Microsoft Mouse Mischief, hope or hype?

Microsoft Mouse Mischief, is introduced to developing countries, for solving the accessibility problem of the rural students. It seems like an extension of PPT, with the multi mouse control from each student in class. It seems to be a good technology in education, for several reasons.First, the software could reach larger audience. Second, teachers don't need to be there. It is good for rural area where it is hard to get good tutorial resource. Third, it is not expensive so that many classes could afford it. Last but not least, it fully engages students in the class which to some extend change the incentives and class designs in some countries. you could see the introduction video in http://culturalbytes.com/post/340553958/microsoftmischief This is related to the topic of the future of social innovation in educational area. Because I completely agreed with Thomas Vander Ark that there is huge need for high-tech in educational area. " Educational technology is more than 10 years behind where it should be." However, education is a sensitive area related with human beings. It has something to do with one person's psychology and future life in his study life. If using technology inappropriately, there will be more and more bad apples in the society. Mischief might bring more and more access, more information, more knowledge to the rural students, but is this the only thing they need? I don't think so. I am afraid technology might deprived the traditional way of teaching which might cultivate their confidence and wisdom. But the golden rule is "It depends." To what extent we use it is the boundary of drug and poison. To sum up, high-tech, namely remote education, educational technology is the future trend for developing countries to address their need of access to information and teachers. But the model of how to use it properly is my question. Do we have some proper benchmarks in this field?

The name is Bond…Social Impact Bond

The social impact bond seems like such a great idea to me.

It reminds me of some of the energy efficiency work my organization (before Heinz) was engaged in. The program my coworkers were designing and implementing in the state of Michigan was called on-bill financing. The idea is that folks could take out low interest loans to cover the cost of new durable goods like refrigerators, air conditioners, washer/dryers, etc. Their energy bills would go down as a result of the new machines’ efficiency. The homeowners’ savings would go toward paying off their loan rather than going straight into their pockets. After a certain period of time, their loans would be repaid and they would have the benefit of lower bills.

I realize social impact bonds are different, but it has the same sort of “that just makes sense” ring to it for me. Not a lot of risk, but eventual potential for returns. Investors have a chance to recoup their money and even profit, but only if a project works.

Admittedly, I don’t know much about stocks and bonds and all that stuff. The Economist article entitled “Let’s Hear Those Ideas” mentioned a challenge to the potential for social impact bonds to have, well, big impacts: The true test is to attract for-profit capital, which involves regulators making it clear to trustees of foundations and pension funds that “social impact investments” are a legitimate asset class.

At my previous organization, under the prompting of our office manager, we were able to change our mutual funds over to more environmentally and socially responsible options. If a social impact bond were part of the diverse mix, I don’t see that we’d be taking on any extra risk. Again, I’m no expert, but it seems to make sense!

So, I have two questions:

1) What might be some unintended consequences?

2) What’s involved with regulators making it clear to trustees of foundations and pension funds that these types of investments are a legitimate asset class?

Government Patent Reform to Spur Social Innovation

The government does have the ability to spur social innovation. An article this week highlighted one such way: tax reform. Another way in which it can encourage social innovation and impact is through reforming the patent system. Patents were originally created to ensure that innovation occurred and was rewarded. Now, it is hard to create products without infringing on someone's patent (i.e. Plumpynut). The case of Plumpynut is an example of a situation in which patents are hindering large-scale social impact of an innovation. Our current patent system allows patent holders to gain much more than their social contributions. Economic inefficiency and its resulting deadweight loss can be mitigated through a reformed patent system. Question: Clearly there are some positives association with patents in the realm of social innovation. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Stronger Governments to Hinder Exploitation of BOP consumers!

