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 Social Side of Entrepreneurship

In less than a month, Austin’s premier entrepreneurship conference, RISE, will be in full swing. March 1st through 5th brings a SXSW-style conference that is quickly becoming the place to be for anyone thinking about launching or growing an enterprise. This year, RISE has added an official social entrepreneurship track to the conference, which seems to be a sign of the times. Social entrepreneurship is starting to take its rightful place next to “regular” entrepreneurship. Perhaps in the future there won’t even be a distinction.

But until then, I’m delighted to announce the lineup of this year’s Social Entrepreneurship track at RISE. Social Velocity is hosting the track, and it is sponsored by the Silverton Foundation.  Jessica Shortall, Director of Giving at TOMS Shoes, and I have put together what we think is going to be a pretty great group of sessions exploring all aspects of social entrepreneurship. In addition, Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS Shoes, will be one the keynote speakers of RISE on Tuesday, March 2nd.

The Social Entrepreneurship track will run on Tuesday and Wednesday of RISE week, March 2nd and 3rd. Here is the lineup of sessions:

• Social Investing, Social Entrepreneurship and Social Profit
• Overview of Social Innovation
• Austin’s Emerging Social Capital Market
• Social Enterprise Case Studies
• Seeking Capital for Social Enterprise
• Design Thinking and Social Entrepreneurship
• Economic Development: Microfinance to CDFIs
• Social Media and Social Impact
• Balancing Social Mission and Business Pressures

You can find out more about the entire Social Entrepreneurship track at the RISE website and sign up for those you want to attend. Sessions are already filling up. I hope to see you there!

Tags: Blake Mycoskie, RISE, Silverton Foundation, Social Entrepreneurship, Social Velocity, TOMS Shoes

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

Capital for Social Entrepreneurs

I have written before about the importance of creating a social capital market in order to truly make social innovation possible.  A social capital market provides the same depth and breadth of financial vehicles to social entrepreneurs (both nonprofit and for profit) that traditional businesses enjoy.  This means that financial vehicles such as debt, growth capital, seed funding, equity deals and so on would be in ready supply to those organization’s whose business model includes a social impact component.  The upcoming Social Capital Markets Conference (the second annual this September in San Francisco) is a step in the right direction by bringing philanthropists, social investors, social entrepreneurs and others together to talk about how we bring such a market to fruition.

But there are many other examples of entities that are already out there experimenting with new financial vehicles.  Investor’s Circle is one of these.  Investors’ Circle is a network of over 200 angel investors, professional venture capitalists, foundations, family offices and others who are using private capital to promote the transition to a sustainable economy. It is the largest and oldest network of early-stage investors dedicated to funding mission-driven companies. Since 1992, Investors’ Circle has facilitated the flow of over $130 million into 200 for-profit companies and small funds addressing social and environmental issues. Investors’ Circle members have been behind Zip Car, TerraCycle, United Villages, and Verdant Power among others.

Investor’s Circle is an exciting example of what a social capital market begins to look like.  The capital investments that these investors make are different than traditional angel or VC investments.  For these investors, the social impact is critical, so they are willing to be patient about the financial return in order to make sure that it comes with social return.  As one of their investees, Jere Kolstad, CEO and President of Montana Renewables, has said:

IC Members are…investors who share our vision for more sustainable industry, and who express their commitment with patient, long-term investments.  It’s about more than money for this group—they want you to succeed financially, but not at the cost of forfeiting your social and environmental values.

Investors’ Circle is currently doing a Call for Applicants for its Fall Conference and Venture Fair to be held November 15th – 17th, 2009 in Washington, DC.  If you are an early or expansion-stage companies whose business addresses significant social or environmental issues and are in need of capital submit an application by July 31st. Companies that are selected to present to the investors receive:

• Pre-event coaching on your presentation from IC investors
• The opportunity to present to 150 angel and institutional investors interested in socially-responsible deals
• Extensive formal networking opportunities with investors

It’s a pretty great opportunity.  And a great model for bringing more capital into the social innovation space.  I’d love to see more groups like them, especially in the Southwest.

