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

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

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

Will the Social Innovation Fund Really Change the Nonprofit Market?

Last week a new head of the federal Social Innovation Fund, the $50 million public/private fund to scale innovative nonprofits that came out of the Serve America Act, was named. Paul Carttar brings a wealth of experience and knowledge having worked at New Profit, the first venture philanthropy fund, and Bridgespan and Monitor consulting groups, the largest and most sophisticated consulting firms to large nonprofits. He knows how to scale proven nonprofit models.

But we need to be cautious about how much the Social Innovation Fund can do to transform the nonprofit capital market. While it will provide mezzanine funding to the best nonprofits, there are still some glaring holes in the capital available to the rest of the nonprofit sector. You can read my post “Will the Social Innovation Fund Really Change the Nonprofit Market?” at the Change.org blog.

Tags: Bridgespan, Monitor, New Profit, Paul Carttar, Serve America Act, Social Innovation Fund

Convergence Can’t Be Denied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonprofits and the Emerging Social Capital Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizing the Chaos

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

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

And I would add to that:

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

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

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

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

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

The list goes on and will take time.

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

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

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

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

The Beginning of a Movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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