Harvard Social Enterprise Conference, Part 2

There’s a lot to say about today’s events at the Harvard Social Enterprise conference, so I’m not going to be able to synthesize it all into one post. I’m hoping some of the other attendees can comment here to add to the discussion.

The day started off with a keynote address from Willy Foote of Root Capital and his talk was probably the most entertaining of the day. He weaved interesting stories throughout the speech and even ended by pulling out a guitar and singing a Latin American revolutionary song. Definitely wasn’t expecting that.

Beyond discussing at length the need to support small and medium enterprises around the world, which is what Root Capital does, I think he gave an interesting story of how he came to do what he does, which serves as a useful model for all social entrepreneurs. He said he started the organization out of a combination of intuition and impatience; a worry that if he didn’t start doing what he thought was necessary, it wouldn’t get done.

The second keynote of the day, Robert Harrison of the Clinton Global Initiative, gave a different perspective on the journey into public service. He worked in the private sector much longer than most before switching to CGI, and he discussed the reasons for that. He told a story about how he worked on the Hill as a college student, and got the advice to go into the private sector, gain technical expertise, and then leave the private sector to “change the world.” He said in the current climate, young people don’t need to do that anymore, and should go right into social entrepreneurial and nonprofit careers. I thought that Harrison’s story was an interesting contract to Foote’s, and shows the many different ways people can get into (and excel in) creating social change.

Two of the panels I went to, “Accessing Transformative Social Enterprise Capital” and “Emerging and Traditional Legal Structures for Social Enterprises” complemented each other very nicely. “Enterprise Capital” was a discussion of the landscape of the different financing options available to social enterprises, and “Legal Structures” was on the emerging legal statuses out there for organizations. Both seemed to come to the same conclusion: Mission is more important than anything else. First you should decide on your mission and your goals, and then figure out the best financing and structure to help you accomplish that goal. Financing and organization structure are important tools to help you accomplish what you want to do, but they are only tools.

Related to this idea of prioritizing mission, the “Survival of the Fittest: Leadership and Scaling Up” panel had a great discussion on the role of scale for organizations. All of the panelists agreed that scale should not be a goal in and of itself. Scale should only serve the mission, and if done for the wrong reasons, can actually corrupt an organization’s progress. Caleb Shreve of the Global Fairness Initiative noted that there is nothing wrong with operating “at scale.” If something is working and doesn’t need to grow, don’t push it.

A theme that ran through all the panels, but was really brought out most strongly by Foote, was the idea of over extending oneself. He noted that Root Capital isn’t doing anything that innovative, it is just taking traditional models of finance and applying them into new markets. He encouraged people not be innovative for innovation’s sake, and instead to do one or two things really well, and collaborate with others to do the rest. I thought that this advice, along with that from the panels I attended, was a very realistic (and humbling) way to look at social innovation and social enterprise.

On a side note, I also attended a design workshop from the folks at IDEO. I’ve never been a part of design thinking before, and I have to say, I struggled to keep up. We tried to come up with dozens of solutions to health-related problems in India in under 60 minutes. People were thinking of ideas faster than I could process the words being said. I think I’ll stick to philanthropy, for now.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the final keynote because I had to head back to DC. Hopefully someone else can comment on it who stuck around.


                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Harvard Social Enterprise Conference, Part 1

If there was one theme that emerged from today's installment of the Harvard Social Enterprise Conference, it was that the federal government should take on the role of scaling up social enterprises.

Well, that was a theme that seemed to tie the keynote address on the Social Innovation Fund together with the panel on "Social and Policy Innovation in the Obama Administration." The keynote address featured a conversation with Paul Carttar, Director of the Social Innovation Fund, and VPP's President and CEO, Carol Thompson Cole, which was moderated by CNN analyst David Gergen. The "Social and Policy Innovation" panel featured several members of the Obama administration that work on various aspects of his innovation agenda.

Something that clearly emerged from the keynote address was that the Social Innovation Fund does not aim to find or create social entrepreneurs,  but to scale up tested and proven programs. Paul said that if they focus on finding these effective solutions to social problems, the right entrepreneurs and leaders will follow. Similarly, the panelists representing the Obama administration discussed how they seek to find innovations where they are--be they policy innovations, technology innovations, or product innovations--and scale them up across the country, and with the case of international development, across the world. Mark Newberg of the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning at the Small Business Administration noted that without the federal government behind a particular innovation (he gave the example of LEED certification for buildings), it's hard to create any sort of systemic change. This reminded me a lot of the government-as-an-exit-strategy concept of philanthropy.

Carol Thompson Cole, in the keynote, gave an interesting glimpse of how the SIF intermediary funders fit into the broader goals for the initiative. This is something I don't think most people have a good grasp on yet, (but, of course, I'm not sure if that's true since I work so closely with this stuff, as VPP is a SIF intermediary), so I think it was good to get that out there. She talked about how organizations like VPP are mediators between the social service subgrantees and the federal government, and how important it is that VPP has committed to five years of its SIF program, youthCONNECT, regardless of federal funding.