"I do not advocate sprawling governments, high taxes, or tightly regulated private sectors...I do believe, however, that states must impose some limits on free markets to prevent the exploitation of the of the poor" -Aneel Karani, Romanticizing the Poor, Stanford Social Innovation Review Karani's piece intimates that in the field of policy and social innovation for BoP communities it comes as little surprise that governments are accused of lacking the ability to fall prey to corruption practices. Governments lacking the systematic infrastructure are vulnerable to the greed of big corporations that wish to take advantage of their resources. If the powerful actors in the international community are not vigilant BoP markets can begin to be seen as lucrative mineral rich regions subject to the whelms of power corporations that are seeking a returns for shareholders and not society. But how do you measure exploitation? How do you regulate social responsibility? Or should you? Karani raises the point that not all markets are perfect in achieving what Jeff Mulgan's call effective supply and demand in so much that needs are being met that address a societal problem. Historically we have seen markets fail those who lack perfect information and face barriers to entry...overwhelming this group tends to be impoverished populations with limited education all across the globe. In developed countries like the United States and Great Britain, governments have intervened where the market has failed to serve these populations,. The ideas that using the free market approach to address all ailments of the BoP industry is not realistic, and not surprisingly so. Innovative and comprehensive government intervention that incorporates Jeff Mulgan's approach to assessing social impact within their region, can help create more robust market for BoP communities. The questions is, where does intervention end and free market begin?

Governments Adopt Innovations as Public Policy

Many of the articles we’ve read focus on innovation to fight poverty in Indian, Africa and even here in the United States. One region that we haven’t paid much attention to is Latin America. Yet this region of the world is also focusing on scaling social innovation through government support. The ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean hosted the Experiences in Social Innovation contest in order to highlight outstanding examples of innovative solutions. The focus of showcasing the contest winners is to make their efforts visible to the governments where they are working. The overarching conviction is that creative endeavors will be more successful and able to scale if the governments adopt them into public policy. Currently, many of the programs that are being highlighted through the contest have only found success locally and only their immediate communities even know about them. Without the funds to expand, many of these solutions to complex problems will never have as far reaching effect as they could.

Governments often don’t have the ability to invest in the research and experimentation that is needed to develop creative ideas for public reform. By adopting innovative ideas that have already been tested locally, the government is able to address the needs of its people in a more efficient manner. Some projects are already in the process of being adopted. In Brazil, the Projeto Saude e Alegria (Health and Happiness Project) will become part of government policy in the next month.

Several of the articles we looked at this week spoke about the United States’ new office of Social Innovation and its goals to fund successful innovators. The model for Latin America is similar in its partnership with the government, yet has a few key differences. The ECLAC contest does not necessarily provide monetary sponsorship or awards. Instead, it creates recognition for innovators and basically gives them a stamp of approval so that governments and other private sponsors will be more likely to take a chance on them. The government isn’t doling money to help these programs but instead is incorporating the programs into the public sector. This procedure raises the question of where do initial investment funds come from? Like the US model, the government is more interested in ventures that have already proven themselves successful in some way. Could the lack of support and resources in the early stages be hindering even more creative innovations from beginning?

Bridging the Political Divide on Bridge of Social Innovation

You can't turn on the news without hearing about the polarized state of politics in America. Republicans are voicing plans to a repeal of Obamacare. Bi-partisan efforts seem almost non-existent. It's ugly.

Our friends over in the UK went through a political battle this past spring when there was a hung parliament. The result has been a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberals with Conservative David Cameron becoming the Prime Minister and Liberal Nick Clegg as Deputy PM. While Cameron's policies mark a change from those of the Labor party, he has not overturned Blair's strides for government to invest in social innovation.

Cameron has renamed Tony Blair's 'Office of the Third Sector' the 'Office of Civil Society' but still works to help social ventures that could alleviate future fiscal and organizational demands on government to provide for its citizenry in the future. It is encouraging to see that the parties have been able to get behind the idea together.

In the United States we have seen Democrats and Republicans coming together behind the idea of charter schools. While the verdict is still out on the overall effectiveness or such institutions as whole, both the GOP and many, but not all, Dems agree that our educational institutions require an overhaul and innovations such as charter schools are one way to go about it. With just a quick Google search one can find articles promoting charter schools on the websites for the Center for American Progress and National Review. That's cross isle appeal.

