Paul Tarini is the head of the Foundation’s Pioneer Portfolio, which actively seeks innovative projects that can lead to fundamental breakthroughs in health and health care.  Because the Pioneer team is dedicated to thinking and talking about new ideas and groundbreaking approaches, including those from nontraditional sources and fields, Pioneer enables the Foundation to make conceptual leaps and take risks in grantmaking that would otherwise not be possible. Since funding is so critical to making social innovation a reality, we thought Paul would have a unique perspective on what funders can do to incentivize social innovation.

Nell: The Pioneer portfolio strikes me as a more risk-tolerant approach to giving than typical foundations are used to. Why is RWJF more comfortable with the risks inherent in this kind of portfolio of projects?

Paul: RWJF is comfortable with the higher risk, unconventional, future-facing ideas Pioneer supports because it first identified a specific niche that needed to be filled within the institutional ecology.  We call that ecology our Impact Framework.  It was conceived of at a time when RWJF was thinking hard about how we organized our work.  The Impact Framework helps us understand our grantmaking as a whole, so, not just what do the grants in a particular area add up to, but what does the whole enterprise add up to.  As we were thinking about the impact we wanted to have, we knew we needed to work in fewer, more focused teams that were/are accountable for specific outcomes.

But we realized that while focus brings power and discipline, it also can be limiting.  We wanted a way to look out beyond the work of these targeted teams.  We were thinking about how to stay relevant for the long run as a philanthropy that operates on a national scale.  We felt that in addition to the targeted work being done, we needed a place devoted to the exploration of new ideas, where we could bring in new concepts, work with different people, and support more unconventional and future-facing ideas.  Such work could help RWJF stay fresh, bring in new ideas and new grantees, continue to grow, stay ahead of the curve.  And, if we found some real winners, health and health care would benefit from the outcomes of those projects.

Out of this came Pioneer.  Here are some examples of the work we’ve supported…We funded a natural resources economist to work on the problem of antibiotic resistance (Don’t approach it as an infectious diseases problem; think about our stock of antibiotics as a natural resource that needs to be managed and develop new policy from that perspective; we’ve been funding research into whether and how digital games can be effective therapeutic interventions (Can a game that uses a breathing tube as the controller that moves characters around the screen help kids with cystic fibrosis improve their breathing therapy?); we’ve funded early work exploring whether there are specific health strengths which, if strengthened more, could serve to forestall disease and mitigate effects once disease strikes.  We’re also supporting work that builds platforms that could produce lots of new knowledge and improve care, including Kaiser Permanente’s Research Program on Genes, the Environment and Health; and, efforts to link electronic health records databases with millions of patient records in order to learn much faster about what works for patients (Rapid Learning).

Nell: I understand that the Pioneer program has a rolling unsolicited application process, but I imagine you probably need to do a good bit of on-the-ground scoping and cultivation of ideas in order to get the most promising projects into the portfolio. How do you create a deal flow for innovative projects?

Paul: This is a constant challenge for us.  We do have an open door, and we do accept unsolicited proposals at any time. But most of the proposals that come in through this door are not good fits for Pioneer. We were set up to explore unconventional and untested approaches to problems, to bring in ideas from other disciplines, to look to the future.  We were not set up to support projects that promise incremental improvements, however important those improvements may be.  We look for projects with the potential for transformative change, the kind of change that can reach beyond a single discipline or group.  Most of what comes in unsolicited doesn’t meet that standard.  Finding ideas takes work.  And because we look for ideas across the breadth of health and health care, we can’t focus on just one haystack to look for needles.  We network.  We connect with interesting people at conferences, we go to events, we take meetings and phone calls, we visit people.  We are experimenting with other ways to source ideas.  We’ve had some success with open-source competitions, though the back end, taking a winning idea and creating a fundable project, takes time.  We are putting a lot of time and energy into social media right now as another way to build networks and find ideas.  Half of me wishes there was an easier way to find ideas, but I suspect that easier would also mean more passive on our part and passive is really boring.

Nell: You currently only invest in nonprofit projects, correct? Do you see the potential for investing in for-profit or hybrid organizations, through mission-related investing, down the road, particularly as social entrepreneurship grows and for-profit solutions to healthcare issues become more prevalent?

