What Social Entrepreneurs Can Teach The Nonprofit Sector

I’ve written before that with the excitement around the social entrepreneurship movement there is a danger that we are abandoning the nonprofit sector. Indeed, there is sometimes a tendency to dismiss the sector that was working on social change long before it was “cool”. Often the older nonprofit sector is left behind, partly because the sector tends to be risk- and change-averse. 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. The nonprofit sector is an enormous part of our economy and has a long history of working towards social change. If we were to cast it aside completely, we’d lose the tremendous resources (money, people, mind-share) that are being invested in that sector every day. The nonprofit sector has tremendous potential for innovation. Indeed, without innovation in the nonprofit sector, the broader movement to solve social problems is doomed.

So instead of tossing it aside, let’s remake it, re-envision, restructure and reinvent it.

To that end, Social Velocity is hosting a webinar on July 12th, titled “What Nonprofits Can Learn From Social Entrepreneurs,” which will help nonprofit leaders understand the new models, funding approaches, messaging, systems that social entrepreneurs are employing to create social change. If nonprofit leaders can understand this new movement and integrate some of the ideas into their work, they can achieve more social change.

This webinar will help nonprofit leaders understand the social entrepreneurship movement and the innovative people, organizations and funding vehicles that are solving social problems in new, exciting ways. It will help nonprofit leaders understand what they can do to keep up, and how to make their own organizations more innovative, attract new kinds of funding, and achieve their social change goals more effectively.

The webinar will include:

• Case studies of nonprofit and for-profit social entrepreneurs
• Examples of philanthropists and social investors who are funding social change in new ways
• How social entrepreneurs are becoming more effective at making a case for support
• What the social capital market is and how it’s evolving
• What new foundation funding vehicles like “mission-related” and “program-related” invesments are
• What “venture philanthropy,” “philanthropic equity,” and “growth capital” are and how to organizations are using them to grow their organizations
• New models nonprofit growth
• New legal structures for social change organizations
• Inspiration for taking your organization to the next level

What Nonprofits Can Learn From Social Entrepreneurs
A Social Velocity Webinar
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
12 noon – 1:00 pm (EST)
Registration Fee: $40

Register Now

I hope to see you there!

Photo Credit: katrinalopez

Tags: abandoning the nonprofit sector, innovation in nonprofit sector, nonprofit growth capital, nonprofit learning from social entrepreneurs, philanthropic equity, social capital market, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, Social Investing, Social Velocity webinar, Venture Philanthropy

10 Great Social Innovation Reads: March

In our ongoing blog series, 10 Great Social Innovation Reads, below are my picks for what really stood out in the world of social innovation in March. These are the discussions, posts, articles, etc. that I think added real value to the emerging world of social innovation over the past month. You can read January’s and February’s picks as well.

As always, please add your picks to the list in the comments.

1. 2011 State of the Nonprofit Sector Surey Results: The Nonprofit Finance Fund’s third annual State of the Nonprofit Sector survey results are out. It’s very interesting to see how the sector is faring 2+ years into the recession.

 

2. How Non-Profits Are Utilizing Facebook: From the Social Earth blog comes a great infographic that demonstrates how nonprofits are using Facebook.

 

3. An In-depth Interview with Sally Osberg, President and CEO of the Skoll Foundation: Sally takes a look back at the last 10 years of social entrepreneurship in this fascinating interview.

 

4. 4 Core Approaches to Philanthropy: Sean Stannard-Stockton from the Tactical Philanthropy blog wrote a pivotal blog series in March on 4 core approaches to philanthropy.

 

5. When you want to quit because it’s just not worth it: True social innovation requires an undying determination to keep going, keep building, keep creating in the face of seemingly insurmountable hurdles, so from the A Smart Bear blog comes a reminder to never give up.

 

6. Google Launches ‘Google for Non-Profits’: Google launches Google for Nonprofits this month. Is this a revolution or an innovation? I’m not so sure. Maybe it’s the start of bigger plans down the road.

 

7. Social Impact Bonds Will Fail Without Solving the Evaluation Problem First: From Full Contact Philanthropy comes a caution about getting too excited about the next shiny thing in social impact finance, the social impact bond, which allows people to invest in nonprofits and receive a financial return if outcomes are met.

 

8. 2011 Bright Ideas: The Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center announced its annual list of the 36 brightest ideas and programs in government. If you think government can’t be innovative or create real change, take a look.

