Social Innovation is a Nobel Goal

This week’s readings, the topic of which might be labelled “the politics of Social Innovation,” outline a variety of debates surrounding the strategies with which we pursue—and funding with which we support—social innovation. With the exception of Brown’s article on Finland (which serves as an interesting juxtaposition), they are primarily focused on US policies. And most of the articles make a case, to varying degrees, for the potential of social innovation, with the exception of the National Review’s cheap and transparent hackery.

Mentioned in a few of the articles is one of the U.S. government’s better-known social-impact channels: AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps refers to a diverse body of programs all over the country who do a variety of socially beneficial work. AmeriCorps is managed by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which also oversees the US Social Innovation Fund. I’ve served in two AmeriCorps programs, and am a proud alumnus.

One of the AmeriCorps programs in which I served was the National Civilian Community Corps (or, NCCC). NCCC, which received a specific callout in the National Review article, is the current reincarnation of FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps—a cornerstone of the New Deal, notable for projects like the Hoover Dam and various state parks, that was disbanded when the US entered World War II, but which at its peak employed millions of Americans in meaningful work. NCCC (the current version, “N-Triple-C,” as it’s said) was created by George H. W. Bush’s administration in 1992 and was incorporated into AmeriCorps, founded a year later under Clinton. What’s interesting to note about NCCC is that, despite being rooted in one of the most successful social programs in history (that is, anywhere), it lacks the funding to provide more than 1,000-or-so positions annually—even though it regularly gets around 10 times that many applications (and that, without much of a marketing campaign to speak of). It works, it’s incredibly cost-efficient, it generates enormous impact, and many more people want to join. Granted, I’m a little biased, but this a pretty clear example of a no-brainer.

Yet instead of fighting for funding to expand, NCCC has to return to congress nearly every year just to fight to survive. And NCCC is just one example of many organizations in a similar boat—organizations with programs that work and have the potential to grow, likely generating an incredible return on investment to society, but which find themselves spending a great deal of energy just justifying their own existence.

The Skoll article in Forbes suggests three key elements to the process of generating social innovation: invention, evidence, and resources. It then lays out a path through which the US government could attempt to improve its support of social innovation, which includes: expanding existing programs, supporting efficient management practices, and implementing a pro-innovation culture throughout the government. I agree with the spirit of those suggestions, but it seems that a glaring obstacle has not been addressed. In today’s increasingly insular and partisan politics, fueled by a culture with the news-consuming attention span a squirrel-obsessed dog, how do you break through? More than one in five children in America are born into poverty, yet the gun lobby in America—the country with the most formally entrenched protections on gun ownership anywhere—is far more powerful than the, let’s say, poverty lobby—to whatever extent the latter even exists.

How do we position ourselves to better support social innovation? I’m sure I don’t have a cogent answer to that question, but I propose that the follow-up questions should not be primarily logistical, as implied in most of this week’s readings. Evidence-based practice seems like an intuitive response to a lack of public interest. (Let's quantify the impact and thereby, convince people to invest public resources, or so go the argument.) But in this case, the lack of public interest is far more fundamental. We need a revolution in compassion in this country, and it will take more than a subtle campaign. Last week, Professor Zak topically suggested there’s a Nobel Prize in economics waiting for the person who can quantify social impact investment potential. That’s an exciting thought. But I suggest it will only be possible once somebody has managed to remind us to care about our neighbors—and maybe there’s a Nobel Prize waiting for that person too.