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

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

Making Change the New Norm

It occurred to me in two conversations I had this morning that small change can create large change, but how exactly does that happen?

My first conversation was a phone call with George Overholser, from the Nonprofit Finance Fund and a leading thinker around new kinds of capital for nonprofit organizations.  I was getting some background from him on the whole movement to make growth capital (money necessary to build organizations rather than simply buy services) a reality for nonprofit organizations in preparation for my session later this week at the Social Capital Markets conference.

At the Nonprofit Finance Fund they have launched several exciting programs to help nonprofits secure the money necessary to scale great programs, such as the SEGUE program that takes the traditional nonprofit capital campaign approach and turns it on its head raising money not for a building, but rather for the patient capital required to pay the bills while a nonprofit figures out how to grow and make sustainable their business model.

My big question to George, however, was: How do we get these great new ideas, like patient capital (which is normal and accepted in the for profit world) prevalent and accepted in the nonprofit and philanthropic worlds?  The number of nonprofits and donors currently participating in growth capital deals is very small.

George’s response was that these new ideas don’t have to be widely accepted or embraced.  The end game is not to get all of the “mom and pop” nonprofits and donors to embrace these concepts.  Rather, he looks forward to the day when there are ten $20 million growth capital deals out in the marketplace, that that alone will create tremendous change.  He gave the example of Teach for America.  If they can grow their successful program throughout the country, there would be tremendous change in the education landscape as a result .  The end goal is to secure capital for a select few nonprofits that are uniquely poised to grow. He compared it to Apple, which is a company that makes billions of dollars, but has grown to that stage with only a few tens of millions, say $50 million, in growth capital. And Apple has transformed not only its industry, but really, how we all communicate, interact with data and live. That’s a pretty impressive impact for a $50 million investment in growth capital.  He argues that the same is possible in the nonprofit world.  We could have a handful of nonprofit growth capital deals and transform not only the nonprofit sector, but some enormous social problems.

An interesting hypothesis, but I don’t know if I buy it.  Which brings me to my second conversation of the morning, with Sean Stannard-Stockton of the Tactical Philanthropy blog.  Sean has been known for the past three years as a leading-edge thinker about how to make philanthropy more effective at delivering social impact.  He announced this morning that he is launching a new philanthropic advisory fund called Tactical Philanthropy Advisors.  The firm will advise high-net worth philanthropists (accounts of $1 million or more) on “the social impact of their financial investments, and work with their investment advisors to align their financial portfolios with their philanthropic goals.”

They are seeking to elevate philanthropic advising to the respect, time and resources that overall financial advising has enjoyed.  In this new firm, philanthropic advising is no longer an add-on service that a wealth management company offers its clients.  And their fee structure has them paid by a percentage of the overall portfolio an investor holds with them.  So, in essence, they are paid as a traditional financial advisor is paid, based on the performance of the overall portfolio, but in this case the portfolio return is a social, not a financial one.  They are also interesting because they are a for-profit company, with a social purpose and are applying to become a B Corp.  So the firm is and of itself a social business; they are social entrepreneurs charting this new landscape along with the rest of us.

You only need to read a few entries in Sean’s 3-year old Tactical Philanthropy blog to understand how this new firm could revolutionize how the philanthropic sector, and thus the nonprofit sector, operates.  Sean understands and believes in philanthropic equity, mission-related investing, scaling nonprofits, organization-building, and so on.  He understands these new ideas that George and others promote and could be a critical partner in helping philanthropists understand how to use their money more effectively to drive change in a sector that is undercapitalized and dysfunctional.

However, Sean and his firm will probably only work with a small group of the countless philanthropists out there, so again, what change does this signify?  And how do we bring along other philanthropists who cannot or will not be touched by Tactical Philanthropy Advisors?

It all comes down to the single question: How does change happen?

I would argue that it is not enough to have single examples in the largest nonprofits or among the largest philanthropists.  The Nonprofit Finance Fund, Teach for America, Sea Change Capital, Tactical Philanthropy Advisors and all the other cutting-edge thinkers and examples of how we can do things better are great and absolutely necessary.  Without innovation we have nothing.