Paul: While the majority of our investments, our funding, are in the form of grants to nonprofit organizations, there is nothing that precludes us from supporting for-profit entities.  The largest award to come out of Pioneer to date—$15.6 million—went to a for-profit, Archimedes, Inc. However, before we can make an award to a for-profit, we need to clearly establish that RWJF’s dollars are going to fund an activity with a clear charitable purpose that relates to our mission.   This is just an additional test we need to meet.  The challenge we face on Pioneer is less about whether an entity is a nonprofit, a hybrid, or a for-profit.  Our challenge is whether that entity is doing work that isn’t merely an improvement, but is doing something unconventional, disruptive and future-facing and could produce breakthroughs in health and health care.  If we’re convinced the work meets that standard, we can usually figure out how to fund it.

Nell: What is holding philanthropy back from becoming more innovative and/or risk tolerant?

Paul: People who spend more time observing philanthropies are better suited to answer this question than I am.  That said, I think it’s hard to ask this question about philanthropy as a sector.  Philanthropies have a lot of latitude; you can’t assume they are fairly similar and that we can generalize our way to an answer.  In the same way there are differences between a business that employs 200 people and one with 20,000, there are big differences between a multi-billion-dollar philanthropy and a small community foundation.  Political contexts differ, staff sophistication differs (bigger isn’t always more sophisticated), boards and donors have varying levels of influence, so I think there’s a range of reasons — philanthropy by philanthropy — for being less risk-tolerant.

If I had to pick one reason, it would be that there’s no inherent reason for a philanthropy to be innovative and highly risk-tolerant.  A lot of good can come—and has come—from philanthropies that are cautious.  As I noted above, the decision at RWJF to have a portfolio that takes on more risk came from an institutional recognition of the long-term value to us—and to the field—of such investments.  So the niche-in-the-institutional-ecology point is important here. Also, frankly, our ecology is much larger than most, and so it can be more diverse.  Other philanthropies would need to work though their own reasons to embrace more risk-taking.

Nell: The nonprofit capital market overall is fairly immature compared to the capital market of the for-profit world. Do you see other foundations creating new giving programs or financial vehicles to expand the types of capital available to nonprofits?

Paul: There is a great discussion and a lot of effort being devoted to maturing the nonprofit capital market.  More money, philanthropic and otherwise, is examining and entering this space; and, more nonprofits are thinking about what they need to do to operate in this space.  It’s very exciting and I definitely think we’ll see more of that over time.  But I also think it will be years before we see a robust capital market for nonprofits.  As much interest as there is in moving into this space, the amount of money there and the portion of nonprofits positioned to take advantage of such a capital market is still relatively small compared with traditional ways of financing and operating.

Also, I think it will take a while to understand when it makes sense for nonprofits to access capital markets and when more traditional sources of philanthropic funding are more appropriate.  Philanthropies need to understand better—given what they’re trying to achieve—when a traditional grant makes the most sense and when some other financial vehicle does.

Nell: What do you think is the potential for greater partnerships between foundations and individual investors to bring more capital to social entrepreneurs, particularly in the healthcare sector?

Paul: Good question.  For large foundations such as RWJF, I think we need to consider carefully when looking at when individual investors as funding partners makes sense.  The projects we fund, by their nature, tend to be large.  The effort involved in soliciting individual investors might not be worth the result unless we are looking at folks who have considerable wealth at their disposal.  It’s a lift when you’re trying to aggregate a bunch of $100,000 contributions to reach $5 million; fundraising is not a core competency of ours.  I do think, though, that efforts such as the Social Impact Exchange, where individual dollars would flow directly to the organizations that need them, make a lot of sense.  So I think the opportunities for individual investors to participate as true funding partners on projects with RWJF are probably limited, though we are open to them if they make sense.  But there are definitely opportunities for foundations such as RWJF to help individual investors find groups that are worthy recipients.

Related posts:

1. The Future of Financing Impact: An Interview with Kevin Jones
2. Across the Pond: Perspectives on Social Innovation in London
3. Will the Social Innovation Fund Really Change the Nonprofit Market?

Incremental change is when a small portion of a problem is addressed.  It’s the idea that 10% of hungry children are fed, or 15% of at-risk youth go to college. Incremental change is small, endless steps toward solving a huge problem. At an incremental rate you begin to wonder if the problem will actually ever go away.

Disruptive change, on the other hand, is about reaching a tipping point where the solution, rather than the problem, becomes the norm.  It’s the vision of giving every kid a bright future. Or the goal of ending hunger.  Disruptive change is not just about the idea of scale, a key component of the social entrepreneurship movement where solutions are expanded to other cities or other people who could benefit. Disruption is in essence about reaching a point at which there is no going back. The old way yields to a new one.

