fee to run these classes.  The nonprofit is demonstrating great results and has real potential to replicate the model.  First, however, they need to strengthen their overall revenue function to position them for growth, which is where Social Velocity comes in.

But again, English at Work didn’t have the operating revenue to pay for that outside expertise. So they approached a foundation in their fold and made the case for how a strengthened revenue function would put English at Work in a position to start planning for replication. And that replication would mean that their results-achieving model could provide more people with stronger English language skills.  Stronger English language skills mean better, higher paying jobs, less stress on the social safety net and a stronger, healthier community.  And what English at Work helped their donor understand is that to get to that positive outcome, English at Work as an organization has to be more effective.  They have to learn how to create a stronger, more sustainable revenue function that can support a larger organization over the long term.  And figuring that out costs money.

Some foundations and individual donors are more predisposed to understand the connection between stronger organizations and greater social impact.  But those donors are in the minority.  It is fabulous when a large donor like the Boston Foundation makes a dramatic shift toward organization building.  That will certainly help raise awareness among the philanthropic community about organization-building investments.

But perhaps another route toward more philanthropic money invested in organization building is if nonprofit organizations start approaching the donors and board members who are already supporting their programs and make the case, in an articulate, reasoned, but passionate, way that in order for more of the outcomes they seek to happen, they have to invest in their organization.  And they need those closest to the organization to make those investments.  It is a process of educating those nearest and dearest to the organization about the power of a stronger internal organization.  It’s a new conversation, but an important, and potentially game-changing, one.

Tags: Boston Foundation, capacity, English at Work, Foundations, Heart House, nonprofit, organization-building, Philanthropy, Social Velocity, starvation cycle

Making a Social Impact Market Play

Nonprofits exist in a strange netherworld between market forces and social change. They are trying to create a solution to a social problem, but as much as some might like to deny it, that desired social change exists within a market economy. That means that in order to be successful, nonprofits, just like any business, must continually analyze, understand and create strategies around whatever market forces are at play (competition for funding, clients, partnerships, inputs, results; increased/decreased regulation; changing client/funder demand; changing input costs; changing technology, etc.).

The tendency among some of those working toward social impact is to assume that simply because they are doing good in the world, those market forces can somehow be ignored or dismissed. Good will win out over the market. But it is not a binary system. Organizations that are working toward good are very much subject to market forces and must be strategic about how to address them.

Which brings me to a SWOT analysis, an often misunderstood tool that can help nonprofits do just that.  Most people understand that a SWOT analysis helps an organization break down the internal forces at work (their own strengths and weaknesses) and the external opportunities and threats that face them in the marketplace. But once these are uncovered, the more important step is to translate those realities into strategies that increase the nonprofit’s position in the market, whether that is increased profit, increased social impact, or both.

Strengths are the resources, capabilities, core competencies, and experience that could be used to develop a competitive advantage, or a better position in the marketplace than their competitors, such as:

• Brand name
• Funder/investor retention
• Access to clients/customers
• Access to inputs required to create the desired social impact
• Cash reserves
• Demonstrated social impact
• Use/understanding of critical technology

Weaknesses are things that the nonprofit should possess in order to create a competitive advantage, but happen to lack. They can also be the flip side of a strength, such as a nonprofit that has a large staff (strength) but whose large staff makes it difficult to be flexible towards changing program requirements (weakness). Some examples:

• Lack of staff talent/expertise
• Limited network/relationships/alliances
• Low funder/investor retention rates
• Limited access to inputs required to create social impact
• Lack of demonstrated results

The External Analysis exposes the situation in the marketplace and how that situation positively (opportunities) or negatively (threats) could affect the organization. Opportunities are external realities that could result in greater social impact, profit and growth for the organization:

• Growing social need/customer demand
• New technologies that could decrease costs to deliver programs/products/services
• Relaxation of government regulations for addressing the social challenge
• Declining competitors for funding or program delivery

Threats are situations that have the potential to diminish the organization’s social impact/profitability/growth. For example:

