Convergence Can’t Be Denied

There is a fascinating debate going on in the blogsphere touched off by Michael Edwards, author of  Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World and former director of the Ford Foundation’s Governance and Civil Society program.

In essence, the debate is about whether the convergence of the private (business) and the nonprofit sectors is a good or bad thing, whether market forces help or hurt social change efforts.  Michael kicked off the debate on Monday with the first in a week-long series of posts called “Should Civil Society Be Reduced to a Subset of the Market?” In subsequent posts he went on to attack the emerging social capital market among other things.  You can read the whole series here.

Sean Stannard-Stockton, of the Tactical Philanthropy blog, took up the charge and debated many of his points.  Then the two have gone back and forth over the issues. And the debate expanded on the New Philanthropy Capital blog where Tris Lumley wrote that Michael’s argument “boils down to social capital markets vs civil society – impact measurement vs social justice, data vs values, competition vs solidarity. And in this binary view of the world, he threatens to undermine the very real progress that’s being made towards a much more balanced and realistic perspective.”  Michael responds and so does Tris.

It seems to me that fundamental to Michael’s argument is his fear about the growing convergence between the nonprofit, private and government sectors.  That somehow the “market” will sully social change efforts.  Michael argues that civil society and the market are separate entities: “Civil society operates on solidarity and commitment—the willingness to hang in there for the long haul even if results don’t go your way. Markets work on the opposite principle, “exit”: consumers are free to move from one supplier to another whenever and wherever they like. Otherwise the efficiency of resource allocation would suffer.”

But the fact is that social change efforts and the nonprofits leading them have always existed within a market economy. Resource allocation to nonprofits is very much based on a market. If nonprofits can’t convince donors or governments that their work is important or has meaning, they won’t receive resources.  Nonprofit funders are consumers who are “free to move from one supplier to another whenever and wherever they like.”  It would be great if social change efforts could exist in some sort of vacuum where their good work automatically finds resources, but the world doesn’t work like that.  And as resources for social change efforts become increasingly competitive, nonprofits, and for profits working towards social change, have to become smarter about responding to the marketplace. And as the marketplace demands more social change efforts, which is increasingly the case, more resources will be brought to bear on those social change efforts, thus the creation of the social capital market.

The growing convergence among the public, private and nonprofit sectors is a reality we can’t avoid.  Nonprofits have to respond more effectively to market forces, governments have to be more efficient in their allocation and use of resources, and businesses, in order to survive in a marketplace that increasingly values social good, have to understand and respond to the effects their products and services and business model have on the broader society.

Binary systems and separated sectors just don’t exist anymore.  The lines are blurring.  The market is part of the reality of social change efforts.  To deny that is silly.

Tags: Ford Foundation, Michael Edwards, New Philanthropy Capital, Sean Stannard-Stockton, Small Change, Tactical Philanthropy, Tris Lumley

Let’s Take a Step Back in the Outcomes Debate

There is a growing discussion among social impact organizations and those who fund them about how to measure impact.  It is indeed a very slippery endeavor.

Mario Marino, Chairman of Venture Philanthropy Partners (a venture philanthropy fund in Washington D.C. that makes growth capital investments in nonprofits) has been encouraging nonprofits to measure outcomes for years.  Indeed one of the fundamental characteristics of venture philanthropy is a reliance on metrics and outcomes for investment to happen.  He recently wrote a post arguing that he is “increasingly worried that the vast majority of funders and nonprofits are achieving, at best, marginal benefit from their efforts to implement outcomes thinking.”  He argues that in an zealous pursuit of metrics we have left common sense and “softer” impact behind and encouraged nonprofits to move away from the impact they were working towards.

To add further confusion to the outcome measurement discussion, the Gates Foundation’s Melinda Tuan studied 8 approaches to measuring cost vs. social impact, or the value that nonprofit organizations create versus the cost of their activities.  The results of the study were disheartening; none of the approaches they studied was a magic bullet, all had significant drawbacks, which led them to conclude: “Integrated cost approaches to measuring and/or estimating social value are still in the nascent stages of development due to the lack of maturity in the field of social program evaluation.”

And there are other camps working towards outcome measurement, like those debating about whether randomized control trials (a research methodology where a random group of program participants is tracked and compared to a random group of cohorts who did not participate in the program) are feasible for nonprofits. And on the social business side, the GIIN (Global Impact Investing Network) is developing standards for measuring and communicating the social impact of investments known as The Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS).  And that’s just a start.

