Beating Innovation to Death

There is a tendency in America of late, or maybe for awhile, to over-analyze to the point of distraction. So too is the case with the Social Innovation Fund, the federal government’s $50+ million experiment in providing growth capital to nonprofits. This great experiment to see whether government can do something pretty different to address social problems is in danger of being railroaded by leaders of the social innovation community who should be the ones most supportive of a new day for government.

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) was modeled after the idea of venture philanthropy funds who were themselves modeled on venture capital funds. The idea with the SIF is to grant $50 million to private grantors (foundations, venture philanthropy funds, etc) who match the money and then turn around and grant it to promising nonprofits to scale their proven programs. Is the idea really innovative? No. But what is innovative is that the government is  recognizing the concepts of social innovation and scale and is experimenting with becoming a builder instead of just a buyer of nonprofit services.

But this experiment is in danger of failing before it even gets out of the gate. A major controversy developed this week with the announcement of SIF grantees. The controversy centers around whether New Profit, arguably the inventor of the venture philanthropy concept, was given preferential treatment in being awarded a grant.  Paul Light, the Nonprofit Quarterly and others voiced their concerns about the granting process. You can read all the details of the saga here.

Let’s be honest, everyone knew New Profit was going to get a SIF grant. New Profit pioneered the idea of venture philanthropy. And their spin-off organization, America Forward, which works to connect the vast governmental resources to social innovation, was behind getting the Serve America Act,  containing the SIF, formulated and made into law.  Would the SIF make any sense without New Profit? They have been scaling nonprofits for years, and they have unlocked the door between government and social innovation. How could they not be at this table?

And the growing amount of documents being released by the Social Innovation Fund demonstrates the fairness and process behind the grant awards and more than makes up for any of SIF’s initial ignorance of the importance of transparency.

I understand that discussion, transparency, and refining of process are all critical elements to getting change to happen, but too much of that before the actual experiment happens can actually prevent change. Let’s not conduct business as usual by over-analyzing a new project to death. Let’s see where this experiment takes us instead of railroading it before it even begins. It’s not perfect innovation, it’s not a perfect process, but experiments never are. If we don’t give the government some space to actually innovate, they may never go down this road again. Instead of beating innovation to death, let’s get out of our own way and see where this goes.

Tags: America Forward, builder versus buyer, New Profit, Nonprofit Quarterly, Paul Light, Serve America Act, Social Innovation Fund, Venture Philanthropy

Wielding the Money Sword

A new blog at the Chronicle of Philanthropy site launched this week that I’m pretty excited about. Written by Clara Miller and others at the Nonprofit Finance Fund, the Money and Mission blog will help nonprofits “understand and skillfully wield money as a tool.”  What a revolutionary idea.

As Clara writes in the inaugural post:

Great ideas, deep caring for those in need, creativity, resourcefulness, a service ethic, and an expansive vision for the future are abundant in the nonprofit world. But we lack the financial capacity to meet these ideals, and our financial habits undermine efforts to build it. We need to think of finance as more than a muddle of fund raising, budget monitoring, and compliance with overhead rules. The current, tough economic environment is spurring needed change. Now, understanding money concepts like risk, leverage, and accounting, seems to be a moral imperative.

Indeed, the nonprofit sector has for too long been burdened by a lack of financial literacy and thus an inability to use money effectively. Sure there isn’t enough money in the sector, but if nonprofit leaders better understood the financial tools available to them and how to use them to their advantage, the results could be revolutionary. This is the argument in our Financing not Fundraising series.

Capital campaigns provide a great example of this. Nonprofits have used capital campaigns for years to raise money for a new building or, less often, an endowment. Capital campaign money is raised and used in a very different way from how general operating money is raised and used. A capital campaigns USES money raised to buy a building. An annual fundraising campaign USES money raised to buy additional services that the nonprofit provides (food for a food bank, mentors for kids). An annual fundraising campaign often RAISES money by cobbling together various activities (events, grant writing, some direct mail appeals) hoping that the sum will equal the expenses needed for the year. A capital campaign, however, RAISES money by conducting a feasibility study to determine how much they can likely raise, then creates a plan, budget, and case for support. Then potential donors are cultivated and solicited in a systematic way. This is a deliberate, strategic way to bring capital campaign investors in the door.