In the Center for American Progress's December 2007 article, "Investing in Social Entrepreneurship and Foster Social Innovation", Senior Fellow Michele Jolin laid out the foundation for the White House to create an Office of Social Innovation. Upon taking office President Obama took action and created such an office now headed by Sonal Shah, a former employee of Google, Goldman Sachs, and the Center for American Progress.

I believe the projects that come out of this office have the potential to do for politics what charter schools have done for education. The projects can bring together individuals from various professional and political backgrounds to create innovative solutions to problems through innovative means. Results are important. Collaboration is essential. Solutions based on polarizing policies only set the country up for power struggles. By empowering social innovators to take on problems government and the market have failed to solve we pave the road to a more productive and peaceful future.

The question is, what social innovation projects can Democrats and Republicans both get behind that will help the American people see Washington still has the ability to work together? Charter schools were only the beginning.

I would prefer that people post specifically on domestic projects. While international ventures are admirable I believe focusing on projects that will have a direct impact on our citizenry will create a more positive impact around politics in America.

Social impact: Can it be quantified?

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the National Community Investment Fund's (NCIF) Development Banking Conference in Chicago. One of the hot topics among the scores of financial innovators present was measuring and quantifying their success. Creating common tools for quantifying success helps their institutions to evaluate their progress, adjust their programs, and demonstrate impact to investors. Yet social impact is nebulous, and by nature subjective.

Using data from the U.S. Treasury and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the NCIF has proposed a standard set of metrics to evaluate financial institutions' social impact. The NCIF uses its Social Performance Metrics to evaluate the number and amount of deposits and loans that an institution provides in Census tracts that the U.S. Treasury defines as distressed or highly distressed. This is used to provide a quantitative index of an institution's community impact, which can be evaluated alongside traditional financial indices.

The NCIF metrics are quickly emerging as the community development banking industry's standard indicators of social performance. Collaboration among those institutions, plus clever use of available data, are responsible for this progress.

How can other institutions use already-available data to evaluate their impact? Is this practical on an international level?

I am not an entrepreneur.

In the social innovation movement, entrepreneurs get a host of attention, but scarcely do we recognize intrapreneurs. Kevin Nakao at TechFlash writes:

The word intrapreneur was first coined by Pacific Northwesterner Gifford Pinchot III, grandson of the first Chief of the United States Forest Service, who popularized the term in his best-selling book “Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur." According to Pinchot, Intrapreneurs are those people within a corporation who turn an idea into a profitable finished product through assertive risk-taking and innovation.

It's one thing to create a successful business model from scratch. But the impact of a start-up is by nature small, whereas the impact that large institutions have is enormous. Perhaps the best opportunity to make large-scale change is to agitate for innovation within these institutions.

For example, Pittsburgh has amazing small business incubators. The impact of IdeaWorks and the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse (PLSG) on our region's vitality is astounding and merits praise. We rightly count these agencies among the social innovators in our region. But what about the U.S. Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund? The CDFI Fund supplies much of the capital that smaller community development banks around the country use to support urban and social entrepreneurship. The CDFI Fund should be recognized as a social innovation just as IdeaWorks and PLSG are. Even more impressive, the CDFI Fund supports innovation while operating within the largest and most established institution our country has -- the federal government.

I'm not going to start a business. And I don't have to. And neither do you. And we can all still be social innovators. Imagine that.

My question to you: How can start-ups collaborate with established institutions to amplify their impact?

The Serve America Act: Building Human Capital for Philanthropic Organizations?

We read a great deal this week about ways in which governments can improve the ability of social entrepreneurs to build financial capital. A social venture cannot take off without financial capital, so the fact that our readings mostly discussed potential policy measures that could be taken to facilitate access to this form of capital is understandable. As the article we read for this week from the Center for American Progress points out, however, human capital is also vital to the success of a social venture. The article suggests that an effective way to make sure social ventures have access to a steady stream of human capital is for governments to encourage volunteerism among young people. According to the article, by enacting policies that incentivize volunteerism, governments can spur interest in philanthropic work among young individuals deciding on a career path.