Something that both Carol and Paul discussed, which I've never really grasped before, was the idea that SIF is not just about giving out money to high-performing organizations, but actually advancing a theory of change that isn't typical in the philanthropic or social entrepreneurship field. Paul discussed how he thought SIF would be a success if it can advance the notion of collaborative work towards a shared-outcome framework, either in other areas of the government or in the private world. Carol talked about VPP's commitment to a network for social change, and how this really represents the way forward for the organization.

Completely separate from that, I went to another presentation with four panelist presenting academic research on the social enterprise sector. I was a little skeptical, to be honest, since it included the word "academic" in the title, but it was fantastic. There was a presentation on what organizations should measure for based on their theory of change and organizational services (which had a matrix involved), a presentation on the efficiency of social enterprises vs. corporate social responsibility vs. charity, a study on impact investing, and a presentation on conscious capitalism that included the question "Can you build a business on love?" (Which I think will be the new question I ponder while I meditate.) Unfortunately, these presentations got pretty close to blowing my mind, so I don't think I'm going to be able to summarize them here.

All in all, a great, informative, innovative day. Also, the food at the networking reception was fantastic. Harvard knows how to do it.

More tomorrow.

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Harvard Social Enterprise Conference

I apologize for not posting for a while, but it seems that life has gotten in the way of many things for me over the last few months, one of them being this blog.

But, fortunately, life has now brought me to something very exciting: I will be attending the Harvard Social Enterprise Conference this weekend. Carol Thompson Cole, President and CEO of VPP, will be giving the keynote address on Saturday, so I am going to support her, generally hang out and soak up as much knowledge as possible. I'll be blogging from here, and also tweeting from @jraders and @vppartners. Follow either account to get my minute-by-minute insights on all the amazing things going on at the conference.

Can't wait to tell you all more!

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Shameless Self Promotion: February Edition

I know it's been a while since I posted on here, but I promise I haven't abandoned the blog. It's been a busy month, which is going to be followed by another busy month, so look for some more stuff soon.

In the meantime, check out this month's edition of VPPNews. This is an issue I'm particularly proud of and I think it has some very substantial content.

Highlights:

• An article about the partnership between Year Up National Capital Region, a workforce development program, and Northern Virginia Community College. This partnership allows participants to receive college credit through the Year Up program, which doesn't seem very revolutionary, but is actually trying to reshape the way young people prepare for successful careers. I think this is the most interesting and substantive article I've written since I worked at the Seattle Times. I think this partnership--if it gets adopted as a model--has the potential to create some real lasting change around the country.
•  VPP Chairman Mario Morino's column on the importance of "organizational culture"--a pretty lofty subject, but he does an excellent job of breaking it down to make it applicable to real-world situations.
• A profile of VPP's two newest investors--Jeff and Cal Leonard.
• An article about JPMorgan Chase's support of the performance management system at Friendship Public Charter School.
• And finally, an announcement from Year Up about their recent partnership with the federal government. Year Up--which places low-income youth, most without a college education, into corporate internships in the region--will begin to place four interns into the US Department of Agriculture. Additionally, two of its alums were also selected to be White House interns, one of whom will be Michelle Obama's sole intern on the "Let's Move" initiative. This news is very exciting to me, and shows that Year Up is leading in the efforts to re-shape the American workforce.

Hope you enjoy! Let me know if you have any questions or comments!

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

The Mountaintop

I'm a person who thinks in the long-term. I'm not much for process or details, but I think about the bigger picture, the end-game. I like ideas and notions more than I like thinking about how to put those thoughts effectively into action. At one point in my life, I dismissed policy and practice as secondary to the concept they are trying to create, but now I'm beginning to realize how important those details are. If you can't make an idea work in the reality of a situation, it doesn't do anyone any good.

But I still tend to think of things in the bigger picture. Especially when considering nonprofit and social change work, I always ask myself, where is this going? What are the eventual goals of this work? Will there really be a time where there is nothing more to solve and don't have to worry about all of the problems we face now?

I'd like to say yes, but I'm not sure if that's based in reality. Last week, I wrote a post about the role of philanthropy in the long-term, and Sean from Tactical Philanthropy commented:

[W]hile I appreciate your goal of "putting yourself out of business", the underlying assumption is that if we work hard enough we can create a utopia where attempts to increase social welfare will not be needed.

That ain't gonna happen.

Sometimes, I agree with him. The intellectual side of me knows that there is no way we as a species can reach a point were we have no problems and there is no suffering. The law of unintended consequences shows that no matter how hard we try to solve all the world's problems, any intervention can spawn new problems where we least expect them.

