Dear Bridget,

We're 4 years into a project which so far has been self-funded. Our aim is to scale up an earlier full cost recovery project to a national scale and I wondered how appropriate this kind of support would be to us.

Our efforts have largely been in leveraging development aid to fund social enterprise projects in politically hostile regions. This, in conjunction with information which is confidential in a commercial sense hinders me in providing full disclosure in a public forum.

Past experience of sponsorship competitions also leaves the impression that there are preconceptions of where social enterprise begins and ends. For instance, we would not be seem as grassroots entrepreneurs with a primary social object, should that be the expectation.

Our project proposal has 4 elements:

Childcare reform (ennhanced franchise model)

Microenterprise and Microfinance (fundamental entrepreneur support model)

Internet development (fundamental models: marketing intermediary, service subsidization, and organizational support).

A National Faculty for Social Enterprise funded by a one-off foundation grant.

I have to say that I'm deterred a little by the eligibility questionnaire which pops up "warnings" in response to questions about organisational size. We are certainly small in number but not without a track record of achievement in leveraging SE projects overseas.

Essentially, I'm concerned that we might devote a very large proportion of our core support resources to the process of applying without knowing whether our kind of work is even considered of a Social Enterprise nature.

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for the question. Best advice I can give you is to review the guidelines posted on the Skoll Awards website and read the article entitled “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition” by Sally Osberg and Roger Martin, also on the website.

A few comments: • The Skoll Awards fund nonprofits, for-profits and hybrids. The important factor is that the organization is a legal entity whose mission and work align with our guidelines. • While we do not have a set threshold for budget and staff size, our experience has been that organizations with budget and staff levels below the numbers stated in our guidelines are likely not at a point to scale at a significant level. There are other criteria that we factor in, so we do not have a strict cutoff on budget and staff size. • We understand that applying for a Skoll Award can take a significant amount of time, which is why we have implemented the eligibility quiz this year. If you choose to move forward with the application based on the results of the eligibility quiz, and your organization is declined, you may consider this a worthwhile investment of time anyway. You will have spent time thinking through your organization’s longer-term strategy, and may be in a better position to approach other funders.

I hope this helps.

Bridget

It helps a little Bridget.

I've read the article you refer to, the definitions I've used above come from Kim Alter's Social Enterprise Typologies which likewise makes the case for definition.

To be clear, what I'm talking about falls into the "none of the above" category rather than a hybrid. It's profit for social purpose meaning that from commercial trading we fund our own human rights advocacy and lobby for funding to instigate social enterprise initiatives.

From an initial project in the order of $10m we now aim to scale up $1.5bn . Plainly we won't be undertaking most of the core operations ourselves, it is nevertheless a significant scaling up.

My impressions, is one of mixed messages, encouraged both to make a difference and at the same time discouraged from that being too much of a difference.

while I'm still not sure whether applying is appropriate to us, funding as such isn't our biggest obstacle. It's the point at which, having laboured for several years, one puts a proposal on the table to recieve a community response of stony silence. An impression that it's so unusual that it bewilders.

It's a strategy which has been adhered to for the last 11 years, proving sucessful in terms of creating 10,000 micro-enterprises predominantly for women and yet, seeming dismissed out of hand.

We can get by without grant funding and have done so far, but if the aim of Skoll Awards is to engender social enterprise initiative, there is at least one approach left out due to it not being considered as part of the same cause.

This then is what we need most, not money, but understanding of other strategies.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I don't think this is the right forum to discuss social enterprise strategies. We're restricted here to talking specifically to the application process for the Skoll Awards for Social Entrepreneurship. Perhaps it's possible to start another discussion on Social Edge, or through another forum, regarding strategies to address the obstacles (other than funding) that social enterprises such as yourselves encounter.

Best regards,

Bridget

I work with many NPO's that see entrepreneurship in terms of developing revenue streams that don'tg involve begging from foundations or rich people. But they need seed capital to get these ventures going. Does Skoll make tghis kind of first round investment?

Hi Patrick,

Skoll Foundation does not offer seed funding for socially entrepreneurial initiatives through its Skoll Awards for Socal Entrepreneurship. The Awards are intended for organizations whose innovations have a track record of impact over at least three years and who are ready to bring their work to a larger scale.

However, Skoll does work in close partnership with organizations that provide earlier-stage funding for social entrepreneurs, such as Ashoka, Draper Richards, Give2Asia, Echoing Green, the Schwab Foundation and others. Many of our Award winners have been supported at an earlier stage by one of these types of organizations.