The U.S. Government made a strong effort to encourage volunteerism when it passed the Serve America Act last Year. The legislation, sponsored by the late Edward M. Kennedy, expanded AmeriCorps and put in place a system to provide generous scholarships to students of all ages who undertake certain volunteer activities. Of particular interest to me was the principal objection voiced by those who opposed the bill. A Boston Globe article printed right after the passage of the bill quoted Gene Healy, president of the Libertarian Cato Institute, as saying, “[The Bill offers] more carrot than stick, subsidizing volunteerism rather than mandating it."

This strikes me as a curious criticism. I do not understand why providing financial support for volunteerism is a bad thing. Furthermore, I do not understand how mandating volunteerism is a good thing. Making volunteerism mandatory would obviously mean the performance of a lot of public service. The quality of service work suffers, however, if it is being performed simply because it is compulsory. Public service needs to be undertaken by those who possess a genuine desire to help others. Providing financial incentives for public service gives those who possess such a desire the means to pursue it.

We cannot know, at this point, the extent to which the Serve America Act will provide impetus for a new crop of public service professionals. The Act, however, seems to me to take the proper approach to motivating volunteerism, despite what its critics say. If you agree, then an important question becomes how to motivate more legislative initiatives in the mold of the Serve America Act.

Government Social Innovation Fund: Strings Attached?

Obama's $50 million Social Innovation Fund seems to have good intentions, but there are causes for concern. I applaud Obama for the initiative but my main question is, what strings are attached to the money being lent?

As I read through several blogs and articles about this fund, other questions came to mind.

How good is the U.S. government at running these types of programs?
Will the government dicatate how money is spent?

When the government gets involved, even with good intentions, we know it can get messy. Looking at the financial crisis, we saw the U.S. government taking ownership in companies like Goldman, AIG, and GM among others. Through regulation they influenced the decisions made by these companies. Intervention was important because the system wasn't working and it prevented a total meltdown of the U.S. economy. However, it also eliminated the "free hand of the market" and stinted capitalism. Will the U.S. Goverment decide how the $50 million is spent by these non-profits or do they give them free reign once the money is handed out?

In the case of the government acting as an enabler to social innovation, isn't it better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish? Instead of donating $50 million to a few pre-approved organizations, wouldn't it be better to fund development for the inefficient capital market system that exists in social innovation?

The government doesn't know how to run these types of programs. Let’s use the US Postal Service as an example. The US Postal Service lost $2.8 billion dollars in fiscal 2008. They also had a “capital deficiency” of $1.67 billion in 2008. We might assume that this lackluster performance could be blamed on the industry. Not so. FedEx had 2008 revenues of $37 billion and UPS has fared even better with $51 billion in 2008 revenue.

I'm happy the U.S. Government is willing to provide resources for furthering social innovation. It's a difficult task. Another classmate wrote about the "unintended consequences" of some social innovation ventures with an example of someone donating 1 million tshirts and hurting local sellers. Funding existing non-profits or creating too many policies may also cause "unintended consequences". I think we can do a better job of understanding the flaws in the current capital market system in social innovation and then providing a solid infastructure for growth to that system.

Government Programs Supporting Social Innovation

It is interesting to see government using its structure and position to create a platform to encourage entrepreneurs to devise alternatives to the way that government functions and how people receive needed services. The Office of Social Innovation in the White House is leading the government’s effort to fund and scale innovative social ventures. It has been exciting to read about the projects the office is funding. However, looking through the list, I was struck by how short it is. Eleven projects were funded in July 2010, as the article Social Innovation: Let’s hear those ideas, mentioned. The idea for the White House administering these grants is great, but where is the funding to allow widespread impact and truly identify the most effective solutions to our social ills? This seems to be another example of a great idea in theory, but the application has been not as effective as possible, thus limiting innovation. Another government program that fell short in funding is the governments work to recreate the Harlem Children’s Zone across the country, as President Obama campaigned upon. The Promise Neighborhood Initiative was slashed from President Obama’s request of $210 to $60 million, and thus not as many projects were funded. Until Congress realizes the role and need for social innovation, the necessary funding will not be allocated.