• Increasing competitors
• Stricter regulations
• Increasing cost of inputs
• Diminishing client/customer demand
• Changing technology

But this analysis gets you nowhere if you don’t take the most important next step, which is to craft strategies from the results. The various strategies for the organization going forward fall into four categories:

1. Strength-Opportunity Strategies that use the organization’s strengths to go after external opportunities. For example when a nonprofit uses their strong brand name (strength) to expand into a newly emerging client need (opportunity). Teach for America has recently decided to take a version of their teacher recruitment program to schools outside of America.
2. Weakness-Opportunity Strategies that overcome a nonprofit’s weaknesses in order to go after external opportunities. For example when Kiva recently decided to give their loaners whose demand outstripped loanee supply (weakness) an opportunity to make loans to American entrepreneurs whose demand for loans due to the bank crisis and the recession were growing (opportunity).
3. Strength-Threat Strategies that harness a nonprofit’s strengths in order to overcome its vulnerability to external threats. For example a nonprofit that harnesses its well-connected board (strength) to strengthen their relationships with foundations and individual donors who are being bombarded by an increasing number of nonprofits (threat).
4. Weakness-Threat Strategies that create a defensive plan for preventing the nonprofit’s weaknesses from making it susceptible to external threats. For example when a nonprofit decides to go through the patent process to guard its unprotected results-achieving curriculum (weakness) from growing competitors (threat).

Creating and then employing these strategies allows a social impact organization to be proactive and opportunistic about market dynamics–market dynamics which very much play into whether the solution they seek will come to fruition.

Tags: Kiva, nonprofit, social impact, SWOT Analysis, Teach for America

Don’t Go Blindly Into That Social Media World

Seth Godin has gotten everyone talking (some are even yelling) about his latest post that chastises nonprofits for not embracing change and getting on the social media bandwagon. Godin is irritated at nonprofits for not embracing these new tools to “focus attention and galvanize action” around their cause.  And the overwhelming amount of debate about the post  (Beth Kanter, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Tom Watson, to name a few) , has focused on whether or not nonprofits have embraced social media, whether they are “deer in the headlights,” whether they are risk averse, whether they “blow people away,” and so on.

This is a good debate, to be sure, but what interests me in all of this is a bigger question about the role of social media in a nonprofit’s overall resource engine. Social media is just marketing, right?  Some organizations have figured out how to tap into social media to spread the word, build a following and so on.  Some businesses have even seen a spike in sales.  That’s great.   But marketing through social media, just like any kind of marketing, has to have a bigger goal in mind.  You don’t market for marketing sake, and you don’t Tweet just because it’s cool and “everyone” is doing it.  Rather, you have to understand how that marketing activity (whether it is “free” or not, it still takes resources) is going to contribute to, or perhaps detract from, your bigger goal, which for nonprofits is to raise resources to execute on their mission.  So, in essence, nonprofits should be using social media to build donors, volunteers, advocates, supporters, right?  And as such, their use of social media has to be part of a larger resource plan.  Social media is another channel for the distribution of your message. You should not just go blindly into the social media world.  But don’t sit on your hands either, I get it.

I would argue that social media must be one component of a larger overall resource plan for a nonprofit, that brings dollars, volunteers, advocates, etc. in the door.  But first we need to take a step back to understand that resource plan.  Which brings me to a misunderstanding of fundraising in the nonprofit world and to my usual hero Dan Pallotta.  Pallotta’s blog posts are wonderful, and usually I read them while silent “Right Ons” and “Amens” stream through my head.  But his recent post on fundraising left me frustrated that Pallotta wasn’t stepping far enough out on the limb that he usually does.

Pallotta argues that fundraising is a dirty word in the nonprofit sector and organizations work as hard as possible to spend as little as possible on it:

Fundraising is the black sheep of the nonprofit sector. Charities spend as little as they possibly can on it. They talk as much as they possibly can about how little they spend on it. The watchdogs, the IRS, and donors deduct goody-two-shoes points from nonprofits in direct correlation to every dollar they spend on it. Institutional funders penalize charities for spending on it… By extension, fundraisers are the black sheep of the sector’s workforce; second-class citizens to the program staff who are in the trenches every day doing the real work of social change.