This intellectual and rational side of me is constantly at odds with the side of me that completely and wholeheartedly agrees with the vision set out by people like Dr. Martin Luther King. He saw a world that was free of struggle and full of love and peace. In his final public speech, "I Have Been to the Mountaintop," he said that he didn't worry anymore, because he knew that one day, somehow, we'd get to that promised land. I'm not one to disagree with a visionary like Dr. King, so I don't know how to reconcile these two opposing thoughts in my mind.

I think the best that we, as those working to put Dr. King's vision into practice, can do is to create a world that can adapt and solve problems as quickly as they arise. As I said in my last post, that is not what the nonprofit sector does right now. There needs to be many changes to how resources are allocated before we can get to that point.

This tension between the desire to build a perfect future and the reality that we can never foresee all the problems we will face is a constant struggle for me. But I cannot keep worrying about the future and what it will look like. I need to trust the words of Dr. King that he saw the future promised to us, and whatever it looks like, we will get there. I can only do my small part to build on the legacy left by him. He was not worried on that night before he was assassinated, and so I too don't worry.

To celebrate the day honoring his memory, a clip from his "I Have Been to the Mountaintop" speech:

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Shameless Self Promotion: January Edition

Another month, another issue of VPPNews. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Highlights:

• VPP President Carol Thompson Cole's column on redefining "scale." I find this a fascinating take on a concept that is thrown around a lot in the nonprofit sector. She expands the definition to consider not just the number of people an organization serves, but its overall impact on a community or a sector. 
• A look at the innovative corporate philanthropy strategy of Capital One.
• A review of the first year of VPP's investment partnership with the workforce development program, Year Up.

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Turning the Dials on an Outdated System

I think one of the hardest things for me to deal with in my professional life is that I am making a living off of the misfortune of others. Without the inequalities that exist in our society, the organization I work for would not have a purpose, and I would not have a job. I have a comparatively privileged lifestyle to those I am trying to help and I live comfortably while they do not. If their problems were solved, or didn't exist in the first place, I would not be able to do what I love, and get paid for it too.

Last week, Lenore Hanisch of the Quixote Foundation wrote a guest blog post on Tactical Philanthropy on its recent decision to spend down all of its endowment by 2017, which resonated with my struggle to be comfortable with my work. Hanisch commented on how the decision to spend all of the foundation's reserves will put her into some personally difficult situations:

Erik [her husband whose father started the foundation] and I have always been clear in our belief that the foundation and its assets exist for the purpose of progressive work—not to give us purpose. This field can be seductive: when you’re associated with a foundation you’re suddenly always funny and interesting, with people eager to hear your opinions. When the money is gone I’ll not only need a new job, I’ll also be left out of quite a few parties and someday, someone might even admit they don’t like me. In other words, spending everything puts us in a fairly normal situation as far as our jobs are concerned.

For those that work in the social sector, our goal should always to put ourselves out of a job, otherwise, we are just making money off of poor people. As I learn more about the field, I'm realizing that nonprofit funding is very donor-driven and subject to the whims of major donors and foundations. This creates a capital stream that is fragmented and variable, which doesn't help encourage organizations to focus on long-term solutions to society's problems. Instead, we get caught in a cycle of charity that aims to fill the needs of the underserved, rather than creating large shifts in systems and values. I benefit from this constant cycle, as I will be constantly employed.

I think the only way I can truly feel good about working the social sector (and, by extension, the whole social sector itself), is to create a shift away from donor-driven cycles of charity. These changes are happening all around with the rise of social entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy, but I feel like it is not enough. It is important for foundations to spend down their endowments and for organizations to work on accomplishing goals so they are no longer needed, but this is only one piece of what is needed. To make a true shift away from charity to solutions-driven change, we need to reshape the rules of the nonprofit sector.

Lucy Bernholz and Steve Goldberg recently had a fascinating exchange about the place of philanthropy in the long term. While discussing the different innovations going on in the nonprofit world (from those great social entrepreneurs and venture philanthropists), Lucy commented that:

[P]hilanthropy as an industry is "designed" by policies. It is a regulated industry. It is shaped by the rules. And the rules, currently, favor "donor centric, fragmented, etc"... The game itself doesn't change because there are new players - it needs new rules.

All of the changes to nonprofits that are currently going on, Lucy said, are mainly financial innovations, or business model innovations. Thinking about effective management or outcomes measurement for nonprofits is important and can create some lasting change, but those changes are just turning dials on an outdated system that can't respond effectively to the needs of the population. Instead, we should try to think about the assumptions that the nonprofit sector is built on and change those.


Developments on this level are the most exciting to me. The creation of L3C's, the growing market for impact investing, and reforming the tax-deductible donation are areas which seem to have the most potential to create some pretty profound systems-wide change. I think that if we can find a way to blend business and philanthropic capital effectively, we could create a capitalist economy that is based on solving society's problems, rather than creating profit. I'm not sure how to do this, but I'm excited to try to figure it out.


                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners