Climb on Board, Austin

Today wraps up the Social Entrepreneur track of RISE, Austin’s SXSW-style conference for entrepreneurs.  It was a lot of fun putting together the track with Jessica Shortall, with lots of help from Annie Frierson, Suzi Sosa, Andy White and the many amazing, inspiring social entrepreneurs in our area.  I’m so impressed with the speakers and panelists that made up the track.  From design-thinking for social entrepreneurs, to domestic microfinance, to technology for social impact, to social investing, to balancing mission and profit, and much, much more.  It was so great to see those working in the gray area between social impact and entrepreneurship together sharing insights, ideas, knowledge, discussion, debate.

I couldn’t get to all of the sessions in the track, and so I’d love recordings of those I missed.  But because RISE is a free conference there is little budget for “extras” like recording equipment and staff.  However, I heard a rumor that some of the sessions were unofficial taped.  If you know of any taped sessions, let me know, and I’ll post them to this blog.  And I will definitely make the case to the organizers of RISE that next year we find a way to tape sessions.  Because this content is just too rich to be shared by only the 25-40 people in the room.

So I wanted to share my takeaways from the RISE Social Entrepreneurship track and thoughts about where we go from here.

First, the takeaways:

• There is tremendous interest and energy around social entrepreneurship in Central Texas
• However, there is little infrastructure or eco-system to effectively support those entrepreneurs
• More social entrepreneurs in the track and attending sessions were women  (that could entirely be based on the fact that the leaders of the track are women, but I think there’s more to it than that)
• There is a debate about whether social entrepreneurs need to bootstrap as long or as hard as traditional entrepreneurs since the same end reward (financial profit) does not really exist for SEs
• Funders of social entrepreneurs are not present in nearly as many numbers as social entrepreneurs
• An “investment banker” or “broker” vetting and connecting social entrepreneurs to potential investors is a key part of the needed ecosystem

And that’s just a beginning list.  There were far too many conversations, insights, war stories, and needs to catalog here.

Which brings me to where we go from here. There is a disconnect for Austin in the realm of social innovation.  When I talk with people in the social innovation space outside of Texas they are always interested to hear that I am from Austin and are sure that Austin is well along the path of launching and growing social entrepreneurs.  Because of Austin’s reputation for progressive ideas, its wealth, its technology background and its rank as the third largest venture capital city in the country, people assume that social entrepreneurship, which often follows from these things, is burgeoning here.  When I tell them that isn’t the case, they are shocked. What is holding Austin back?

We heard some provocative conversations this week and saw some inspiring examples of social entrepreneurs who are making it and funders who are helping them along.  But that’s not enough, not even close.

Social entrepreneurs need access to significant funding at every step of the game from seed to growth, whether their  model is nonprofit, for-profit or a hybrid.  We need to give social entrepreneurs the skills to create solid business strategy around a great idea, language for creating a compelling pitch, infrastructure to grow results.  We need to create communities for social entrepreneurs and social investors to interact, network, learn from each other, forge partnerships.  But most of all we need to collectively say, it’s not enough.  One week a year is not enough.  A handful of social entrepreneurs and social investors in a city of 1.7 million is not enough.  Social innovation is a growing industry, one that Austin should and must climb on board.  I’m not satisfied.  I want to see more.  A lot more.

Tags: Austin, Central Texas, design-thinking, microfinance, RISE, social entrepreneurs, social innovation, Social Investing

What is Social Innovation?

It’s a big buzz word right now, but what does it mean? Is it just a bunch of hype?

Social innovation is a whole group of big, ambitious, new ideas and models for solving social problems. Social innovation is about changing institutions, organizations, approaches, systems in fundamental ways so that we can fix the many problems facing us. It includes things like:

• Creating new financial vehicles where nonprofit and for profit organizations that are working to solve social problems can have ready access to all kinds of funding (seed funding, growth capital, debt, etc.)
• Removing the hurdles placed in front of organizations working to solve social problems (accounting standards, IRS regulations, etc.)
• Restructuring philanthropy to be more effective at supporting real change
• Revamping government so that it can support, rather than thwart, change leaders
• Reforming nonprofit organizations to break out of the starvation cycle and become more effective at creating social impact

And that’s just the beginning.