 

9. How Many Points Does it Take?: From the Nonprofit Finance Fund blog comes Craig Reigel’s argument that “nonprofits need a whole range of capital solutions.” I completely agree!

 

10. 22 Nonprofit Mobile Websites: Are nonprofit orgs jumping into the world of mobile to build support? Slowly but surely. Here’s a list of the best nonprofit mobile sites from Nonprofit Tech 2.0.

Photo Credit: aithom2

Tags: Google for Nonprofits, government innovation, nonprofit capital, Nonprofit Finance Fund, nonprofit mobile, Nonprofit Sector Survey, nonprofits on Facebook, Philanthropy, Skoll Foundation, Social Entrepreneurship, social impact bonds, social innovation

Can Reactive Clark Kent Become Strategic Superman?

Note: This post originally appeared on the Change.org Social Entrepreneurship blog earlier this year.

For the nonprofit sector to truly climb aboard the social innovation train, as opposed to being abandoned by it, nonprofit leaders need to move past the reactive toward the strategic.

But is that possible? Have nonprofits been stuck in a resource-constrained, charity mindset for too long to be made strategic, bold, big thinkers? It’s been a vicious cycle. Nonprofits lack adequate resources so they become very protective of what they have and wary of any actions which might threaten those resources. Therefore they become exceedingly risk averse and fearful of innovation. They focus more often than not on keeping the doors open as opposed to investing time, energy and resources in long-term strategy.

But that’ s just not going to cut it anymore. These times demand a radically different mindset and approach. The nonprofit sector must move from the reactive to the strategic. So how does a reactive approach differ from a strategic one? It looks like this:

When a financial crisis hits the organization, the reactive approach is to focus on keeping the doors open and staying afloat. But a strategic approach focuses on what caused the crisis and how to fix the underlying problem, model or system so that they never return there again.

When a funder wants to award a significant sum to an organization for new programs that detract from, rather than bolster, the organization’s theory of change, a reactive approach focuses on the increase in revenue, but a strategic approach recognizes the misalignment and turns the money down.

A reactive approach allows program staff to continue with a status quo method of program delivery, but a strategic approach constantly asks hard questions, tracks results, pushes outcomes, restructures inefficient processes, gets underneath the surface to make programs better, stronger, more impactful, more sustainable.

A reactive leader arrives at board meetings with reports, charts and status updates, gets a rubber stamp on day-to-day activities and breathes a sigh of relief that the board didn’t ask too many questions. But a strategic leader analyzes the unique contributions each individual board member and the board as a whole can make and leverages those contributions effectively, engages the board in meaningful discussions and actions around where the organization is going and trends in the external marketplace, and focuses board work on big picture issues and opportunities, creating key external networks, and building a strong financial future.

A reactive approach helps the board recruit new members that fit narrow definitions of experience, gender, ethnicity, and size of pocketbook. A strategic approach compares the long-term goals of the organization to the competencies, networks, experience and resources required and creates an intentional board recruitment strategy to get there.

A reactive leader crosses things of their daily to do list and feels satisfied because the trains ran on time, crises were avoided, and everyone got a paycheck. A strategic leader is rarely satisfied and constantly works to build key alliances with external partners, learns new skills, pushes their staff harder, evaluates their work, continually refines their model and responds effectively to a constantly changing environment all in the name of greater impact.

A reactive leader allows the natural uncertainty of running a nonprofit to cause fear and inaction. A strategic leader, like a true entrepreneur, recognizes the opportunity for innovation that uncertainty offers and embraces and uses that opportunity to continually mold the organization’s solution to the external market of need and funding.

It remains to be seen whether a reactive leader can transform into a strategic one. I would bet that the success of the social innovation movement as a whole rides on it.

Photo Credit: Loren Javier

Tags: charity mindset, nonprofit innovation, nonprofit leadership, nonprofit strategy, reactive nonprofits, reinventing nonprofit sector, social innovation

Unlocking New Philanthropic Capital: An Interview with Dennis Cavner

In this month’s Social Velocity interview we are talking with Dennis Cavner. Dennis is an investment advisor and philanthropist who, along with a few other philanthropists in Austin, has launched a new philanthropic investment vehicle called Innovation+. Through an extensive due diligence process over the last 6 months, Innovation + has identified and vetted a large group of nonprofits ready for significant growth and selected two which they will introduce to prospective growth investors. Their model  is a compelling variant on venture philanthropy that seeks to unlock untapped philanthropic capital. It will be interesting to watch.

