Social sector innovation report highlights opportunity but lacks specificity

I first heard about the paper When Bees Meet Trees from Tim Draimin, who heads up the Social Innovation Generation National team.  He thought the article, which explores how large social sector organizations can help scale social innovation, would be of interest and asked me to share a few thoughts.  Little did Tim know that I would write several paragraphs critiquing the paper!

I had the feeling that the term ‘social innovation’ was used in this paper very broadly and loosely to apply to almost any change in the social context, in social service delivery or within a social organization.  To give just one small example, the paper cites as a major innovation the inclusion of hearing aids on the list of items covered by the National Health Service in the UK. Granted, this is an excellent and very welcome policy shift.  But is it a social innovation? (see the SiG knowledge hub for a definition of social innovation)

trees_and_bumble_bees_by_psithyrus-d4fi051

c/o Blair

Any term can become almost meaningless if it is employed too loosely and is applied to characterize virtually any type of change.  I believe that there is a need for more conceptual clarity around the notion of social innovation.  For example, there is not a clear distinction made in this paper – or in conversations more generally − between the concept of social innovation, (characterized by durability, impact and scale) and social sector innovation.  The latter is less broad and represents one subset of the former concept. I had some difficulty with the paper advising the social service sector to embrace social innovation because it was written in such general terms. The paper’s call to “engage with social innovation, and commit at a leadership and business planning level to trying to support social innovation reach scale” needs to be better explained.

The paper does set out a very helpful list of how-to’s for enabling social sector innovation but it should make a conceptual distinction between internal organizational innovations and substantial qualitative innovations in service delivery.  For example, there are innovations within organizations in terms of how they communicate; how they raise funds and finance their operations; how they learn and communicate with their members; and how they train their staff.  However, these internal changes may not change the methods or interventions they employ to deliver their services.  Presumably, social sector innovation implies at least a disruptive shift in service delivery and, ideally, a change in organizational processes as well. Sarah Schulman’s work in Australia focuses on profound changes in service delivery, which then lead to internal organizational shifts.

Additionally, the distinction between organizational incremental change and radical change to approaching a problem is not well made.  Organizational changes are often made by modifying the current procedures in place.  They start with the status quo and build up from there.  These shifts are primarily process-based.  Disruptive changes, by contrast, start with an identified problem and ask what needs to be done to tackle the challenge more effectively. These changes are mainly outcomes-based.

It also seems to me that the impetus for disruptive change may have to come from some place outside existing organizations (e.g. a lab or the “bees,” like small innovative organizations).  The large social sector organizations or “trees” typically will not select new methods that end up cutting themselves down.  The bees have an important role to play in stirring up the pot.

Finally, I believe that another conceptual disaggregation is required.  The social sector itself is not a monolith.  It actually comprises a wide range of generic interventions that apply to many groups within the population (e.g., affordable housing; training) and group-specific interventions (e.g., persons with disabilities; children in care).  I am not sure whether the to-do list set out in this paper is equally applicable to all these components.

Although there is a need to break down the silos within the social sector, I think this has to be done from a different starting point than what the paper advocates. The shift should start from the community rather than the organizations currently involved in service delivery.  The latter tend to be in survival rather than experimental mode.  Current funding structures don’t encourage the required experimentation. Consequently, profound shifts likely will not come from within the organizations themselves. They will feel comfortable engaging in a few upgrades and modifications to their internal processes.  While important, that is not what disruptive change is all about. Small nimble organizations and the broader community offer the most promising spaces for radical innovation.

Editor’s note: read Sherri Torjman’s post on the role of innovation ecosystems in enabling good ideas to take root. 

Bees, Trees and the Innovation Ecosystem

Sherri_Torjman bees and treesIf you ever have the good fortune to spend time with Tim Draimin, Executive Director of Social Innovation Generation National, you will learn a lot about social innovation − in Canada and abroad.

But you will also find out quickly that Tim is thinking about something that goes beyond innovation itself.  He is preoccupied with a notion called the “innovation ecosystem.”  You might wonder what on earth he is talking about.

Here is my interpretation.  Innovation represents a product, service, process or way of thinking that is qualitatively different from what is currently in place.  The innovation could be new or newly-applied.  The latter refers to something that has proven successful elsewhere and is now being applied to a new context or community.