Social innovation is big.  It’s bold. It is a movement of people and organizations from all three sectors (public, private, nonprofit) who are taking a completely different approach, who are turning the status quo on its head, who are building new systems, who are asking hard questions, who are creating a new way forward.

If you are going to be in Dallas, Texas next week, consider joining me at the Governor’s Nonprofit Leadership Conference where I am leading two sessions on the social innovation movement and what it means for the nonprofit sector.  I hope to see you there!

Social Innovation for Nonprofits

2009 Governor’s Nonprofit Leadership Conference
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 1:30-3:00pm, or
Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:15-11:45am
Sheraton Dallas Hotel
Dallas, Texas

In this seminar, attendees will learn how to employ new models in the social and philanthropic sectors (including social entrepreneurship, growth capital, strategic fundraising) so they can more effectively address the social issues in their communities. If nonprofit organizations are strategic with the resources at their disposal, they will be better able to confront social challenges. Particularly in the midst of the economic downturn, nonprofits need new ideas and models for doing what they do more effectively and sustainably.

Click Here to Register for the GNLC

Tags: GNLC, Governor's Nonprofit Leadership Conference, reforming nonprofits, restructuring philanthropy, social innovation, Texas

Too Many Nonprofits…Or A Weak Ecosystem?

Greenlights for Nonprofit Success, Austin’s nonprofit management assistance organization, today released the findings of a research study on the number of nonprofits in Central Texas.  The results weren’t surprising: we have more nonprofits (over 6,300) per capita than any other large Texas city and any other city in the Southwest region. And our nonprofits tend to be small: 93% (compared to 89% nationally) have a budget under $1 million, and 89% have a budget under $500,000.  In light of this study, Greenlights offers some good advice about looking towards cooperation, collaboration, and even  mergers given the number of nonprofits that exist and the increasing competition for funding, especially given the current economy.

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.

Tags: Austin, Greenlights, nonprofit, One-Star Foundation, Philanthropy, RGK Center, Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, Social Investing, White House Office of Social Innovation

Understanding Social Innovation

If you are interested in learning more about the social innovation movement and will be in Austin on May 14th, join me for a seminar, “New Models: Social Innovation.” This 90-minute session will discuss what social innovation is, what the terms social entrepreneurship, growth capital, venture philanthropy, mission-related investing, and social enterprise mean, and what some really innovative organizations are doing in this space.  If you run a nonprofit, serve on a board, run a social business or are thinking of launching one, donate to social impact organizations, or are interested in solutions to social problems, there is great significance for you in the social innovation movement. And because Austin  has a lead role to play in the movement, I’ll examine how Austin compares to the rest of the country.  You can read some of my past posts on Austin’s social innovation ecosystem, where Austin is going and what it needs to be a leader in this space here, here and here.

If you’ve been intrigued by social innovation and want to learn more, join us:

Lunch and Learn: New Models  – The Social Innovation Movement

May 14, 2009
11:30am-1:00pm
At Greenlights

Click Here to Register

Tags: Austin, nonprofit, social business, Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, Venture Philanthropy

Innovation Cities in a New Economy

Innovation often comes from chaos and crisis.  In this month’s The Atlantic magazine, Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class and director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, wrote an interesting prediction of how the recession will change the landscape of American cities.  He argues that the financial crisis will create “great mega-regions that already power the economy, and the smaller, talent-attracting innovation centers inside them.”  He includes Austin in the short list of mega-regions which also includes Boulder, Research Triangle and Silicon Valley.  He sees the innovation that is happening in these areas as key to the next iteration of the economy.  He argues that a reshaped America will be focused on these “mega-regions” and be “a landscape that can accommodate and accelerate invention, innovation, and creation—the activities in which the U.S. still holds a big competitive advantage.”  It seems, at least to Richard, that Austin is key to this new economy.