You can read all of the interviews in our Social Velocity interview series here.

Nell: Explain Innovation + to me. What is it, and how does it work?

Dennis: Innovation + is a new community effort designed to enable transformational social impact. Our goal is to match proven social innovation with human and financial capital to change the world. We seek to identify a small number of nonprofit organizations that are uniquely poised for significant growth, thoroughly vet those organizations and their growth plans, and then select the most promising candidates for investment. We will make a multi-year commitment to each organization we select, assist in the refinement of their plans, help secure funding and additional human resources, and monitor the organization during an execution phase of 3-5 years. Our selection process is not a contest, rather it is a very thorough process of evaluation that results in a partnership between Innovation + and the community organization.

Nell: Why did you, Bill Forsberg and Suzi Sosa, decide to launch Innovation +? What did you think was lacking in the Austin philanthropic market and what are you hoping it will do for the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors?

Dennis: Austin has substantial untapped potential in its non-profit market. There are outstanding organizations, already achieving meaningful impact, that are poised for a strategic investment that can bring about a transformational leap in results and scale. We believe there are substantial pools of social capital that remain uncommitted due to a lack of coordinated effort to identify and vet the most promising opportunities. Our intention is to prove this hypothesis and catalyze a community of venture philanthropists who see this potential for radical positive change for our community and our world. Bill, Suzi and I have all had experience with high growth organizations and came together in this effort over the past year. Over the past twelve years I’ve had the great fortune of involvement with the Livestrong organization (the Lance Armstrong Foundation) as a board member, Chairman, and one of the architects of the Founders Circle that provided the early growth capital for that organization. I’ve seen Livestrong grow from two staff members and an annual budget of $250,000 to generate almost $400 million for the cancer cause and have a profound effect on millions of cancer survivors around the world. If you can make the right investment of time and money at the right time, it is amazing how you can impact people’s lives.

Nell: How are the traditional philanthropists you are talking to viewing this new form of philanthropy? Are they receptive or skeptical or both? What will it take to get them on board?

Dennis: Our target market is “nontraditional” philanthropists: successful entrepreneurs who have done well and want to give back, but who lack the time or other resources necessary to identify and vet the best high growth potential organizations. Not surprisingly, they love the Innovation + approach: find really smart people who are doing proven innovative work, then supply the resources necessary to replicate or scale that model for greater impact. Traditional philanthropists are also very receptive, as they appreciate the extensive due diligence and growth plan evaluation that we are bringing to the process. Our team of community activists bring to the table a broad array of skills and experience from both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.

Nell: What are you looking for in the nonprofits you select? What is the magic combination of characteristics?

Dennis: We are focused on identifying organizations that have high growth potential. To achieve that growth we believe that they must be doing innovative work in their fields, that their models are capable of expansion or replication, and that their leadership is both capable and driven to succeed. We are not interested in startups, so we seek a group that can demonstrate that their innovative work is effective. A sustainable funding model is essential, and we favor organizations that have components of earned revenue in their mix. Strong community partnerships and a clear picture of the partnerships necessary to achieve growth are very important. There is a consensus among our group that leadership is THE key component for a successful growth partner.

Nell: How do you think your model fits into other innovative models of philanthropy around the country?

Dennis: There are some really great things going on around the country, and I am encouraged by all of the creative new efforts. Some will be very successful, others not so much. Experimentation is necessary to find new solutions in a changing world. The Innovation + model is somewhat akin to an investment banking model. We identify a high growth potential organization, vet them very carefully, help them subscribe the financial and human capital needed to execute their plan, then monitor and report. We are not a fund, where investors commit their capital and then we decide where it is invested. Rather, we present an opportunity to a funder and they can either invest or pass, depending upon their interest and appetite. We may partner with nonprofits that are serving the needs of the community in the areas of health care, education, animal welfare, the environment, or other sectors. We are not limited by geographic scope, per se, and favor growth opportunities that have the potential for national expansion. These are audacious goals, but we believe in the power of community to achieve amazing things.

Nell: What do you think is holding philanthropy back from becoming more innovative?

Dennis: I actually believe that we are in the midst of great innovation in philanthropy. It is occurring in pockets, and Austin is one of the key development labs that will lead the way. In addition to the Livestrong example, I can cite the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service at the University of Texas and their Dell Social Innovation Competition, the RISE conference for entrepreneurs and social innovators, and a vibrant and creative business community that will respond positively to innovation. As we have discovered with Innovation +, Austin has a growing number of amazing nonprofits that are inventing new and effective ways of meeting the needs of the community. We are in an era of declining government ability to provide essential support to our citizens, yet the needs continue to grow. Nonprofits and businesses must do a better job of filling the gap of these unmet needs. The formation and deployment of capital in new and more effective ways is critical to achieving that goal, and I believe that Innovation + can help lead the way.

