Social Innovation in the White House: Intention v. Reality

The articles for this week provide an interesting array of expectations and reactions concerning Obama’s White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, implemented in 2009, during the first year of his presidency. Though these reactions are very mixed, they nevertheless indicate that several expectations of the Office were, in fact, met.

For instance, Michele Jolin in her 2008 article hopes for a White House Office and Conference that would aid in the funding of nonprofits and grassroots organization focusing on innovation: “Not all nonprofits should grow significantly. Nevertheless…growth capital should be available to support what is working.”[1]  Jolin upholds several key expectations for such a committee, including wider funding availability and greater nonpartisan support and aid for young people and lay innovators. Several of these expectations seem to have been met by Obama’s White House Office upon its implementation, to “identify and invest in innovative solutions to social challenges.”[2]  Even according to right-wing opponents of the Office, “In its four-year existence, SIF has doled out $140 million to 20 handpicked grant-making organizations, which in turn have chosen 197 ‘promising nonprofits’ for government support.”[3]  It makes sense that the right would dislike the Office as partisan and a misuse of taxpayer money, however, considering that it directly advocates for more government involvement in a field which can steadily grow (and, arguably, is growing) without the help of the government, through private funding and fundraising efforts.

In addition to staunch opposition to the Office and its appropriation of funds, the Office also sparked a forum for suggestions for the improvement of the program. In his 2011 article, Clayton M. Christensen urges for greater focus on impact and metrics.[4]  But is this the answer? Previously, our class discussed the pitfalls of relying on quantitative data as proof of how much good an organization is achieving in its respective fields. It is difficult to assess all aspects of an organization’s impact solely through numbers, and often without the full story behind what makes the venture a success.

However, it is possible that all of these reactions and results from Obama’s Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation may have all been for naught. Trump has never been a noteworthy proponent of small nonprofits or philanthropy.[5]  With the new administration’s unforgiving cuts of any committee associated with Obama’s presidency, it is valid to wonder if the fund will remain a constant source of funding, or if it will even continue to exist.

---

[1] Jolin, Michele. “Innovating the White House.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Spring 2008. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/innovating_the_white_house.

[2] Tyson, Laura d’Andrea and Jonathan Greenblatt. “Opportunity for All and Social Innovation: Obama’s Policy Agenda.” The New York Times. 14 April 2014.

[3] Malkin, Michelle. “Obama’s ‘Social Innovation’ Slush Fund.” National Review. 14 June 2013. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351038/obamas-social-innovation-slush-fund-michelle-malkin.

[4] Christensen, Clayton M. “The White House Office on Social Innovation: A New Paradigm for Solving Social Problems.” The Huffington Post. 1 August 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-m-christensen/the-white-house-office-on_b_223759.html.

[5] Callahan, David. “Philanthropy in the Age of Trump: Six Predictions.” Inside Philanthropy. 9 November 2016. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/11/9/philanthropy-in-the-age-of-trump-five-predictions.