The innovation ecosystem comprises all the actions you need to take to both sow and grow the innovation seeds.  A good idea − whether a product, service, process or new way of thinking − does not take hold just because it happens to be a good idea.  It needs to be planted in the right conditions and carefully cultivated to ensure it can take root and flourish.

bees meet trees

Report on how large social sector organisations can help to scale social innovation

Tim has recently read a report called When Bees Meet Trees: How large social sector organisations can help to scale social innovation.  The paper builds on earlier ideas that depicted bees as small organizations, individuals and groups that have the new ideas and are mobile, quick and able to cross-pollinate.  The trees, by contrast, are the big organizations − governments, companies and large not-for-profits − which are poor at creativity but generally good at implementation.  They have the resilience, roots and scale to make things happen.  Both the bees and the trees need each other.

 

While the ideas in this report may be interesting, they will not be applied unless they are disseminated, digested, discussed and debated.  Any innovation − including a new way of thinking − needs an innovation ecosystem in order to take hold.  This innovation ecosystem comprises of several components.

First, it is essential to identify the people who would have an interest in this product, service, process or new way of thinking.  Among them are those who are willing to go one step further and spread the word.  They may even be early adopters ready to apply the innovation to their own workplaces or communities.  There is a vital human resource component to the innovation ecosystem.

An innovative product, service, process or idea typically involves a variety of associated changes to take root.  When it comes to applying an idea, for example, it may be necessary to create new teams that work together in clusters rather than individually at desks.  Community locations, such as a coffee shop or neighbourhood hub, may replace a central office.  Virtual work spaces may be set up at home.  These are the physical space dimensions of the innovation ecosystem.

Before any new product, service, process or idea is introduced within an organization or community, there must be an assessment of who might be affected by the innovation and in what ways.  Innovation usually is ‘disruptive’ in that it implies a qualitative shift in how things are done.  While disruption is vital to innovation, it is important to try to minimize potential harms, such as job loss or exclusion from an essential service.  There is a key information component to the innovation ecosystem.

There are also legal dimensions to the innovation ecosystem to which innovators must pay attention.  It is possible that clients of a service may decide to launch a lawsuit, for example, if their benefits or supports are protected through legislation.  Employees may lodge a complaint or grievance if they feel that their contractual agreement has shifted fundamentally from its original signing.  While these possibilities should not necessarily block the innovation, change makers must be aware of the potential legal implications of their actions.

Of course, money is always a consideration.  How much will the innovation cost and from where will the funds come to support this new good, service, process or way of thinking?  Will they be redirected from another activity or program or will additional dollars have to be found?  Are there potentially new funders or sources of financing that might be tapped?  This is the financial component to the innovation ecosystem.

Finally, the policy component of the innovation ecosystem can help or hinder the application of a new product, service, process or idea.  For example, existing legislation may prevent non-profit organizations from raising new funds through profit-making activities.  Enabling policies, by contrast, could help open the door to new forms of financing.

At the end of the day, an innovation that has been applied well will probably be sustained over time.  If successful, other organizations and communities often want to apply it as well.  Sustainability and scaling are vital features of successful innovation.

No wonder Tim is obsessed with the innovation ecosystem.  Without it, innovation will likely not take hold.  For sure, it will not survive or go to scale.  Tim knows that it is imperative to create the conditions for success when the bees ultimately meet the trees.

Lessons from the Data Rescue Crowdfunding Campaign

The Caledon Institute was pleased to announce last week that we exceeded the $20,000 target to support the production of Welfare Incomes. It was our first foray into the crowdfunding world and we had no idea how well – or not – this method of financing would work. Our inexperience was made all the more intimidating by two factors.

First, we were informed that this method of financing had never been employed to solicit funds for a piece of social research. It typically is used for raising money for causes that are more concrete and well defined. These include scholarships (such as those for a scholarship nursing student) or special treatment for an individual with a disability; support for a health-based charity; bike rides or other community events to raise awareness about a problem like hunger or homelessness; and international development projects, such as digging a well for a village in Africa.

So our campaign to raise money for Welfare Incomes, a national publication about which many people had never heard, was a big question mark from the get-go. Would it work?

caledon_instituteThe second concern related to the very public nature of a crowdfunding campaign. Many groups approach funders or governments with requests for support. But if their application is refused, the disappointment is shared solely or primarily with Board members and the staff of the organization. There is no visible tally of your progress and no audience checking the status of the fundraising effort.