However, capital campaigns are often misguided attempts to grow the impact of an organization. A nonprofit thinks that in order to be taken seriously in the community and attract larger donors they need to build a new building. Enormous amounts of time, energy and money are spent to create a building they don’t need, burn out their development staff, and eventually shoulder new building maintenance fees for years to come.

What if nonprofits could pour those same desires–to do more, to make a bigger impact, to attract more resources, to build deeper networks–and that same time, effort and resources into a campaign that will actually help them build a more effective, more sustainable organization that delivers more impact? What if the methods of a capital campaign were instead employed to raise growth or capacity capital that allows the organization to provide more, better services to the community? That would be huge. Enormous.

The Nonprofit Finance Fund turned capital campaigns on their head with their SEGUE (Sustainable Enhancement Grant) program. It is essentially a capital campaign, but instead of buying a building, the nonprofit raises growth capital to scale the organization for greater social impact. NFF takes a concept nonprofits understand and are comfortable with, a capital campaign, and transforms it into a way to raise organization building money, a completely new idea. I’d love to see more nonprofits using financial tools already available to them to accelerate their ability to create social impact.

Like it or not, money is an incredible tool. If nonprofit leaders could better understand it, stop fearing it, and learn how to wield it effectively, the results could be transformative.

Photo Credit: piermario

Tags: capital campaign, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Clara Miller, financing not fundraising, growth capital, Money and Mission blog, Nonprofit Finance Fund, SEGUE

Bringing Small Nonprofits to Scale

English at Work could be a poster child for social innovation in the nonprofit sector. An Echoing Green fellow, founder Maile Broccoli-Hickey is a social entrepreneur, but like most of them, she doesn’t even know it. Her tireless work to build an organization that can effectively and efficiently transform the English language skills of hotel and restaurant workers is a model to other nonprofits who have a great solution, but lack the capacity and strategy to grow it.

Maile started English at Work in 2004 when she was a waitress in an Austin, Texas restaurant. She realized that her co-workers needed customized English language instruction to ensure their and their employers’ success. Why not bring customized English classes to the workplace in a focused and systematic way? These courses, paid for largely by restaurant and hotel owners who see the value in having a more fluent workforce, get dramatic results. English at Work creates greater proficiency and fluency gains in a shorter amount than their closest ESL instruction rivals. The program works so well because it is a win-win. Students become more fluent and successful at work, paving the way for promotions and a way out of poverty. Employers get more productive, loyal and customer-service oriented employees.

But like most nonprofit organizations hit hard by the recession, a year ago English at Work was struggling to make ends meet. Although employers paid for the classes, those fees didn’t cover all organization costs. The additional necessary revenue came from individual donations and foundation grants, both hit hard by the recession. At the same time Maile knew that the program had the potential to transform the lives of so many more people. Despite financial troubles, she had big visions for growth.

With funding from a couple of key donors who understood the value of investing in infrastructure, capacity and planning, Maile enlisted Social Velocity to determine what was holding the organization back and to create a comprehensive revenue plan to get the organization on firm financial footing. Over the first two months of the engagement we interviewed board and staff members and reviewed all organization policies, by-laws, finances, collateral, plans and documents. We then created a detailed analysis of each area of the organization (strategy, program, finances, marketing, staffing, board, etc.) with recommendations in each area for how the organization could be more effective. Once completed, we worked closely with Maile over the next 3 months to create a detailed plan for increasing how money flowed to the organization from individuals, foundations, corporations and earned revenue. Finally, we trained English at Work staff and board on raising money.

Now that English at Work is on much firmer financial ground, they are ready to plan for growth, and so we are in the midst of creating a strategic plan for significant growth of the program. The hope is to take this great solution and bring it to scale.

English at Work is a great example of the many little-known nonprofit organizations that toil away under the radar. They may have a fabulous model for creating real change, but lack the infrastructure, capacity and strategy to grow their impact to scale. Although the Social Innovation Fund and other venture philanthropy funds that exist to bring solutions to scale are great, no ecosystem exists for the smaller nonprofits that may have equally important solutions. But there is a way. By combining a few key donors who understand the bigger picture, a smart strategy for growth and sustainability, and a determination to execute effectively, even the smallest nonprofits with a great solution and a vision for growth can get there.