Tags: Austin philanthropy, Bill Forsberg, Dell Social Innovation Competition, Dennis Cavner, innovation, innovative philanthropy, Livestrong, nonprofit growth capital, RGK Center, RISE, scale, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, social investment, Suzi Sosa, Venture Philanthropy

10 Great Social Innovation Reads: February

February was another great month in the world of social innovation reading. As I mentioned last month, I’ve started a new monthly series on the Social Velocity blog highlighting my favorite 10 reads in the world of social innovation over the past month. You can read the January list here.

There are many more than 10 great reads out there, but these were the ones that really challenged me and got me thinking. I hope they do for you as well. As always, please add to the list in the comments. I’d love to hear what got you thinking this past month.

1. Seedbeds for Social Innovation: The Echoing Green blog discusses a new Carnegie Mellon University report that details what it takes for a city to be a seedbed for social innovation.




2. Nonprofits need to stop begging for scraps From the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Money and Mission blog, authored by the Nonprofit Finance Fund, comes a great response to the Stanford Social Innovation Review article a couple of years ago about the nonprofit starvation cycle. This post discusses what nonprofits can do to break out of the cycle.




3. A 10 Year Lesson in How Not To Spend $200 Million The Northwest Area Foundation in Minnesota has declared it’s ten year philanthropic experiment a failure. An interesting study in the less talked about side of innovation (failure) and transparency.




4. Social Impact Bond Learning Group The Nonprofit Finance Fund has launched a learning and discussion group to explore the feasibility of social impact bonds (government bond funding for social impact organizations tied to outcomes) in the US. The UK has already experimented with similar kinds of bonds. If the US introduced these kinds of bonds it could be a revolutionary new tool for funding social innovation.




5. Wired and Shrewd, Young Egyptians Guide Revolt A fascinating look from the New York Times into the structure and tactics of the small group of young innovators who brought Egypt’s ruling dictator to his knees. A real study in social innovation.




6. To Collaborate or Compete? From New Philanthropy Capital comes a report studying when it makes sense for nonprofits to collaborate and when to compete. Such a framework could be a really helpful way to tackle to this burning question.




7. Q&A With Middle East Entrepreneur Habib Haddad And another view of what happened in Egypt, a fascinating interview with a young entrepreneur who discusses the role of social media in the uprising.




8. Stop Giving Donors What You Think They Want: Dan Pallotta challenges nonprofits to treat donors like adults and be upfront and honest with them.




9. Rethinking the State of the Sector: The Deep Social Impact blog encourages the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors to focus on assets instead of challenges.




10. Governmental “Crowding Out” in Philanthropy: Sean Stannard-Stockton argues that because of the arcane way nonprofit accounting is done, money from government sources might actually cripple the financial sustainability of a nonprofit.

Tags: donors, nonprofit begging, nonprofit collaborate or compete, nonprofit financial sustainability, philanthropic transparency, Philanthropy, social entrepreneurs, social innovation

A Place for Government in Social Innovation?: An Interview with Laura Tomasko

In this month’s Social Velocity interview we are talking with Laura Tomasko. While she shares her millennial generation’s passion for social innovation, she sees a real opportunity, that many dismiss, for government to play a role. Laura serves as manager of Public-Philanthropic Partnerships at the Council on Foundations. She is a proud StartingBloc Social Innovation Fellow who holds a Master of Public Administration from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, where she served as the Vernon Snow Fellow in Nonprofit Management. You can follow her on Twitter at @lauratomasko.

You can read all of the interviews in our Social Velocity interview series here.

Nell: Many of your contemporaries are as passionate about social innovation as you are, but they tend to dismiss government. Why don’t you? Why do you think there is hope for government to be reinvented?

Laura: I don’t dismiss government because I believe that cross-sector partnerships benefit social innovation. People, organizations, and sectors all have strengths and limitations. Partnering affords an opportunity to merge skills and areas of expertise for the purpose of achieving a common goal. Like any institution, there are ways that government could improve. But I don’t believe that government needs to be reinvented to be a helpful partner in social innovation. In classrooms and professional settings, my generation recognizes the value of partnerships and discusses how to blend social innovation and government. Increasingly, master’s degree programs in public service emphasize social entrepreneurship. Fellowship programs like StartingBloc train emerging leaders to drive social innovation across sectors. Last fall, I facilitated a conversation among StartingBloc fellows on the role the public sector plays in social innovation, and I saw that these next generation leaders recognize the valuable role that government can play in social innovation.