He laments this reality and suggests that we better integrate fundraising into the costs of the programs that nonprofits operate:

This is ass-backwards. Without fundraising there are no programs. The less we spend on it the less money there is for programs…We should make fundraising a program domain in and of itself — every bit as important as the medical research, social services, advocacy, and everything else it makes possible. We should consider all spending on it to be a critical “program” expense. Instead of disdaining it, we should invest in understanding and developing it, because unless we do, we’ll never have anywhere near the money we need to address the massive social problems we confront.

These are all valid points, but then I lose him at the end when he claims:

Institutional funders should take the lead…Fundraising should be every bit as prevalent on the lists of their program interests as health, human rights, and global poverty. And when they are, they won’t need to be giving program grants to health, human rights, or global poverty anymore, because the fundraising arms of the organizations they support will be able to fund them on their own.

Huh?  I agree with Pallotta that there needs to be more risk and experimentation with fundraising.  But I would take this much further.  Fundraising isn’t just a “necessary expense,” rather a nonprofit’s resource engine must be fully integrated with and equal to its programs and operations.  We have to move away from the term “fundraising,” which has come to mean galas, direct mail campaigns (which Godin abhors), and foundation grants that are conducted in a vaccuum completely separate from and organization’s programs and operations.  Fundraising has become akin to a gerbil on a treadmill where nonprofits go from grant to grant, direct mail response to direct mail response, email campaign to email campaign, working their fundraisers to the bone trying to make the dollars coming in the door equal the dollars going out the door to run their programs.

That is “ass-backwards.”  The only effective way for a nonprofit to achieve its mission, and ultimately social impact, is to fully integrate their programs (the social impact they are trying to achieve) with their core competencies (what they do better than anyone else) and their overall resource engine.  This overall resource engine must be a diverse combination of activities that generate support for and work with, not detract from, the mission of the organization and the organization’s core competencies, like this:

I’ve written about this critical alignment before, and it seems to me that this integration of the three core activities of a nonprofit are rarely integrated effectively, or even recognized by those commenting on the sector, like Pallotta and Godin.  Any marketing or revenue-generating activities that a nonprofit embarks on must be chosen and invested in–with resources like money, staff, board and volunteer time–in accordance with the organization’s mission and core competencies.  And the marketing and revenue-generating activities from which a nonprofit can choose include things such as: individual donor cultivation, solicitation and stewardship; direct mail acquisition; online fundraising; foundation grants; earned income businesses; and yes, even social media.  Just as nonprofits should not shy away from social media because they are afraid of risk and change, they also shouldn’t run towards it if it doesn’t make sense in the overall picture of how they can effectively integrate their mission and core competencies to create a sustainable resource engine.

Nonprofits shouldn’t fear social media, nor any other technological, social, or financial shift in our world.  Nonprofits, just like any other entity, need to be aware of their environment and adapt their business to survive and thrive in that changing environment.  But it all has to be based on an integrated strategy.  Yes, be open to new things like social media and experiment to see how this new development might enhance or contribute to your mission, and your resource engine, while working with your core competencies.  But don’t blindly go there without understanding how it fits.

The bottomline is that the pace of change is speeding up for all of us.  Nonprofits have to be more open to change, yes, but any change still has to be digested and made part of an overall strategy that integrates mission, competency and resources.  I think Godin would be the first to agree that we are nothing without an integrated strategy.  So don’t jump on that bandwagon without one, just because Godin tells you that you are “paralyzed in fear.”

Tags: Beth Kanter, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Dan Pallotta, Fundraising, Marketing, nonprofit, Seth Godin, social media, Tom Watson

Nonprofits and the Emerging Social Capital Market

Last week’s Social Capital Markets Conference was an amazing experience.  You really felt as though you were at the beginning of something pretty innovative.

