The Problem with Social Entrepreneurship: Guest Post

Below is a guest post from Mat Despard, a teacher of nonprofit management and leadership at the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and coordinator of UNC’s Nonprofit Leadership Certificate program. Matt has a real interest in economic empowerment interventions to improve social, economic, and health outcomes among very poor women with children and writes a blog on nonprofit issues. Mat is a reader of the Social Velocity blog, and after a thought-provoking email exchange about social entrepreneurship, I asked him to put his thoughts into a guest blog post for Social Velocity. Here is his post.

OK, so first of all, let me be clear: the idea of innovation to tackle tough social problems like the lack of clean water in developing countries is a great thing. Yet I have some misgivings about the social entrepreneurial banner, from a nonprofit perspective:

1. Elevating the individual. Not all of us can be a Geoffrey Canada or Paul Farmer. And besides, as Dr. Farmer is nice to acknowledge, behind every social entrepreneur is a team doing some serious heavy lifting to implement the entrepreneur’s vision. Mr. Canada talks about the importance of community change in Harlem. Why not focus on entrepreneurial organizations or communities? After all, to solve tough social problems, we need collective action that can be sustained by communities (and supported by governments) over the long haul.

 

2. Poor economies of scale. Too often aspiring (and usually young) social entrepreneurs assume they need to start their own organization vs. partner with an existing one. This results in the need to raise unrestricted revenue to build infrastructure – bookkeeping/accounting, program evaluation, information systems, etc. albeit with poor economies of scale. Energy and resources get diverted from problem solving to organization building.

 

3. Ignoring current efforts. There is no shortage of nonprofits doing very innovative things that nonetheless fail to be recognized, perhaps because they lack a charismatic leader and/or partners who champion and market the innovations. I hear about and interact with organizations in developing countries with very innovative ideas that routinely go unheard.

 

4. Lack of evidence. Many social entrepreneurial ideas are largely untested. It’s great that these ideas represent new approaches to tackling social problems, but promotion of these ideas tends to be far out in advance of sufficient evidence that they merit promotion as “the next big thing”.

 

5. The commercial assumption. A strong bias exists in favor of commercial approaches to addressing social problems. It’s great to exploit market opportunities to make innovations more financially sustainable and/or create new economic opportunities for the poor, but often public or private subsidies are needed to catalyze change.

 

6. Lack of an ethical framework. It’s hard to imagine any social entrepreneur who would say that social and economic justice and human rights are unimportant. However, in addition to elevating the individual, the attention given to social entrepreneurship celebrates the ideas (i.e. the means) and not the commitments (i.e. the ends). As such, the focus is on entrepreneurship as a desired activity or way of being, not as a tool (among other tools such as political advocacy and grassroots organizing) to be used to advance human rights.

I think the enthusiasm around social entrepreneurship is great, especially if it means that more people are engaged in creating new ways of solving social problems. Let’s just be honest and humble about what we’re doing and recognize that social entrepreneurship is nothing more than an expression of the human impulse to seek greater peace and justice in the world.

Tags: Social Entrepreneurship, solving social problems, University of North Carolina School of Social Work

What Social Entrepreneurs Can Teach The Nonprofit Sector

I’ve written before that with the excitement around the social entrepreneurship movement there is a danger that we are abandoning the nonprofit sector. Indeed, there is sometimes a tendency to dismiss the sector that was working on social change long before it was “cool”. Often the older nonprofit sector is left behind, partly because the sector tends to be risk- and change-averse. Again and again, I’ve heard that innovation will never become part of the nonprofit system — that nonprofits are too set in their ways. Or that the sector is too broken to emerge anew.

That attitude, though, is unacceptable. The nonprofit sector is an enormous part of our economy and has a long history of working towards social change. If we were to cast it aside completely, we’d lose the tremendous resources (money, people, mind-share) that are being invested in that sector every day. The nonprofit sector has tremendous potential for innovation. Indeed, without innovation in the nonprofit sector, the broader movement to solve social problems is doomed.

So instead of tossing it aside, let’s remake it, re-envision, restructure and reinvent it.

To that end, Social Velocity is hosting a webinar on July 12th, titled “What Nonprofits Can Learn From Social Entrepreneurs,” which will help nonprofit leaders understand the new models, funding approaches, messaging, systems that social entrepreneurs are employing to create social change. If nonprofit leaders can understand this new movement and integrate some of the ideas into their work, they can achieve more social change.

This webinar will help nonprofit leaders understand the social entrepreneurship movement and the innovative people, organizations and funding vehicles that are solving social problems in new, exciting ways. It will help nonprofit leaders understand what they can do to keep up, and how to make their own organizations more innovative, attract new kinds of funding, and achieve their social change goals more effectively.

The webinar will include:

• Case studies of nonprofit and for-profit social entrepreneurs
• Examples of philanthropists and social investors who are funding social change in new ways
• How social entrepreneurs are becoming more effective at making a case for support
• What the social capital market is and how it’s evolving
• What new foundation funding vehicles like “mission-related” and “program-related” invesments are
• What “venture philanthropy,” “philanthropic equity,” and “growth capital” are and how to organizations are using them to grow their organizations
• New models nonprofit growth
• New legal structures for social change organizations
• Inspiration for taking your organization to the next level

What Nonprofits Can Learn From Social Entrepreneurs
A Social Velocity Webinar
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
12 noon – 1:00 pm (EST)
Registration Fee: $40

Register Now

I hope to see you there!