A great example of disruptive change is the charter school movement. The American public education system is quite broken. But charter schools like Aspire, Green Dot, and KIPP have disrupted that broken system and are creating a new model of getting kids, who would otherwise drop out of the system, to college. None of these three charter school will ever reach all kids who need them, but rather these schools are demonstrating how to educate poor, at-risk kids. And the idea is that their model will be adopted as the norm by the American public education system. And given the Obama administration’s interest in these models, that could actually become a reality.

Or take homelessness, another seemingly intractable problem. The goal of  Common Ground, a nonprofit in New York City focusing on homelessness, is to “change the social and economic forces that undermine stability and health, and produce homelessness.” They want to completely end homelessness by changing the underlying systems that cause it. And it looks like they are doing just that in New York City. They have already reduced homelessness in Times Square by 87% and throughout the city by 47%.  Eradicating homelessness in the largest city in the country, that’s pretty disruptive.

But charter schools and Common Ground are the exceptions, rather than the rule in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofits are encouraged to think and act incrementally because they don’t often know where funding will come from year to year. It is difficult to make huge goals or attack big problems if the resources for execution are uncertain.  An undercapitalized, highly competitive market like the one in which nonprofits operate does not incent disruptive change.

But disruption, by its very nature, is uncertain and risky. More than anything else it involves a change in mindset. A commitment to disruption is a determination not to let fear and resource constraints hold you back from the disruption the market requires. The nonprofit sector needs to get back to its roots. Incremental change just doesn’t cut it anymore. Let’s get back to the disruption that defines the sector.

Photo Credit: tcpix

Related posts:

1. The Road to a Better World is Jammed with Red Bikes
2. Ideas for Change
3. Making a Vision for Change a Reality

Last weekend I went to the Renegade Craft Fair, the first time the traveling “edgy craft fair” has made it to Austin. As I passed booth after booth of creative, cool, handmade posters, paper, clothing, bags and other items, I was struck by how this craft fair is a fascinating microcosm of the convergence of three trends that are moving social entrepreneurship toward a tipping point.

The Renegade Craft Fair was started in 2003 in Chicago by Kathleen Habbley and Sue Blatt, two “crafters” who wanted a venue to sell their funky, homemade wares. In the past 7 years the fair has seen great success and expanded to four other cities, including this year’s foray into Texas.

Renegade is one of many examples of a handmade, or “do it yourself,” revolution that is sweeping the country. But I think that this revolution isn’t just about the homemade, it’s also about social entrepreneurship and the converging trends that are (we hope) taking it mainstream…

You can read this entire post at the Change.org blog.

Related posts:

1. The Social Side of Entrepreneurship
2. Social Entrepreneurship Podcasts
3. Training Survey

Our inaugural interview is with Kevin Jones. Kevin is a visionary in the social investing and social entrepreneurship arenas having launched two important entities in the field. He co-founded 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. He is also part of the team launching the first US node of The Hub, a network of more than a dozen work spaces for social entrepreneurs in cities across the world from Cairo to London.

Nell: This is the third year of the Social Capital Markets conference. You have said that the first year defined the social enterprise landscape and the second year validated the space, so what are you hoping that this year accomplishes?

Kevin: We want to find out what the next thing is that this community, this movement, this asset class should do, the next big obstacles to overcome, the place where we could put our efforts to make the biggest difference. Now that people are taking us seriously there is a need to understand how we fit into the landscape and how impact investing can leverage its, uh, impact by partnering with nonprofits, foundations and public sources of funding.

Nell: There are an increasing number of conferences in the social innovation/social entrepreneurship space. How is SoCap different? What is the value add of this conference?

Kevin: SoCap brings together more people from a broader perspective and approach to the intersection of money and meaning than any other conference. It’s the place your most likely to run into people you don’t know but should know. Cross pollination and expanding the dialogue while keeping the conversation focused on making a difference in an increasingly intelligent, and increasingly collaborative way is what SoCap10 is about.

Nell: It’s true that SoCap brings together an amazing group of thought leaders, social entrepreneurs and social investors for 3 days in San Francisco, but what happens after the conference ends? What changes to the social enterprise/social investing space have you seen as a result of the past two SoCaps?

