Comments on: My Comments on the Social Innovation Fund http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:42:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sloane Berrent http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8466 Sloane Berrent Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:57:27 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8466 Sean - I've been reading all of the posts around the Social Innovation Fund and it's been really inspiring to see the progress made the last few months on the development of the fund. I think it's crucial for the future of philanthropy to diversify and this is a very active way to move the ball forward and keep the conversation going. Best, @sloane Sean – I’ve been reading all of the posts around the Social Innovation Fund and it’s been really inspiring to see the progress made the last few months on the development of the fund. I think it’s crucial for the future of philanthropy to diversify and this is a very active way to move the ball forward and keep the conversation going.

Best,
@sloane

]]> By: longrange http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8465 longrange Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:37:12 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8465 Did you get the Director of PC's comments? Did you get the Director of PC’s comments?

]]> By: Ingvild Bjornvold http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8464 Ingvild Bjornvold Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:56:26 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8464 I didn't mention in my earlier comment that I fully agree with your post, Sean. My comments to the Social Innovation Fund emphasized the need for the NOFA to require that intermediaries select organizations that have the ability to manage performance - as you, Alex and others have described it. Whether programs are evidence-based or not, they must have the ability to implement their programs in accordance with a model, and make adjustments to implementation as required. I didn’t mention in my earlier comment that I fully agree with your post, Sean. My comments to the Social Innovation Fund emphasized the need for the NOFA to require that intermediaries select organizations that have the ability to manage performance – as you, Alex and others have described it. Whether programs are evidence-based or not, they must have the ability to implement their programs in accordance with a model, and make adjustments to implementation as required.

]]> By: Alex Armenta http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8463 Alex Armenta Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:40:11 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8463 Thanks for summarizing this thoughtful point, a critical one in my view - I was delighted to read your post. In general, I'm deeply supportive of the desire (or imperative) in philanthropy to direct resources to organizations that have "proven" the social value and effectiveness of their work. However, from the perspective of those of us who are indeed at the stage of collecting, analyzing, and applying learning from information, I'm well aware that we are several steps (and a few years) away from meeting the requirements as they appear in the Fund's NOFA. As you point out, investments in bringing our organizations through both further applications of our models and the next stage of learning, growth, and evaluation could give rise to the next generation of NFP's. Thanks for summarizing this thoughtful point, a critical one in my view – I was delighted to read your post. In general, I’m deeply supportive of the desire (or imperative) in philanthropy to direct resources to organizations that have “proven” the social value and effectiveness of their work. However, from the perspective of those of us who are indeed at the stage of collecting, analyzing, and applying learning from information, I’m well aware that we are several steps (and a few years) away from meeting the requirements as they appear in the Fund’s NOFA. As you point out, investments in bringing our organizations through both further applications of our models and the next stage of learning, growth, and evaluation could give rise to the next generation of NFP’s.

]]> By: Gordon Strause http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8462 Gordon Strause Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:11:39 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8462 I admit that my eyes have been glazing over at most of the comments on the "Social Innovation Fund" that you've been publishing here, and I'm not sure I read any of them start to finish. So I was glad I resisted the tempation to simply ignore your comments as well. They are well worth a full read. Great post. I admit that my eyes have been glazing over at most of the comments on the “Social Innovation Fund” that you’ve been publishing here, and I’m not sure I read any of them start to finish.

So I was glad I resisted the tempation to simply ignore your comments as well. They are well worth a full read. Great post.

]]> By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8461 Sean Stannard-Stockton Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:47:39 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8461 Rachel, I think that's a great idea. Also, I think there is valid criticism of NFP. They are not some sort of perfect organization. I used them in this comment because they represent an archetype. Rachel, I think that’s a great idea. Also, I think there is valid criticism of NFP. They are not some sort of perfect organization. I used them in this comment because they represent an archetype.

]]> By: Rachael Barrett http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8460 Rachael Barrett Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:41:57 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8460 Dear Sean: NFP presents an interesting case for donors. Yes, as an evidence based program that has been proven to work and is being scaled up in many settings, everyone can be confident that the beneficiaries will receive high quality and timely services. This is good. This should be promoted. However, in NYC (at least), npos host a few other home visiting programs, such as the Community Health Worker Program and the Healthy Families Program. While I do not believe either of these programs have undergone the rigorous evaluation of NFP, government funds the efforts and NPOs implement the programs and clients are served. What has struck me following the rise and well-deserved accolades bestowed upon NFP is that other home visiting programs, while not yet studied, may in fact be just as impactful...and, without a doubt, deliver services at a far lower cost. The NFPs manual based approach requires BSN and MSN-level staff, therefore driving up the cost of the program. We know it works, but do other models work as well at less cost? Maybe the social innovation fund needs to consider "like" program models for study so that we can identify alternatives to the few evidence based programs like NFP. Dear Sean:

NFP presents an interesting case for donors. Yes, as an evidence based program that has been proven to work and is being scaled up in many settings, everyone can be confident that the beneficiaries will receive high quality and timely services. This is good. This should be promoted.

However, in NYC (at least), npos host a few other home visiting programs, such as the Community Health Worker Program and the Healthy Families Program. While I do not believe either of these programs have undergone the rigorous evaluation of NFP, government funds the efforts and NPOs implement the programs and clients are served.

What has struck me following the rise and well-deserved accolades bestowed upon NFP is that other home visiting programs, while not yet studied, may in fact be just as impactful…and, without a doubt, deliver services at a far lower cost. The NFPs manual based approach requires BSN and MSN-level staff, therefore driving up the cost of the program. We know it works, but do other models work as well at less cost?

Maybe the social innovation fund needs to consider “like” program models for study so that we can identify alternatives to the few evidence based programs like NFP.

]]> By: Ingvild Bjornvold http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8459 Ingvild Bjornvold Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:10:12 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8459 I think you make a good point, Sean, but on the other hand, it seems that there are quite a few evidence-based programs that have simply ended. I asked some researchers about that a few months ago, and their sense was that many programs end after the evaluations because funders no longer want to fund them and go for something new and exciting. I haven't looked into this systematically, but I would be really interested to know if anyone out there has and can comment on whether it is indeed the case that 1) there are many evidence-based programs that are no longer implemented, and 2) what the reasons might be (could it be that funders find them too expensive...?). I think you make a good point, Sean, but on the other hand, it seems that there are quite a few evidence-based programs that have simply ended. I asked some researchers about that a few months ago, and their sense was that many programs end after the evaluations because funders no longer want to fund them and go for something new and exciting.

I haven’t looked into this systematically, but I would be really interested to know if anyone out there has and can comment on whether it is indeed the case that 1) there are many evidence-based programs that are no longer implemented, and 2) what the reasons might be (could it be that funders find them too expensive…?).

]]> By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8458 Sean Stannard-Stockton Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:37:23 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8458 Thanks Christine, glad you agree! Thanks Christine, glad you agree!

]]> By: Christine Egger http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund/comment-page-1#comment-8457 Christine Egger Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:29:00 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/01/my-comments-on-the-social-innovation-fund#comment-8457 Sean, I hope that the original version of these comments not only had those phrases in bold, but underscored and highlighted too. Sean, I hope that the original version of these comments not only had those phrases in bold, but underscored and highlighted too.

]]>