Bridget

Hi Bridget:

We talk about "uncommon heroes" while the Skoll Awards as such go to organizations, and there are criteria those organizations are required to meet, while the most innovative of heroes may be constantly on their feet dealing with the vagaries of chance in the field, adaptive in a way that's hard to articulate.

It's my impression (from following the comments in many of these events) that there may be something of a disconnect in each of these areas, where the stewardship requirements of the granting body and the field requirements of the recipient organization, or the organizational and individual requirements within a given project (as when the founding vision has to be transferred from the founder into "group" control), don't quite mesh.

Those are "unstable equilibria" that catch my attention, and I don't at the moment know what to do about them except to ask interested parties, "how does individual vision merge with organizational success? What are the inherent problems between the two? Does anyone have any solutions to those problems?" . Does the Skoll Awards process (and the considerable though which went into it, as exemplified by Roger Martin and Sally Osberg's article and the distinctions they make between social providers, s. entrepreneurs and s. activists) have any light to shed on these issues?

Thanks.

Dear Bridget,

Can you please comment on whether an indiviudal who is not an organizational founder that might qualify as a social entrepreneur from the foundation's perspective?

Thank you, Liz

Hi Liz,

We do have a few Award winners headed up by social entrepreneurs who were not the organizational founder. In these instances, the social entrepreneur has taken the organization to a new level or in a different direction, and the organization can show a track record of results under his/her leadership demonstrating the value of the organization's innovation.

Bridget

Hi Bridget:

We talk about "uncommon heroes" while the Skoll Awards as such go to organizations, and there are criteria those organizations are required to meet, while the most innovative of heroes may be constantly on their feet dealing with the vagaries of chance in the field, adaptive in a way that's hard to articulate.

It's my impression (from following the comments in many of these events) that there may be something of a disconnect in each of these areas, where the stewardship requirements of the granting body and the field requirements of the recipient organization, or the organizational and individual requirements within a given project (as when the founding vision has to be transferred from the founder into "group" control), don't quite mesh.

Those are "unstable equilibria" that catch my attention, and I don't at the moment know what to do about them except to ask interested parties, "how does individual vision merge with organizational success? What are the inherent problems between the two? Does anyone have any solutions to those problems?" . Does the Skoll Awards process (and the considerable though which went into it, as exemplified by Roger Martin and Sally Osberg's article and the distinctions they make between social providers, s. entrepreneurs and s. activists) have any light to shed on these issues?

Thanks.

I think (if I’m understanding you correctly), you’re asking two separate questions:

How does a social entrepreneur (SE) stay flexible and adaptive while still developing an organization that is stable and structurally robust enough to meet foundation requirements; and, Does an SE’s vision or ability to create change become less flexible and less innovative when it is constrained by the infrastructure requirements of an organization?

For question #1, you’re right; foundations do require organizations to meet various legal and structural criteria. These criteria will vary, depending on the foundation’s strategy. Because Skoll funds SEs with mezzanine-level organizations that are ready to begin large-scale growth, we look for evidence that an organization can realistically carry out its SE’s goals. This means the organizations must have certain mechanisms in place (e.g., the ability to track finances, create and carry out a business plan, measure impact, etc.). However, we have found that even though SEs must create infrastructure and systems to produce robust, sustainable organizations, they tend to hire innovative staff who can change their systems or business models quickly when required. Skoll gives general support grants to allow our grantees this flexibility so they can respond quickly to external changes or “marketplace” pressure.

For question #2, certainly an organization is less flexible than a single individual. However, most SEs who want to create large-scale equilibrium change must recruit others to help them carry out their vision. As mentioned above, we’ve found that SEs tend to hire staff who also have a social entrepreneurial orientation and who share their SE’s vision. We also see examples of “serial social entrepreneurs” just as we see serial entrepreneurs in the business world. Some SEs are driven to create multiple organizations, getting them started with the right staff and a shared vision, and then moving on to start another organization. Either way, we have found that SEs are driven to solve an issue by doing whatever it takes to achieve their vision—including, when necessary, creating organizations with flexible infrastructure, talented, innovative staff and strong expertise. In most cases, the SE wants his or her organization to be strong and sustainable so that it can carry out his or her vision over the long-term.

I hope this helps.