This whole social impact measurement endeavor is incredibly important because if we can figure out a way to measure which social change efforts work, and which don’t, we can allocate resources accordingly and, in theory, get closer to solutions to social problems.

But I think we need to first take a step back.  As is so often the case in efforts to build nonprofit capacity, effectiveness and infrastructure (including, in this case, the ability of nonprofits to evaluate their work) the focus is on the largest, most resourced nonprofit organizations.  Let’s remember that more than 80% of nonprofit organizations have budgets under $1 million (see the Nonprofit Almanac).  Budgets that small leave very little room for funds to support randomized control trials or other kinds of outcome measurements.

But an even bigger roadblock is the fact that many nonprofit organizations have not articulated their theory of change, or their logic model.  Many nonprofit organizations are doing good work, but they don’t necessarily have an articulated strategy around that good work.  A logic model helps an organization understand and articulate how they believe that they translate resources (inputs) into social impact, or change in a community.  This understanding allows the organization to better articulate (to potential funders, volunteers, supporters, partners), and create strategy around, their work.  A potential logic model for an English as a Second Language after-school program could be as follows:

One of the first steps Social Velocity undertakes with clients who want to increase organization capacity, sustainability, revenue, growth, or really any kind of progress, is to create a logic model with the organization.  The majority of nonprofits that I encounter don’t have an articulated logic model or theory of change.  It may seem like an academic exercise, but I would argue that it is absolutely critical to just about anything a nonprofit does.  In order to understand their place in the community, the value that their work adds, how additional inputs (like funding) can increase impact, and their strategy for delivering services, they need to articulate this process.

But the larger debate about outcome measurement ignores the fact that the majority of nonprofit organizations have not completed step 1 in outcome measurement: articulating a strategy for using resources to create outcomes.  Once this is articulated, we can talk about how to measure whether that strategy is actually coming to fruition.

Tags: Gates Foundation, GIIN, IRIS, logic model, Mario Marino, Melinda Tuan, Nonprofit Almanac, outcomes, randomized control trials, social impact, Social Velocity, theory of change, Venture Philanthropy, Venture Philanthropy Partners

Losing the Charity Mindset

Along with the burgeoning social entrepreneurship movement comes a bit of hubris that social entrepreneurs know better how to create social change than do the nonprofits that have been working toward social change for years.  Some social entrepreneurs argue that nonprofits are too set in their ways to embrace a new way of creating solutions.  I tend to disagree.  We can’t, nor should we, discount and dismiss an entire sector of people and organizations that have been working on social problems for centuries.  However, I do think that there are some things that nonprofits can learn from social entrepreneurs.  One of those is how to lose the charity mindset.

Nonprofits are sometimes referred to as “charities,” and it is a real misnomer.  But beyond semantics, the word, and more importantly the mindset, does a real disservice to organizations working toward change  A charity mindset is when an organization, its board, its funders or others promoting its work have a narrow view that the organization is benevolent, but not critical, to the world at large.  The charity mindset assumes that a nonprofit starts from the position of need, inadequacy, and burden, rather than a position of opportunity, strength, and effectiveness.  The charity mindset differs from a social entrepreneur mindset in a number of ways:

• Symptoms vs. Solutions: A charity, by its very definition, exists to provide aid to the needy, not to solve the underlying cause of the need.  This is not to say that every nonprofit can work toward solving an underlying problem; there will always be organizations that exist simply to provide basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.).  But I wonder if too many nonprofit organizations view their work as residing in the “charity” camp, instead of working, as social entrepreneurs do, to understand the cause of the need and how how they may be able to attack and solve it.




• Fundraising: A fundraiser in the charity mindset apologizes for the burden of asking someone for money, but a social entrepreneur offers investment opportunities to prospects.  Wendy Kopp from Teach for America went around evangelizing the Teach for America story and sought investors who wanted to get in on the ground level of an incredible opportunity to change the American public education system.




• Investment in Infrastructure: Charities spend every last penny on the program and leave little money for building the organization.  Social entrepreneurs understand that it takes organizations, infrastructure, systems, and talent to effectively execute on a solution to a social problem.




• Respect: Charities may be beloved by their supporters, but they may not garner a lot of respect from them.  Social entrepreneurs behave as equal partners with funders in creating solutions, and, as such, they command and receive real respect from investors, volunteers, partners and others.




