Transcript Issues and Outcomes: A review

Issues and
Outcomes:
A review
Complexities in evaluation

As currently conceptualized, Social Enterprises and Social Purpose
Businesses are a relatively new entity.

Social Enterprises and Social Purpose Businesses grew out of a
recognition that both business and non profit models were not
meeting the needs of the communities. Their development was
somewhat spontaneous responding to local need.

Social Enterprise 1.0 record a number of failures, but since then, a
better understanding of the interplay between the needs of the
business and the social need have emerged , with more and more
successful entities using this model. Schorr, J. (2006)
Defining the Social Economy

Definition of Social Economy

a. Poorly defined, but includes the concept of the 3rd sector
(public, private, as the third sector includes non profits, education,
hospitals, credit unions, cooperatives and other such entities)

b. Application appears to be informed by national culture and
values. Very well established in Europe, Latin America, and
Commonwealth countries. Gaining momentum in the US.

c. Competing use of the term Social Economy is developingrelates to social media.

d. Confusion with the term “social economics” (how economic
activity affects social processes)
Defining Social Enterprises

No universal definition, but appears to be generally accepted that
social enterprises utilize business strategies to meet social needs.

Ridley-Duff (2008) employs the concepts of social and economic
rationality to explore the nature of social enterprise. He proposes
that the idea of describing social enterprises as merely “not-for
profit” has been replaced by the notion of more-than profit.
Why it is so difficult to study social
outcomes within Social Enterprises
"In social entrepreneurship there is no proven method, code of
practice or core business model to follow" ([33] Roberts and Woods,
2005, p. 46) making financial measures an inappropriate
operationalization of success and making comparisons between
organizations extremely difficult ([27] Nicholls, 2005). They vary
widely in their focus and methods making performance
comparisons between case studies very difficult.
Also, social outcomes are long-term, difficult to objectify and
subject to multiple forces and interactions exogenous to the work of
the organization.” Ruebottom, T. (2011)

“Social entrepreneurship has an uncomfortable
conceptual position lying somewhere between,
but including elements of, entrepreneurship
and social benefit. Construed as achieving
social benefits through the mechanisms of
enterprise; in its several forms, social enterprise
may be focused on the social, where the
rational is social benefits, but the medium for
delivery is treated as a business……This results in
both conceptual and practical
difficulties in identifying and distinguishing
processes and outcomes as well as ends
and means (Diochon and Anderson 2009). ”
Business-----------+-------------Non Profit
Social
Enterprise
The “teeter totter” of social
enterprise
SE.1---SE.2
Definition of Social Purpose Business

Social Purpose Business is often considered a social enterprise

It has the same purpose of social enterprise

Social Purpose Businesses are entrepreneurial ventures, separate from
Non Profits.


Examples: Terra Cycle,
Inconsistent definitions
Definition: Double/Triple Bottom
Line

The underlying theme that has been adopted in many
social enterprises/social purpose businesses are:

People

Planet

Profits
Outcome Research

Challenging due to

lack of consistent definitions

Cultural, political, social, and political issues affecting the
implementation and outcomes in Social Enterprises and Social Purpose
Businesses

Information is primarily case study

Exception: REDF Development fund has produced good evaluation
instruments
“The Roberts Enterprise Development
Fund (REDF) commissioned a study
starting in 1998 that, to date, includes
nearly 1,000 client participants in five
nonprofit organizations with a combined
19 social enterprises. The study has found
that 75 percent of participants retain their
jobs over a two-year period, with many
transitioning into mainstream employment.
In addition, their monthly income triples,
educational levels improve, housing
stabilizes, and criminal recidivism rates
decline dramatically.”
Schorr, J. (2006, Summer). Social enterprise
2.0. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4, 12-13.
Overview of the research
Issues to consider re: outcomes