Donor psychology also presents a real challenge in any public campaign. If the race gets off to a slow start and appears to have few supporters, then the proverbial self-fulfilling prophecy kicks in. Few people will bet on a horse that can’t make the finish line.

If, by contrast, contributions come in on a regular and substantial basis, then prospective donors are encouraged to get on board and support the project. After all, so many donors can’t be wrong if they are willing to bank on – and bankroll – a given cause.

There are many lessons that we learned from this recent effort but here are just a few highlights.

Lesson #1: Trust your instincts

Our cause of saving Welfare Incomes was actually part of a larger mission to rescue various sources of national data. The bigger story is a complex one and not easily explained in a two-minute video.

It was possible that this focus would not interest many viewers. It would have been easier to focus on the poverty story linked to an inadequate welfare system in this country. But we decided to take a chance on the more difficult message. The loss of vital national data is a story that must be told. In fact, we are now working on a larger project called the Canada Social Report, which will present a range of socioeconomic and program data as well as major social policy developments at all orders of government.

Lesson #2: Have faith in your supporters


Because we were focusing on a national concern that does not easily arouse passion, our story needed to be powerful in its telling. We considered a wide range of formats for our video presentation. At the end of the day, we resisted the temptation to convey an angry or overly dramatic message. We had faith that our current and future supporters would understand the significance of the identified problem.

Lesson #3: Choose your battles

We learned that crowdfunding is a financing method that must be carefully and sparingly used. We will not be able to go back to supporters on a regular basis with a plea for our next product. We are conscious of donor fatigue and will have to pick and choose very carefully any subsequent issues. (Note readers can still make donations to Caledon for the Canada Social Report through Canada Helps or cheques to the office.)

Donor fatigue is not the only concern. Tremendous time and effort go into launching and maintaining a crowdfunding campaign – even though it may appear that you just sit back and watch a running tabulation. It is essential to stoke the fire on a regular basis and keep alive the flames of the effort right up to the finish line. (Note to self: Keep an up-to-date mailing list.)

Lesson #4: Respect donor preferences


We learned that not all donors want to become part of a social network. The crowdfunding platform that we employed for the Data Rescue campaign is predicated upon the creation of a community of donors and their engagement as active contributors to a range of worthy causes. Many of our supporters did not want to sign up for anything. They just wanted a simple way to make a financial contribution to the campaign and chose instead the “old-fashioned” route of writing a cheque and placing it in the mailbox.

Lesson #5: Say thank you

We heard from many of our long-time supporters and we reached many new people throughout the duration of this 30-day campaign. We very much appreciate every single contribution. No donation was too small. Equally important to the financial contributions we received were the many messages of encouragement and support for our work on behalf of the public good.

Thank you.

Sherri Torjman

Editor’s Note: This blog originally appeared on the Maytree website. It has been reposted here with permission from the author.

The War on Poverty or the Weapon of Choice?

Musings on Our Crowdfunding Campaign

CrowdfundingThe 150-second challenge turned out to be only the start of the tough decisions in our crowdfunding campaign.  In 2.5 minutes or less, we needed to make a video that would introduce ourselves, explain our issue, convince others that it should be of concern to them and ask them to take action on behalf of the cause.

This challenge would be tough under the best of circumstances.  But it is harder when the purpose of the campaign involves a complex public issue.

As it turns out, we were trying to explain two important problems at the same time: the war on poverty and the weapon of choice in this tough battle.

The war on poverty involves rallying around the fact that welfare recipients − typically the poorest of the poor − live on incomes that are drastically low.  The Welfare Incomes report calculates these annual amounts and compares them to major poverty measures and income measures.  Both of these comparators give a sense of adequacy – or serious lack thereof.  Welfare incomes fall well below poverty rates in all parts of the country and are only a fraction of the average incomes of Canadians.

The data and evidence in Welfare Incomes that point to the huge gaps in adequacy comprise the weapon of choice.  This information helps us make the case for why we need not only to bolster the incomes of welfare recipients but also to fundamentally reform that program, which entails dismantling welfare and replacing it with stronger and more effective income security programs.

