Wednesday, April 21, 2010


HOW DOES ONE CHANGE THE WORLD? …


In the course of our seminar, one thing has become very clear:


If there is something the world’s societies at the beginning of the 21st century are not lacking, it is problems of all kinds and sizes. Among the most pressing social ills in India, for example, are insufficient health care provisions and an underdeveloped social security network assisting especially the country’s disabled citizens. Hardly anyone would disagree that there is a need for change, that disabled people should enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens; that eye care should not be a luxury service affordable only by the very well-off. The question is not whether things should change but how this change may be brought about.

The following two cases of social entrepreneurship chose very different approaches to changing social problems in India and yet they were both successful in their own right.

FIGHTING FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS IN INDIA:
Javed Abidi and the National Center for the Promotion of Employment for Disabled People

Javed Abidi was born in 1965 in Aligarh, India. He suffers from sclerosis of the spine, an illness that if treated timely, can be controlled fairly well. However, inaccurate medical diagnosis confined him to the wheelchair since young age. Trying to improve his son’s condition, Abidi’s father – a college professor and member of the Congress Party – spent all his savings on a trip to the United States. During his stay in the U.S, Abidi became familiar with concepts such as ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘respect for the disabled’ which he would embrace in his future work.

Soon, Abidi returned to America to study Journalism and Communication at Wright State University in Ohio where he became actively engaged as member of the University’s disability unit and in other campus activities while also achieving high academic honors. However, as his medical treatment continued, it turned out that the wheelchair given to him in India was oversized, leading to a faulty posture. Once again, corrective surgery was required.

Upon graduation from Wright State, Abidi returned to India to pursue a career as a journalist. This turned out to be difficult since – despite his excellent grades and extracurricular achievements – many editors did not consider him able to cover the task of political reporting. Abidi had to overcome many obstacles in order to find employment. Eventually, he managed to establish his credentials as a political journalist when he was able to secure a highly prestigious interview with the Minister of Defense.

The ongoing struggle of determined individuals like Javed Abidi increased political awareness of the disabled rights issue. In 1988, India’s Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi established a committee concerned with disability, which was transformed into the Rajeev Gandhi Foundation after his assassination. When Javed visited Sonia Gandhi to offer his condolences, he mentioned a letter he had written to her deceased husband concerning his committee. A week later, he was invited by Sonia Gandhi, to set up the disability wing of the newly established foundation. Abidi’s first large success then followed in 1995, when the Indian government passed the Disability Act.

In his work, Abidi strives to achieve the employment of disabled citizens in ‘normal’ jobs, in companies where they work alongside non-disabled people, where they deliver the same work and thus receive the same pay. To pursue these goals, Abidi founded the National Center for the Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP) in 1997. By now, the NCPEDP has grown into an organization of immense scope: It targets not only the more than 60 Million disabled people, but India’s entire population, to create a climate of universal acceptance of citizens with disabilities.

The interesting part about this case of social entrepreneurship is the way Abidi goes about achieving his goals, namely by building a movement, by connecting his organization to many other similar associations all over the country. The NCPEDP was able to establish partnerships with businesses and other social groups and most importantly, it tries to work with the Indian government. Abidi set out to change the status quo by pushing for a new law, not by simply establishing facts and presenting them to the government.

The size of the NCPEDP itself is rather small, as they work with many partner organizations. Therefore, its scaling up strategy is to get more and more partners involved. Abidi wants to transform the behavior of powerful actors to achieve social change – the increased acceptance of disability in Indian society. Changes in the political sphere (changing the law), and the economic sphere (get disabled people into the workforce) are also highly significant in his model of social entrepreneurship.

FIGHTING FOR EQUITABLE HEALTH CARE CONDITIONS:
The Aravind Eye Care System

Another example of social entrepreneurship in India is the Courtesy Aravind Eye Care System. The mission of the Aravind Eye Care System, which was founded by Dr. G. Venkataswamy in 1976, is to eliminate needless blindness. The not-for-profit organization wants to achieve this by providing high quality eye care for everybody and by making high quality ophthalmic products affordable and available worldwide. The eye care system consists of five hospitals, three managed eye hospitals, a manufacturing center for ophthalmic products, and their own research institutes.

