Category: Social Entrepreneurship

Review on Bartlett and Goshals research article (1994)

In their research article, Bartlett and Goshal (1994) addressed the idea of following certain organizational structures. They evaluated the second half of the 20th century and came to the conclusion that high-growth environments presuppose the presence of structure and strategy. Regardless, they are certain of the fact that the existing business environment is different. Markets are now global, the lines that separated businesses are now gone, and overcapacity has become a commonplace event. In addition to this, Bartlett and Goshal (1994) point out that even an early entry in the market is not as beneficial as before.

The author of the article explained that a new approach to management is necessary if businesses expect to become successful. The researchers conducted a study that involved numerous companies from all over the world and concluded that change is necessary, especially in the roles of top management. Bartlett and Goshal (1994) claimed that senior managers should be subject to changing their way of thinking and going out-of-the-box. In other words, there should be a definite organizational purpose that will allow them to focus on the development of core business processes.

Review on Dees research article (1998)

In his research article, Dees (1998) addressed the question of behaviors which contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship. He was certain of the fact that such behaviors should be remunerated and stimulated because they led to the advent of capable teams that were led by a passionate leader. However, Dees (1998) explicitly stated that not everyone could become a social entrepreneur because not everyone possessed the qualities that were necessary to ensure that an entrepreneurial leader would be born. He applied the same concept to the business environment and hypothesized that entrepreneurship is not something that every leader should pursue.

Even though the entrepreneurial approach is beneficial, we need to consider the idea that our society is functioning on the basis of a huge variety of leadership styles and forms. Dees (1998) concluded by saying that social entrepreneurs should be recognized as the owners of an idiosyncratic status but never a commonplace breed of leaders that can manage everything. We need social entrepreneurs in our lives, but we should find a way to integrate this form of leadership into the existing business environment without distressing the essential vocation of social entrepreneurs.

Review on Dees and Andersons research article (2003)

In the research article written by Dees and Anderson (2003), the concept of the importance of social entrepreneurs was extended even further. They considered the transition experienced by conventional boundaries between businesses in public and private sectors. These transformations can be validated by the necessity to find cost-effective ways of running a business that would positively affect sustainability and allow the leaders to solve social problems that transpire during the process. At the moment when these transformations began, the number of social entrepreneurs in both sectors started growing exponentially.

Their key objective was to organize businesses in a way that would allow them to set up a for-profit background with a social purpose. Dees and Anderson (2003) addressed the majority of the complications that are met by social entrepreneurs on this route and listed the most difficult challenges which could adversely influence the business environment that was created by social entrepreneurs. The authors of the article critically approached all the limitations and provided the readers with a series of intelligent solutions.

Review on Porter and Kramers research article (2011)

The last article was written by Porter and Kramer (2011), and it discussed the benefits of coming up with a new approach that would promote shared values and updated management styles. The authors of the article explained that the private and public sectors followed different paths in terms of career and education, which might be the key contributors to the existence of differences between their social and economic concerns.

On a larger scale, Porter and Kramer (2011) hypothesized that only a limited number of modern managers are aware of environmental and social problems existing on both sides of the fence. This hints at the idea that these managers who do not possess the required knowledge should train and transform their mindset in order to be in line with modern business practices. Porter and Kramer (2011) concluded by saying that the implementation of a shared value model is a critical add-on to any organization which is interested in getting rid of cynicism and starting to use and allocate resources more efficiently.

Implications for Business

Based on the readings presented above, it can be concluded that we are living in the era of an ever-changing business environment. We witnessed how the concepts of social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility changed over time. Right now, we should focus on minimizing the effects of the market being split up into its public and private forms. There should be a way to eradicate the difficulties revolving around their opposing business objectives and to develop a unified model which would take into account all the issues that currently exist. The most important thing here is to let entrepreneurial leaders take the reins of government into their own hands and manage business structures more flexibly.

Social entrepreneurship is a business that seeks to go beyond being income-driven to also becoming socially relevant through addressing societal problems. They either provide services or produce goods according to their social objectives, like TOMS Shoes in the case study (Neck, 2017). It operated a Buy One Give One model that allows donating a pair of shoes to impoverished countries for every bought pair of shoes (Neck, 2017). This approach has its undoubted advantages and disadvantages as a business and social strategy that are essential to recognize to make responsible business decisions. I believe that the produced positive and negative effects should be taken into account, with entrepreneurs being held responsible for their impact on society. Such a point of view allows social entrepreneurs to take more active control of the problem, especially if the effect of entrepreneurs trying to solve the problem is more detrimental than its absence.

