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

Two Weeks to SoCap

Two weeks from today the 2nd annual Social Capital Markets Conference kicks off in San Francisco.  I’m pretty excited about it because I think one of the biggest things standing in the way of social innovation is a social capital market–the financial tools and vehicles necessary to adequately capitalize social innovation.  The speaker’s list for the conference reads like a Who’s Who of the social innovation world.  There are some incredible sessions, too many to choose from.  I wish the conference were longer than 3 days.  I’ll be tweeting (as much as my multi-tasking challenged brain can handle) and blogging from the conference.

Just a few of the topics to be discussed at this year’s conference include:

• The Social Capital Movement Across the Globe
• Social venture funds’ prominent role in the new economy
• The sophistication of social investing pioneers
• Raising money for impact investing in a downturn economy
• The Obama Administration’s focus on social innovation
• Creating effective collaboration between the private sector and development agencies
• Moving beyond Microfinance
• Market based solutions for the base of the pyramid
• New corporate structures, including hybrid businesses and L3C organizations
• Creating metrics and value around social change
• Mobile technology platforms worthy of investment

Are you excited yet?

One of the things I’m particularly excited about at this year’s conference is a movement toward including nonprofits and philanthropy in more of the conference.  Last year’s conference tended to focus a bit more on blended value investing (investing in social impact organizations that provide a social AND a financial return). But we don’t want to neglect those social entrepreneurs that employ a nonprofit model to create their desired social impact.

To that end, SoCap this year has a host of sessions about nonprofit social entrepreneurs  and a social capital market for them.  I am moderating one of these sessions, Growth Capital for Nonprofit Social Entrepreneurs on Wednesday, September 2nd at 1:30pm.  Darell Hammond of KaBoom!, Greg Baldwin of VolunteerMatch and Kelly Ward from America Forward/New Profit will discuss the growth capital that was used to bring some impressive nonprofit organization’s to scale.

If you are going to attend only one conference in the social innovation space this year, I would highly recommend SoCap.  Hope to see you there!

Growth Capital for Nonprofit Social Entrepreneurs

Date: Wednesday, September 2nd
Time: 1:30pm

Moderator: Nell Edgington, Social Velocity
Greg Baldwin, VolunteerMatch
Darell Hammond, KaBOOM!
Kelly Ward, New Profit and America Forward

Nonprofit social entrepreneurs like Volunteer Match and KaBoom! have become, over the past decade, very successful, national, multi-million dollar nonprofit organizations working to solve critical social problems. They’ve achieved this impressive scale through growth capital from individuals, foundations and venture philanthropy funds. Greg Baldwin from Volunteer Match and Darell Hammond from Kaboom will be joined by Kelly Ward from America Forward and New Profit, a pioneer venture philanthropy fund in Boston, to discuss the various financial tools available and necessary to scale nonprofit social entrepreneurs.

Tags: America Forward, KaBoom!, microfinance, New Profit, nonprofit, scale, SoCap, social capital market, social entrepreneurs, Venture Philanthropy, Volunteer Match

A Gathering of Funders

I was invited to speak at the Central Texas Education Funders monthly meeting about social innovation yesterday morning.  It was an honor to talk to this engaged, savvy, thoughtful group of philanthropists who are passionate about making education better in Central Texas.  Some of the foundations present were: Webber Family Foundation, Aragona Foundation, RGK Foundation, KDK Harman Foundation, Applied Materials Corporate Giving, United Way, Impact Austin, Still Water Foundation, among others.

My presentation provided an overview on social innovation (social entrepreneurship, growth and capacity capital, social investing, etc.) occurring nationally and here in Austin.  After the presentation there was a great discussion among the group that covered exciting experiments in growth and sustainability in our region, why Austin seems to be behind other cities in social innovation activity, the impact of the recession on growth, and the need for collaboration and mergers, and much more.

Ellen Ray from the Still Water Foundation announced an experiment that she and a few other local foundations have launched to grow the scope and capacity of arts education organizations in town.  I hope to have more information on this exciting project in a later post.  In addition, Jessica D’Arcy from the Webber Family Foundation explained how the Central Texas Education Funders group is putting together a funding matrix so that the group can understand which of their membership is funding which projects in town.  Compiling this knowledge could be the first step in understanding how to leverage the resources of the group to make a greater impact.  And Chris Earthman from the Aragona Foundation shared some interesting data about how hypercompetitive Austin really is in terms of foundation funding for our nonprofits.  Austin has one of the highest nonprofit to foundation ratios in the country, which furthers the argument that we have to expand the social capital market here.

So much money exists in Austin, yet at the same time those organizations working towards solutions to our social problems are tripping over each other to get enough capital.  That is a huge disconnect.  If we can learn from other cities about the new financial vehicles that are emerging to help social entrepreneurs, we might begin to see more of Austin’s wealth transfer into the social impact space.