The financial market collapse of the last year has given the emerging social capital markets, where social impact and money converge, a voice and credibility.  Indeed some social investments, like those in the microfinance arena, have actually far outperformed the financial returns of the traditional capital markets in the past year.

Will it last?  And will money begin to flow more readily to organizations and projects that promise a social return?  Will, as some at SoCap forecasted (or perhaps hoped), impact investing become a significant part of a normal investor portfolio in the next five years? Will social impact become a necessary and prevalent part of the traditional capital marketplace? Who knows.   This whole space is evolving, and it is much too soon to understand how it will all play out.

One thing, however, that was lacking in last week’s conversations, and is worth a larger discussion, is how nonprofits, those organizations that have been creating “social impact” since before it was cool, fit into this emerging market. As I mentioned in earlier post, attendees to the session I moderated, “Growth Capital for Nonprofit Social Entrepreneurs,” appeared hungry for information, tools, advice, insight about how their organizations could play in this emerging space.

If you think of the overall market as a continuum with traditional charities on one end and traditional businesses on the other, the social capital marketplace, then, is everything in between.  It most certainly includes social businesses–businesses that not only make a profit, but also contribute some sort of social impact (like wind farms or organic groceries).  And there are emerging investment vehicles that can provide investors a financial return (sometimes equivalent to a traditional market rate return) in addition to a social impact return.

But the social capital market must also include new financial vehicles for nonprofit organizations. In order to effectively provide the public goods that for profit businesses (both traditional and social businesses) can’t or won’t provide, nonprofit organizations require seed funding, growth capital, capacity capital, loans, equity, grants, operating revenue and so on.

Although there was some discussion of these financial needs, the nonprofit side of the social capital market discussion was not as prevalent last week. And indeed some at the conference, including conference co-f0under, Kevin Jones, refer to nonprofits as “our cousins” in this space.  Indeed, the keynoter at the first SoCap conference  last year encouraged the audience to “set aside” nonprofit organizations because they were not what that conference was about.  And I have had a few conversations with leaders in the social business space who have told me: “Innovation will never come from the nonprofit side.  It must come from the social business side.”

But nonprofit organizations are very much part of this conversation and this emerging market. Social impact is not a new thing.  As much as those of us assembled at SoCap last week would like to believe that we are pioneers in all things, we are not.   Many of the financial vehicles emerging in this new space are exciting and new.  But creating social impact through entrepreneurial efforts is not new.

Nonprofit organizations have been around for a long time.  And their reason for being has always been to create some sort of public good that was not addressed by the market.  That is not to say that it has been done right.  Many would agree that the nonprofit sector and the philanthropy that funds it are dysfunctional, even broken.  And I think most of us would agree the government sector is fairly broken as well.

But we cannot discount and dismiss either sector.  In the true spirit of the social innovation space, we must recycle and reuse the nonprofit and government sectors, just as we are refashioning the private sector.  We must reconfigure the assets of all three sectors to turn them into more effective, more productive, higher functioning sectors that can work with, not separate from, each other to create solutions.

What does that look like?  It means that venture philanthropy funds are sharing investor prospects with social venture funds and vice versa.  It means that investors interested in a social return have portfolios that include not only social businesses, but also nonprofit deals.  It means that foundations are investing in both for profit and nonprofit social impact organizations.  It means that the SoCap conference list of attendees and speakers come equally  from all three sectors (public, private, nonprofit).  It means that the majority of nonprofit organizations that have an interest in and capacity for growth have access to growth capital and management expertise to scale.  It means that a nonprofit that is solving social problems is just as sexy and gets just as many resources, respect and mind-share as a social business that is doing the same. It means that those working on changing laws to help social entrepreneurs look at both for profit and nonprofit structures, incentives and restrictions.