Tags: Investors Circle, Montana Renewables, Social Capital Markets conference, social entrepreneurs, TerraCycle, United Villages, Verdant Power, Zip Car

Determining Best Use of Resources for Sustainable Social Impact

There is a very useful and widely used matrix in the business world called the “BCG Matrix” that helps a company analyze their product lines to determine which to further invest in, which to liquidate, which to expand, etc.  This is where the term “cash cow,” a product whose positive cash flows pay for the other products of a company, comes from.  Each product line is placed in the matrix, which measures the relative position of the product line in the market (low to high market share) against the rate of growth of the business (low to high).  Depending on where the product line falls along those two matrices, you can determine what strategy to take with the product (invest further, liquidate, etc.).

Back in the early 1980s Robert Gruber and Mary Mohr (“Strategic Management for Multiprogram Nonprofit Organizations”) adapted this matrix for nonprofits to enable them to plot their programs according to social and financial returns.  This allowed a nonprofit organization to take a hard look at their programs to determine a strategy for each.

I would argue that the tool could be used by social entrepreneurs (both for profit and nonprofit) to analyze their programs/activities/products/services to see which are worth investing and growing, which are worth sustaining, which should be divested from, etc.  The matrix looks like this:

A social entrepreneur could plot their activities in the matrix according to each activity’s social impact (low to high) and financial return (low to high).  So, let’s take a fictitious K-12 education nonprofit that has four main activities:

1. An after-school program during the school year for low-income kids
2. A summer camp for a broad cross section of kids on a sliding scale fee
3. A book store for the general public
4. A backpack program where donations from local stores are gathered, assembled and given to children in the program.

The after-school program for at-risk kids has a high social impact (their results are great) but it is very expensive to the organization.  This would be a “Worthwhile” program in the matrix.  The summer school is “Beneficial” because they make some money off of it, and it has social impact.  The book store would be a “Sustaining” program because it provides them a high financial return, but little social impact.  Finally, the backpack program, which provides each child a couple of notebooks and some pens and pencils, has little social impact and no financial return, is a “Detrimental” program.

Once each program is plotted on the matrix, the organization can make some difficult decisions.  The strategy, according to the matrix, would be to “carefully nurture” the after-school program, “cautiously expand” the summer school program, “sustain” the book store, and “cut” the backpack program.

However, there are always shades of gray, and any good tool needs to allow for that. Perhaps the summer school program provides some social impact, but not enough because it is a 50-50 mix of at-risk and low-risk kids.  So an expansion of that model might detract from the overall social impact of the organization.  The organization might want to grow the social impact side of the program (enroll more at-risk kids) while growing the book store revenues or increasing the price for low-risk kids to subsidize that growth.  The point is that by analyzing each program/activity/product/service of a social enterprise the organization can make strategic decisions about growth, maintenance, pruning and ultimately where best to funnel limited resources in order to create sustainable social impact.

Tags: BCG Matrix, Mary Mohr, Nonprofits, Robert Gruber, social entrepreneurs

Too Many Nonprofits…Or A Weak Ecosystem?

Greenlights for Nonprofit Success, Austin’s nonprofit management assistance organization, today released the findings of a research study on the number of nonprofits in Central Texas.  The results weren’t surprising: we have more nonprofits (over 6,300) per capita than any other large Texas city and any other city in the Southwest region. And our nonprofits tend to be small: 93% (compared to 89% nationally) have a budget under $1 million, and 89% have a budget under $500,000.  In light of this study, Greenlights offers some good advice about looking towards cooperation, collaboration, and even  mergers given the number of nonprofits that exist and the increasing competition for funding, especially given the current economy.