While I am disappointed by the scope and impact of the organizations currently being funded by the SIF, the government is funding social innovations in other capacities. One method I’d like to highlight here is through AmeriCorps. As the Center for American Progress’s report titled, Investing in Social Entrepreneurship and Fostering Social Innovation describes, “For entry level human capital, national service programs such as AmeriCorps have offered many social entrepreneurs a steady source of motivated entrants.” Furthermore, AmeriCorps has a variety of programs, some of which are social innovations in themselves. Take City Year (I was a City Year corps member for 2 years) as an example, the programs takes 17-24 year olds and places them into our nation’s lowest performing schools to serve as mentors, tutors and role models for a year of full-time community service. The model has proven successful and over 20 years has been established in 20 cities across the United States.

Another AmeriCorps program, which I came across doing research and still appears to be in development is called Innovation Corps, which fosters social innovation at the community level through the ideas of the corps members who are selected to participate. This program appears to have the potential to foster the cultivation of entrepreneurs, through providing financial support as well as through offering a network of pro-bono professional support, and events to introduce corps members to prospective supporters and implementation partners. I plan to watch this program and see how it unfolds.

How can government effectively foster social innovation in a time of budgetary constraints and bi-partisanship? How would widespread government support of social innovation and the cultivation of these entrepreneurs change the conversation on social innovation and the evolution of this field?

A huge first step in the creation of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation

Much has been discussed about the role of the government in social innovation. Michele Jolin, laid the blueprint for what is now the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation (SICP). This office has been moving at a very fast pace, and this past July, they announced their first round of grantees. The office created a $50 million Social Innovation Fund, which is leveraged 3:1 by various foundations and philanthropists to spur development of non-profit social ventures. Understandably, this is a relatively small line item in our national budget. The greater impact of this office is its ability to convene and create opportunities for community partnerships.

This summer, I had the honor of interning at the White House of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which is located in the same building as SICP. During my internship, I had the pleasure to meet with Sonal Shah, the director of SICP, on few occasions. From our conversations, I can tell you that this is only an exciting first step in supporting social innovation.

In the coming months we will see more progress on supporting social innovation coming from this office. Key policy changes I would personally like to see are:

· More government support for for-profit social ventures (tax credits, subsidies, etc)

· Less paperwork to establish a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

· Improve the Student Loan Forgiveness Program (SLFP) to support college graduates to pursue careers at non-profits or to start their own social ventures.

I am particular interested in the last point of government's role in spurring more young people into social innovation and nonprofits more broadly. I am tackling this issue through my social venture, by allowing young people to gain access to sponsorship for their volunteer service to help pay back their student loans and give back to their community. It also happens to be aligned with SIPC's mission to promote service.

Jolin also echoed this sentiment, in her article, On the Frontlines Innovating the White House. In this article she mentions that the White House, should foster partnership with Universities to prepare young people for careers in the non-profit sector; ensuring the student loan debt does not prevent qualified, interested young people from entering the non-profit sector.

My questions for you are:

What key policy changes, if any, would like to see from the White House to support social innovation?

What key policy changes, if any, would you like to see that increase civic participation?

Big G and SI: Expanding the Social Innovation Fund for For-Profit Social Ventures

The Social Innovation Fund is a government supported funding source for social non-profits to gain the necessary capital they need to get their feet off the ground and the ability to replicate their model around the country. One issue that has been highlighted surrounding this program, however, is the lack of start-up resources for social venture that are based under a for-profit model. Getting initial funding to get off the ground can be a daunting tasks for these organizations as well, however, they do not have the same access to governmental funding as do their non-profit counterpart. They do, on the other hand, have the potential to pay back money that they have received and may even have the ability to give an even greater return.