Photo Credit: English at Work

Tags: Echoing Green, English at Work, Maile Broccoli-Hickey, nonprofit capacity building, nonprofit growth strategy, Social Innovation Fund, venture philanthropy funds

A Revolution in Nonprofit Finance: An Interview with Clara Miller

Last month we kicked off a new, monthly Social Velocity blog interview series where I interview leading thinkers and doers in the social innovation space. Our inaugural interview was with Kevin Jones co-founder of both Good Capital, one of the first venture capital funds that invests in social enterprises, and the Social Capital Markets Conference (SoCap) which marks its third year with the upcoming October event.

This month’s Social Velocity interview is with Clara Miller, President, CEO and founder of the Nonprofit Finance Fund, a national leader in nonprofit, philanthropic and social enterprise finance. Directly and with others, NFF has leveraged $1 billion of capital investment into nonprofits, and  provided over $200 million in direct loans. Clara Miller was named among The NonProfit Times “Power and Influence Top 50″ four years in a row and is a board member of GuideStar and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.

Nell: You and the Nonprofit Finance Fund have initiated this idea of equity capital for nonprofits, or money to “build” organizations rather than the tradition funding to “buy” services. Do you think the idea of equity capital for nonprofits is catching on?

Clara: First of all, I should say that many people have contributed to the idea of a nonprofit version of equity over the years.  My NFF colleague George Overholser has been a field leader.  He focuses almost exclusively on the version we call “growth” capital, which is used to rapidly build organizations, changing what they do through major investment undertaken around a single set of metrics, business plan, and ideally, with all funders acting in concert.

And yes, I do think the broader notion of “equity”—and for that matter, the importance of the balance sheet in its entirety—is catching on, especially among major foundations, capital campaign veterans and those familiar with these concepts in the for-profit world.  The broader concepts of “building” organizations and “buying” services, and how financial roles differ, are resonating strongly with both organizations and funders.  We have a foundation partner that has simply put the question, “is this a “buy” grant or a “build” grant?” on the program officers’ intake checklist.

Nell: How do traditional nonprofit capital campaigns, which are predominantly focused on raising money for new buildings, fit into all of this?

Clara: We think these “growth capital” and “equity” principles comprise an ideal way to think about (and operate) a successful capital campaign.  Our early work in the 1980s (when we were Nonprofit Facilities Fund, and exclusively financed  “community facilities” with loans) revealed that a rash of problems would almost invariably follow capital campaigns for facilities: cash crises, burnout, funder fatigue, “night of the living dead” program operations, the need to lease excess space at below-cost rent…you get the idea.  It was a real eye opener. We learned a lot about the need for truly unrestricted “growth capital,” in addition to funds focused (and often restricted) to build and fit out the facility.  Among the NFF-documented  lessons: that facilities projects typically need 3 to 4 times the bricks and mortar cost for working capital to cover program and administrative growth needs; that the building frequently changed the business model radically, but planning never covered the whole enterprise; and that putting large amounts of cash into an illiquid asset while expanding operations was problematic on a number of levels.  Also, many of these building projects came with opportunity costs: organizations weren’t investing in new technology, upgrading skill sets, or replenishing cash reserves.

Beyond facilities projects, capital campaigns frequently focus on other (typically illiquid) parts of the balance sheet: building an endowment, or on the acquisition of, for example, a program asset (such as a painting or piece of medical equipment). Thinking holistically about improving or acquiring illiquid assets, via a campaign for growth capital, can better the situation.

Nell: The for-profit sector currently enjoys a broader and deeper array of financial vehicles than does the nonprofit sector (seed funding, angel investors, growth capital, stacked deals, etc.) do you anticipate that the capital market for nonprofit organizations will become more robust and what will it take for that to happen?

Clara: I’ll push back a little and say that the vast majority of both nonprofits and for-profits (that are small, with less than $200K in revenue) have approximately the same level of access to similar financing vehicles: sweat equity, seed/angel funders/investors (friends and family, the first foundation grants, etc.), credit card debt, bank loans, retained earnings, etc.   Then there is “growth capital” or “capital grants,” which a very small proportion can access in either sector.  And while large for-profits are much, much larger than large nonprofits, large nonprofits have reliable access to some highly sophisticated funding and financing vehicles that for-profits don’t (and vice versa).  Some very large nonprofits have access to for-profit subsidiary ventures and investments—and some are highly sophisticated (universities investing in development of intellectual property and associated products, CDFIs with venture funds, public media with development and sales of program assets, and others).  And on the debt side, much of nonprofits’ “capital market” is for-profit-run (bank debt, investments, tax-exempt bonds, etc.)