The creation of the social capital market is a bold, chaotic, possibly insane, but potentially game-changing endeavor that has the power to completely rework how money flows through the market to shape society. Let’s not get bogged down in dichotomies and factions, rather let’s take a bigger picture view of the essence of what we are attempting to do.  And that is to completely reconfigure, and create a productive convergence among, the three sectors. Now that would be innovative.

Tags: capacity capital, government, growth capital, investors, nonprofit, Philanthropy, SoCap, social business, Social Capital Markets conference, social entrepreneur, social return

Organizing the Chaos

At the beginning of anything there is chaos, so it is with the creation of the social capital marketplace.  Day 2 of SoCap was about understanding and starting to discuss the chaos that is emerging in this marketplace.  As Antony Bugg-Levine from the Rockefeller Foundation said in the plenary about creating infrastructure for this new market, there are a lot of or’s right now, but we would like to make them and’s.  He meant that there are opposing ways of thinking about and doing things in this emerging market, but we would like to be at a place where we don’t have to choose, where we can have both, instead of just one of the options. Some of the or’s he mentioned are:

• Knowing vs. believing
• Measuring vs. doing
• Mission vs. scale
• Story vs. substance
• Metaphor vs. methodology

And I would add to that:

• Nonprofit vs. for profit
• Financial investing vs. philanthropy
• Venture philanthropy vs. Social investing
• Government vs. private money

And the list goes on.  The social capital market is emerging from a binary system of financial investment on one side and philanthropic donations on the other.  Mission and money never mixed.  That either-or, however, is becoming an and.  So too, are so many other distinctions.  It used to be that a nonprofit organization was about social impact and a for profit was about profit.  Now it’s both. And so on.

But what we are talking about is a radical shift in so many areas.  It can be overwhelming and chaotic.

But in order for this market to survive we need to organize it.  And that list is long:

• We need to create metrics for determining social impact
• We have to create various financial vehicles for the various projects and organizations out there trying to survive
• We have to change the rules and laws to make them more accepting of these new entities
• We need to figure out what business models make sense and can thrive
• We have to determine how and when to scale great ideas
• We need to drive down the high transaction and search costs in the field
• We, as entrepreneurs who dislike the bureaucracy of government, have to engage on a policy level to make change
• We have to effectively market and communicate the benefits of social investing in order to broaden the reach of the market beyond the few who have tried it

The list goes on and will take time.

There is such diversity at SoCap and that diversity is representative of the social capital markets themselves.  As one participant put it “We are 1,000 outliers.”  There are bankers, college students, nonprofit execs, philanthropists, VCs all brought together by a single desire to make money work better for the world. But that tremendous diversity can create dichotomies, distance, tension.

For example, the session I moderated yesterday on Growth Capital for Nonprofit Social Entrepreneurs. I feared that because the nonprofit side of the market had been under-represented at last year’s conference that there may not be much interest in the topic.  To my surprise, the room was absolutely full, with probably close to 80 people in attendance. And there was a palpable sense of hunger for information among the group about where nonprofits, who have been doing mission work for years, fit into this new market.

But day 3 of SoCap is about to start, so I will leave all of that for a later post.

Tags: Antony Bugg-Levine, nonprofit, Philanthropy, SoCap, Social Capital Markets conference, social entrepreneurs, social impact, Social Investing

The Beginning of a Movement

You really get the sense here at the edge of the San Francisco Bay at Fort Mason Center that you are at the beginning of something amazing.  There are 1,000 of us here at the second annual Social Capital Markets Conference (SoCap), and there are some amazing people, many of whom have been toiling away for the last decade or so trying to convince investors, funders, donors, organizations, governments that there is no longer a binary system of philanthropic money and investment money.  There is a third way where money can have a social and a financial return, and there are countless ways to do that.