But let’s not forget stage two, whenever it may come, that involves making these great examples the norm.  The day when all, or most, nonprofits understand and have access to the power of patient capital and capacity capital, when all or most philanthropists understand the power of investments rather than gifts and how to truly support social change. Ten deals are great, but they are just a start.  True change must be systemic, must be ingrained, must become the norm.  It can’t exist just on the East and West coasts.  It can’t just be in the understanding and practice of the largest, most resourced organizations. That’s why I started Social Velocity; I wanted to bring these cutting-edge ideas and practices to places, organizations and philanthropists that weren’t in the top 10, but were still instrumental to creating social change.  To really be transformative, these new ideas have to become common practice. As David Bornstein has put it:

An important social change frequently begins with a single entrepreneurial author: one obsessive individual who sees a problem and envisions a new solution, who takes the initiative to act on that vision, who gathers resources and builds organizations to protect and market that vision, who provides the energy and sustained focus to overcome the inevitable resistance, and who- decade after decade- keeps improving, strengthening, and broadening that vision until what was once a marginal idea has become a new norm.

I applaud people like Sean and George and the countless others who are working to change mindsets, organizations, systems and structures.  Let’s build on the innovation they have started and make those powerful ideas and examples the new norm.

Tags: B Corp, David Bornstein, George Overholser, growth capital, nonprofit, Nonprofit Finance Fund, Philanthropy, Sean Stannard-Stockton, SEGUE program, Social Capital Markets conference, Tactical Philanthropy, Teach for America

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

Finding Investment Capital for Social Impact

RISE finished up late last week.  It was great to see all of the energy and excitement around social entrepreneurship.  Indeed it seems that Austin has caught the tide of interest in social entrepreneurship that is sweeping the nation in the wake of the economic meltdown.  Even the New York Times got on board last week with an article about how social entrepreneurship might be the best business model for some market opportunities.

In all of the interest in social entrepreneurship, one serious hurdle (among others, surely) is investment capital.  Good Capital is planning their second annual Social Capital Markets Conference for this coming September.  This is an opportunity for venture capitalists, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs and others to get together to talk about how we create a marketplace for capital interested in social impact.  SoCap is a great thing, and I’m really hoping it will continue to expand the conversation and get people thinking, talking and experimenting with investing in these new entrepreneurs.

But a social capital marketplace hasn’t hit Austin yet. I do think, however, that there is tremendous potential for some of the wealth we have here to be turned into investment capital for social entrepreneurs. With that in mind I hosted a session at RISE on Wednesday about finding Growth Capital for Social Entrepreneurs.  The session discussed two kinds of investment capital for social entrepreneurs: growth capital that helps an organization grow to scale (however they define scale), and capacity capital that helps an organization increase their capacity and sustainability.  Both types of investment capital BUILD organizations instead of BUYING services.  And both kinds of capital are difficult for social entrepreneurs to find, particularly in Austin.  However,  I laid out a plan for social entrepreneurs that takes them to their boards, major donors and friends to secure capital, much like a traditional business secures investment capital from angels and VCs.  I think there is a lot of potential in this model, which even suggests PRIs (Program-Related Investments) as a vehicle to use to increase the capacity (particularly the fundraising function) of an organization.
The session ended with a comparison of Austin’s versus the rest of the nation in the social innovation movement.:

As you can see, when compared to similar cities, Austin’s use of these new tools is low.  There is tremendous room for Austin to embrace social innovation.  And I think the excitement around social entrepreneurship evident last week at RISE is a great place to start.

Tags: Austin, capacity capital, growth capital, investment capital, RISE, SoCap, social entrepreneurs

Growing the Austin Social Innovation Ecosystem

As part of my effort to encourage the growth of a vibrant social enterprise and social entrepreneurship ecosystem in Austin, I am leading two RISE sessions in early March. If you are interested in understanding what social enterprise is and seeing some great examples of it, attend Startups with Social Impact (co-lead by my colleague Jessica Shortall guest blogger of the Across the Pond: Perspectivess on Social Innovation in London post). If you are a social entrepreneur interested in finding growth or capacity capital to build your organization, attend my Growth Capital for Social Entrepreneurs session. Details and links to sign up are below. Hope to see you there!