This was a great gathering of funders talking about how to move the needle forward and get Austin more prominently in the social innovation game.  I’d love to see more discussions about how we do just that.

Tags: Applied Materials, Aragona Foundation, Austin, Central Texas Education Funders, Impact Austin, KDK Harman Foundation, nonprofit, RGK Foundation, social capital market, Still Water Foundation, United Way, Webber Family Foundation

The Significance of the Social Innovation Fund

While many were starting their 4th of July vacations last week (me included) President Obama had a remarkable event at the White House.  He invited a very impressive list of nonprofit leaders, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs, and thought leaders to launch his “Community Solutions Agenda.”  Key to this agenda are the White House Office of Social Innovation and the Social Innovation Fund.

Sean Stannard-Stockton of the Tactical Philanthropy blog gives an excellent description of exactly what the Social Innovation Fund will do.  Essentially the Social Innovation Fund is a $50 million federal government fund (assuming Congress actually appropriates the money) that will be granted, via the Corporation for National Service, to “grantmaking institutions” to then regrant (and match the regrant 1 to 1) to nonprofit organizations.

The nonprofits that receive the regranted funds are required to:

• Match the grants 1 to 1  through state, local, or private sources (thus resulting in an overall 2 to 1 match of federal dollars)
• Grow proven programs, or support new programs, in low-income communities
• Demonstrate that they can sustain the program at the end of the grant period
• Use performance metrics to evaluate and improve the program
• Contribute the resulting knowledge to their field

In addition, the grantmakers that receive the Social Innovation funds must provide technical assistance to their grantees.  And the Corporation will 1)provide technical assistance to both the grantmakers and the nonprofits receiving the regranted funds and 2) create a clearinghouse for best practices from the funded projects.

There has been much debate (here and  here for a start) about whether the Social Innovation Fund will have a positive, negative, or any effect on the nonprofit sector and its ability to find and grow solutions.  The most pessimistic of these is Jeff Trexler, professor of Social Entrepreneurship at Pace University, who writes:

At its core, the [Social Innovation Fund] follows a model that’s all too familiar from comparative administrative law–a government program that gives money to subgrantees who in turn give money to other subgrantees, managed through the relentless documentation of how stated program goals were met.  For example, Russia moved to precisely this model recently, channeling social funds through grantmaking intermediaries, and USAID has been doing it for years.

True, the mechanisms of the Fund are probably not that innovative.  And the relatively small size of it ($50 million compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars of federal funding that annually goes into the nonprofit sector) is not very impressive.  But what is interesting and exciting is that the largest nonprofit funder (the federal government) is turning a page.

As Bob Ottenhoff points out on the Guidestar blog, the federal government is by far the largest funder to the nonprofit sector, providing over 29% of its funding, compared to the 12% that comes from charitable giving, which we spend most of our time talking about.  If the federal government could take an interest in innovation in the nonprofit sector (when was the last time that that many nonprofits and philanthropists were assembled together at the White House?), try and succeed at some new funding vehicles, take a lead role (or, really, any role) in the creation of a social capital market to seed and scale social innovation, THAT would be tremendous.

The Social Innovation Fund, in and of itself, is maybe not that impressive. But what is impressive is that the federal government has recognized social innovation as a force for change, is willing to take a risk (albeit small) in this new realm and may be willing to use this test case as R&D for a future, much larger, more innovative stab at getting itself pointing in a new, more helpful direction.  If we are truly going to scale social solutions then the largest funder of those solutions has to be on board. So let’s see what happens when the federal government dips its toe into the waters of social innovation.

Tags: Corporation for National Service, federal government, Jeff Trexler, nonprofit, President Obama, Sean Stannard-Stockton, social entrepreneurs, Social Innovation Fund, White House Office of Social Innovation

Foundations Can Lead the Charge Toward a New Philanthropy

The news in the philanthropy world this week is not good.  It seems that our fears about the effect of the economic downturn on philanthropy are being confirmed in spades.  The Ford Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, two of the largest in the country, are both reducing their staffs by 30%+ and making other cuts in expenses in order to maintain previous years’ giving levels.  The report on 2008 charitable giving released by Giving USA last week shows the largest percentage decline on record, although as Sean Stannard-Stockton of the Tactical Philanthropy blog wisely points  out:

Charitable giving behaved more or less as it normally does when the economy sours. This is, by most measures, the worst recession in a very long time and so we’re seeing charitable giving get hit. But it is only declining in line with the way it normally behaves. Things are tough, but there was no apocalypse.

Still, the news is troubling.

Although foundation giving makes up only 13% of the charitable giving pie, their reaction to an economic crisis can have a dramatic impact on charitable giving overall.  Foundations are in some ways viewed as the philanthropic experts and can set trends that can transform the impact of philanthropy. Take the Gates Foundation for example.  Last year they received $10.4 million in unsolicited donations simply because other philanthropists think that Gates is a philanthropic leader.