The most important barrier to enterprise scale (for either sector) is not so much lack of access to capital as it is a scalable, focused business model with reliable net revenue.  Once you have those—or evidence that they are possible—capital will flow.

But that said, we’re talking about a couple of “market wide” dysfunctions.  The first is that despite highly resourceful managers, sophisticated board members and billions of dollars of revenue and capital funds, there is no tradition of “enterprise finance” in the sector.  “Pretty bad ‘best practices’” designed to make nonprofits more efficient and fiscally prudent cost the sector dearly.  Confusion about the direct funding of programs (it’s not possible, most of the time you need to fund an enterprise to deliver programs) means capital is mixed up with revenue, growth with regular operations, and “build” grants with “buy” grants (and a variety of hybrids!).  This wreaks financial havoc in growing organizations. Missions—along with the public—suffer.

The second problem is that there’s no really reliable signaling mechanism for organizations to fold their tents, pass their programs to another organization, and go out of business.  In the for-profit world, that would be financial failure; in our world, that’s not so straightforward: so we hang in there, meaning resources that might go to a stronger program remain tied up.  It also means that the biggest and richest players have (and, largely, keep) the vast lion’s share of resources (even more pronounced than in the for-profit world).

Finally, there is a problem with access to charitable revenue.  Promising, mid-sized organizations—especially those serving low-income people (and therefore lacking access to the traditional source of capital in the sector, individual donors) have a difficult time building the operation they need to grow.  Foundations are the logical path here, and having foundations embrace “enterprise friendly” practices—including growth capital and build-buy understanding—can go a long way toward changing that dynamic.  Establishing a field-wide understanding of basic enterprise finance principles will help insure that growth capital campaigns become true innovation with long-term staying power, rather than a short-term novelty.

Nell: Growth capital for nonprofits is mostly only available to larger nonprofits that have the capacity to prove the results of their model. Do you think growth capital will increasingly become available to the bottom 80% of nonprofits (those with a budget less than $1 million), and how and when do you see that happening?

Clara: Our goal is not that all organizations of every size and business model have access to growth capital and pursue aggressive growth goals ASAP.  That’s neither possible nor desirable in either the for-profit or the nonprofit worlds.   In both sectors, some business models may not be scalable, and that’s ok—in fact, it’s good.  Nobody wants their favorite neighborhood clam shack or Italian restaurant to go public or become a Pizza Hut.  Diversity is good; and most people like things about both large and small enterprises. This is true in any sector, where economies of scale and preservation of quality are frequently subject to the laws of diminishing returns.  Growth capital is not for everyone, and it is only one tool in the enterprise tool box.

The more important revolution is to make broadly accessible the tools and principles of enterprise finance—with a clear understanding of the realities of the commercial proposition of the sector (i.e., there’s a reason we have a nonprofit sector). There are well-managed and poorly managed (and capitalized) enterprises of all sizes and tax statuses, and there are scalable and non-scalable ones as well.  Most critical on the scaling front is that our sector embraces and deploys the broad set of principles that make enterprises of any size or shape effective in reliably achieving great results.  Trouble arises when a specific social benefit or innovation is so compelling that we all want the maximum number of people to benefit from it: Our failure to use the principles of growth capital and proper scaling techniques to assure results while growth proceeds is (and has been) tragic for the social sector, and a change in practice can help.

Nell: How do you think the Social Innovation Fund will change the capital landscape for nonprofits?

Clara: I think the SIF already has raised the profile of the ideas around growth capital and scaling discussed here.  And it certainly has the attention of a group of large foundations, a significant number of whom are applying as intermediaries.  I think it took courage for them to apply, and courage for the SIF to get developed. At the beginning there will be some fits and starts, and government procurement can be dicey (especially when it’s trying to be capital rather than revenue), and foundations are trying to make it work in this way for the first time.  That said, it’s very exciting for us to see “growth capital,” which is the core concept, being given a whirl by both the White House and the Foundation world.

Nell: Venture philanthropy funds (that provide growth capital to nonprofits) and social venture capital funds (that provide capital to double bottom-line businesses) currently don’t interact very much in the marketplace. Do you see an opportunity for greater integration of nonprofit and for profit social investing? And if so, what will it take to get there?

