Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Social Entrepreneurship by Dr. Peter Frumkin


Ten years ago, as the excitement about social entrepreneurship began to take off, I decided to do a little field work. I compared the syllabi at major research universities where both classes on nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship were taught and looked for differences and similarities between the two. There turned out to be a lot of overlap, from defining mission and establishing a defensible competitive position, to marketing and stakeholder management, and encompassing such things as building boards and measuring performance. In other words the differences between the conceptualization of the two fields were small, at least in terms of what was being taught to students. It was easy thus to dismiss the whole social entrepreneurship movement as a fad grounded largely in a few clever new terms and phrases that simply obscured ideas rooted in the old and familiar field of nonprofit management. This early judgment proved false. 

Over time, the concept of social entrepreneurship grew, became more distinctive, and spawned a vast new literature, teaching programs and degrees. Harvard anchored its work in the concept of ‘social enterprise,’ Stanford opted for ‘social innovation,’ Wharton branded around ‘social impact’, and Duke latched on to ‘social entrepreneurship.’ Whatever they call it, these programs, centers, and initiatives have grown stronger and more defined. It is useful to think of these related concepts as part of a continuum. Social entrepreneurs are the actors who do the work, social enterprises are the organizational forms that are used, social innovation is the theory of change that guides the process, and social impact is the end result that is achieved. 

But what is social entrepreneurship really and how is it different from nonprofit management? I have concluded through my own teaching and research that the essence of the special identity of social entrepreneurship lies in three necessary elements. 

For something to be a manifestation of social entrepreneurship, it must first involve a new and innovative way of solving a public problem. Innovation is at the core of the work of a social entrepreneur who looks at the world, identifies a problem, and then advances a new solution. Social entrepreneurship cannot simply involve dutiful replication or adaptation of models already in use and accepted as mainstream practice. It must represent a new combination of ideas and initiatives that promise to address a pressing problem by bringing something new to the table, be it fresh technology, a new theory of change, or an insight transferred from an allied field. 

The second element of social entrepreneurship requires that any solution be designed from the outset to be part of a financially and organizationally sustainable model. Social entrepreneurs do not write concept papers and endless foundation proposals, and then sit around waiting for someone to authorize them to act. Instead, they design their enterprises so that are capable of running on their own engine and surviving in a turbulent sea. Whether it be through a stream of related or unrelated earned income or built on volunteer labor, social entrepreneurs are designing and building organizations that are financially and institutionally viable from the start and over the long haul.  They take seriously the challenge of ensuring that the organizational design and financial model are not second thoughts, but part of the core calculus of pursuing lasting social change. 

The third and last essential element of social entrepreneurship is scale. Social change may start locally, but ambitious social entrepreneurs think through and know how their ideas and programs can spread broadly. They design their operations in a way that they can be grown or replicated so as to reach more and more people.  This focus on scale differentiates the social entrepreneur because they know that the scale of complex and enduring problems is such that no small-scale solution is enough. The essence of change requires a commitment of scale. 

Innovation, sustainability and scalability can be achieved using both nonprofit and for-profit organizational forms. In fact, social entrepreneurs are agnostic on sector and view it as a contingent decision that is dependent on the problem that is being addressed and the best auspice for supporting innovation, financial sustainability and scale. In some cases, nonprofit forms may be best, while in other contexts for-profit forms may be most appropriate. No matter the sector, social entrepreneurship demands a value-seeking imagination, a high degree of comfort with risk and uncertainty, and a willingness of adapt and iterate over time.

Social entrepreneurs and nonprofit managers start with very different assumptions and work through different means, albeit in the same general direction of social impact. At Penn School of Social Policy and Practice, we teach both social entrepreneurship and nonprofit management, and on top of that we add the third paradigm of nonprofit leadership. The field of practice that Penn seeks to shape is, I believe, rendered richer by virtue of the open battle of ideas between these fields, the way they complement and challenge one another, and the special skills and tools that all three fields contribute to the challenge of creating social impact. 