In contrast to Abidi’s NCPEDP, Aravind is not trying to change the law. Dr. G. Venkataswamy developed a new system that reaches India’s poorest people. He invented strategies to overcome the typical barriers keeping the state from taking care of the poorest part of the population. Aravind provides camps in rural areas that move from village to village to reach those that usually do not get any medical help. Their approach is to combine traditional Indian warmth with the most modern ophthalmic care. The organization manages to be self-sustaining, even though 70 percent of Aravind’s surgeries are performed for free. This is possible, because Aravind is able to attract patients from all over the world.

While Abidi is changing the political sphere, by changing the laws concerning disabled people, Aravind has a completely different approach. Aravind is changing the status quo through taking direct action and finding ways to reach the poorest people without the government. However, both actors are trying to change the attitudes of people with the help of other socially committed organizations.

Overall, there does not seem to be a positively right or wrong way in social entrepreneurship; there is no ultimate guide telling us how change can be brought about. Human societies are complex constructs; they are subject to constant alteration and bearers of an abundance of social, political and economic problems requiring an equally multifaceted tool box of solutions.


References:

Alvord, S., L. Brown, and C. Letts (2004): “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40/3, pp. 260-282.

Aravind Eye Care System. Retrieved on April 16th from http://www.aravind.org/.

Aravind Eye Care system. Activity Report 2008-09: Mission. Retrieved on April 16th 2010 from http://www.aravind.org/annualreport09/displayreport.aspx?qstring=Mission.

Ashoka. (1998). Javed Abidi|Ashoka.org. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from Ashoka: http://www.ashoka.org/fellow/2550.

Bonamici Flaim, K. (2009). Aravind Eye Care System. Retrieved on April 16th 2010 from http://www.fastcompany.com/fast50_09/profile/list/aravind-eye-care-system.

Bornstein, David (2007): “This Country Has to Change. Javed Abidi, India: Disability Rights.” In: D. Bornstein: How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. Oxford et al: Oxford University Press, pp. 214-237.

By Carla, Gesche, Ben, and Tina

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Client Orientation is Good for Profit—Social Profit Especially. A case study.

Note: Client is used to refer to individuals receiving non-profit services as well as donors supporting the organization providing these services.

Rubicon Programs Inc. is a social entrepreneurship combining three profitable enterprises with various non-profit services (Emerson 2003). The latter include behavioral health services, housing and case management services, legal services, and job trainings (Rubicon Programs Inc., 2009). In short, Rubicon gives second chances to people who are struggling living their lives. The now 35 year old incorporation is located in the Bay Area in San Francisco and was founded by community members concerned with individuals reporting behavioral disorders. Today clients entering Rubicon's programs are helped with unemployment (85%), homelessness, including those at risk (74%) and reported psychological disabilities (24%) (Rubicon Programs Inc., 2009) The profit-making activities include a high-end bakery, a landscaping enterprise and home health care services. They are connected with the non-profit activities in providing financing and opportunities for employment and job training. Moreover, Rubicon distinguishes itself in the non-profit sector through its innovative social impact measurement system CICERO that allows for client-orientation and efficient management (Twersky, BTW Consultants, 2002).

Strong client orientation is probably also the thread explaining the history and overall composition of Rubicon Programs most easily. Rubicon started as a counseling service to clients with behavioral disorders. Soon it was clear, however, that counseling alone was not enough; affordable housing and regular employment were recognized as critical to the clients' stability (Andrews, The Low Income Housing Fund, 2001). A solution to the clients' housing was sought through buying houses and renting them out at affordable prices; in 2001 for example Rubicon owned about 100 houses and had more houses under construction (Andrews, The Low Income Housing Fund, 2001). Afterward, once it was seen that housing alone did not make for a stable life either, employment opportunities became an issue. Especially preparations for application interviews and training on the job was needed. The landscaping services, the bakery and the home health care services were initiated (Andrews, The Low Income Housing Fund, 2001). Besides providing a work-environment in which essential job skills are taught, these business became profitable and in 2007-2008 their revenue contributed almost 40% of the overall income of the organization (Rubicon Programs Inc., 2009). Thus, the non-profit as well as the for-profit activities of Rubicon came into being as direct responses to its clients' needs.