From first sight, every attempt to produce a change in the world for good is an exemplary move from the business owners. It allows entrepreneurs to impact society and attract attention to the campaign and the brand itself (Neck, 2017). Everyone seems to win  the entrepreneur gets additional money and attention from the social campaign supporters, and the poor populations get free products. However, the problem lies deeper when the result of the attempts to solve the problem only increases it. In the conditions of lack of money, free supplies can help as a temporary solution, but not as an answer to the root-cause problem. The growing expectancy of free production and forming the attitude of dependence only deepen the vicious circle of poverty, which entrepreneurs should be responsible for. The attempts to solve the problem should calculate the risks and measure the effects to carefully implement the campaign to actually show care for societal problems.

Reference

Neck, H. M., Neck, C. P., & Murray, E. L. (2017). In Entrepreneurship: The practice and mindset. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Over the recent years, social entrepreneurship has gained popularity, as new opportunities emerge in the changing societal trends. According to Bornstein (21), many organizations and individuals perceptions on socially-oriented ventures are changing significantly, as the need for social facilities increase with regard to the increasing globalization.

Organizations are currently organizing for awards and other attractive awards for successful entrepreneurs who venture into the social sector to resolve eminent problems facing the society or a section of the society. For instance, Manhattan Institute Award (MIA) is one of the recently established organizations which awards social entrepreneurs who establish new ventures to solve various pressing problems among the people.

As revealed by Trevis and Toyah (2), social entrepreneurship is currently taking a new form, where unique ventures are being established with regard to the changing needs of the contemporary global society. This paper will discuss the major key issues emerging in the social entrepreneurship with respect to the changing societal needs and preferences.

As revealed by Trevis and Toyah (2), social entrepreneurship is expanding vastly both in the academic and business sectors. With the increasing globalization across nations, the need for increased literacy among the people has been increasing significantly.

Particularly, many social organizations are being established to offer educational opportunities to the poor and orphaned children with an aim of developing literate future generations. For instance, in the year 2008, Fast Company was acknowledged Better World Books and Organization due to its efforts to address global illiteracies by giving book donations among schools in less developed countries.

As reported by Bornstein (25), the framework of contemporary social entrepreneurship is largely embedded on the emerging global problems and calamities, with respect to the increasing globalization among nations.

With the changing climatic conditions, there has been rising need for social entrepreneurship to integrate some elements of business. Since natural resources are declining significantly, most of the innovations in the business sector are seeking sustainability and efficiency in resources usage.

On this basis, environmental management has become a very important area of consideration among businesses to facilitate sustainability in their production processes. As it revealed by Trevis and Toyah (4), dematerialization and value chain management are becoming the core areas of consideration among contemporary organizations in the social sector.

For instance, World Vision is one of the contemporary social organizations creating awareness among organizations to facilitate sustainability and efficiency in resources management. As a result, many organizations in the industrial sector have been made aware of the basic ways to facilitate efficiency and sustainability in resources use to enhance better performance both in the short-run and the long-run.

As noted by Bornstein (31), many social entrepreneurs are getting closely engaged to sustainability practices as a result of the many organizations creating awareness on the importance of proper resources utilization. For example, dematerialization has lately been revealed as one of the most effective strategies to facilitate sustainability in the process of environmental management.

This practice dematerialization has been largely advocated by World Economic Forum among contemporary firms and corporations to facilitate efficient resources use. Since social entrepreneurial opportunities are geared towards the development of social welfare in all aspects, the currently threatening climatic change has facilitated the development of many social entrepreneurial organizations.

As a result, many social problems brought by the prevalent social calamities are finding their solutions easier, since many organizations are being established to deal with such problems.

According to Bornstein (39), innovative and creativity have been largely facilitated by the massive development of the social entrepreneurship. It is important to note that, contemporary social entrepreneurship is playing a very significant role in applying the new technology to create social welfare.

As reported by Trevis and Toyah (3), social entrepreneurs are becoming significant innovators since their role as societal change agents have remained quite significant. With the world becoming more dynamic and closer through sophisticated information system, it has been easier for new inventions and innovations to reach the global society.

For instance, new techniques of conserving the environment are being easily conveyed through the media by global environmental organizations. Particularly, effective environmental strategies through innovations and creative ways have easily been relayed to the global society to enhance sustainability.

On this basis, social entrepreneurship has become more significant and effective with the advancement of the information systems, which enhances easy transmission of the information being relayed.