Startups with Social Impact
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
2:00-3:30pm
This session will provide working definitions for social enterprise and social business and case studies along the spectrum of social impact and profit motivation. A panel of entrepreneurs will discuss their ventures, how they operate, how social impact fits into the business model, and the challenges they face, including raising capital. The session will end with a discussion on steps to make Austin a leader in startups with social impact.

Part of the Social Entrepreneurship series sponsored by The Silverton Foundation.

Click Here to Register

Growth Capital for Social Entrepreneurs
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
2:00-3:30pm

Social entrepreneurs and nonprofits that are interested in scaling their programs or strengthening their capacity have few opportunities to find investment capital. But with a strong plan, creative tools, and a new way to talk to potential investors, you can find the capital you need to grow. This session will take participants through the definition of growth capital for the social sector, provide case studies and develop a strategy for securing investments.

Part of the Social Entrepreneurship series sponsored by The Silverton Foundation.

Click Here to Register

Tags: Austin, growth capital, RISE, Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneurship

What’s Wrong with Fundraising?

One of the things I’m really excited about is the potential for the financial crisis and restructuring we’re experiencing to completely transform how nonprofits are financed.  I’ve written before about how we need to move away from the notion that “overhead” funding is bad, and how we need to restructure nonprofit accounting principles in order to allow equity capital (or money that allows us to build organizations rather than just buy services) into the equation.  We also need to make government funding easier to come by and with less strings attached.  And philanthropy needs to begin to emphasize equity and growth capital as opposed to program-only funding.  The entire way that we fund the nonprofit sector has got to change.

Which brings me to an interesting letter that Hildy Gottlieb’s “Creating the Future” blog received recently.  A fundraiser argues that focusing on a donor’s interests keeps a nonprofit from working on the larger problem they are trying to solve:

I work in fundraising, and I feel like we’re not only merely addressing the symptoms, but we’re actually exploiting the symptoms…To me, my organization exists to address the needs of the population we serve, not the needs of donors…we miss the big picture, the opportunity to solve core problems, when our primary focus is on making the donors feel good about giving…we neglect the big picture, the real solutions when we fundraise to the donors’ fears and egos…our community suffers when we fragment it by each individual’s personal motivation to give rather than unifying it to address the whole picture, and to perhaps finally solve those greater problems…the way we (and most other non-profits) fundraise might be counterproductive to actually creating solutions. So what can I do? How can I advocate for real, big-picture change when our fundraising is entrenched so deeply in its individualized, donor-centric philosophy?

This fundraiser doesn’t understand that nonprofit organizations exist within a market economy.  A nonprofit’s work, their mission, must be in alignment with their core competencies and their revenue engine.  A nonprofit cannot merely “exist to to address the needs of the population we serve, not the needs of donors.”  A nonprofit organization exists to create change in the world, hopefully rectify a disequilibrium, by channeling resources (money, talent, expertise) into a proven theory of change.  The resource piece is critical.  Some in the nonprofit sector would, I think, argue that they should just be left alone to do their “good work” and not have to worry about fundraising (see my previous post about another fundraiser who complained about her self-interested donors) .  But fundraising is an integral and critical element to the work nonprofits are doing.  A nonprofit connects a community to its needs and harnesses the resources of that community to address, and hopefully solve, those needs.  A nonprofit is part of its community and is funded by donors who make up that community.

Fundraising is not a dirty word.  Fundraising, when done right, is about connecting those with resources to the results and impact an organization is creating.  The impact should generate the revenue.  When the mission of the organization is operationalized through the organization’s core competencies, revenue should follow.  Mission, core competencies and revenue are in alignment.

That is not to say, however, that the system works perfectly.  Far from it.  As I’ve said many times, the nonprofit sector is sorely undercapitalized.  We have got to find ways to get more and better capital into the sector, capital that follows results and impact and encourages smart replication of proven solutions.  Philanthropy has to recognize this and change how they invest, accounting standards have to change in order to allow better capital to flow, IRS requirements have to change, many of the systems have to change.  But in order for those structures to change the nonprofit sector has to understand that fundraising is absolutely critical to their work.  It is not dirty, and it does not detract (if raised effectively) from a mission, but rather is part of the mission.  We have got to start being smarter about how we finance the nonprofit sector.  And to do that we have to recognize how critical aligning revenue with the mission and core competencies of an organization is.