Kevin: I’ve seen startups get funding. I’ve seen people from the corporate world get jobs in social enterprise, I’ve seen funds raise multiple millions to achieve scalable social impact. I’ve seen deep and lasting partnerships form between people making a difference. I’ve seen the market fragment and pieces of SoCap pop up in either regional approaches or specific vertical markets, from community activists to nonprofit funders, to technology conferences about money. The market at the intersection of money and meaning is a meme, an idea that I see growing and finding a home within a lot of other groups’ frame of reference.

Nell: This year you have made a deliberate effort to include nonprofits and philanthropy in the conference with the new Tactical Philanthropy track, as opposed to a greater focus in past years on the for-profit side of social entrepreneurship and social investing. Why the shift and what are you hoping comes out of this widening of the net?

Kevin: Well, nonprofits and philanthropy are a big part of the market of money and meaning, now that’s been established as a real place, this intersection of money and meaning. You could even say the new for-profit impact investors have crashed a party long established by philanthropy. It was past time to acknowledge that, and by bringing in Sean Stannard-Stockton [CEO of Tactical Philanthropy], we’ve got an expert and convener with far deeper knowledge than I have in the area to lead the way. SoCap10 is a lot about translation as people learn to work together across boundaries and frames of reference to build a bigger social capital market than either philanthropy or for-profit impact investing could do on their own. And of course, we also have a much bigger public sector funding participation than we have before. Some of the practical thought leaders are joining us to think and talk about what the next thing to do is.

Nell: How has the social enterprise space changed in the last three years and where do you see it going?

Kevin: It’s bigger. People are taking it seriously. We are starting to see some of its limitations, and some of the areas where it needs to grow. It used to be the cutting edge, out there doing this new thing. Now it’s the leading edge, connected to other groups and partners. I think I see the old hero myth dying out and people recognizing that we need enterprises that go beyond the heroic visionary founders, that deal with necessary founder transition issues to grow organizations with scalable impact. Or maybe that last part is wishful thinking.

Nell: What do you hope the social enterprise landscape looks like when SoCap 2015 rolls around?

Kevin: I do hope we have grown beyond the heroic visionary entrepreneur as our model. I hope the cutting edge, change making, risk taking aspects of the movement meets asset class are still intact while it becomes more tightly coupled to public sector and philanthropic efforts to make a difference. I hope it has found a room for the crowdsourced capital, like more lending platforms, in new areas like fair trade, and beyond microfinance. I hope there is a deeper linking between efforts to eradicate poverty in the U.S. and internationally, market growth while preserving the upstart innovation nature of what makes social enterprise a great positive force for disruptive innovation.

Related posts:

1. The Social Capital Markets Conference
2. A Revolution in Nonprofit Finance: An Interview with Clara Miller
3. Nonprofits and the Emerging Social Capital Market

There is an economic concept that is beautifully profound in its simplicity, but often overlooked in the nonprofit sector. Opportunity costs are the cost (financial, time, resource, other) of what you have given up in making a choice between two or more options. Understanding the opportunity costs of decisions is particularly important when resources are scarce, as is the case in the nonprofit sector. Key to the concept of opportunity costs is that you are consciously analyzing two or more options and what you must give up in choosing one over the others. Because the nonprofit sector is undercapitalized, money is king. A driving motivation in many nonprofits is to preserve money, or go after money, at all costs. So the idea of opportunity costs is often thrown out the window…

You can read the full post here.

Related posts:

1. Calculating the Cost of Fundraising
2. The Critical Importance of Financial Strategy, Recession or Not
3. Financing Not Fundraising: The Plan

But, as I’ve written before, we can’t forget the sector that was working on saving the world long before it was cool–the nonprofit sector.  And in fact, there is much that the social entrepreneurship movement can offer to rethink, reinvigorate, and remake the nonprofit sector.

To that end, Social Velocity has just released a new white paper, “What Nonprofits Can Learn From Social Entrepreneurs,” detailing what nonprofits can borrow from the movement in terms of financing, articulating, planning and thinking about their work. Here’s an excerpt:

Social entrepreneurship is not a panacea. But there are things to be learned from a movement that is re-envisioning the future, finding new ways to finance social impact, working towards BIG goals and turning the status quo on its head. The social innovation movement provides an opportunity for the nonprofit sector to see things in a new way and move the best ideas forward. And in doing so, the nonprofit sector–the people, organizations, and resources it encompasses–could revolutionize social change in this country. But becoming more innovative involves some dramatic changes in a nonprofit’s mindset, goals, and approach to funding.