Financial

Values and Interests to be balanced

Implications for the parent non profit

Double/Triple Bottom Line
Financial

Philanthropic: May provide initial support, but not necessarily
ongoing funding. Must be 501 ( c) 3
Rochester area:
 Farash Foundation: To seek and reinforce innovation in Monroe and
Ontario Counties in New York State.
Note: Requests accepted 6/24/14–7/15/14
 Other Rochester Foundations that may consider Social Enterprises
include:

Daisy Marquis Jones
ESL Charitable Trust
 Riedman Foundation
 Local Initiative Support Corporation
 Next Gen

Financial continued

Loans

Venture Capital

Angel funding

Non profit development funding (requires legal clarification,
AFP has not yet developed a policy paper)
Values and Interests to be
balanced

As Social Enterprises evaluated the issues with SE.1 and as they
moved to a more nuanced strategy (SE. 2) the issue of values and
various community interests were considered.

“One view contends there is no tension in balancing social and
economic aims (Dees1998; Evers 2001; Emerson 2003) but in
opposition, Russell and Scott (2007) argue that describing the
development of social enterprise without reference to inherent
conflicts is self-delusory and unhelpful.” (Diochon and Anderson)

See chart on next page, by Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2011).
Political
What
𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
How
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠
To Social End
Why
𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑
Self sustaining, therefore
better
3𝑟𝑑 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐
of benefits, not for profit
Profit/
Benefit
Rhetoric
Of
Legitimacy
𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 3𝑟𝑑
Way
Identify
With
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑛𝑑
private
Implied
𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
Decision making.
Identified
Not clear, community?
Social
Econ.
Social
Well Being
Econ.
Means to
Social End
𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑
Social processes
𝑃𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐
Engagement
Business
Models
Entrepreneurial
Cost Effic.
𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ
A focus on doing
Use a
broad
concept
re:profit
Social Benefits using
Profits.
Econo.
Means,
rational
Action oriented
𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦
𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑖
𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑠 =
𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡
𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑,
Social rational
Entreprenurial
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑
Efficiency
𝐸𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦
Gov, but not Gov.
Econ
Efficiency
Social Justice
𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Not clear
𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
agency
Views from the field

Phenomenological Research uncovered how values, acknowledgment of issues
evolved.

Three themes emerged
1) Social well-being------ Economic well-being
Respondents struggle to reconcile their positions
“We live and die for this community. We’re not burdened with any other
agenda...The community is suffering… there’s always an issue, there’s always a
crisis… You’re confronted all the time with a very severe set of conditions. It’s
been a real struggle not to be hijacked in terms of that agenda”…
It is clear in this statement that the primary driver is the social well being of the
community.
Evolving Positions-This statement illustrates how different values intrude into practices.
“I would argue that most of what we’ve done starts off as an act of compassion
and then we turn it into a business after that. It becomes such a business we’ll
forget why we got into it in the first place because you just become
preoccupied with the numbers…and I think the struggle all the time is to
make sure that both sides are equally supported because if one prevails… If the
social element prevails we’ll go to bankruptcy. If the business element prevails
I think we’ll lose our soul so it’s this struggle to stay on track… there was a
discomfort with taking too much... (SE1)

This narrative emphasizes the contradictions, almost a moral dilemma they face.
Evolving positions:
Yet in this next statement we can see how these conflicting positions
merge in a growing appreciation of how contradictory pressures can
be managed by prioritizing purpose.

