It is becoming more and more obvious that no one sector is going to solve the problems like educational achievement gaps, homelessness, or violence.  The President seems to be calling for a genuine effort to work across sectors to focus on the best organizations out there that can really lead to results.  At the press conference the President said:

If anyone out there is waiting for government to solve all their problems, they are going to be disappointed.  Because ultimately, the best solutions don’t come from the top-down, not from Washington; they come from the bottom-up in each and every one of our communities.

The bottom line is clear: Solutions to America’s challenges are being developed every day at the grass roots – and government shouldn’t be supplanting those efforts, it should be supporting those efforts. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on programs that are obsolete or ineffective, government should be seeking out creative, results-oriented programs like the ones hear today and helping them replicate their efforts across America

Powerful words, but what does it mean in practice? This is what I have learned.

The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation was created through the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act which was passed in March.  Part of the President’s Domestic Policy agenda, the office is responsible for:

• Catalyzing partnerships between the government and nonprofits, businesses and philanthropists in order to make progress on the President’s policy agenda
• Identifying and supporting the rigorous evaluation and scaling of innovative, promising ideas that are transforming communities (through the Social Innovation Fund)
• Supporting greater civic participation through new media tools
• Promoting national service

The Social Innovation Fund has been seeded with $50 million and is being managed by the Corporation for National and Community Service.  The fund will provide grants to existing grant making institutions that will invest in growing innovative, results driven organizations.  They have been careful to state that innovation does not equate new.  Regardless of age of institution, the emphasis is on adding capacity to bring the best ideas to the forefront.

To be eligible to receive a grant, grantmaking organizations must propose to focus on improving measurable outcomes relating to: education for economically disadvantaged students, child and youth development, reductions in poverty, health, resource conservation and local environmental quality, energy efficiency, civic engagement, or reductions in crime.

The grantmakers must match grants from the Fund with their own internal resources and then must use the funds in order to make subgrants to community organizations that will use the funds to replicate or expand proven initiatives, or support new initiatives, in low-income communities.

So, in a nutshell, the Fund will make grants to other grantmakers who will need to match those dollars and re-grant to local organizations based on rigorous outcomes based data.  While sounding relatively simple there is a mix of great enthusiasm and hesitation in the philanthropic blogosphere for how it will play out – as they say, the devil is in the details.

One organization, Public Innovators who works with government leaders on addressing social problems, is advocating that the Fund give priority to cross-sector collaborations that work directly with state governments to achieve impact on a much broader, systemic scale.  Locally, steps have been taken towards this effort.  State Representative Paul Thissen (DFL- 63A) introduced legislation this session for a Minnesota Social Innovation Fund and an Innovations Commission.  The legislation passed (with some amended language) and included grant money to begin studying how such a fund would be structured.

Representative Thissen states about his legislation,

“Minnesota is a state known for innovation — in the private sector and in public policy.  We know what works.  But it is frustrating to see ideas that work in small, targeted settings fail to grow to help more people, while some programs that have outlived their usefulness continue to be funded.  That needs to change and this legislation is designed to push us toward smarter, more effective ways of helping Minnesotans and building our communities.”

How would you like to see the Fund for Social Innovation used locally?

Interested in learning more – here are some links to additional resources on the topic:

What Exactly is the Social Innovation Fund?

Obama Pushes for Social Innovation

White House Officials Discuss Plans for Social Innovation Office

That was the topic of conversation at Social Venture Partners Minnesota’s Engaged Philanthropy Conference.  The conference brings together people from the nonprofit, philanthropy, business, and government sectors for the day to learn, discuss and share ideas around social entrepreneurship.  The place was filled with “out of the box” thinkers dreaming of how to apply their ideas to our community’s greatest social problems.  The Minneapolis Foundation was proud to sponsor the conference and be part of this visionary experience.

I thought the highlight of the conference was the Social Entrepeneuer Cup.  Social Venture Partners has joined forces with the Minnesota Cup, a business entrepreneuership competition to create a platform for local social entrepreneurs to present their organizations, ideas and impact.  The organizations were competing for a $20,000 general operating grant and 40 hours of consulting services from experienced entrepreneurs.  The first runner-up receives $5,000 and 20 hours of services.  The other finalists receives $1,500.  The winner also gets to move on to compete in the finals of the Minnesota Cup.

A panel of judges (all fantastic locals involved in entrepreneurship and philanthropy) judged the organizations based on three criteria:

1. Social Venture Concept:  The organization must make a compelling case for why society needs the social venture and the value the concept adds to our society.
2. Innovation:  The finalist should standout from other nonprofits and have an innovative concept.
3. Social Return on Investment:  What results has the finalist produced so far and what results can it project?  Why would social investors want to fund this concept when they have so many other options?  Do they have potential to generate a social return on investment both in the near and long-term.

The audience was also given an opportunity to vote and weigh in the decision making process.

The crop of finalists were fantastic.  Here is a quick overview of each organization with links to learn more:

Admission Possible:

Each year, approximately 200,000 low-income students in the United States graduate from high school prepared for college, but don’t go. Admission Possible aims to shrink that number by providing ACT and SAT test preparation services and admissions and financial aid consulting. Their innovation is the application of national service to the issue of college access. Admission Possible enlists recent college graduates to “coach” their students as AmeriCorps members.  They recently expanded to Milwaukee and have hopes for national expansion.

Hearth Connection:

Hearth Connection proves that getting people off the streets and out of shelters into homes of their own is not only possible, but also life saving and life changing.  Hearth Connection’s network of supportive housing providers currently supports over 1,300 men, women and children, many with little or no prior history of housing stability. They finance, develop and manage a network of supportive housing providers to offer treatment for mental illness, addictions and medical problems.

Apple  Tree Dental:

The top unmet health care need for low income people in Minnesota is dental care.  Recognizing that traditional dental clinics were not reaching people with the greatest needs.  Apple Tree created the “Community Collaborative Practice Model” as a three way partnership between a group dental practice, community organization, and an on-site dental care team.  The model brings care to low-income people where they live or receive other social services and teaches healthy habits.  They also prove that expensive dental problems can be avoided with regular access to a community based “dental home.”

And the winner is . . .

Rural Renewable Energy Alliance:

RREAL installs solar heating systems for low income families that qualify for public heating assistance.  Approximately 285,000 Minnesota families are eligible for Heating Assistance, yet it isn’t a permanent solution for generational and cyclical fuel poverty.  RREAL home solar heating systems saves low-income families money while reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions; helps educate tomorrow’s leaders about solar power; localizes energy production; and creates green jobs in impoverished communities in northern Minnesota.  RREAL solar heating systems offsets as much heat in one season as a family receives through heating assistance.

A really touching moment occurred when RREAL Director Jason Edens accepted his award and choked up as he shared that he himself grew up on Heating Assistance and that he started this work in his garage. It was a powerful illustration for the crowd of what it means to be an innovator, being diligent and staying committed to your dream of a better world.

Until next year’s conference, I encourage you to look into each of these organizations and post back your dream for a better world.