Since most of social entrepreneurial opportunities require highly skilled human resources for effective performance. According to Trevis and Toyah (5), since many social entrepreneurs are volunteers; creation of effective social employees capable of creating social value has been an eminent issue.

Particularly, to find employees with innate motives and capable of withstanding low income status for long has remained an eminent issue, as the cost of life gears up as a result of the global financial crisis. With the rise of social needs across the society, many social entrepreneurs have been faced with various challenges of managing complexity in the social needs.

With the consideration of the increasing natural calamities, social entrepreneurs are faced with a challenge of coping with large number of rising needs from the society. This crisis has largely been attributed to poor internal governance among many organizations in the social entrepreneurship.

Though social entrepreneurship has gained popularity in various fields due to it innovative and social venture there has been raising need and concern over its performance. According to Bornstein (47), many organizations in the social entrepreneurship are facing management problems of the funds they get from donors to facilitate their operations.

Most organizations have been found to be having the problem of low financial sustainability due to various anomalies done by the executives. This has weakened the financial system of these non-profit organizations, making them more susceptible to employee lay-offs.

Most of the financial resources are inadequately managed with less regard on self sustainability. As a result, most of the anticipated projects end being supplemented with external resources. The inability of the management in many of the non-governmental organizations has resulted into unnecessary procurement of funds allocated to other future projects.

The governing bodies in most of the contemporary organizations in social entrepreneurship sector have been found to be ineffective, especially in achieving their set goals. Since most of the activities done by these organizations are poorly done, many of the anticipated objectives and goals are not achieved. As it has been revealed, the top executives conduct themselves poorly, since no action can be taken on them.

In most cases, meeting schedules are prepared, but none of them take place in actual sense. As a result, most of the activities are poorly governed, resulting into a high degree of inefficiency in the entire organization. This forms a basis for the lack of coordination of the various departments among many these organizations, resulting into incoherence in the ultimate performance of most of these organizations (Bornstein 45).

In many non-profit-oriented organizations, most of the activities and time are poorly managed; since they often drift out of the laid rules. Job security among the employees is weak, which renders them inefficient in their operations. It is important to note that, job security acts as motivating agent to the employees Ankara (1).

On this basis, therefore, the poor institutional management in many of these has been found to impact a lot in their overall efficiency. More so, the high levels of employee inefficiency have been attributed to the high tendency of employee attrition as a result of poor institutional management. This has been one of the main problems which have led to constraints in the funding of the non-profit organizations.

Conclusion

With the current world becoming highly dynamic, social entrepreneurship has largely been established with an aim of finding solution to the diverse problems facing humanity today. As the society becoming more globalized, social entrepreneurship has been taking new shapes, in which integration of elements of business and volunteership has been advocated among the contemporary organizations.

This has been observed in many corporations that have been engaging in corporate social responsibility to facilitate coherence with the society. However, high degree of poor governance and lack of accountability has been observed in most of the contemporary organizations in the social entrepreneurship sector.

Through innovation on social welfare, the currently experienced high level of information technology can be attributed to the increasing social networking, which is helping largely in communicating sustainability information on management and resources use.

Works Cited

Ankara, Jackson. Organizational Problems of Non-Governmental Organizations. March 23, 2010. Web.

Bornstein, David. How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Trevis, Certo, and Toyah, Miller. Social Entrepreneurship: Key Issues and Concepts. 2008. Web.

For a business to succeed in the society, there are certain qualities that a businessperson should display. An entrepreneur is a person who starts and manages a business and posses unique features. When the entrepreneur meets the customers, he/she should be fair in judgement, intelligent in analysing their problems, honest and having a positive attitude towards them.

An entrepreneur’s main objective is to excel. In order to achieve this he/she engages in a healthy competition with set standards to reach the best performance. This strengthens him/her in repairing misfortunes that may hinder success thereby becoming a winner. Secondly, an entrepreneur works hard to build new businesses. He extends his working hours with fewer hours of sleep in order to complete his work.

In the process of work, he solves problems that arise in order to achieving the set goals (Roger & Osberg, 2007). Moreover, a successful entrepreneur takes the risk in his business and learns from the failures that occurred initially.

He challenges the risks and attains reasonable feedback, which influences decisions and abilities within the business. A successful entrepreneur innovate new ideas and creative thinking, which helps him to analyse and deal with problems in the business. He improves production methods, introduces good, and finds markets with new customers.