Nell: Where do you think government fits into the social innovation movement? What should government’s role be?

Laura: Government provides an incredible platform for convening people and connecting ideas. Right now, we are seeing federal innovation initiatives that elevate results-oriented programs and incentivize public-private partnerships. The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation used its platform to draw attention to federal initiatives such as the Social Innovation Fund and the Investing in Innovation Fund. The Corporation for National and Community Service and the Department of Education, the federal agencies that respectively house those initiatives, attracted interest from public and philanthropic entities that want to work together to support innovative community-based models for change. These examples demonstrate the ability of government to draw attention to social innovation and encourage the development of partnerships to sustain the movement.

Nell: What are you working on right now at the Council on Foundations’ Public-Philanthropic Initiative? What gets you really excited there?

Laura: I serve as the Council’s manager of the Public-Philanthropic Partnerships Initiative, a program that marries my passion for social innovation and government. The goal of the initiative is to increase substantially the quality and quantity of government-philanthropic collaborations. We serve as a conduit between foundations and the federal government by cataloging opportunities, developing partnership tools, and generating analysis and commentary about current partnerships. As foundations work with the public sector, we are here to offer support and coordination assistance. During the Council’s Family Philanthropy Conference last month, I met with our members and had conversations about collaborating with government to scale up promising programs. Philanthropy plays an important leadership role in society, and I get excited by the opportunity to bring together people and ideas and facilitate connections.

Nell: How confident are you that public and private money can come together to create significant social change? There wasn’t a large government presence at past Social Capital Markets (SOCAP) conferences, for example, but that might be changing. What will it take to get private and public money to collaborate more?

Laura: I believe that public and private money can come together to create social change. To encourage more collaboration, both the public and private sides need to understand and trust one another. The barrier of unfamiliarity creates misunderstandings and missed opportunities for partnerships. Greater understanding of the risks and opportunities can build trust and lead to significant social change. The SOCAP conferences are excellent platforms for breaking down barriers, increasing understanding, and fostering relationships among for-profit investors, social entrepreneurs, government officials, and philanthropic leaders. In your interview with Kevin Doyle Jones, one of the SOCAP founders, he described SOCAP10 as a time for translation as people learn to work together. A few months ago, I was excited to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announce her intention to bring SOCAP to the State Department in fall 2011. With the talented SOCAP team leading the way, I am optimistic that participants can move past translation and into action, developing public-private collaborations in the social capital markets.

Nell: What sorts of changes would you like to see in government, at the local, state and federal levels in order for it to be more effective and instrumental in the social innovation movement?

Laura: The social innovation movement focuses on the root causes of social conditions. It looks to new and creative means for improvement, rather than continuing to treat the manifestations of problems. Innovators, optimistic about the potential for change, focus on the assets of clients and aim to use resources in new ways. With an end goal in mind, they emphasize measurement, evaluation, and collaboration when appropriate. Government can help these efforts by aligning incentives in a way that encourages innovators to address the root causes of social conditions and by supporting programs that emphasize results. Through federal innovation funds, we are seeing government invest in ventures at a level commensurate with past and potential impact. In addition to emphasizing the importance of measurement, I think that government should seek opportunities to work with philanthropy as a knowledge partner. For example, community foundations can offer local governments innovative solutions for addressing critical needs in the community.

Nell: There has already been a bit of controversy around the Social Innovation Fund, the federal government’s first official foray into the social innovation realm. What do you think about this first attempt by the federal government to play a role? Is it working or is too soon to tell?

Laura: I like the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) because it raises the visibility of philanthropy’s leadership in social innovation. The SIF offers a model for how government can leverage funds and expertise to identify promising and innovative mid-sized nonprofits. Once selected as intermediaries of SIF funds, grantmaking organizations identify and grow high-performing nonprofits. This is an important aspect of the SIF design because government defers to philanthropy’s knowledge when finding effective ways to meet community needs. In addition to encouraging public-philanthropic partnerships, I like that the SIF focuses on evidence, a desire to scale success, and the need for growth capital. George Overholser has provided incredible thought-leadership about the field of nonprofit financing. Sean Stannard-Stockton, president and CEO of Tactical Philanthropy Advisors, wrote a great post that applies Overholser’s distinction between builders and buyers to the SIF. Steve Goldberg also has offered detailed commentary about why the SIF is so important.