Nonprofits need to think bigger–much, much bigger. One thing that all social entrepreneurs have in common is their predilection toward bold thinking. What if nonprofit organizations took a new approach and became bold? Really BOLD. This change in perspective, in goals can revolutionize an organization. No longer are the board, staff and funders content to add a few sites each year with no end goal. Rather, they understand and rally around their long-term goal, which is to solve a problem. And they see every effort they make, every meeting they come to, every investment they secure as getting them that much closer to that solution. It can transform an organization, and ultimately solve a problem…

You can download the white paper here.

Photo Credit: SI Camp

Related posts:

1. Nonprofits and the Emerging Social Capital Market
2. The Change.org Social Entrepreneurship Blog
3. Too Many Nonprofits…Or A Weak Ecosystem?

I will still write for the Social Velocity blog as often as I have been, but if you’re interested in my additional posts, check them out there.  My first post “The Danger of Abandoning the Nonprofit Sector” is up today, and here’s an excerpt:

With all the excitement and energy around social entrepreneurship, there’s a tendency to dismiss the sector that was working on social impact long before it was cool: the nonprofit world.  These days, nonprofits get far less airtime in the social innovation movement than their for-profit, social entrepreneur counterparts…Again and again, I’ve heard that innovation will never become part of the nonprofit system — that nonprofits are too set in their ways. Or that the sector is too broken to emerge anew. That attitude, though, is unacceptable. There’s great danger in dismissing the sector. Sure, it’s inefficient, dysfunctional and broken. Yet it has tremendous potential for innovation. Indeed, without innovation in the nonprofit sector, the broader movement to solve social problems is doomed…

Related posts:

1. Social Entrepreneurship Podcasts
2. Fixing the World Requires Disruptive, not Incremental, Change
3. The Social Side of Entrepreneurship

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

1. Climb on Board, Austin
2. Growing the Austin Social Innovation Ecosystem
3. Finding Investment Capital for Social Impact

Nonprofits are sometimes referred to as “charities,” and it is a real misnomer.  But beyond semantics, the word, and more importantly the mindset, does a real disservice to organizations working toward change  A charity mindset is when an organization, its board, its funders or others promoting its work have a narrow view that the organization is benevolent, but not critical, to the world at large.  The charity mindset assumes that a nonprofit starts from the position of need, inadequacy, and burden, rather than a position of opportunity, strength, and effectiveness.  The charity mindset differs from a social entrepreneur mindset in a number of ways:

• Symptoms vs. Solutions: A charity, by its very definition, exists to provide aid to the needy, not to solve the underlying cause of the need.  This is not to say that every nonprofit can work toward solving an underlying problem; there will always be organizations that exist simply to provide basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.).  But I wonder if too many nonprofit organizations view their work as residing in the “charity” camp, instead of working, as social entrepreneurs do, to understand the cause of the need and how how they may be able to attack and solve it.




• Fundraising: A fundraiser in the charity mindset apologizes for the burden of asking someone for money, but a social entrepreneur offers investment opportunities to prospects.  Wendy Kopp from Teach for America went around evangelizing the Teach for America story and sought investors who wanted to get in on the ground level of an incredible opportunity to change the American public education system.




• Investment in Infrastructure: Charities spend every last penny on the program and leave little money for building the organization.  Social entrepreneurs understand that it takes organizations, infrastructure, systems, and talent to effectively execute on a solution to a social problem.




• Respect: Charities may be beloved by their supporters, but they may not garner a lot of respect from them.  Social entrepreneurs behave as equal partners with funders in creating solutions, and, as such, they command and receive real respect from investors, volunteers, partners and others.




• True Costs:  Charities like to claim that as much money as possible goes to direct services, but social entrepreneurs recognize the true costs of their endeavors and are open and honest with funders about those costs.  In fact they demand that funders understand and support those true costs.

I think the old adage is true, people will treat you the way you ask to be treated.  If a nonprofit acts like a charity, people will treat it like one.  Nonprofits need to stand up and demand to be treated as critical, equal partners in creating solutions.

Related posts:

1. Overcoming the Anti-Overhead Mindset
2. A False Dichotomy: Non-profit vs. For-profit Solutions
3. Can Reactive Clark Kent Become Strategic Superman?

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

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

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

Related posts:

1. Nonprofits and the Emerging Social Capital Market
2. Understanding Social Innovation
3. What Creates an Environment for Social Innovation?