• True Costs:  Charities like to claim that as much money as possible goes to direct services, but social entrepreneurs recognize the true costs of their endeavors and are open and honest with funders about those costs.  In fact they demand that funders understand and support those true costs.

I think the old adage is true, people will treat you the way you ask to be treated.  If a nonprofit acts like a charity, people will treat it like one.  Nonprofits need to stand up and demand to be treated as critical, equal partners in creating solutions.

Tags: charity, Fundraising, Nonprofits, Social Entrepreneurship, Teach for America, Wendy Kopp

MLK Day of Service Virtual Town Hall

On this Martin Luther King day, January 18th, Points of Light Institute and HandsOn Network will engage the nation in a MLK Day Virtual Town Hall—an online, interactive dialogue about community service.

Through this virtual town hall, you can tune in to conversations across seven cities, highlighting over 70,000 community organizations at the forefront of interaction, civic engagement and community service.

If you want to see the virtual town hall meeting, come back here on Monday, January 18th. The schedule for the simulcast is as follows:

Monday January 18 Simulcast Schedule

• 8:00 AM EST – 8:30 AM EST Atlanta – Opening at the hub (HON office)
• 8:30 AM EST – 9:30 AM EST Atlanta – Hands On Atlanta Annual King Summit Freedom Rally at Morehouse School of Medicine Auditorium with Congressman John Lewis
• 9:30 AM EST – 10:00 AM EST Back to the hub (HON office), pre-taped messages (i.e., Philadelphia)
• 10:00 AM EST – 11:00 AM EST Washington, D.C. – Greater DC Cares service project at Powell Elementary Schools with Council member Muriel Bowser
• 11:00 AM EST – 12:00 PM EST New York City – Youth HandsOn service project at James Weldon Johnson School
• 12:00 PM EST – 1:00 PM EST Sacramento – Hands On Sacramento service project at Quinn Cottages with Mayor Kevin Johnson
• 1:00 PM EST – 2:00 PM EST Phoenix – HandsOn Greater Phoenix service project with Mayor Phil Gordon
• 2:00 PM EST – 3:00 PM EST Chicago – Cities of Service announcement with Mayor Michael Bloomberg
• 3:00 PM EST – 4:00 PM EST St. Louis – United Way of Greater St. Louis service project and dialogue
• 4:00 PM EST – 4:30 PM EST Atlanta – Closing at the hub (HON office)

I hope to see you back here on Monday!

Tags: Day of Service, HandsOn Network, MLK Day, Points of Light Institute

Constraint or Opportunity?

One of my favorite organizations and a critical player in the creation of a well-capitalized nonprofit sector, the Nonprofit Finance Fund, is seeking feedback.  NFF is a community-development fund that makes millions of dollars in loans to nonprofits and pushes for fundamental improvement in how money is given and used in the sector. Last March they published the results of a survey about how the recession is affecting the nonprofit sector.  They plan to conduct a similar survey this spring, and, in a bow to crowd-sourcing and transparency, are soliciting feedback on questions to ask in this year’s survey.  They are soliciting this feedback through comments left at the Tactical Philanthropy blog.

Last year’s survey was a good one, but a key element was missing.  The survey focused solely on the challenges that the  recession brought. Question after question had a similar pessimistic, constraint-filled theme. For example the only options available to a survey respondent in the question “To successfully weather the current economy, please check all actions below that you have taken in the last 12 months or are planning to take in the next 12 months” were negative.  The options assumed that the recession provided only challenges, not opportunities, to nonprofits. The possible responses were:

• Develop a ‘worst case scenario’ contingency budget
• Reduce staff or salaries
• Freeze all hires and current staff salaries
• Reduce staff hours (short weeks, furloughs, etc.)
• Reduce staff benefits
• Reduce or eliminate programs
• Collaborate with another organization to provide programs
• Collaborate with another organization to reduce administrative expenses
• Merge with another organization
• Reduce or refinance occupancy costs
• Sell assets such as a building or securities
• Use reserve funds
• Delay payments to vendors
• Speed up the collection of receivables
• Engage more closely with your board through more frequent reports and meetings when necessary
• Hold conversations with funders to explain your situation and projections and/or to discuss the use of currently restricted grants

19% of respondents said “none of these” or “other.”  I’m curious about those respondents.  Is anything innovative going on there?  Maybe, maybe not, but is anybody asking?