Even among those who like the SIF concept, some have criticized its implementation. As with any initiative in its early stages, it is helpful to have conversations about what is working and what could be improved. From my perspective, I see two good measures of success for the SIF. The first measure is whether the community-based organizations that receive public-private funds and resources can achieve their desired impact. Community-based organizations have just begun receiving funds, so we still have to wait and see. The second measure is whether state and local governments elect to implement similar models moving forward. Even before the SIF, state and local governments showed interest in social innovation and entrepreneurship. I am hopeful that these initiatives will continue to exist and new ones will develop. The more of these models that exist, the more opportunities will be available for philanthropy and government to collaborate in supporting social innovation.

Tags: George Overholser, Hillary Clinton, Investing in Innovation Fund, Kevin Doyle Jones, Laura Tomasko, Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative, scale success, Sean Stannard-Stockton, SoCap@State, Social Capital Market Conference, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation, Social Innovation Fund, Social Velocity interview series, StartingBloc, Steve Goldberg, White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation

Connecting Government & Philanthropy: An Interview with Rene Cabral-Daniels

In this month’s Social Velocity interview we are talking with Rene Cabral-Daniels, head of the Council on Foundations’ Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative that works to connect government and philanthropic resources in order to create bigger, better solutions to social problems. Rene has been a leader in both government and philanthropy, including roles as director of the Office of Health Policy and Planning for the Virginia Department of Health, and as vice president for grant programs at the Williamsburg Community Health Foundation.

You can read all of the interviews in our Social Velocity interview series here.

Nell: What are the goals of the Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative, what impact do you hope to have on social change efforts in this country?

Rene: The goals of the Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative (PPPI) are exciting ones as they reflect a growing desire by a number of entities within philanthropy to better collaborate their similar investments in social change with government to achieve enhanced impact and effectiveness. Philanthropy can, and should, be a key player alongside the public and private sectors to help the nation accelerate the pace of its response to emerging challenges. For philanthropies seeking information, context and guidance on partnering with government to advance the common good, the PPPI will facilitate the flow of information, ideas and opportunities between philanthropy and government and elevate promising practices and models so that partnership achievements transcend administrations. Essentially, the PPPI serves as a conduit between foundations and the federal government to substantially increase the quality and quantity of government-philanthropic collaborations. The PPPI has three major goals:

1. Catalog current opportunities and develop tools and resources to enable foundations, large and small, to successfully partner with government;
2. Generate timely analysis and commentary to increase awareness and understanding among the foundation community and government about all aspects of public-philanthropic partnerships and PPPI; and
3. Position the Council as an intermediary for public-philanthropic partnerships.

The PPPI’s potential for impact on social change efforts in this country is like no other. When one considers the overall goal of philanthropy to promote its investments and partnerships to enhance real change – new solutions to old, enduring problems then the PPPI’s emphasis on partnerships assures a longstanding, meaningful impact that coalesces the sector’s greatest resource- its intellectual capital. While the financial capital of some funders may be greater than others, every funder has significant intellectual capital in what works as well as what does not work in addressing a particular challenge. Thus, every funder has the capacity to effectuate meaningful change in the areas that they fund. The Council assures that the Public Philanthropic Partnerships are not and cannot be simply the domain of a few large foundations that partnered with one administration at one point in time. Thus, the PPP supports the desire of many foundations (of all sizes and missions) which choose to collaborate with public sector agencies in ways that enhance the delivery of common program missions.

Nell: Connecting foundations and government is a pretty new idea, why has the Council created this initiative and what is it about this particular time that seems right for something like this?