Day One was amazing.  The opening plenary had Sonal Shah, the new head of the White House Office of Social Innovation speaking and then joining a panel of experts on government’s role in the emerging social capital markets.  Much of the discussion centered around the $50 million Social Innovation Fund recently approved by Congress, but really that’s such a small part of the potential for collaboration with government in this new movement.  The takeaway from the session for me was that because this is such a new movement, no one has a playbook, and it is really up to us, all of us, to chart this new territory and define and describe how we want government to be involved.  And government really must be involved because they have tremendous resources and the problems we are all attempting to solve cannot be solved without that 800-pound gorilla.  Exactly what the right role for government in all of this is, is still very much to be determined.  But I’m hopeful that we may have some clearer answers on that when SoCap10 roles around.

For the only Session block of the day I chose Sean Stannard-Stockton’s Donor Advised Funds session.  This was an eye-opener for me in terms of the power and opportunity that donor advised funds hold, on several fronts.  First, the minimum investment requirements to start a donor advised fund is declining.  You used to require $250K to start one, now minimums are as low as $25k, which means that these tools are now open to young, emerging philanthropists, which is very exciting since they might be the ones who are more willing to take some risks and innovate with their money.  Secondly, because the tax event happens when the initial donation into the fund is made, donor advised funds can act like a “third pocket” separate from the straight philanthropic pocket of money and the financial returns only pocket of money.  Kim Wright-Violich from Schwab Charitable described all sorts of exciting things that they are able to do with the aggregated sum of their donor advised funds.  They can guarantee microfinance institutions, be the guarantor on a loan that a nonprofit organization would otherwise not qualify for, make investments in social businesses, and so on.  Schwab and the other funds represented at the session are obviously on the cutting-edge of the use of donor advised funds. But imagine the impact if the donor advised funds at the community foundations that exist in most parts of this country took even a little bit of their money and started using it to make social or mission-related investments, make loans to nonprofits, experiment with microfinance, and on and on.  How much capital would that free up in new ways for the social capital markets?  It really boggles the mind and is an incredibly exciting opportunity.

Finally, the highlight of my day was the Plenary Session moderated by Matthew Bishop from the Economist and author of PhilanthroCaptialism, which gave an overview of the spectrum of the social capital market today.  And that spectrum ran from nonprofit venture philanthropy funds like Kim Smith from New Schools Venture Funds to Root Capital, a nonprofit social investment fund that provides capital to small farmers in developing countries, to a social venture fund, to a social investment fund that provides market rate return along with its social impact, finally to Jed Emerson of Uhuru, a hedge fund that donates part of its profit.  It was fascinating to hear about the various types of social capital that is occurring out there and where these pioneers see the hurdles and the trends.  Some top level comments from panelists that really made me think:

• We are performing 2 tasks simultaneously: using old financial tools in new ways, while creating new tools. We need to do more of the latter.
• We have worked to solve the governance issues on the for-profit side, but we have also known that governance was a huge problem in the nonprofit side for a long time, but have yet to do anything to change it.
• The social capital market is a big tent, we need to stop taking nonprofit/for profit sides and arguging about which ways is right and start sharing deals and complementing each others skills/expertise.
• We need to organize the space that is emerging between the previously binary markets (philanthropic and financial) that have evolved fairly efficiently, but separately.
• In the financial collapse, social investments far outperformed traditional investments, yet the majority of people went right back to the old binary system. We are all responsible for demonstrating that social investment is a better way and getting others on board.

The bottomline for me after this first day of listening to these intelligent, brave, entrepreneurial leaders in this emerging market is that although the field has grown in a year (for example last year SoCap had 600 attendees, this year it has 1,000) people who understand and work to enlarge the social capital market space are few and far between.  We are on the edge of a massive change to our financial markets and how we understood, and separated, our money.  But change takes time and it takes work to convince those who are comfortable with the old way of doing things, as Machiavelli wrote:

There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.  For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.

Change means risk, and people, for the most part, are risk averse. So let’s not get caught up in the excitement and the hype and think that the social capital market is massive.  There is still much work to do, but there always is at beginnings.

Tags: New Schools Venture Fund, Root Capital, Schwab Charitable, Sean Stannard-Stockton, SoCap, Social Capital Markets conference, Sonal Shah, Uhuru