A social enterprise is a non-profit business that applies commercial plan to maximise innovations as well as developing the environment. However, one can structure it to a profit making enterprise. It aims at solving societal problems such as poverty, malnutrition, inequalities, marginalization, and unemployment (Social Enterprise Revisited, 2010).

Since some social enterprises are non-profit making in nature, in case of profit, they use it for expanding their services in the community in which they operate. A social enterprise like Grameen Danone pays emphasis on societal well-being.

It tries to uplift all persons in the society irrespective of their social classes, disabilities and other challenges. Grameen Danone plans to have every person drive the economy. However, traditional enterprises target expansion of their activities using the profit that they receive from the sales of their products.

In essence, traditional enterprises focus on profit maximization in order to prove the sustainability of their business. They are not ethics driven as compared to social enterprises. An example of this enterprise operation involves a case where a hospital surgeon can send a patient who has been stabbed in the heart away because he/she lacks funds to cater for the treatment.

Notably, traditional enterprises commercialize their services; therefore, try to make profit at all times (Social Enterprise Revisited, 2010). On the other hand, social enterprises do not necessarily have to make profits in their operations. In case they make profit, it is channelled to help the society.

The continuity of a traditional enterprise relies on profit making that is in a scenario of continuous loss, the enterprise closes down. However, such situations cannot warrant the closure of a social enterprise. Therefore, profit making is more important in a traditional enterprise than a social enterprise.

Unjust equilibrium is a situation that can arise when one part of a society lacks political or financial power to attain any meaningful benefits on its own (Roger & Osberg, 2007). For instance, it is evident in cases where the sellers do not know the buyers or the buyers do not know the existence of the products in the market. Such scenarios cause suffering, exclusion, and marginalization of a given group of people in the society.

The inability of demand and supply of a product to interact effectively in the market results to unjust equilibrium. This equilibrium also results from the rising inequality in the society. Organizations ought to be innovative in order to solve the pressing societal challenges; this will enable the poor to access these essential services thereby stabilizing the equilibrium.

According to Roger & Osberg (2007), one needs to be courageous and committed to identifying the unfortunate stable equilibrium in social service provision. For example, in identifying the AIDS orphaned widows worldwide, the person sets up the program and addresses it in adults’ schools.

This ensures that these widows are educated and cared for hence empowered to meet their own needs. The empowerment process will enable these widows be relieved from poverty. To access it easily, one has to design the program in a way that compels the legions of imitators and replicators.

However, in social entrepreneurship, one can reformulate an adult school for AIDS widows (Roger & Osberg, 2007). This will lead to a stable equilibrium since if one school is closed, there will be a healthy system where AIDS widows will continuously access education. Social entrepreneurship encourages continuity of service provision.

Further, the other social venture is social activism where there is one motivator of the activity. In addition, the aspects of the actors’ features are the same, but the natures of the action oriented are different (Roger & Osberg, 2007).

Social activist is created indirectly by influencing others like NGO’s, consumers and workers. They yield substantial advancement in the already existing systems resulting to a new equilibrium and influence but not direct action.

References

Roger, M. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3, 29-39.

Social Enterprise Revisited. (2010, August 2). Social Wheel. Web.

Synopsis

The current social and environmental conditions in the world demand that the level of social entrepreneurship to be improved as it is yet to get to the desired level. This is due to the fact that there are still pertinent issues that affect the world population.

These issues include; poverty, curable and non curable diseases, violence and conflicts driven by ethnic or tribal differences, global warming, environmental pollution, slavery and human trafficking, as well as poor standards of education. An evaluation of these issues calls for intervention measures to be tried and corrected in order to ensure that people live in a better world.

The situation has placed great responsibility on governments to ensure that they promote social entrepreneurs. However, most governments have failed in this endeavour as a result of inefficiency, corruption, bureaucracy and politicising of social and environmental issues.

Intervention by social entrepreneurs is therefore critical as they possess the skills and level of devotion required to improve these issues. The author suggests that support from the government will go a long way to ensure that the work of social entrepreneurs touches on all affected people and is effective in terms of solving social and environmental issues (Dees, 181-183).

Personal opinion on social entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship can be used to solve most of the social and environmental problems currently facing the world. This is due to the fact that social entrepreneurs are mostly concerned with making the world a better place for both the current and future generations.

This is in line with the view of the author of the article and therefore means that there is need to encourage more people planning to engage in social entrepreneurship to do so since the world needs them. My opinion is that the social and environmental problems that the world is facing have been as a result of the negligence of both the people and the governments of the various countries.