Rubicon shows strong client orientation also towards its donors, meaning it cares about what their donors want. Besides the 40% income through their businesses, Rubicon's funding consists of government contracts (40%), grants and contributions (8%), service fees (7%), and rental income (6%) (Rubicon Programs Inc., 2009). As many non-profit organizations do, Rubicon suffered from increasingly sophisticated reporting requirements imposed by donors. The man-hours consumed by filing this variety of reports not only became increasingly burdensome but despite all the reporting the organization did not gain an overview of its own activities. Constantly information was compiled, analyzed and composed into reports but nevertheless a basis for an overall controlling was lacking (Twersky, BTW Consultants, 2002). To phrase it briefly, from the management's point of view, there was too much information gathered and, yet, too little known. Until CICERO. CICERO (Consumer Information Collection, Entry and Reporting for Organizations) is a computer based, automated data processing system designed to measure Rubicon's social impact. The management took a proactive stance implementing this system to ensure that it would not only meet the donors' reporting expectations but also the management's ones.

CICERO was developed in cooperation with The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (REDF) as pioneering work in measuring social impact due to its thorough integration into the organization. After having established the overall information needs of the organization through looking at contracts and reporting forms, the then tracking system was checked for completeness and opportunities for improvement (Twersky, BTW Consultants, 2002). Thereafter the software and hardware capacities were adjusted to attain a fully automated data acquisition and processing system (Twersky, BTW Consultants, 2002). At every step the management was heavily involved to ensure its full implementation and utility for donors and controlling. This striving for accountability was done very successfully and resulted in two major benefits. Firstly, a mess of reporting forms could be abandoned and, yet, the organization satisfies donors' requests. Secondly, being able to measure social impact in real-time the management was much more able to attain efficiency in terms of Social Return on Investment.

The management was able to use CICERO to increase the overall efficiency of Rubicon. The organizational core of around 150 (Twersky, BTW Consultants, 2002) are concerned with keeping the three revenue making enterprises profitable, while immediately distributing this income to the non-profit activities. This task of “immediate redistribution” is the more difficult because the financial markets are rather reluctant towards lending to an organization such as Rubicon (Andrews, The Low Income Housing Fund, 2001). Therefore the management is short on cash at hand. In 2001 for example, the cash at hand was only $ 150,000 at $ 14 million annual budget (Andrews, The Low Income Housing Fund, 2001). Thus, the managers face very little liquidity. CICERO at least partially helps remedying this problem by telling the management how to allocate money most efficiently. Measuring overall efficiency and social impact of Rubicon CICERO ensures a maximum of client satisfaction on both sides: Donors receive comprehensive and informative reports and individuals receive a maximum of services. In comparison to other social entrepreneurship Rubicon's centralized and sophisticated medium-size management is distinguished through this pioneering work in social impact measurement (Andrews, The Low Income Housing Fund, 2001). It makes Rubicon a transparent and efficient fit between donors' money and individuals' needs. The management succeeds at efficiently connecting the clients on both ends of the organization.

Caesar crossed the Rubicon river in 49 BC—a life-changing experience for himself. Today Rubicon helps many individuals at risk to cross their own personal Rubicon. From psychological counseling to training on the job, there is truly a wholesome offer to be found with Rubicon. Curiously, this comprehensiveness did not come at the cost of efficiency. On the contrary, Rubicon is a splendid example of entrepreneurial genius: Client-orientation at its best. When the client needed not only counseling but also housing and employment, the houses and the businesses followed. When donors, the other “clients”, asked for their part they got it as well—through CICERO. Finally, the management took this progressive step with CICERO to also provide for the organization itself, recognizing that donors simply wanted to know the same as the management did—whether Rubicon was doing its job.

References

Andrews, N.O., The Low Income Housing Fund (2001). Equity with a Twist:The Changing Capital Needs of the Community Development Field. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/capitalxchange/andrews.pdf

Emerson, J. (2003). The blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35-51.

Twersky, F., BTW Consultants (2002). An Information OASIS. Retrieved from http://www.redf.org/system/files/OASIS.pdf

Rubicon Programs Incorporated (2009). Annual Report 2007-2008; Retrieved from http://www.rubiconprograms.org/2007-2008_Rubicon_Annual_Report_and_Program_Information.pdf, Accessed 16:41, 14th April, 2010.

993 words excluding title, in-text parenthetical references, and references section