Along the same lines, McKinsey recently did a study of the world geography of innovation, how cities compare in terms of innovation.  The results, in a pretty interesting interactive map, place Austin in the “Silent Lake” category (in the middle between “Dynamic Oceans” and “Shrinking Pools”), which means we have “slow-growing innovation ecosystems backed by a narrow range of very large established companies that operate in a handful of sectors. These clusters are frequently the source of a steady stream of “evolutionary” innovations and step-wise improvements.”

Taken together, then, it appears that there is a bright future for Austin.  What neither the article nor the study take into consideration, though, is social innovation.  I would love to see a similar analysis of hotbeds of social innovation, areas where sectors are converging and new ideas, products, services which include a social element are emerging.  That would be fascinating and would probably mirror the mega-regions Richard describes.  Because I believe that at the end of this restructuring we are undergoing, we will have an economy where social and financial returns are fundamentally integrated. And those cities that understand and leverage this change will be far more successful.

Tags: Austin, Boulder, economy, innovation, McKinsey, Research Triangle, Richard Florida, Silicon Valley, social innovation

Austin the Social Startup Capital of the World?

One of the things I talk and write about (possibly ad nauseam) is how well positioned Austin is to lead in the social innovation movement.  Our rank as the 3rd largest venture capital city in the country, our entrepreneurial spirit, our tech focus, our passion for green living and our tremendous wealth all make us uniquely positioned to capitalize (both financially and socially) on the growing movement for innovation and enterprise around social impact.

I’ve written here and here about what elements of a city’s infrastructure are necessary to catalyze social innovation.  And I was particularly excited when Nathaniel Whittemore, Director of the Center for Global Engagement at Northwestern University, described in a recent blog an ideal environment to stimulate successful social enterprise:

So here is what I’d like to see. Someone combines The Hub model of collaborative working space for social entrepreneurs with the Y-Combinator model of funding low-cost tech startups [provide promising startups small amounts of seed capital and intense mentorship and networking in anticipation of further investment ]. In this model, which is geared toward social enterprise, the Y-Combinator style investment would be focused on tech startups that are building services useful for other businesses and social startups (things like Yammer, which is great for keeping a team of volunteers or employees connected to one another). In addition to the cash investment, the tech startups get to work (and maybe even live?) in the Hub space. In return, they give up equity – but also a small chunk of their developer time (25%? 10 hpw?) to pro-bono or reduced cost projects for the nonprofit social entrepreneurs who are part of the same Hub community. This combines the density, talent and energy of the tech startup world with the mission focus of the social enterprise world. All it would take are the right partners. Sounds like a pretty good combination to me…

This sounds just like Austin.  And, in fact, we have these kind of incubators on the pure business side.  For example, Capital Factory is an Austin-based seed stage mentoring program for startups that provides a small amount of seed capital and weekly mentoring sessions by entrepreneurs who have founded successful companies.  What if there were a Capital Factory for social enterprises and social businesses?  I’m not aware of anything like that anywhere else in the country.  Couldn’t Austin pave the way in social enterprise by taking something we already do very well (venture capital, angel investing, start up incubators, entrepreneurial mentoring, etc.) and put a social spin on it? That would be truly innovative and get us out ahead of the curve of what is shaping up to be a huge movement.  And there is financial and social profit to be made.  Don’t we want a piece of that?  It seems such a natural thing to me.  What is stopping it?  And how do we overcome those roadblocks?

If you’re interested in exploring this topic more, join me and Jessica Shortall for our RISE session on March 3rd:  Start Ups with Social Impact where we’ll talk with Austin-based social enterprises and discuss what is required to make Austin a leader in this space.

Tags: Austin, Capital Factory, Center for Global Engagement, incubator, social business, Social Enterprise, social innovation, The Hub, venture capital, Y-Combinator

Thoughts on Social Innovation

The United Way Capital Area recently asked to interview me about social innovation for their blog.  It was a lot of fun, and they asked great questions.  You can check out the interview here.  Or read the text of it below.