It is therefore the responsibility of both the people and the governments to take measures to ensure that these problems are mitigated. The role of the government in this should be to support the social entrepreneurs in their activities. It is therefore clear that what the author of the article has suggested about the need for increased investments by social entrepreneurs and increased support by the government is a true representation of what should be done.

My experience with social entrepreneurship is based on the contact I have had with non-governmental organisations and other not-for-profit organisations currently involved with initiatives that seek to improve the living standards of people in various countries. There are various initiatives all over the world seeking to solve social and environmental problems and most of them are carried out by these organisations.

The idea that the government should offer support to these organisations should be taken seriously so that any organisation seeking to invest in social entrepreneurship can get the support needed in terms of finances and infrastructure. It has been established that organisations which are supported by the government, even if it is in terms of legislation of appropriate laws and regulations, are more effective in serving the people than those that are not supported by the government.

In real life, most human rights activists have consistently argued that the efforts of the government to solve social and environmental problems are wanting and that governments should focus more on solving the issues. Human rights activists all over the world are also known to call for social entrepreneurs to take up the responsibilities of improving the living conditions of people.

They have also been known to encourage business entities to participate in solving social and environmental problems through their corporate social responsibility programs.

Works Cited

Dees, Gregory J, “Taking Social Entrepreneurship Seriously” Society, 37.3 (2007): 179-184.Print

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is defined as the power to introduce and build a concept to create something from nothing. It is the ability to sense an opportunity where other people find chaos, confusion and dispute (Mohanty, 2005 P.1).

Social entrepreneurship is a very valuable aspect that brings about self help in which people work together for a mutual benefit. It instills a sense of responsibility and democracy, equality and togetherness. It is a form of entrepreneurship that focusses more on the societal well being than economic gain.

The concepts introduced in social enterprise can be re invented to come up with projects that benefit the community. Social enterprise focusses on the well being of the community (Nicholls, 2011 P. 121).

This article discusses the value brought by Leymah Gbowee to the society as a social entrepreneur. It will further recommend the need to offer financial support to Leymah Gbowee’s in developing the society.

Literature Review

Leymah Gbowee is an example of a social entrepreneur who saw the war calamity in Liberia as an opportunity to create peace. She decided to act after listening to women’s ordeals about abuse, humiliation and even rape, while working as a trauma counselor She organized a group of women to pray for peace and later went ahead to invite Muslim women too.

This progressed to become a protest in which this group advocated for peace. Some of the factors that encouraged Gbowee to venture into the forums to fight for peace were triggered by the social injustices that used to happen. The problems were as a result of social inequality, unleveled distribution of resources and people exploiting one another.

For instance the desire for the indigenous to reclaim what was originally theirs. Together as a group these women protested until an agreement was reached to end a fourteen year period of violence and war (Nyamidie, 2010, para 1-3).

The war calamity that broke up in Liberians instilled fear among the Liberians, but for Gbowee she saw an opportunity to fight for peace. During the war, women were humiliated and treated unfairly.

There was an equal distribution of wealth and this situation prompted Gbowee to unite women and act. Through the peace campaign forums, women had an opportunity to voice their concern while representing the rest of the community (Gbowee & Mithers, 2011 P. 29). This creates value in their lives because they stopped living in fear and terror.

Not only were they liberated from war, but the whole country experienced peace. Social enterprise focusses on ensuring that there is equality in business by ensuring that the products introduced in the market benefit every one. This is the case for Gbowee who ensured that the peace forums held were meant to put inequality to an end (Gunn, 2010 P.13).

Despite the service that she gave to the country she is still serving the nation. She has expanded her service to the African continent where she is serving as the director for Women Peace and security Network-Africa.

This post gives her an opportunity to encourage women to serve their nations by going for leadership positions. She is also promoting peace in Africa by leading the women to serve as peaceful leaders (Nyamindie para. 4).

Social enterprise produces a sense of responsibility and democracy among business people. This is an aspect that gives people the power to change their situation from despair into success. Gbowee saw Liberians suffer in the hands of Charles Taylor’s government and took responsibility to begin the peace restoration process.

She led the women to network through very communication opportunity including word of mouth until they finally negotiated for a peace agreement. Through this internal conversion the women group achieved a social change in the African and Liberian history.

They managed to use their political power to elect a female president in Africa. This is innovation that was like a crazy dream come true, they brought change in leadership to include women as well (Gunn, 2010, P. 25).

Gbowee’s entrepreneurship also included progressing work practices in which the network for peace building sought to involve women in its activities. She led this group into learning about conflict resolution and also instilled them a sense of responsibility in addressing the peace issue that had been brought forth (Gbowee & Mithers, 2011 P. 238).