What is missing from the study, however, is an analysis of the overall social sector in Austin, including philanthropy and other funding mechanisms, other social impact organizations–like social enterprises (creating social impact through market-based activity)– and the role of the public sector in all of this.  We need to take a bigger picture view and understand all of the elements and entities at play in the sector and how these elements could be better supported, analyzed, strengthened and winnowed, if necessary.  We need to take a look, as I explained in an earlier post, at the overall ecosystem for social innovation (ideas that solve existing public challenges). And we need to look at similar cities (like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Denver, Pittsburgh) to understand how their social sector is innovating and thriving and what we could learn from them.  The ecosystem for a thriving social innovation sector includes:

• An Engaged Public Sector: A city and/or state-level office for social innovation, similar to the White House Office of Social Innovation that puts public sector focus and resources toward strengthening an innovative social sector.  One-Star Foundation is moving in this direction.
• Larger, Innovative Philanthropy: An increased number of area philanthropists, giving more grants for capacity-building, providing growth capital to scale great ideas, giving seed funding for ideas that have potential, using mission-related investing and program-related investments, working as a group to discuss innovations in philanthropy and share and leverage projects.
• Social Investment: Adding a social element to the entrepreneurial investing that is already rich in our area, investors could create innovative funds that provide nonprofits and social enterprises financial tools such as loan guarantees, quasi-equity deals, and networks, advice, and entrepreneurial knowledge.
• Colleges and Universities Encouraging Research: Our local colleges and universities could launch centers for research on social entrepreneurship and social innovation. The RGK Center is a good start, but I’d love to see more.
• Discussions and Experiments: More events, gatherings, workshops, think tanks and other activities that help social entrepreneurship and innovation take hold in our region.

I think to truly understand where the Austin social sector is and how the number and capacity of nonprofits fit into that, we need to understand the entire ecosystem.  If we want to boast a thriving, innovative social sector we need to take a step back, analyze what we have and what we can do to encourage even more innovation.  The end result is a stronger, healthier city that ties its spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation to its desire to give back and strengthen the communities in which we live.  That is the Austin I envision.

Tags: Austin, Greenlights, nonprofit, One-Star Foundation, Philanthropy, RGK Center, Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, Social Investing, White House Office of Social Innovation

A False Dichotomy: Non-profit vs. For-profit Solutions

In a recent blog post, Tony Wang, a brilliant researcher at Lucy Bernholz’s  Blueprint Research & Design, a strategy consulting firm for philanthropy in the Bay Area, makes a thought-provoking, yet ultimately flawed argument about the social impact of nonprofits (which he calls charities) versus social businesses. Tony and I have sparred before on PRIs and mission-related investing, and I had to take up the cause again with his argument that poses a false dichotomy.

Tony’s underlying argument is that a for-profit business model is better able to deliver social impact per dollar than a nonprofit one.  He gives many reasons for this:

1. Dollars for charity are limited. True the nonprofit sector is undercapitalized, but that is changing, and will continue to change as the public, private and nonprofit sectors continue to converge and the social capital market, for both for-profit and nonprofit social impact organizations, grows.  The mere fact that nonprofits are undercapitalized is not a reason to dismiss nonprofit solutions out of hand.
2. Charity is often inefficient “ because of its lack of accountability to the people who are the primary beneficiaries of aid.”  This has been true in the past, but I think it is changing.  An increasing focus on metrics, brought on by the venture philanthropy movement and others, has encouraged nonprofits to track and demonstrate outcomes.  These aren’t perfect by any means and there is much work still to be done, but why not work to encourage better accountability rather than simply say nonprofits are inefficient?
3. Charity is often harmful and insulting to its recipients.  I agree that Western solutions to third world problems can sometimes be full of hubris, but this is no less true in social businesses than it is in nonprofits.  Read my post on the “missionary” nature of some social business solutions.
4. Business has a much easier time scaling: “it will be difficult for domestic nonprofits to scale when the federal government is the only viable answer and that international nonprofits will still struggle mightily with the issue.”  Government isn’t the only viable answer.  Some great organizations have been able to scale without government assistance (Teach for America, KIPP, Citizen Schools). And the beauty of nonprofit organizations is that scale doesn’t have to mean just the expansion of a single organization.  Rather, scale can mean the dissemination of a solution that works.  Because nonprofits worry less about competition, they are more likely to want to share best practices, models that work, and allow local adaptations of a solution from another area.

