What is the White House's Stance in the Impact Assessment Debate?

Our readings this week focused on Capitalization and Impact Assessment for Social Innovation. While reading the struggles and theories associated with properly assessing social enterprise ventures, I wondered what the role of the American government was in this conversation. Specifically, I wondered if the new White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation (SICP) and its Social Innovation Fund (SIF) had taken a stance on the issue. Has the SIF, which, in the words of our First Lady, seeks to “find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country,” established criteria to properly gauge what is and is not a successful social innovation (Lee 2009)? Has it found a way to effectively determine whether social enterprise firms have effectively “demonstrated results and are ready to spread across the country to meet community needs” (Lee 2009)?

Time will tell. The SIF, started in 2009, is still in its infancy, so it may be too soon to judge its selection criteria and results. In addition, it is difficult to determine the details of its selection criteria as its website speaks mostly in generalities in this regard. It lists the following as goals by which it governs its funding efforts:

· Leverages a 3:1 private-public match

· Sets a higher standard for evidence

· Empowers communities to identify and drive solutions

· Creates an incentive for grant making organizations to more effectively target funding to solutions that generate real impact (Corporation for National and Community Service n.d.)

However, in true political fashion, the website lacks the details behind how it gauges “real impact” and is elusive in its definition of the “strong track records” that it requires its grantees to possess (Corporation for National and Community Service n.d.).

Despite this ambiguity, as alluded to in the Stanford Innovation Review article, which lists Government Policy as one of the long-term undertakings important to the success of social innovations, the SICP and SIF’s mere existence is a step in the right direction on the path to an environment in which social enterprise efforts are properly measured and funded (London 2009).

Those interested in learning more about the White House's efforts should check out their site: http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/programs/innovation.asp. After reading up on the organization, feel free to comment on your thoughts about their effectiveness and how their presence benefits the Social Innovation/Enterprise sector.

Sources:

Corporation for National and Community Service. n.d. http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/programs/innovation.asp (accessed 11 16, 2010).

Lee, Jesse. The White House Blog. 05 06, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/what-is-the-social-innovation-fund/ (accessed 11 16, 2010).

London, Ted. "Making Better Investments at the Base of the Pyramid." Harvard Business Review, 2009: 10.