By:  Peter Frumkin, PhD, who is a Professor of SocialPolicy, Faculty Director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy, and Director of the Nonprofit Leadership Program at SP2.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Dominika Jaworski, MSSP 2012 Graduate, Shares her Huffington Post Blog "B-Corps Benefits"


My interest in social business initially began during my first semester in the Masters in Social Policy program. In Professor Lamas' Financial Accounting class, I became interested in alternative models to financing non-profit activities and solving social problems. It was then when I became intrigued with the role of business in social impact.  While interning at the Wharton Program for Social Initiatives, I was first introduced to B-corps and Greyston Bakery, which is run by Wharton graduates. This 'blog entry' was originally written for our Social Policy Capstone Media Advocacy module with Dr. Susan Haas, and, upon her encouragement, I sent it off as a pitch to the Huffington Post. 

I am currently working as a microfinance researcher and involved in Wharton Professor Keith Weigelt's Building Bridges to Wealth program. 


by Dominika Jaworski, Master of Science in Social Policy 2012

Monday, October 1, 2012

My Experience in the MSW Penn Aging Concentration (PAC) by Lizza Robb, MSW 2012


It took 13 years on staff at SP2 as a graphic designer to realize that I was actually a social worker at heart.

In 2007, I was sent to photograph SP2 MSW students engaged in post-Katrina recovery work as part of the Penn in the Gulf program, and after four trips to Mississippi I realized I could no longer sit behind a computer every day. The opportunity to witness and participate in meaningful work with the victims of Hurricane Katrina stirred within me a purpose that had lain dormant, and at the close of the project I told my supervisor, Mary Mazzola, that I needed to do the MSW program. Her support then, and in the three years that followed, was unwavering.

In May 2012 I walked with my graduating class and received my master’s degree in social work with a certificate in gerontology. As a Metlife Fellow in Aging through the Penn Aging Concentration (PAC), I was provided a rare chance to pursue a clinical tract while focusing on issues of policy and direct practice that impact older adults and their caregivers. The specialized PAC trainings, coursework, and field education experience were an excellent complement to the MSW curriculum and to my first-year internship on the trauma service at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.

Just weeks before graduation, I faced a field practice encounter that called upon the entirety of my education and experience. I had spent the year interning as a counselor with home-bound older adults. My very first client and I had been fortunate to work together consistently over that period and we had developed a very strong therapeutic relationship. Over the previous few months, my client’s health had declined rapidly, and it became clear that she was nearing the end of her life. The tools I had gained at SP2 gave me the capacity and aptitude to engage with her in a forthright discussion about her wishes, and we spent many hours talking about her feelings about death and dying. I encouraged her to put her wishes in writing, but she never had the chance.

The day came when I called my client to confirm our appointment and her daughter answered. Learning that my client was in the ICU, I went to the hospital and was introduced to the medical team who requested my help in speaking with my client’s family about palliative care as further medical intervention was deemed futile. My client’s family was distraught and filled with uncertainty driven by the natural inclination to extend their loved one’s life as long as possible. After meeting with the family to discuss my client’s desire not to have her life artificially sustained, I participated in a family meeting with the medical and hospice teams. Following that meeting, I sat with my client’s family as they made the difficult decision to decline further intervention and choose hospice care.

The next morning, I received a phone call from my client’s son letting me know that his mother had passed away in the night. He said that it had been a peaceful death. It had been the death that she wanted.

The memory of this experience stirs in me a sense of gratitude and awareness that every single client interaction I have is infused with the presence of the community in which I earned my MSW. The words of my professors and classmates, the readings, the papers, the projects, the trainings, the field education and supervision, even the support of my supervisor and dean and colleagues who supported me while working and studying—when I act as a social worker, I act for and with them all in solidarity with the school’s vision for the passionate, just pursuit of social innovation, influence and impact. 
At a recent SP2 alumni event, I asked a longtime graduate now working in human resources how she feels not to be working as a social worker. With a smile she said, “Once you have your degree in social work, everything you do, you do as a social worker.”

by Lizza Robb, MSW 2012