This resulted in a different culture in which women can also serve as representatives in addressing national issues. This is a form of social capital in which women were networked and worked collectively to initiate peace in Liberia.

Through this unity they obtained jobs, achieved peace and more over, they saw the country get out of poverty to achieve sustainable economic development. This group of women represented the social capital the Gbowee identified as a tool to acquire peace (Nicholls, 2011p. 122-124).

Equity promotion is a value obtained from social enterprise in which members achieve a positive impact through a social mission that is not influenced by profit maximization. For instance, Gbowee united women with one goal of promoting peace and end the humiliation that they experienced during the war.

The ultimate goal for this women network was to represent the rest of the community in negotiating for peace. It was a positive force which provided an innovation of meeting the need for peace.

Through this the women achieved the peace goal and also gained economic and political power whereby they got employment and power to elect leaders. The main objective translates into economic gain which was not initially planned for (Short & Moss, 2009 p. 162).

Social entrepreneurship is driven by the need to benefit the community as in the case of Gbowee. She was driven by the desire to see women experience peace when she was working as a counselor. The women were raped and abused by soldiers and suffered a lot especially because they were illiterate.

The project which was meant to end oppression eventually saw the country stop war and experience peace. The issue of re invention has grown up and today social entrepreneurs can use a former concept to solve issues that affect the community.

For example, Gbowee’s project that mobilized women to go for leadership positions can be re invented to introduce literacy among African women (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006 p. 21).

Methodology

This study is based on secondary data obtained from records and other data. The information obtained was analyzed qualitatively to establish whether Gbowee is a good candidate for a social entrepreneurship project funding.

Findings

Gbowee is a social entrepreneur who can work with the women to move them from illiteracy to educated professional women. The project that saw the country end war and experience peace was not meant for an economic gain. She was motivated by the desire to end oppression and promote equity as well as equal distribution of wealth.

She witnessed all the injustice and oppression that happened during the war and also the effects of this war to date. The experience she has working with women as well as the peace project makes her a perfect candidate. A project can be introduced in which she can manage and promote education among the Liberian women and the nation as a whole.

Conclusion

Social enterprise not only adds value to the entrepreneur but also to the society as well. It brings about self help and gives the society an opportunity to convert calamities into solutions. Gbowee united women with a goal to achieve peace which later resulted to a change in leadership. It is a way of establishing progressive activities which add value to the society’s quality of life.

Profit making is not the major reason for this form of entrepreneurship, although the end results exhibit a lot of economic gains. It promotes equal distribution of wealth and a sense of responsibility whereby the communities can come together for a positive change.

Recommendations

• It is appropriate to support Gbowee financially because from her previous works, it is evident that she can bring change and innovation. At the moment she has a goal to see every Liberian woman educated and given the key to financial independence. This is a social enterprise in which the main goal is to provide education to women and this will consequently expose them to economic opportunities.
• As she stated, it is very hard for a foreigner to understand and meet the needs of a local community. For instance the UN has done a great deal of work in ensuring that Liberians progress to lead decent lifestyles. However, Gbowee is in a better position to address women since the reality is: The soldiers who humiliated them are still part of their community.
• Giving Gbowee the opportunity to work with her community to promote women education is like a continuation of the first project she achieved. It will serve to complete the task of ensuring that her support reaches the entire community. Given that initially she worked with the ones that she could network with, now she will get a chance to involve all of them. This promotes equity.

Reference List

Gbowee, L & Mithers, C L 2011, Mighty be our powers how sisterhood, prayer, and sex changed a nation at war: a memoir, Beast, New York.

Gunn, R 2010, Social entrepreneurship: a skills approach. Bristol, Policy Press.

Mohanty, S K 2005, The fundamentals of entrepreneurship, New Delhi, Prentice Hall of India.

Nicholls, A 2011, Editorial: Skin and Bones, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, no. 2 p. 121-124.

Nyamidie, K 2010, Leymah Gbowee: A Powerful Voice for Peace. Web.

Short, J C & Moss, T W 2009, Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, vol. 3, p. 161-194.

Weerawardena, J & Mort, G S 2006, Investigating social entrepreneurship:A multidimensional model, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41, p. 21-35.

Introduction

The successful implementation of social entrepreneur skills relies on the collaboration of three sectors of the economy which includes the government, business and community focused activities. The process of social entrepreneurship and its strategic goals for improving social welfare of the society harnesses a variety of capacities across different sectors which helps facilitate the initiation and maintenance of the activities.