In the business world, examples abound of companies that capitalized on a recession to gain market share, snap up talented employees from their competitors, create a new product or service, and so on.  Are there really no examples of innovation in the face of adversity in the nonprofit sector?  Or are we so mired in the charity mindset to think that innovation in the nonprofit world is not possible, particularly when economic times are tough.

I understand that this survey was primarily intended to uncover the financial situation of the nonprofit sector, but was there really no room to understand any potential opportunities the recession afforded and how nonprofits might be  capitalizing on those opportunities?  I don’t mean to be a Pollyanna in the midst of a dire situation, but if we continually throw pessimism and constraint at the nonprofit sector doesn’t it make sense that they will continue to feel constrained and pessimistic?  Is there a possibility that some innovation exists out there?  Perhaps there are examples of nonprofits who bucked the trend and took the recession head on, revamping their approach to the social problem they are working on, or the funding of their operations, or the delivery of their services, or their response to competitors.

Let’s uncover the Southwest Airlines (creator of the “Grab Your Bag, It’s On” anti-recession ad campaign) of the nonprofit world who are taking the recession by the throat, making some bold moves, and innovating amid constraint.

We’ve seen it here at Social Velocity.  One of our clients, Heart House, an after-school program for at-risk children, decided last year to kick their vision for growth into gear, despite the recession.  The program, currently serving 500 kids in Austin and Dallas, knows they have a great, scalable model, so they put together a growth plan to go statewide.  Social Velocity helped them refine the plan and create an investor pitch around it, and they went out to raise $1.5 million in growth funding, recession be damned.  A few months into their campaign they’ve already raised a third of the money.  They don’t sit around talking about constraint and the horrible economy, yet they are feeling the pinch just like the rest of us.  They seized the opportunity:  when funders have nonprofit after nonprofit coming to them begging for money to get by, Heart House talks about something completely different.  They are talking about big plans, a grand vision, results and a way to scale those results, a way to solve Texas’ afterschool problem.  And funders are intrigued.

Let’s uncover those stories. Let’s hold them up as an example of how constraint can breed innovation.  That’s inspiring.  That’s encouraging.  That’s bold.

Tags: Heart House, Nonprofit Finance Fund, recession, Social Velocity, Southwest Airlines, Tactical Philanthropy

Social Impact Finance

It’s a new year and a new decade, and both hold tremendous promise for creating real social change.  And key to significant social change is a fundamental restructuring of how we finance that change.  I think (hope) that in the next decade we will see the emergence of a new Social Impact Finance.  And I imagine it will look something like this:

• Social Impact Funds Become Commonplace. Experiments like the Federal Social Innovation Fund (which combines government and private money to fund the growth of proven nonprofit models), Village Capital Fund (seed funding for social entrepreneurs, determined by social entrepreneurs), social investment funds like Good Capital, and venture philanthropy funds like New Profit and SeaChange Capital Partners are expanded and become commonplace.  Seed and growth funding for nonprofit, for-profit, and hybrid social impact organizations becomes more readily available and accepted.




• Foundations Get Risky. Foundations deny their risk-aversion heritage and provide risk capital for social innovation, whether through their customary 5% cap for nonprofit donations, or social investments from their corpus, or by foregoing dreams of perpetuity and giving all their money away on a big bet or two.  See Nathaniel Whittemore’s great post on this.




• Individual Donors Become a Powerhouse. Technology finds a way to harness the power of individual donors toward significant social change. Currently, individual donations make up the vast majority of funding entering the nonprofit sector, yet their gifts are fragmented. With the potential of a new nonprofit rating system on the horizon, and social media’s growing ability to gather and marshal individual participants, there could be a pivotal shift in how individual donations flow to the nonprofit sector, and how significant those individual donations become to nonprofits creating demonstrable social impact.




• Nonprofits Understand the Power of Finance. Nonprofit organizations understand and become successful at financing their overall operations, instead of fundraising for them.  And they begin to think bigger about their work, the overall outcomes they are trying to achieve and how finance fits into that (The GiveWell blog did a great series on the “Room for More Funding Question.”)

The end result of these and other changes will be, I hope, that “Social Impact” and “Finance” are no longer separate terms that have no bearing on each other, but instead inextricably linked concepts that create a better world.

Tags: GiveWell, Good Capital, Nathaniel Whittemore, New Profit, SeaChange Capital Partners, Social Innovation Fund, Village Capital Fund