Because of all of this, Tony believes that “a lot of young social entrepreneurs…are starting to realize that business solutions and not charity solutions can be more ideal when it comes to maximizing impact (and philanthropy’s impact would be multiplied if it leveraged its capital to fund social impact businesses with true potential).”

I’m sorry, Tony, but I really disagree with this.  Why does it have to be either, or?  Why is one model inherently better able to create value than another? Rather, I would say that it depends on the problem and what the best solution is.  Yes, there are problems and inefficiencies within the nonprofit sector, but there are also some pretty major problems, and inefficiencies in the for-profit sector (dot-com bust, financial crisis, anyone?).

Rather, we need to take a holistic approach to social impact.  There need to be multiple tools available to social entrepreneurs, whether they be for-profit or nonprofit  (different business models, various financing, etc).  And let’s remember that there are some inherent problems with for-profit social impact models as well.  When a solution requires the appearance of impartiality, a nonprofit model might be more effective.

I think the whole point of the convergence and “resetting,” to quote Lucy Bernholz, that is going on is that the old dichotomies and definitions don’t work anymore.  We have to break out of the notion that the way we used to categorize things doesn’t apply anymore.  Structures are changing, new models are emerging.  We need to be flexible and analyze the best solution to each problem that faces us.  “One or the other” thinking just won’t cut it anymore.

Tags: Blueprint Research and Design, charity, Citizen Schools, KIPP, Lucy Bernholz, nonprofit, social business, Teach for America, Venture Philanthropy

A Call for Mission Related Investing

In order to maintain their legal status, foundations are required to distribute 5% of their earnings each year to nonprofit organizations.  This 5% is determined by a 2-5 year rolling average of earnings.  In years like these when earnings are very low foundations have less to distribute, which makes ideas like mission-related investing more appealing.  Mission-related investing is when  a foundation uses part of it’s corpus (the 95%) to invest in social enterprises that are related to the foundation’s mission.  For example, a foundation interested in the environment could invest part of their 95% in wind farms, thereby receiving a social return in addition to a financial return and extending the reach of their mission despite an economic downturn.

Scott Collier, Managing Director of Triton Ventures, has thought a lot about mission-related investing, and I’ve asked him to do a guest blog on the topic.  Scott has been a venture capital investor since 1991. He has experience in all aspects of venture capital fund formation and management and the associated growth, financing and exit strategies for a diverse range of companies.  Scott serves on the board of the Entrepreneurs Foundation of Central Texas and is an active participant in microfinance and social enterprise initiatives, primarily focused on financing for social business. Here is his post:

From the largest foundation to the smallest donor-advised fund, the philanthropic world tends to manage assets in a way designed to preserve fund corpus while generating enough growth and/or income to achieve the 5% grant level necessary to maintain tax-free status. However, what has evolved from this mindset is a bifurcated structure where grant programs are expected to be the sole means of performing the mission while the asset management function focuses on optimizing returns.  In fact, people speak of a firewall between these two activities.  Unfortunately, this leaves much of the talent (and operating expense) dedicated to investment work that does nothing to further the organization’s mission.

More problematic, asset managers can and do end up making investments that generate a good rate of return but support companies that happen to work at cross purposes to the mission.  This sort of problem was brought to light a couple of years ago when the LA Times questioned why the Gates Foundation would invest hundreds of millions of dollars in companies generating toxic pollution blamed for sickening people living in communities receiving tens of millions in Gates-funded medical aid. Setting aside the moral implications of this situation, it’s irrational to allow the two parts of any organization to work at such obvious cross purposes.