Clara: I think there is increasingly frequent interaction between for-profit and non-profit business models (and entrepreneurs) on the conceptual level, and that’s being translated into some compelling platform-agnostic enterprise structures to accomplish social ends in many sectors—health care, research, arts and culture, media, housing—are all examples.  And interactions may not be best between two enterprises that are both at the “venture” or “start up” stage.  A start-up nonprofit may want to partner with a fully-scaled for-profits (and this is common), while a fully-scaled nonprofit may want to create (or house) a venture for-profit to help reach certain social goals.

On the “deal” level, I think there’s a reason to maintain a bright line between the nonprofit and for-profit tax status.  I favor crisply defined hybrids (of which there are a variety) over mushiness (we’re a for-profit but we are good people doing socially beneficial work) because they are more likely to stand the test of time and skepticism, and since ownership and tax structures have bright-line legal and moral duties attached to them.

Tags: CDFIs, Clara Miller, equity capital for nonprofits, George Overholser, Good Capital, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, growth capital, GuideStar, Kevin Jones, nonprofit capital campaign, Nonprofit Finance Fund, NonProfit Times, Social Capital Markets conference, Social Innovation Fund, White House

The Road to a Better World is Jammed with Red Bikes

This past Memorial Day weekend I headed to Denver to have fun and explore the city. The trip was made infinitely better because of 500 red bikes. Denver is the first city in the country to have a bike sharing program, called B-cycle, and it is phenomenal. It results in a cleaner city and healthier citizens. I wrote a post about the whole experience and what it’s doing for Denver, and could do, for the whole country, at the Change.org blog. Here’s an excerpt:

There is something pretty amazing going on in Denver, and it might just change the world. B-cycle, a nonprofit that provides rental bikes around the city, has found a cheap, fun way to make Denver a cleaner city and its inhabitants and visitors healthier. I spent last weekend playing tourist in Denver and the experience was made so much better, and cleaner, because of the rows of red B-cycle rental bikes around the city. Denver is demonstrating that change really is possible, especially when it’s easy and fun.

Denver is the first U.S. city to do what European, Canadian, Chinese and Mexican cities have already done–share bikes. Here’s how it works. You buy a short or long-term “membership” via credit card online starting at $5. Then grab one of the 500 bikes waiting for you at the 50 kiosks around the city (found through a pretty cool iPhone app) and ride. When you’re done, return it to any of the kiosks, and your card will be charged for the amount of time you rode. The first 30 minutes are free, and it goes up in increments of around $1-2 for each 30 minutes after that…

You can read the whole post here.

Tags: B-cycle, Denver

Fixing the World Requires Disruptive, not Incremental, Change

The nonprofit sector has always been, at its core, about social disruption–some sort of disequilibrium exists in the market (poverty, unequal access to healthcare, segregation, homelessness, hunger) and a nonprofit organization is born to correct it. But somewhere along the way the big changes nonprofits sought to make in social norms, inadequate institutions, and unfair systems shrunk to small, incremental changes. Visions of disruption gave way to plans for the incremental. But we need to find our way back to disruption.

Incremental change is when a small portion of a problem is addressed.  It’s the idea that 10% of hungry children are fed, or 15% of at-risk youth go to college. Incremental change is small, endless steps toward solving a huge problem. At an incremental rate you begin to wonder if the problem will actually ever go away.

Disruptive change, on the other hand, is about reaching a tipping point where the solution, rather than the problem, becomes the norm.  It’s the vision of giving every kid a bright future. Or the goal of ending hunger.  Disruptive change is not just about the idea of scale, a key component of the social entrepreneurship movement where solutions are expanded to other cities or other people who could benefit. Disruption is in essence about reaching a point at which there is no going back. The old way yields to a new one.

A great example of disruptive change is the charter school movement. The American public education system is quite broken. But charter schools like Aspire, Green Dot, and KIPP have disrupted that broken system and are creating a new model of getting kids, who would otherwise drop out of the system, to college. None of these three charter school will ever reach all kids who need them, but rather these schools are demonstrating how to educate poor, at-risk kids. And the idea is that their model will be adopted as the norm by the American public education system. And given the Obama administration’s interest in these models, that could actually become a reality.