Tags: core competencies, equity, Fundraising, growth capital, mission, overhead, Philanthropy

How to Scale

Continuing my series on defining and exploring key terms in social innovation, I’d like to take a look at scale.  In an earlier post defining social entrepreneurship, I discussed the key part that scale plays:

Absolutely essential to the idea of social entrepreneurship is the idea of scale. A pattern changing idea, by definition, creates a new model. And to do so, it can’t just exist in one school, in one district, in one city. To truly be social entrepreneurship, the new idea must grow to scale, to reach all of those who can benefit from the solution.

However, just as there are various ways a successful business can grow to scale, there are different ways a nonprofit can grow to scale.  There is the franchise model that we see with organizations like Teach for America, Citizen Schools, or College Summit.  These organizations have a successful model with dramatic results that they want to replicate in other areas of the country.  They raise growth capital that will allow them to import the model to other cities and regions; they bring in or recruit a staff and build the new chapter.  This can be a very successful model.

In a session at this month’s annual Net Impact (an organization for socially-minded business school students and alums) conference, panelists had some provocative ideas for how nonprofits scale.  Aaron Hurst, founder of Taproot Foundation, an organization that provides pro-bono marketing, IT, and HR consulting to nonprofits, took the franchise idea even further arguing that there must be great consolidation within the nonprofit sector:

We need to talk about how we get foundations to stop giving inefficiently…the multitude of nonprofits with similar missions…[are like] the hundreds of Chinese restaurants across New York City. All the restaurants serve dumplings, lomein…[to be efficient] they should all be one Panda Express.

I’m not sure that is the answer.  Nathaniel Whittemore, founding Director of the Center for Global Engagement at Northwestern University argued in his blog on Change.org that scale for nonprofits needs to be thought of a bit differently.  Because of the social, consensus and local nature of nonprofit organizations, you cannot simply franchise a good idea from one city to the next.  He makes a very necessary distinction between scaling an organization and scaling a solution.  The former forces a model onto the next community, without taking into account local processes, norms, behaviors, beliefs, etc.  The latter approach molds the basic solution to the new area.  He believes the successful model is Jane Addams’ Hull House, one of the first settlement houses offering social services to the poor.

For [Jane]…[scale] meant helping other socially concerned citizens found their own organizations with similar but locally appropriate models. She was far less concerned with franchising and branding the Hull House name, but cared that poor people in every city had access to the same quality of services with dignity that her organization offered.

That’s not to say that organizations like Teach for America, Citizen Schools and others don’t meld their model to be locally appropriate,  but it is still very much a franchise model.  And as you grow that model overhead becomes more expensive, quality assurance standards become harder to enforce, and ultimately, the solution may creep farther away.

The franchise model also necessitates significant growth capital.  For example, College Summit has had to raise tens of millions of dollars in growth capital to expand to 8 states with their current program and 6 additional states with a pilot program.  And growth capital can be very difficult to find.

With a model more like Jane Addams’, scale is less about the organization that brings about the solution and more about the actual solution.  You are not building a nationwide organization with a very specific solution, but rather you are building local organizations that mold the solution to be most successful in their communities.  However, because the latter is less rigid and more decentralized it would be more difficult to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the solution, and perhaps much more difficult to track outcomes.

There is much more to be learned as social entrepreneurs continue to grapple with how best to grow to scale – what that means, and what it looks like.  But it is a very necessary discussion, because the true impact of social entrepreneurship does not lie in the ideas that social entrepreneurs create.  I don’t think we have ever lacked good ideas.  But rather, true solutions come when a great idea can grow to scale and fundamentally alter an old, broken model.  How that scale happens most effectively, however, is yet to be determined.

Tags: Citizen Schools, College Summit, growth capital, scale, Social Entrepreneurship, Teach for America