What seems to make sense is a holistic view of foundation management that considers all investing to be mission related investing with the result that all cash outflows balance risk, return and mission impact. This approach implies five categories of investment along the continuum of philanthropy:

1. Program Grants: Currently maintained at a nominal 5% of total assets, these investments are absolutely certain to produce a negative 100% financial return.  So perhaps it would make sense to take this allocation to a lower percentage to make room for other investments that carry better returns (you can’t do any worse after all) and a different type of impact.  Perhaps even a more lasting and healthy impact.
2. Program Related Investments: Nell had an excellent post on this topic.  Deployed as loans at below-market yields, the risk-adjusted returns over time might be zero or negative but still better than the negative 100% generated by Program Grants.  Structured correctly, a PRI is counted by the IRS in the required 5% and if it were taken to a level of just 10 or 20 percent of the Program Grant spend it could transform the relationship that foundations have with their investees.  After all, in the right situation, a loan to support a move to self-sufficiency can be healthier for the recipient than a handout that creates a cycle of dependency.
3. Mission Related Investments: This category comprises mission-directed investments that fall outside the limits of what can be considered part of a foundation’s 5% qualifying distributions.  In aggregate these MRIs would target, on a risk-adjusted basis, just a return of capital or perhaps a small return beyond that, but still a below market return in exchange for driving a substantial mission impact.  Investments in this category could provide a tremendous boost to the nascent social business space.
4. Mission Aligned Investments: After evaluating for ROI potential, investments would get priority in this segment given the degree to which they enhance the mission.  A good corporate citizen in a country where the foundation does work might be enough to tip the balance in favor of investment.  Over time this could become a significant percentage of the income-producing portfolio and given the magnitude of dollars involved it could encourage corporate behavior to move in positive directions.
5. Mission Neutral Investments: The lowest social standard of the five, investments in this category would be held after ensuring that a reasonably sound “doing no harm” standard is upheld.  Verification of the standard would of course be subjective and based on limited insight into the business, but perhaps even such a sniff test is better than no test at all.

So consider a typical foundation that during the course of a year has 95% of its assets spread among the usual allocation of bonds, equities, and a smattering of alternative assets, leaving 5% to be distributed as grants.  If this allocation produced a 9% blended return on the investment portfolio, then net of Program Grants the overall annual rate of return would be 3.55%.

Now consider what happens if this foundation makes 2 small changes:

1. Program Grants are reduced to 4% with 1% going to PRIs that generate a negative 10% annual rate of return, and
2. 2% of the 95% portfolio goes into MRIs that only return capital.  The remaining 93% remains allocated in the same proportions as the 95% was before with the same 9% rate of return.  These changes produce a 4.27% rate of return: an overall improvement of about 70 basis points.

Starting with a $10 million foundation and compounding this difference over 10 years, this new allocation would mean the foundation would end up about $1 million larger than if it had stuck with the traditional 95/5 split.  More importantly, such a foundation would have been deploying 7% of its assets in mission-focused work instead of 5%, a $3 million aggregate difference over 10 years.  About 40% of that money would have been in the form of loans which, properly chosen and structured, enable local ownership and sustainable employment capable of going beyond where charity too often ends.  Replicated gradually across the trillions of dollars locked up in philanthropic corpus, such a rethinking of foundation asset management and mission investing could produce dramatic results.

Tags: financial return, foundation, Gates Foundation, Mission-Related Investing, PRIs, social return, Triton Ventures

Understanding Social Innovation

If you are interested in learning more about the social innovation movement and will be in Austin on May 14th, join me for a seminar, “New Models: Social Innovation.” This 90-minute session will discuss what social innovation is, what the terms social entrepreneurship, growth capital, venture philanthropy, mission-related investing, and social enterprise mean, and what some really innovative organizations are doing in this space.  If you run a nonprofit, serve on a board, run a social business or are thinking of launching one, donate to social impact organizations, or are interested in solutions to social problems, there is great significance for you in the social innovation movement. And because Austin  has a lead role to play in the movement, I’ll examine how Austin compares to the rest of the country.  You can read some of my past posts on Austin’s social innovation ecosystem, where Austin is going and what it needs to be a leader in this space here, here and here.

If you’ve been intrigued by social innovation and want to learn more, join us:

Lunch and Learn: New Models  – The Social Innovation Movement

May 14, 2009
11:30am-1:00pm
At Greenlights

Click Here to Register

Tags: Austin, nonprofit, social business, Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, Venture Philanthropy