Photo Credit: katrinalopez

Tags: abandoning the nonprofit sector, innovation in nonprofit sector, nonprofit growth capital, nonprofit learning from social entrepreneurs, philanthropic equity, social capital market, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, Social Investing, Social Velocity webinar, Venture Philanthropy

Where to Learn More About Social Innovation

Social innovation is still very much a nascent field, but that’s what makes it so exciting. I’ve recently put together a list of organizations, conferences, books, blogs, articles and other resources for people interested in learning more about the world of social innovation. This list exists on the Resources page of our website.

This is really only a beginning list, and I’d love your help in adding to it. If you see something missing, either an item or a whole category, please let me know in the comments to this post, in the contact form on the Resources page itself, through Twitter or Facebook.

Photo Credit: lisaclarke

Tags: Fundraising, learning more about social entrepreneurship, nonprofit scale, resources for social innovation, Social Entrepreneurship, Social Velocity Resources

What Social Entrepreneurs Can Learn From an Old Nonprofit

I talk a lot about what nonprofits can learn from social entrepreneurs–how to be more innovative, think bigger, create sustainable business models, etc. But I also think that in the movement for social innovation we can’t dismiss or deny the nonprofit sector, which offers tremendous history, resources and even innovations.

Indeed, there is one example in particular of a very old nonprofit organization that actually exemplifies the qualities of a true social entrepreneur. And that is Goodwill Industries.

Goodwill provides jobs and job training to the hardest to employ. Although Goodwill was launched 109 years ago, long before anyone even uttered the words “social entrepreneur,” the organization illustrates four key traits of a true social entrepreneur:

1. Solutions-Focused. Goodwill trains and creates job for society’s most difficult to employ. It addresses their impediments to jobs and provides them the skills and actual jobs to get them back on track.




2. Broader System Change. But Goodwill is not just about jobs and job training. It is also about recycling, economic development, community integration. Instead of throwing away old clothes, books, computers, or furniture, we can take them to Goodwill, get a tax write off and feel good about 1) not filling up landfills and 2) contributing to putting people to work. But we can also shop there to stretch our own recession-tightened family budgets. We can enjoy much less environmental waste in our communities (Goodwill’s ComputerWorks facility in Austin sends nothing to the landfill). We also can meet, shop and mingle with a cross section of our community in a way that we never would be able to at the local department store.




3. Financially Sustainable. A big part of Goodwill’s brilliance is the fact that over 65% of the organization’s revenue comes from earned income from their retail stores. Goodwill has done a great job of developing and continually improving their stores, so that they have become not just a place for job training, but a destination for shoppers. Goodwill has found a way to encourage the communities in which they operate to consistently and generously donate their clothing and other items and then to turn those donations into revenue streams.




4. Scalable Model. Because the Goodwill model is simple, solution focused, integrated, and sustainable, it is scalable. Goodwill started in 1902 in Boston and in 2009 boasted 184 organizations throughout 16 countries providing jobs and job training to 1.9 million people with a budget of $3.7 billion. The ancillary benefits I mentioned above (economic development, community building) they have not quantified, but I imagine they are even more impressive.

Goodwill excites me because it is an “ancient” social impact organization by today’s standards, yet it is a model of social change. It squeezes every last drop out of the community resources it gathers and translates them into many times that in social impact. I wonder if any of the social entrepreneurship programs cropping up at universities across the country ever use Goodwill as a case study. I think it could be fascinating.

Photo Credit: E. Bartholomew

Tags: ComputerWorks, earned revenue, Goodwill, nonprofits vs. social entrepreneurs, scale social innovation, Social Entrepreneurship

My Favorite Blogs

I just updated the blogroll on the Social Velocity website. You can see the brand new list under “My Favorite Blogs” on the right hand side of the Blog page, and I’m also including it below for those of you on the RSS feed.

These blogs are my favorite in the social/entrepreneurship/financing worlds. By my “favorite” I mean that these blogs:

• Consistently create pithy posts that make me think, as opposed to just regurgitate a press release or old argument
• Include new ideas and arguments
• Cover the social entrepreneurship, nonprofit, philanthropy, start up, social finance, and/or social business worlds
• Seed or contribute to larger, interesting discussions in the blogosphere

So here is my list of favorite blogs:

• A Smart Bear: Startups & Marketing for Geeks
• About.com Nonprofit Charitable Orgs
• Beth’s Blog: How Nonprofits are Using Social Media to Power Change
• Change Charity
• Change.org’s Social Entrepreneurship Blog
• Dan Pallotta: Harvard Business Review
• Doing Good Better
• Dowser
• GuideStar: Bob Ottenhoff Blog
• Money and Mission
• New Philanthropy Capital’s Blog
• Philanthropy 2173
• PhilanTopic
• Social Citizens Blog
• SSIR Opinion Blog: Nonprofit Management
• SSIR Opinion Blog: Social Entrepreneurship
• Tactical Philanthropy
• Umair Haque: Harvard Business Review

But I always love to be introduced to new blogs, so please tell me your favorite blogs in the comments. If your favorite blogs become mine, I’ll add them to my list.

Photo Credit: Don Cheps

Tags: blogs, nonprofit, Philanthropy, social business, Social Entrepreneurship, Social Finance, social innovation, Social Investing, Social Velocity

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