Rene: When I first came to the Council, I thought the PPPI was a new idea. However, after researching the history of philanthropy, it became clear to me that public-philanthropic partnerships have not only been around for a very long time but that there have been a number of successes that continue today such as the existence of public libraries, elimination of diseases such as yellow fever and the creation of the Head Start program. Another fascinating fact I learned while researching the history of philanthropy is that the foundation for public philanthropic relationships within the federal government was set under the Reagan administration. Reagan’s early activities as President was to urge the country to, “get the private sector in the driver’s seat so we can start using market incentives and philanthropy to find lasting solutions to community problems.” He highlighted the role of philanthropy by, among other actions, declaring the first National Philanthropy Day in 1986. Clearly, President Reagan recognized the leadership role of the philanthropic community within the private sector. He created the base for successful public-philanthropic partnerships that continue to this day. Recognition of philanthropy’s role did not end with his administration. Successive administrations have likewise partnered with philanthropy to solve intractable social problems. One great example is President Bush’s President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR, which serves to help save the lives of those suffering from HIV/AIDS around the world. The current administration’s creation of the Office of Social Innovation and Civil Participation merely elevates the important role of philanthropy recognized by earlier administrations, by dedicating an office that exists to leverage as well as scale up public-philanthropic partnerships. Like the government, the Council’s history with public-philanthropic partnerships is about as old as the Council itself. Its recent creation of the PPPI capitalizes on government’s elevated interest in these partnerships, which is sure to transcend administrations.

While both the federal government and the Council have had a long history with public philanthropic partnerships, there is another important reason why the Council has created this initiative at this time. The PPPI furthers the Council’s goal to promote philanthropy in an important way. The PPPI leverages the Council’s promotion in a range of activities that fall into its four priority categories – connecting, convening, communicating, and building capacity. The Council’s strengths in these four areas are simply unparalleled within the philanthropic sector. As a connector, the Council brings together foundations and government agencies seeking partnerships that can enhance their common goals. The Council’s convening abilities allow it to bring different audiences together to learn from one another about topics essential to ensure strong and productive partnerships. As a communicator, the Council provides timely information to members, government agencies, and colleague organizations on existing or future partnerships, effective practices, emerging opportunities and available PPP resources. Finally, the Council enhances the capacity of philanthropy to participate in public-philanthropic partnerships both by utilizing the Council’s expertise and by aggregating the expertise of its members and colleague organizations. Thus, the PPPI provides a wonderful platform for the Council accomplish its overall goal to promote philanthropy.

Nell: How do you define successful public/philanthropic partnerships? What does that look like?

Rene: My answer may sound circular but I think a successful public/philanthropic partnership is one whereby a shared vision of success that was clearly considered, articulated and memorialized by both the government and philanthropic partners becomes a reality. In essence, both parties have to define success for themselves at the onset of the partnership. There simply is no magic formula for successful public/philanthropic partnerships as the definition of success is as variable as the number and types of partnership possibilities. To respond further to your question, I would like to highlight an excellent document from Grantcraft which funders might want to consider when contemplating potential public/philanthropic partnership engagement. It is called Working with Government and offers a host of important considerations funders should address when contemplating partnerships with government. Funders that decide to engage in public-philanthropic partnerships should then consider the Council on Foundations’ Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative website. This website offers a wealth of information about public philanthropic partnerships and highlights the Council’s engagement in a range of activities that fall into its four priority categories – connecting, convening, communicating, and building capacity.

Nell: Do you see philanthropists increasingly wanting to collaborate among themselves and with other funders, both government and private sector funders? If so, why?

Rene: While I have no quantitative data that can demonstrate a trend or an acceleration of interest in partnerships, it is clear from a number of sources such as conference session suggestions, affinity group and member inquiries as well as webinar participation that the desire to collaborate is very strong within the philanthropic sector. I suspect one very important reason is that the downturn in the economy has encouraged funders to reconsider the many benefits of collaboration in their efforts to scale up projects while possessing fewer resources. Funders are likely realizing that their collaborative efforts are not only enhancing their economic resources, but their human and intellectual resources as well. The questions the Council receives from its members regarding collaboration make it clear that they have realized that just as there are different types of partnerships, there are many types of collaborations and that certain types of funders are better than others when considering specific types of collaboration. For example, a collaborative effort that requires the entities to act quickly to solve a challenge where time is of the essence may not be the best fit for government. However, the government might be an ideal entity with which to collaborate if the activity involves addressing a long-term community health problem, such as child obesity.

Nell: Government has a tendency to get dismissed in social change efforts, particularly in recent years with the social innovation movement because government can be viewed as bureaucratic and slow to change.  Do you think government can be more nimble and adaptive to this new energy around social change efforts?