Or take homelessness, another seemingly intractable problem. The goal of  Common Ground, a nonprofit in New York City focusing on homelessness, is to “change the social and economic forces that undermine stability and health, and produce homelessness.” They want to completely end homelessness by changing the underlying systems that cause it. And it looks like they are doing just that in New York City. They have already reduced homelessness in Times Square by 87% and throughout the city by 47%.  Eradicating homelessness in the largest city in the country, that’s pretty disruptive.

But charter schools and Common Ground are the exceptions, rather than the rule in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofits are encouraged to think and act incrementally because they don’t often know where funding will come from year to year. It is difficult to make huge goals or attack big problems if the resources for execution are uncertain.  An undercapitalized, highly competitive market like the one in which nonprofits operate does not incent disruptive change.

But disruption, by its very nature, is uncertain and risky. More than anything else it involves a change in mindset. A commitment to disruption is a determination not to let fear and resource constraints hold you back from the disruption the market requires. The nonprofit sector needs to get back to its roots. Incremental change just doesn’t cut it anymore. Let’s get back to the disruption that defines the sector.

Photo Credit: tcpix

Tags: Aspire, Common Ground, Green Dot Public Schools, KIPP, Obama, Social Entrepreneurship

We Need an Ecosystem for The Bottom 80%

In response to my post last week on the Change.org blog about the Social Innovation Fund, Sean Stannard-Stockton, of the Tactical Philanthropy blog, wrote a comment that really got me thinking.

My post argued that the $50 million federal Social Innovation Fund is only one small piece of the capital the nonprofit sector needs. The fund will help the top nonprofit organizations, but will not remedy the lack of capital available to the smaller, less sophisticated nonprofits that make up the majority (80%) of the sector. Sean rightly pointed out that like the business sector, the vast majority of nonprofits are small, and as we have done with businesses, we need to create different expectations for different kinds of nonprofits.  I would take Sean’s comments even further and argue that we actually need to create a similar ecosystem of funding and expertise for the nonprofit sector, as we have done for businesses.

Sean writes:

One thing I think that people need to keep in mind when they point to how many nonprofits are small is that the same is true in business. While good revenue numbers are hard to find, did you know that 73% of for-profits have less than 10 employees and 54% have less than 4 employees? It seems to me that as a field we need to do a better job of segmenting the nonprofit market and having very different expectations for nonprofits which are “small businesses” vs those that are “public companies.”

Sean makes a critical point. The vast nonprofit sector is often lumped together as one. When in reality, the sector is incredibly diverse. And although over the past 10 years there have been some innovative strides made in providing capital, expertise, and other resources to the top 20% of the nonprofit sector (such as venture philanthropy funds like New Profit and Venture Philanthropy Partners and management expertise from consulting companies like Monitor and Bridgespan) the fact remains that the “bottom” 80% of the nonprofit sector is still very much alone.

This is one of the reasons I started Social Velocity. I saw a real hole in the marketplace in terms of capital and management expertise to the bottom 80% of the nonprofit market. A $500,000 nonprofit organization can’t engage a Monitor or Bridgespan group, and a venture philanthropy fund wouldn’t be interested in scaling them since no one will fund evaluation to prove their results.  These organizations are stuck within the vicious starvation cycle and cannot get out.

We need to do a better job, as Sean says, of segmenting the nonprofit sector and creating appropriate expectations for those different segments, but we need to go much further. We have to create an ecosystem of expertise and funding for the smaller, less sophisticated segments of the sector, which includes:

• Educating smaller, less sophisticated philanthropists that creating solutions requires funding for less sexy things like capacity, organization building, evaluation
• Providing significant capacity capital to build out revenue functions, attract and retain top talent, articulate a value add, message effectively
• Supplying growth capital to nonprofits who have a great solution and the desire to scale
• Creating realistic and cost-effective evaluation tools so that smaller organizations can prove their impact along with the big guys
• Securing management expertise to help smaller nonprofits create strategic and growth plans, articulate their impact and value add to potential investors, develop comprehensive financial strategies, etc.

I think it’s fabulous that there is a growing understanding that nonprofits can’t do it alone anymore. And I’m so pleased to see new funding vehicles like the Social Innovation Fund that are helping to take social innovation to the next level. But let’s not forget that there are many other innovative nonprofit organizations that will never catch the eye of the Social Innovation Fund, or their funding and consulting counterparts.