I think [SE1] is beginning to develop a broader understanding of
what it means to be who we are and the more means we have,
that just means that our capacity is widened and enlivened and
can do more effectively…
Theme 2
INNOVATION---CONFORMITY
“Another tension that the researchers observed was that between
identifying innovative ways to do more with less in responding to
community needs, but at the same time, conforming to the perceived
expectations within the professional community and among
consumers.”
Theme 3
Independence---Interdependence
“One of the more recent deals we did, that we’re involved in, it’s a partnership
and we’re a very small player in a very big project... That’s a very different
play than we would have done 20 years ago…we probably were more
preoccupied with trying to own and develop and manage all our own stuff. I
think partnerships were rather frightening. I think there’s very little now we
would do without the word partnership coming in. That’s a radical change for
us, eh…… part of the scaling up is very much reaching like we’ve never quite
reached before into the community in terms of a much broader coalition, OK.
So in terms of what we look like, we sort of disappear in this coalition… we’re
in a much better position to reach out and embrace all of our other
constituencies within the community which in terms of getting things done…
better, quicker, faster. (Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2011))
Issue: Implications for the Parent
Non Profit
1.
Will the social enterprise expenses overwhelm the non profit in the
event of a down turn? Does the non profit have enough depth to
be able to carry cash flow deficits? If not, how can this be
addressed in an ethical and viable manner?
2.
The Board of Directors must maintain oversite to both the social
enterprise and the mission of the agency. Crisis’s within the social
enterprise should have a board crisis management strategy so that
the energy of the board is not completely focused on issues within
the Social Enterprises. (Van Brackle, L. G. ,2011)
The Double/Triple Bottom Line

Although considered a foundation to social purpose businesses and
social enterprises, there are concerns beginning to emerge that the
costs of the double/triple bottom line (financially and in man hours)
are not readily absorbed into the entity. ( Van Brackle, L. G. (2011))

Still, this appears to be a foundational value that will be retained
within these entities.
Sheltered Workshop Issues



Legal Issues: Sheltered Workshops vs Social Enterprises (Affirmative Businesses)

Olmstead Decision

NYS Medicaid Reimbursement/OPWDD
Effective February 5, 2014, OPWDD is permanently adopting regulations that limit
reimbursement of prevocational services delivered in sheltered workshops to
individuals who were enrolled in these services before July 1, 2013, including those
who did not begin receiving these services until on or after July 1st. Similar regulations
have been in effect as emergency regulations since July 1, 2013.
www.opwdd.ny.gov.

DOL issues

Discontinuation of preferential contracts.

NYS is recommending transfer these entities to Affirmative Businesses (a term from the UK with
more focus on those with disabilities, but considered Social Enterprises)

http://ilr-edir1.ilr.cornell.edu/nymakesworkpay/docs/Transforming_NYS_business_072010.pdf
References
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues
based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373.
Dart, R., Clow, E., & Armstrong, A. (2010). Meaningful difficulties in the mapping of social enterprises. Social
EnterpriseJournal,6(3), 186-193. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17508611011088797
Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2011). Ambivalence and ambiguity in social enterprise; narratives about
values in reconciling purpose and practices. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1),
93-109. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0161-0
NYS Office People with Disablities. (n.d.). Sheltered workshop memo. Retrieved from
http://www.opwdd.ny.gov/regulations_guidance/opwdd_regulations/change-previous-regulationsreimbursement-prevocational-services-sheltered-workshops-memo
REDF. (n.d.). Redf. Retrieved from http://www.redf.org/
Ridley-Duff, R., & Southcombe, C. (2012). The social enterprise mark: A critical review of its conceptual
dimensions. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(3), 178-200. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17508611211280746
References (pg 2)

Rooney, R. (2008). Social enterprise collaboration for improved client outcomes. Policy &
Practice, 66(3), 38-39.

Ruebottom, T. (2011). Counting social change: Outcome measures for social enterprise. Social
Enterprise Journal, 7(2), 173-182. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17508611111156628


Schorr, J. (2006, Summer). Social enterprise 2.0. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4, 12-13.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/217163656?accountid=8067

Shaheen, G. (n.d.). Transforming NYS Affirmative Business--into what?. Retrieved from http://ilr-ediar1.ilr.cornell.edu/nymakesworkpay/docs/Transforming_NYS_business_072010.pdf


Sherri, L. W. (1999). Social entrepreneurship: The role of social purpose enterprises in facilitating
community economic development. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 153-174.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208425218?accountid=8067


Van Brackle, L. G. (2011). Promoting feast or surviving famine: The financial implications of social
enterprise for nonprofit human service organizations. (Order No. 3481835, City University of New
York). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 252. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/908349914?accountid=8067. (908349914).