This crucial information was slated to be lost forever with the federal dismantling of the National Council of Welfare and all its work.  No government department would be taking up the slack.

So should we ask viewers to pool money to fight the war on poverty?  Or should we ask them to help rescue the words (and figures, tables, charts and graphs) that comprise its foremost weapon?

It may have been preferable to focus on the war on poverty.  It is easier to understand and rally people around this pressing need.  But we chose instead to highlight the #datarescue challenge with its more subtle message.

So why make this crowdfunding task more difficult than it already is?  Why take the risk of having our campaign confused with a serious computer malfunction (the more typical interpretation of our campaign hashtag)?

Because the prospective loss of Welfare Incomes is only the thin edge of the wedge.  There has been a steady decline in the number of diverse sources of national public data that help us understand poverty and trends in labour market participation, levels of earnings and income inequality.

Caledon_logo

Caledon Institute is a social policy think tank

We are strong as a social policy community only to the extent that it is possible to make a clear, informed case for action on poverty and the reform of income security measures that can help fight poverty.  And we are strong as a nation only to the extent that we can make a cogent and articulate case for paying attention to the well-being of all citizens, especially those who live in poverty. We will be neither in the absence of solid and  trustworthy information.

For a smooth documentation process in filing online social security card, visit here for new or replacement ssc card.

The 150-Second Challenge

If you think the 140-character limit imposed by Twitter is tough, try taking the 150-second challenge.  That’s basically the amount of time you have to make your case in a crowd funding campaign.

giveeffect logoSo I was advised by Anisa Mirza from Giveffect with whom I met when the Caledon Institute decided to try this method of financing.  You need to tell a compelling story in 2.5 minutes or less.

In our case, Caledon is trying to keep alive the war on poverty, not exactly an easy sell.  And while we know the subject matter very well, we had never tapped into a crowd for this kind of support.

Oh and there’s more.  Within those 2.5 minutes, you need to say who you are, why you are launching a crowd funding campaign, why your issue is of concern to viewers and what you would like them to do on your behalf.

And don’t forget.  When you tape the video, you need to be serious but funny − or at least approachable.  You need to be authoritative but folksy.  You need to be confident but relaxed.  Could we seriously pull this off?

After the production, you need to bank on your social capital.  It is crucial to muster your forces − in this case your networks − to help spread the word as quickly and as widely as possible in order to generate interest in your campaign.  After all, that is the art and science of crowd funding.  Small amounts of funds contributed by large numbers of people can add up to a substantial sum.

So what is our cause?  Here’s the story and why we need help.

I met Ken Battle (currently President of the Caledon Institute) in 1986 when he was Director of the National Council of Welfare, an advisory body to the federal government.  He hired me to work on a study of welfare in Canada.  Its purpose was to explain this hidden, incredibly complex, program and to figure out welfare rates across the country.

Despite opposition from some who didn’t want the welfare system explained, we were able to develop a methodology for calculating welfare incomes that is still used today.

The initial study was called Welfare in Canada: The Tangled Safety Net.  It spawned a series of reports entitled Welfare Incomes that have been published on a regular basis since 1989.  These reports are the only way to track the amounts that provinces and territories pay welfare recipients, the poorest of the poor in Canada.  They are often seen as the ‘undeserving’ poor and receive incomes that fall well below poverty standards.

In 2012, the federal government announced that it was dismantling the National Council of Welfare and cutting all its work, including Welfare Incomes.

After much deliberation, we decided at Caledon that we needed to keep alive this vital source of information.  We had developed the original methodology and knew how very difficult it would be − and how long it would take − to reconstruct credible numbers. Naturally this additional work costs money, and so we have decided to try the crowd funding campaign.

But Welfare Incomes is only one example of a larger problem. Access to crucial information drawn from, among many things, the Canadian long-form census is no longer available. There will be more to come on this vital issue and a broader solution, the Canada Social Report, on which we are currently working.

Welfare Access

Why Welfare Time Limits Never Flew -The Tyee

In the meantime, we are seeking help to keep alive Welfare Incomes, which provides the objective evidence to make the case for decent incomes and for welfare reform.  We need to preserve this powerful weapon in the war on poverty.

Editor’s note: See how Sherri pulled off her first crowd funding pitch by visiting their Giveffect campaign page