Over the past 200+ years America has established a fairly advanced ecosystem that supports (albeit not perfectly) the growth and success of entrepreneurs at every stage of the game.  We are starting to recognize the need for a similar ecosystem in the nonprofit sector.  But there is still much work to be done. Let’s not forget the smaller, less sophisticated nonprofits that may have tremendous solutions to contribute, but who just can’t get past the many hurdles in their way.

Tags: Bridgespan, growth capital, Monitor, New Profit, nonprofit, nonprofit starvation cycle, philanthropists, Sean Stannard-Stockton, Social Innovation Fund, Social Velocity, Tactical Philanthropy, Venture Philanthropy Partners

Can Slow Money Launch an Austin Social Capital Market?

As I have written before, despite being the 3rd largest venture capital city in the country, Austin is slow to climb on the emerging social capital market bandwagon. Tremendous wealth and entrepreneurial expertise exist here, but there isn’t a lot of energy around creating a continuum of capital for social entrepreneurs. Perhaps that is about to change.

Slow Money is a national movement aimed at increasing the availability of risk capital to sustainable food-related social entrepreneurs. Austin recently established an affiliate of the movement here, Slow Money Austin, and their kick-off event is next month. Scott Collier, who has written on this blog before about mission-related investing and has been active in Austin’s venture capital community for years, is helping to lead this effort. I interviewed him about Slow Money Austin and what they hope to accomplish. Even if you don’t live in Austin, I think it is interesting to watch how one of America’s top 50 cities is responding to the increasing demand for a capital market for social entrepreneurs.

Nell: What is Slow Money Austin?

Scott: Slow Money Austin is a Central Texas affiliate of the national Slow Money Alliance focused on increasing the availability of risk capital to support the growth of sustainable food enterprises.

Nell: Why do you think Slow Money is a fit for Austin at this particular point in time?

Scott: Austin is one of several locations around the country where there is significant and growing interest in local food sources, organic farming that is better for people and planet, and sustainable food businesses that can provide much needed jobs and natural food alternatives. Slow Money is important to these businesses as they cannot grow to serve the increasing demand unless they have access to capital, especially patient risk capital that invests in partnership with food system entrepreneurs.

Nell: As part of a national movement, how will Slow Money Austin differ from other Slow Money organizations around the country?

Scott: Oh, I imagine we will find ways to make our Slow Money activities weirder than others. But seriously, Austin has such a national reputation for a healthy, entrepreneurial and well-educated population that I think it is obvious we should be national leaders in this process. Maybe it is because we are home to Whole Foods, the best entrepreneurial success story in the health food industry, or maybe it is because Austinites value community, health and a connection to nature like few other places in the country, but whatever the reason, this could be the start of a major new investment and entrepreneurship sector for Austin.

Nell: Your kick-off is in April, what do you hope to get out of this event?

Scott: The main objective is to get the Austin investment and entrepreneurial communities talking about the local and sustainable food sector in a serious way. The food industry, at over $600 billion, is a big part of the U.S. economy and it has a huge impact on hot-button issues like healthcare costs, carbon footprint and environmental health. With Slow Money, we want to awaken entrepreneurs and their funding sources to the great opportunity we have to use the power of free enterprise to tackle these major issues of our time.

Nell: What happens after the event? Where does Slow Money Austin go from there?

Scott: Great question. We are hoping to awaken some regional leaders to the opportunity with this event and after the event we would like to see ongoing events and investment activities proliferate that continue to build sustainable food enterprises. I like to draw a parallel to the efforts 20 years ago to bring attention to the opportunities for Austin entrepreneurs and investors to build technology businesses. As Texas struggled to come out of a dismal recession, thought leaders in this region launched the Austin Technology Incubator, The Capital Network, the Austin Technology Council and held events and venture conferences, all of which allowed Austin to claim a solid portion of the growth in the then-emerging tech sector. Cities all over the U.S. are still coming to Austin asking how we managed to pull that off. Well, hopefully this event will trigger some similar thinking as regional leaders see opportunity to create sustainable economic welfare in a large and growing sector: the sustainable foods market where margins and growth rates are high, but market penetration, at only about 3 percent, leaves tremendous room for further growth.

Nell: I’m fascinated by the funding piece of this. Is one of your goals to create a fund for sustainable food-related entrepreneurs in Austin? And if so, how does that fund work, how big is it, how are investments made, what do the investments look like?

