Posted By Sidney on February 16, 2009

In late January, I was pleased to learn that President Barrack Obama included an Office of Social Innovation in the list of 20 offices planned to exist under the White House Office.  The mere mention of such an entity launched a flurry of chatter throughout the nonprofit sector including various blogs and Twitter.  Like others, I am anxiously awaiting the day that the Office of Social Innovation title is hyperlinked to more detail.  The type of questions that characterize my curiosity are:

• How will this office be structured?
• Who will lead the Office?
• What will be the role of the office?
• Will the presence of such an office really have measurable and noticeable impact on local/regional level?

I could dedicate an entire post to each of these questions.   However, I am choosing to stir the pot by making the case for a White House Office of Social Innovation implementation strategy that incorporates university schools of business or public affairs and administration; and local and regional foundations (especially community foundations).

This strategy calls for the country to be parceled into regions comprised of several “centers of innovation” located at participating universities within the region.  The universities would provide the oversight and infrastructure to identify, vet, and incubate the best ideas and nurture these ideas into effective nonprofit, for-profit, or hybrid social innovation enterprises.  If possible, at least one of the university centers in a given region should be an early adopter social innovation institution such as H. John  Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard Business School, Olin School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis , Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, The Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, or The Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown University to name a few.  This would add value to the regional exchange of knowledge and expertise and assure that all schools are poised for success (even those that are new to the notion of “social” innovation).

The role of foundations would be to provide:

• Funds to leverage Federal support devoted to nonprofit social innovation and partial support for the operating costs incurred by the universities;
• Program-related investments to support more seasoned, successful nonprofit or for-profit social innovation enterprises; and
• On-the-ground expertise and knowledge regarding the intricacies of social issues as these issues are understood on the local/regional level.

In addition to funding, the White House Office of Social Innovation would provide a physical and technological infrastructure that allows optimum sharing of ideas, techniques, and best practices across all centers of innovation nationwide.

Funding would be limited to high-priority social issues as defined by the Office of Social Innovation.  For example, social innovation enterprises supported by this effort could include:

• Green businesses or green business-enablers that improve the environment;
• Alternative energy organizations;
• Medical quality businesses that reduce the cost of  health care; or
• Civic participation enterprises that enable the voice of marginalized citizens to be amplified to increase the awareness of legislators and local public officials (e.g., using mobile technology).

I believe this structure would foster and sustain a pipeline of social innovation that would change the way we address social issues significantly if not completely.  What do you think?

Categories: Commentary
Tags: Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, community foundations, Harvard Business School, nonprofit, social innovation, Stanford University, University of Texas at Austin, Washington University in St. Louis, White House Office of Social Innovation