Hi Bridget:

First of all, I want to apologize for the fact that the software posted two copies of each of two recent posts, one of which was mine. I assure you, I had no intention of repeating myself!

You asked parenthetically if you had understood me correctly, and yes, pretty much so would be my answer. But I also think you deserve to know that my post was "cut down" from something more like four pages of original, and if it was less than clear, that was very likely an effect of sloppy editing on my part, not of any misunderstanding on yours.

I'm always interested by the issues of individual and group activity, and nowhere more so than in places where new insights lead to improved results on the human / global scale.

We talk of "uncommon heroes", we think of people like Mohammad Yunus, the Skoll awards are "designed to support and celebrate social entrepreneurs", and yet the Eligibility Quiz is designed "assist you in assessing your organization’s chances for success in this process" and the first question is whether "your organization" has made a previous application for a Skoll Award.

So for me, there's an individual / group interface that I'm prompted to think about. And in preparation for this discussion with you, I read Roger Martin and Sally Osberg's piece with care too, and that informs my thinking and questioning here as much as the overt topic of discussion, ie actual Skoll Applications.

*

I am intrigued by the distinctions Martin and Osberg draw between social service provision, social entrepreneurship, and social activism. I think of Vinoba Bhave and Mohammad Yunus, I feel very similarly about the two of them, and I wonder at the fact that at some level, organization is secondary to Bhave and primary to Yunus. Bhave goes around persuading people to give land to the poor, Yunus goes around giving people microloans, and at some point creates a bank to continue what began with funding out of his own pocket.

So one question I would like to ask has to do with my impression that Bhave falls into the social activism category, and Yunus into that of social entrepreneurship, although as Martin and Osberg suggest, there is a lot of overlap in reality between the categories. This leads to me ask, is the bank the defining characteristic here? And would Bhave have been a social entrepreneur if he'd created a real-estate company, rather than trekking from village to village in person?

I appreciate some of the reasons you (ie Skoll) have for making the choices you do, to operate as you say at the mezzanine level, and with organizations. I guess I'm just naturally curious as to what the impact is when many funding and support agencies making that same choice.

And this all comes back to the fact that my own inspiration comes from the example of an individual. My mentor and guardian through my teen years was a priest who, like Bhave and Yunus and Gandhi and King, had a very powerful impact on society through seeing a limitation which was generally taken for granted as "the way things are" (in his case, the existing equilibrium was apartheid South Africa), but he was closer to Bhave than Yunus in that he left nothing like a bank behind him. He once famously said that he had built a swimming pool and a jazz band, but getting an Olympic sized swimming pool for a shanty town outside Jo'berg in the middle of apartheid S Africa was something he did by sheer force of personal charisma and love, with very little in the way or organization.

I guess I caught my enthusiasm for the passionate individual actor from him, and part of the reason I find Skoll so fascinating is because I'm more used to the individual than the group or organizational approach to creating a better world, and my connection with Skoll helps me understand how an individual effort "scales up" into a group, an organization or a movement.

Thanks again,

Charles

Hi Charles,

The short answer is: yes. The Skoll Awards fund social entrepreneurial organizations, those that have been founded and/or brought to an inflection point by a social entrepreneur and are poised to scale up, via internal growth, affiliations, replication, etc. through an infusion of mezzanine-level funding. Skoll funding goes to the organization itself, while we celebrate the social entrepreneur heading the organization and connect him or her to a broader network of social entrepreneurs.

There is a forum for discussing the definition of social entrepreneurship going on right now on Social Edge, hosted by Patrick O'Heffernan. That may be a more appropriate place to continue a discussion about this topic.

Thanks,

Bridget

Assembling guidelines is not easy and I know that these were especially difficult because of the nature of social enterprise. Congratulations on a great, clear job well done. I am especially please to see NPOs, FPO and hybrids in the guidelines. You guys are pioneers!

Hello Bridget McNamer,please can you explain to me if a disability organization in Ghana and Africa can qualify for this grant.in most cases ngos in Africa undertake major project through grants and fund they receive from international organization,but most of the time disability organization in Ghana and Africa find it very difficulty in sourcing for funds and grant,please can you explain to me the reason why disability ngos find it very difficult to source for grant. thank you.

Since the cut off date for the 2008 funding is closed when can we apply next ? We have initiated a project which addresses most of the critical issues mentioned above, in rural India which could touch lives of millions not only in India bur in all developing & underdeveloped countries. Look forward to your views

Sugato Basu Ray