Scott: I would again point to the example of 20 years ago and say it is not about creating a single fund to answer the opportunity. Instead, it is about creating a continuum of angel and fund investors and a support network of legal and other services that can support ventures ranging from dozens of small farms that want to bootstrap healthy lifestyle businesses all the way to scalable production, processing or distribution companies that can produce strong returns and substantial social benefits. What the funding for these business should look like varies from simple equity or unsecured debt investments of tens of thousands of dollars to larger amounts coming from investment firms managing tens of millions. Considering the scale of the opportunity across the country, it is not hard to see dozens of funds emerge managing amount of $10 million to hundreds of millions. This is pretty much what has happened in the Cleantech sector, which 10 years ago was hardly a sector at all and now accounts for about a fourth of the $20 billion in venture capital that is invested in a year’s time. Of course I think there is room in Austin for a couple of funds especially focused on Texas, and I would hope that some of the existing venture and private equity firms would allocate some attention to the sector.

Nell: How do you think such a fund or funds will fit into Austin’s current “emerging” social capital market?

Scott: That raises a very important distinction that will be made in Slow Money activities. The book that Woody Tasch wrote, called Inquiries into the Nature of Slow Money, addresses this in a more comprehensive way, but in a nutshell, Slow Money investors will mostly be investors that are seeking a financial return as well as a social impact. This raises the potential for the sustainable food sector to be a major target for philanthropists and private foundations as they launch Program Related or Mission Related Investment practices deploying funds to generate not only a financial return but also a positive impact to human health, environmental and animal well-being, and employment opportunities. A dramatic example of such fresh investment thinking is the Gates Foundation’s recent move to deploy $400 million into such impact investments. While this represents just 1% of Gates Foundation corpus, imagine the impact that could result if the other $500 billion or so of foundation capital in America invested with similar expectations. We would see the deployment of $5 billion of investment capital seeking positive social impact and a financial return of capital, thus creating a sustainable, perpetual virtuous cycle.

Nell: Besides you, who is behind bringing Slow Money to Austin?

Scott: We have great underwriting sponsors in Whole Foods Market, a global leader in the healthy and sustainable food sector, and Barr Mansion, one of the country’s first USDA Certified Organic events facilities, where we will be holding an investor-focused local food dinner April 22nd. And of course we have great partners in the Sustainable Food Center and the City of Austin, who will host the Showcase event on the 21st in our own LEED Gold-certified City Hall. We have great support from Austin Ventures, The RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service, Greenling, Dai Due Austin, and too many others to name here. And of course we will have Woody Tasch representing the national Slow Money Alliance in attendance to kick things off. It should be an interesting discussion, and an amazing dinner! Sign up at www.slowmoneyaustin.org.

Tags: Austin, Austin Technology Council, Austin Technology Incubator, Austin Ventures, Dai Due Austin, Gates Foundation, Greenling, RGK Center for Philanthropy, Slow Money, social capital market, Texas, The Capital Network, Whole Foods, Woody Tasch

Texas Social Innovation Initiative Virtual Press Conference

I mentioned in an earlier post that Social Velocity will be one of the consultant teams working on OneStar Foundation’s Texas Social Innovation Initiative (TSI).  The TSI is a partnership between OneStar, Root Cause, and Dallas Social Venture Partners, which gives each of seven innovative Dallas/Fort Worth nonprofit organizations, who competed among 60 nonprofits, more than $25,000 in cash and strategy assistance to support their growth and impact.

The seven nonprofit winners will be announced this Wednesday at the Governor’s Nonprofit Leadership Conference in Dallas.  As part of that announcement there will be a virtual press conference at 10:30 a.m. CST featuring a discussion by leaders in the nonprofit sector about how to stimulate social innovation in Texas. Participants are Elizabeth Darling, president/CEO of OneStar Foundation; Stacy Caldwell, executive director of Dallas Social Venture Partners; and Andrew Wolk, CEO of Root Cause. To participate in the conversation you can watch the stream on the Social Velocity blog below, and you can also follow the conversation on Twitter via the hashtag #TXSI.

UPDATE: The virtual press conference happened on Wednesday, December 9th, but you can still watch the taped virtual press conference here.

Tags: Andrew Wolk, Dallas Social Venture Partners, Elizabeth Darling, OneStar Foundation, root cause, Stacy Caldwell, Texas Social Innovation Initiative