Rene: This question is best answered by providing some legal history. When President Roosevelt expanded the number of federal agencies in the early 1930s Congress became concerned that an important political doctrine of the Constitution requiring separation of powers between the three branches of government was becoming obfuscated. Our system of government has a system of checks and balances to assure one branch of government does not have too much power. One important concern with the federal agencies is that they had legislative, judicial and executive responsibilities without public input. Because of this concern, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. It has been called “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated” by federal government agencies. The APA requires agencies to keep the public currently informed of their structure, procedures and rules and provides for public participation in the rule making process. More recent examples of other laws that assure public participation in government decisions include the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which makes public all administrative procedures and hearings and the Government in the Sunshine Act, which makes agency meetings public.

While the need to assure the citizenry has adequate input into agency decisions is an important tenet of the American government, it also challenges the ability of government to act quickly. The private sector is not saddled with this important, yet burdensome responsibility. While the government may never be as nimble as the private sector in executing social change activities, its many resources can still be adaptive to new social change efforts. I think the more strategic funders will harness as well as leverage those resources in addressing social change challenges. Examples of some of these resources are as follows:

1. The government has a tremendous amount of relevant, longitudinal socio-economic data that are often underutilized because government lacks the ability to make these data user-friendly. Collaborative efforts between government and others to improve the utility of this rich resource can inform social change movement efforts going forward.
2. Another important resource that government possesses is the breadth of its workforce. Excluding postal workers, the federal government will employ 2.11 million people in 2011. To build on Justice Holmes’ analogy of a “marketplace of ideas”, the federal workforce offers a “supermarket” of ideas. This expansive knowledge base translates into a plethora of professional expertise that can be tapped to address the complexity of social challenges. The ability to harness the interest and energy of large numbers of people toward a particular goal is another related benefit.
3. Finally, the government’s history in addressing or attempting to address social change challenges might help to identify the circumstances under which some social change efforts have been successful, as well as the conditions which have frustrated past efforts.

So, I guess in a nutshell I would suggest those engaged in social change efforts acknowledge that while government strives to act quickly, it does not have the luxury of forsaking timely public notice and participation of its efforts. Also, because many social challenges are protracted, their resolution may require significant time. In social change efforts, government should not be relegated to a role whereby it is expected to act quickly but rather one whereby its many resources are appropriately tailored to inform the quick action of its partners.

Nell: Where do you think collaboration between government and philanthropy will be 10 years from now? What do you hope the future looks like?

Rene: In my opinion, the collaboration between government and philanthropy will be much more intricate than what we are seeing today and therefore the resultant successes that emanate from that collaboration will be more sophisticated. I think that the lines that separate the two will become a bit blurred as they build upon the successes of current public-philanthropic partnerships and learn to have realistic expectations of one another. In particular, I anticipate seeing a greater number of matching grants and cooperative agreements, sponsorships and co-sponsorships and the staff sharing.

Tags: Council on Foundations, Foundations, government philanthropic collaboration, Philanthropy, Public-Philanthropic Partnership Initiative, Rene Cabral-Daniels, social change, social innovation

What’s Making Me Think

One of the things I love about my job is that I can spend some serious time reading and thinking about the many conversations happening in the evolving world of social innovation. I am continually amazed by the thought-provoking things that happen out there in philanthropy, nonprofit innovation, impact investing, social entrepreneurship. I think particularly because of the nascent nature of the social innovation movement, definitions and approaches are constantly evolving. People are constantly pushing the boundaries, stretching our world views, defining new territory as they go.  It’s all very exciting.

I love to have my thinking challenged, especially by smart, articulate, thoughtful people. I’m assuming you do to, so to that end, here are the blog posts, reports, videos, and articles that have caught my eye, expanded my thinking, inspired me, or pushed the boundaries for me in the past several weeks:

• What Nonprofits Can Learn from Coca-Cola
• Foundations With a Limited Life
• Blackbaud’s State of the Nonprofit Industry Survey Results
• Exit Strategy and Exit Strategies for Social Entrepreneurs (two different takes on a similar topic)
  
• Txt if by Land, Tweet if by Sea
• Not Your Father’s Foundation
• Keep it Simple (Tips on simple nonprofit evaluation)
• A Different Kind of Philanthropy
• Straight Talk in Mixed Company: A Plea for Across the Aisle Conversations about Overhead
• Why Running an Effective Charity is Like Flying a Fighter Plane
• Four Questions to Determine if a Nonprofit is Ready to Change
• Transforming Failure Into Success
• 50 (More) Social Media Tactics for Nonprofits
• Voting to Donating: Social Psychology Reveals What Moves Us

That’s my list. What got you thinking this month? Add to the list in the comments.

Tags: nonprofit change, nonprofit overhead, Philanthropy, Social Entrepreneurship, social innovation