In a recent article, Harvard Business Professor Clayton Christensen argues that the government is losing out on great potential by not funding social venture based on performance and sustainability. He argues:

"This Office (White House) can use its convening power to help break though some of the toughest barriers that have long prevented marketplaces that can grow social innovations from taking hold, like the lack of metrics that enable us to know what works and the need to invest in "bottom up" versus "top down" solutions. It can help catalyze a shift in the social sector that would better guide funding and support towards social enterprises that have impact."

In his argument, Christensen creates three priorities for the Office of Social Innovation:

1. It must demonstrate a new way to solve social problems where government serves as an investor in innovations that are developed and identified by citizens outside of government.



2.  It should guide more social innovators towards "bottom-up" initiatives, in preference to "trickle-down" philanthropy.


3.  It should use the convening power of the White House to initiate a focus on impact and metrics.


With the creation of the Social Innovation Fund, it has become clear that government policy recognizes the influence and importance of Social Innovation in shaping how we should tackle some of the most daunting challenge facing society today. However, unlike the field itself,  the Social Innovation Fund seems caught in the old ways of doing things. Christensen continues his argument by describing the need for the government to evolve in order to spur a new wave of innovation and philanthropy that does not have to be incompatible with profit and business.

One of the primary ways of accomplishing this task will be the shifting of the metrics used to value impact and sustainability as we discussed last week. This reiterates the points that like innovation itself, we must continue to look for new ideas (many by giving a new face to proven techniques) to handle the opportunities that this movement of social innovation has brought forth.

While the merit of providing impactful non-profits with funding to expand their missions has huge value, the government should not limit its scope. The government should perhaps not blend the Social Innovation Fund into something that makes investments in for-profit social ventures, but create a source of funding for hybrid ventures that would provide a return on the government's money. With the resources available to the government, huge opportunity to generate lasting social change can be found.

I leave you with a few questions:

Does government even have a role in for-profit social ventures as they already have access to investor in the business world and can grow like any other business?

If the government did fund for-profit social ventures, how should it balance metrics for measuring financial success with social impact?

Harm in the Good?

Our readings this week focused on Creating Policies and Ecosystems for Social Innovation. An ecosystem is defined as “a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.” (Dictionary.com n.d.) If we apply this definition to the social innovation field, it requires that social innovation solutions must take into account the social, political, economic, cultural, religious, and other key factors that affect the lives of those they seek to help. Sadly, this is not the case as many social innovators, philanthropists, charitable givers, etc., embark on their efforts to improve the lives of BOP individuals without fully understanding the many facets of the environment that lead to their current situation.

Take for instance the story of Jason Sadler, an American businessman who embarked on a mission to send one million t-shirts to the poor in Africa. Despite the intended nobility of his idea, Sadler, a novice to foreign aid, was highly criticized by experts in the field. The reason behind this attack was that if successful, Sadler’s efforts had the potential to “flood the market with free goods [which] could bankrupt the [local] people who already sell them.” (Wadhams 2010)

What should be done if we want to prevent more Jason Sadlers, individuals with good intentions, but poor awareness? Should we enact regulations that call for individuals to do adequate research before embarking on social ventures? Should they be required to consult with nonprofits or government agencies on the ground in order to determine if their social venture will do harm or good? How much responsibility does the social innovation field have in this regard?

I say, much, for at its core social innovation does strive to improve the lives of those affected by societal ills. Thus, leaders in the field have a responsibility to enact policies to reduce the likelihood of Jason Sadlers negatively affecting the people they aim to help. Doing so will help ensure that the BOP ecosystem(s) is properly considered so that it is improved and not harmed.

Sources:

Dictionary.com. n.d. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ecosystem (accessed November 22, 2010).

Wadhams, Nick. "Bad Charity?" Time, March 12, 2010: 1.