Q: Your bio says you’ve been in the social sector for over 13 years. Tell us what things were like for you when you first got involved with the non-profit world. How were they different from today’s imperative to develop entrepreneurial models in the non-profit sector?

A: I don’t know that things were fundamentally all that different when I got started.  Nonprofits have always been entrepreneurial, if you think about it.  They are created because someone sees a disequilibrium, or “market opportunity” (inadequate schools, poor housing, lack of cultural arts) so they create an organization, with great risk and few resources, to fix that disequilibrium.  This is not so different from a business entrepreneur, aside from the social motive versus profit motive.

I think what has changed over the past decade or so is a convergence among the public, private and nonprofit sectors.  A decade or so ago the three sectors remained relatively separate.  A nonprofit might receive corporate philanthropic dollars or federal dollars, or government might contract with a nonprofit to provide public services, but the three sectors stayed separate and had their own unique characteristics.  Now you see a merging of the three sectors into what some call a “fourth sector.”  Some private businesses now include a social mission in their business model (a solar energy company), nonprofits are using business models to create sustainable organizations, the federal government is thinking about an office of social innovation.  The old, separate sectors are being swept aside by a new idea that each sector has something to offer and by borrowing the best from each we can move towards solving the mounting problems we face.
Q: What is an example of a fundraising lesson you’ve learned during your career that helped you make KLRU’s transformation so successful–either a mistake made, or a surprising success you were able to apply again?

A: When I started at KLRU in 2005 there was a tremendous lack of fundraising infrastructure (technology, staffing, planning), and we needed a significant financial investment to build that infrastructure.  But my experience had been that funders weren’t interested in supporting infrastructure.  However, my boss several years earlier at the Oregon Children’s Foundation, who was an expert fundraiser, always said that if you can clearly articulate the impact that an investment can make you can convince someone to invest.

Armed with that idea, I created a compelling case for investing in a complete transformation of KLRU’s fundraising function, along with a demonstration of the return on investment an investor would get.  This plan to revamp KLRU’s fundraising function (everything from new database software, website, staff, messaging, collateral) was ambitious and expensive for donors who were not used to supporting infrastructure. But because the case was so compelling (their investment would allow KLRU to become more self-sustaining, generate more revenue, spend more time on programming, and spend less money over the long term) we easily secured the money needed.  People always talk about the importance of relationships in fundraising.  Relationships are definitely important, however, I would say that even more important is a compelling, articulate ask that demonstrates impact and social return on investment.  Donors want to make a difference.  If you can clearly demonstrate how they will make a significant difference, not in your organization, but in the broader community through your organization, you will gain their investment.

Q: In your recent article, “Social Innovation Provides Hope in the Uncertainty”, you mention an approach that entails “uncovering the root causes of the social problem and addressing those head on with new ideas and models, instead of attempting to ameliorate the symptoms of a social problem”–tell us why such an approach is so important, especially right here and now in Central Texas?

A: Because the problems that we as a city, region and nation face are so large and so complex and the resources available to address them are becoming scarcer.  We have to be smarter about how we solve problems; we no longer have the luxury of just addressing the symptoms.  That’s not to say that every nonprofit organization must solve problems.  There are some problems that unfortunately will probably never be solved completely, for example hunger and homelessness.  But, there are many problems where the conversation can change from “How do we serve more people in need?” to “How do we change the system so the need no longer exists?”  I don’t suppose to have the answers to the problems facing our region, but what I am arguing is that we examine the issues we are working on and ask hard questions about the root cause of the problems and how we could creatively find solutions.  Again, not every problem has a solution, but every problem deserves a critical analysis of the systems and structures feeding it and whether those could be changed.  It is sometimes a difficult conversation to have because root cause work involves changing long-held beliefs or entrenched systems, but the end result could be more lives saved in the long run.  And I would argue that in some cases investing in solutions, or changed systems, is a far better long-term investment than simply continuing to provide services.

Q: How do you see the non-profit landscape in Central Texas changing or evolving in 2009?

A: The economy will most certainly play a role. It will be harder to find resources, and so organizations will have to get smarter, more efficient and more strategic about fundraising, and that means making an investment up front in planning, messaging, strategy, technology.  These don’t have to be large investments, but it can’t just be business as usual.  Difficult times call for better strategy.  I think nonprofits will have to become more social media and Internet savvy.  There are cheaper, better ways to raise money, but you’ve got to be willing to take a risk and make an initial investment.  It takes money to make money in the nonprofit world just as in the business world.

I also think there will be larger conversations among the nonprofit and philanthropic communities about our level of investment in the nonprofit sector.  Clara Miller, CEO of the Nonprofit Finance Fund, wrote an interesting piece recently about how the nonprofit sector has been sorely undercapitalized for years and is near the breaking point.  She argues that we can no longer allow this critical sector to scrape by with band-aid infrastructure.  I think there will be a growing realization that we have to invest in the infrastructure and capacity of this sector. We can’t just buy programs, we have to build the organizations that we are relying on to provide our social safety net and solve the many problems facing us.  And that means nonprofits have to ask for and funders have to invest in technology, top talent, strategic planning.  We can’t bootstrap our critical services any more.  If we want our nonprofit sector to survive and thrive and continue to solve problems, we have to make adequate investment there.

Q: What is your take on the importance of collaboration, between government, private and social sector organizations to provide socially innovative solutions?

A: Absolutely critical, and I would go even further to say that the three sectors are not just collaborating, but actually converging, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a really exciting and powerful development.  The three sectors have been collaborating for years.  What is happening, and where I think the tremendous opportunity lies, is in the convergence of the sectors.  By combining the social focus of the nonprofit sector; the business acumen, wealth, and innovation of the private sector; and the tremendous resources of the public sector you have a palpable ability to solve the challenges we face.  Take the idea of a federal social innovation fund that is being discussed among the Obama administration and social entrepreneurs.  The idea is that the federal government and private investors would pool a significant amount of money that would be invested in social entrepreneurs, along with management assistance similar to what a venture capital fund provides its investments.  This social innovation fund would combine the wealth and resources of the government and private sectors to provide adequate growth capital to nonprofits and social businesses.  That’s a pretty exciting idea.

We all know that Austin has such an entrepreneurial, innovative private sector, a committed nonprofit sector and a strong government sector.  We are ripe for social innovation and for a convergence of the sectors.  Other cities similar to Austin, such as Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, are heavily involved in social innovation, with venture philanthropy funds, blooming social enterprises, and investors in social businesses.  Although Austin has some activity, it is nothing like these other cities.  Our city has a tremendous opportunity to benefit from this convergence and face the future with a new economy that combines social and financial profit.  I’d love to see that happen here.

Q: Thank you for your time, is there anything else you would like to add?

A: Although I know people are wary and uncertain in this economic climate, I would argue that this is also a time of tremendous opportunity. We all know that the nonprofit sector has been sorely undercapitalized for years, if not decades.  We can’t go on like that.  We also know that our problems (poverty, inadequate schools, depleted natural resources) are getting worse, not better.  Because of this mounting pressure I see lawmakers, philanthropists, nonprofit leaders, CEOs and others standing up and saying enough is enough.  We can’t go on like this.  Something has got to change.  The entire financial system of the nonprofit sector has got to change.  We need to invest in infrastructure, we need to create strong, sustainable nonprofit organizations, we need all three sectors to work together, we need to address root causes, and we need to look to others for innovative models.  I am very confident that out of this pain and uncertainty our social sector will emerge stronger, better resourced and better equipped to solve the problems we face.  Because, in essence, there isn’t another option.

Tags: Central Texas, convergence, Nonprofits, root causes, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, United Way Capital Area

What Creates an Environment for Social Innovation?

I’ve been thinking about it a lot.  Indeed, the very reason I created Social Velocity was to spur, or grow the movement for social innovation here in Austin and the Southwest region.  There is a reason (or reasons) why our region has not yet caught the wave of social innovation that has been sweeping the two coasts of the country in the last 10 years or so.  We certainly have examples of social innovation (earned income enterprises, capacity-building grants) but we don’t have venture philanthropy funds, social investment vehicles, social enterprise incubators, or plentiful growth capital that other cities like San Francisco, Boston, Portland, Seattle, DC and others have.

I recently posed the question to my Tweeps (followers on Twitter).  And the initial response back was that those East and West coast cities that I mentioned all have an encouraging environment for tech startups.  That’s true, but so does Austin.  We are the third largest venture capital city in the country AND the vast majority of that money is invested in tech companies.  Aren’t we dubbed Silicon Hills?  So that’s not the answer.

I posed this question to the many people I’ve met with over the past 18 months as I was envisioning and refining what Social Velocity would later become.  And I got various answers, such as:

• Austin is basically a middle-class city with no real pressing social needs.  Innovation comes from necessity and without that necessity or deep need, social innovation cannot flourish.
• Austin’s philanthropy is young.  Other cities have had 70+ years of philanthropy to evolve and begin to look at newer models, like venture philanthropy and social investing.
• Texas, and Austin by extension, is very independent-minded.  The individual tends to be emphasized over the collective and therefore large investments in community-wide efforts are harder to come by.
• Our nonprofit sector is more grassroots.  60% of Austin’s nonprofits have a budget of $25K or less.  Some of these new models require a certain level of infrastructure in order to implement them.
• Austin is a very heterogeneous population in terms of viewpoints.  Coming to consensus on anything (from public transportation to urban development to creating an infrastructure that fosters social innovation) is difficult.

That’s just a sampling of responses I’ve received.  I’m sure there are many more reasons.  But where do we go from here?  How do we foster an environment for social innovation here?  How do we get people excited about investing capital in social enterprises?  How do we encourage social enterprise incubators to form?  How do we create a pool of social investment capital?  How do we pilot social entrepreneurial models and demonstrate and scale their success?

I think the answer lies in infrastructure.  We have to create an ecosystem that encourages and invests in social innovation.  Perhaps a breakdown of that infrastructure can be seen in my colleague Jessica Shortall’s earlier post about what created London’s social innovation environment.  She saw 5 elements:

• Public sector: A cabinet-level “Minister for the Third Sector” who focuses much of his time on social enterprise.
• Foundations: Make grants to test out ideas for social change, invest in social innovation-based businesses, talk as a group about innovations in social finance and share deal flow.
• Social Investors: Innovative funds provide new nonprofit and social enterprise finance tools such as loan guarantees for charities to access debt and quasi-equity deals to social enterprises, as well as providing networks, advice, and entrepreneurial knowledge.
• Academia: Centers for research on social entrepreneurship at several academic institutions in the area.
• Big and small ideas: Events, gatherings, workshops, think tanks and other activities that help social entrepreneurship and innovation bubble up.

I would say, broadly, that the infrastructure elements necessary include:  adequate funding, space (incubators), expertise, research, and buy in (both in words and in resources) from all three sectors (government, private, nonprofit).

As Jessica says, it’s the overall environment that creates social innovation:

It’s an ecosystem approach, where things swirl and evolve over time, with different players watching for patterns; making connections; providing physical, social, intellectual capital; and taking risks.

What can we do to create that ecosystem in Austin?

Tags: Social Enterprise, social innovation, social investment capital, Twitter, Venture Philanthropy

Social Innovation Jobs

If you are interested in some exciting opportunities to be part of the social innovation movement, one of my clients, SW Key Programs is hiring two positions:  Director of Business Development and Director of Development.

The Director of Business Development will help SW Key streamline and grow their social enterprise (earned income) activities.  They currently have 3 social enterprises and would like to see those thrive and look at potential other opportunities as well.  It’s a great opportunity to make social enterprise a growing reality in Austin.

The Director of Development will help SW Key build their philanthropic revenue from individuals, corporations and foundations.  Again, it’s a very entrepreneurial opportunity to build something from the ground up and make a real difference in how one of the largest nonprofits in Austin creates a sustainable revenue engine.

And another one of my clients will be hiring in January, so stay tuned for other social innovation opportunities.

Tags: jobs, Social Enterprise, social innovation