They have to remain alert to the opportunities for strategic alliance with other segments of society. Social entrepreneurs are evidenced to benefit the economy since they have been able to mobilize aspects of public and private sectors as well as non-profit organizations in addressing market failures. Their innovative skills are known pull mass crowds of both local and international interest in influencing change and providing fertile ground for the growth of their enterprises.

To effectively discuss how social entrepreneurship contribute to social cohesion and sustainability development, the essay will candidly discuss how their initiatives address market failures, transform innovations and financial their sustainability. To arrive at this conclusive analysis, the essay was based on literature review, interviews with top social entrepreneurs, consultations as well as popular and academic resources from both profit and non profit organizations, public polices and scholarships from reputable social entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurship is rapidly finding its way into media houses.

Many describe them as engines for social innovation that bring about change and influence the environmental outcomes. These descriptions formed a basis for the social entrepreneurship evaluation in the context of America Society and highlighted relevant key issues, practices and standards required for their entrepreneurship. While the focus of these essay is primarily on social entrepreneurship issues, its important to note that collaboration of private and public sectors and as well as community activities are all relevant to ensuring sustainability development. Since social entrepreneurship is still an emerging field with diverse and shifting interpretations, the essay will introduce major players that have contributed to sustainability development in the New York State and the United States as a whole.

Social Entrepreneurs

Ashoka (2010) describes social entrepreneurs to be “people with ambitious and persistence skills in tackling major social issues that offer new ideas for wide-scale change”(p.1). They take proactive approaches in trying to change the system and provide solutions to societal problems by mobilizing the entire society to take the leaps. Their initiatives focus on solving the societal issues rather than leaving the issues to the government or business sectors. He also defines them as mass recruiters with ethical skills and have the ability to mobilize people to stand up for their ideas and implement them.

Social entrepreneurship use market-driven business model in addressing key environmental issues and critical social needs. They take full responsibility of their project initiatives as they don’t rely on government shifting focus. Ashoka (2010) also states that these kind of entrepreneurs “ have the ability to grow to meet needs and priorities of the communities it serves, as opposed to public sector limited to funds provided by the government” (p.1).

His definitions fits bigger concept of societal innovations as it broadly describes them as entrepreneurs who provides solutions that are effective, efficient and sustainable to solve the society social problems. The definitions are not limited to enterprise based approaches to solving critical issues but also a social enterprise for social innovation. It should however be noted that social enterprise is not about balancing the double standards of profit and social impact but to obtain community sustainment projects (Ashoka, 2010).

Despite minimum support from the government and local volunteers, there seems to be general agreement among the supporters of social entrepreneurship as to its key underlying goals and their consequences for societal change. Social entrepreneurship innovative and interpretive approach to societal problem has gained world wide recognition mainly from media houses and policy makers, as a significant contributor to a country’s economy and to represent distinctive part of the country’s social and economic activities.

These supporters deem to be building a perfect example of government and corporate bodies’ involvement in social activities. The United States government for example government supports social entrepreneurs by allocating about $1 trillion every year to federal funds dedicated to solving social issues. The monetary support may not be enough in the long run since these organizations always desire for capital to develop their activities. Wolk (2004, p.151) in his statement argues the government to form an alliance with social entrepreneurs to generate transformative and cost-effective solutions to the most challenging social problems.

Incorporating new ideas from experts in the field of social entrepreneurship provides a fertile ground for young and upcoming entrepreneurship growth by identifying present change in a social economic environment. In evaluating the benefits of social entrepreneurs in our society, it’s important to determine who social entrepreneurs are, how they benefit the government as well as private and public businesses and what the government is doing to support them (Simons, 2000, p.4).

The emergence of social entrepreneurs

Since the focus here is on the how social entrepreneurs has influenced the economy and provided solutions to societal problems, three stages of responding to societal needs can be identified. These stages, which correspond very closely with Roger and Osberg (2007, p.30) include; a) market failures b) transformative innovations and; 3) financial sustainability. To determine how social entrepreneur emerged as nexus from these factors, it’s important to establish how it helped the government and improved the lives of public official constituents. Although different aspects of social entrepreneur appear in all parts of the essay, case examples illustrated throughout the paper help us understand how social entrepreneurship leverage public and private resources, test and implement solutions to social by highlighting a number of successful social entrepreneur initiatives (Wolk 2004, p156).