So now is the time for foundations to lead the way towards more effective philanthropy–philanthropy that builds and scales organizations rather than buys services, as Michael Selzer, writer, educator, nonprofit leader and PhilanTopic contributor, points out in his recent post.  Michael argues that the economic crisis provides a natural impetus to foundations to become builders of organizations rather than buyers of services, and in fact he poses a provocative question:

A growing number of foundations are beginning to think of themselves as “builders” rather than “buyers”…buyers award grants with an eye to achieving specific programmatic outcomes, while builders, always mindful of outcomes, seek to help grantees strengthen their organizational capacity so as to achieve greater impact in the future. To the extent that “buying” is limited to a relatively short-term transaction rather than a longer-term interest in the organizational well-being of the grantee, it is not an especially productive activity. Which leads me to ask: What foundation would want to be a buyer rather than a builder in today’s environment?

Michael goes on to somewhat equate “building” funds with general operating support, pointing out that only 20% of all grants go to operating, whereas 50% of all grants go to specific programs or projects.  He offers a list of ways for foundations to increase their “builder” funding while still supporting specific programs. His list includes giving grantees the latitude to adequately account for indirect costs, expediting grant approval processes, expanding grant periods to more than a year, and sharing responsibility with grantees for securing remaining program costs if the foundation is only funding part of the program. Michael calls these “extraordinary measures” for “building the capacity of the nonprofit sector for the long haul.”

I disagree.  Nothing in his list seems extraordinary to me.  The economic crisis and the resulting effects on philanthropy and the nonprofit sector does call for extraordinary measures, a resetting of both realms: the nonprofits and the philanthropists who fund them.  And because foundations lead the charge in the philanthropic realm they have an obligation to take a hard look at how they do things and try some truly extraordinary measures.  A list of truly extraordinary measures that foundations could take includes:

• Increasing the use of program-related investments (PRIs) to include capacity building projects like upgraded nonprofit fundraising functions.
• Exploring mission-related investing, investing part of a foundation’s corpus in social businesses that meet the foundation’s mission, to a much larger extent as a way to expand the reach and impact of the foundation.
• Increasing the percentage of capacity building and unrestricted grants that the foundation makes. Instead of 20%, let’s bump that number up to 40%.
• Exploring becoming a spend-down foundation that doesn’t exist in perpetuity, but rather spends their corpus in order to have a larger impact on social problems in this generation.
• Increasing growth capital investments–large ($500K+), 3-5 year investments that pay for the infrastructure required for a proven nonprofit to scale.
• Reducing the strings and reporting requirements placed on nonprofit grantees.
• Decreasing the push towards funding of new programs and investing more money and time in the infrastructure of proven programs that could grow to serve more people.

That’s not to say that there aren’t foundations out there that are doing these things.  There absolutely are, but they are in the minority. Foundations as a group could help transform philanthropy by becoming builders more often than buyers. These are challenging, demanding, restructuring times.  They call for bold, risky, extraordinary action.  Foundations can lead that charge.

Tags: Ford Foundation, Foundations, Gates Foundation, Giving USA, growth capital, mission related investing, Nonprofits, Philanthropy, PRIs, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

The Social Capital Markets Conference

In the emerging field of social innovation there are a plethora of conferences here and abroad.  Some are better than others.  One that I am particularly looking forward to is September’s Social Capital Markets conference in San Francisco.  This is only the second year of the conference, which brings together social investors, foundations, social entrepreneurs, social venture funds and others interested in expanding the capital available to social entrepreneurs.

In the inaugural conference last year, 600 people from 26 countries attended.  In fact, there was a last minute rush of conference registrations shortly after the financial market collapse, painting an interesting picture of traditional finance migrating to social finance.

The purpose of the conference is to create “a new kind of capital market, a new way of doing business that takes into account people, planet and profit.”  In essence they are attempting to build momentum and action around creating a capital marketplace for social good–financial vehicles for social entrepreneurs both profit and nonprofit.

Whereas last year’s conference focused mainly on for profit social entrepreneurs, this year’s conference is adding some sessions on what conference founder Kevin Jones calls “our nonprofit cousins.”  For example, the opening keynote address will be about how the Obama Administration and its Office of Social Innovation is working to scale high-functioning non-profit organizations to create change. And I’m even getting into the game by moderating a panel about some of the capital tools nonprofit social entrepreneurs have used to go to scale.

I think SoCap provides an excellent venue for bringing all of those working towards expanding the capital available to social entrepreneurs together.  My hope is that this conference goes beyond great examples and great networking and actually helps make more money available to social entrepreneurs, whether they are creating profit or not.

If you are interested in the social capital market space, you don’t want to miss this conference.

Tags: Kevin Jones, Obama Administration, Office of Social Innovation, SoCap, Social Capital Markets conference, social entrepreneurs, Social Finance