It was also realized that the triangulation of three sectors of the economy that consisted of the government, private and public sectors acts as viable transport for innovation. However, there appears to be a particular issue with regard to collaboration between social entrepreneurs and the government. Their relationship has proven elusive and largely fruitless in resolving social problems, transforming and implementing financially stable solutions. In order to enhance functional relationship between these sectors, Martin and Osberg (2007, p.30) proposes for a more rigorous approach of government involvement in social entrepreneurship that would later boosted the economy (Martin& Osberg, 2007).

It’s quite unfortunate that the government has made little efforts in support of social-entrepreneur initiatives. There has been growing consensus about government involvement in social entrepreneurship initiatives with many speculating on their significant contribution. Wolk (2004) mentions some of the strategies government has put in place in support of social entrepreneur innovative and interpretive approach to include; 1) helping heighten their success 2) reward their performance 3) create supportive environment for innovation 4) encourage them to innovate and; 5) offer knowledge through published reports and data to help them solve problems (Wolk, 2004, p157).

History of Social entrepreneurship

According to Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006), quite a majority of Americans live in poverty with about one quarter of the adults failing to complete high school. The country’s health sector was also reported to have ranked 37 in the world’s health review which was equivalent to status of a developing nation. These declines in both economic and health sectors has increased the need for social entrepreneurship and its promises as a means of addressing daunting social needs. Given the magnitude of needs the economy has, the U.S government for this case is required to inject large sources of funds from federal reserves, local government and the state to help solve these problems.

In attempting to fill this gap, Wolk (2004, p.155) proposes that the government should look into the social entrepreneurship assistance for now ideas. He adds that the collaboration between the two sectors will effectively identify societal needs and provide viable solutions to the problems. His proposal throughout the essay attempts to define what social entrepreneur is based on case studies and expert ideas and breaks the new ground in exploring new ways in which government leaders as well as other constituents are benefiting from their efforts.

In today’s dynamic economy, there’s nothing as powerful as new ideas. Shoka (2010) quotes more historical examples of social entrepreneurs to include “Susan B. Anthony (U.S.): Fought for Women’s Rights in the United States, including the right to control property and helped spearhead adoption of the 19th amendment” (p.1). He also mentions Vinaba Bhave founder of the Land Gift Movement and the Italian social entrepreneur Dr. Maria Montessori founder of Early Childhood Education among others (Ashoka, 2010).

In 2007, President George W. Bush acknowledged a variety of social entrepreneurs who have helped the American society achieve a competitive age. Among the honored guests were Julie Aigner-Clarke, founder of the Children Video Company and Baby Einstein producer of the Child Safety Video. In his statement, president Bush (2007) acknowledged Julie’s efforts by stating that

Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others….we are please to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur (p.1).

The president’s exploration of creative tasks delineateb by social entrepreneurs towards community development applauded their efforts in responding to market failures, creating transformative and financially sustainable innovations aimed at solving social problems.

Popular media has not been left behind on recognizing social entrepreneurs in our society. A variety of media personalities for example have tried to redefined the term social entrepreneurship to a greater household name. The Economists, Harvard Business Review, The New York times among others have echoed this sentiment in an attempt to assess social entrepreneurship achievements by publicizing their efforts.

According to Schumpeter (1982), markets exhibit a range of entrepreneur characteristics that include innovative, risk-taking and large scale transformation. People deemed to possess these characteristics were recognized in the 2006 U.S News and World Report to include Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach For America, Michael Brown and Ali Khazei, founder of City Year among others. Also included in the category were Grameen Bank, a Nobel Peace Winner, Victoria Hale, founder of OneWorld Health Institute and Jim Fructerman from the MacArthur Foundation (Wolk, 2004, 6).

Some historic examples of social innovators that changed the American social landscape are also mentioned by Wolk (2004) to include Florence Nightingale of the 1800s foundation of the modern field of nursing and Horace Mann, founder of public education. Wolk (2004) studies argue that a social entrepreneur represent a distinctive part of a country’ social and economic life and the United Stated for this case has gained tremendously. American entrepreneurship can be traced within the context of changes that have taken place since 1980s.

The first entrepreneur recognized during that time was Edward Skloot who founded a non profit consulting firm interested in creating business ventures. His work was published in Harvard Business Review in 1983 as “nonprofit entrepreneurship” (Skloot, 1983, p.22) as a description of business ventures that diversify nonprofit organization funding streams. Bill Drayton founder of Ashoka came into play in 1981 as an Innovator for the Public to seek, support and publicize public entrepreneurs. Pater Drucker of the management expert book was recognized in 1985 among the first entrepreneurs to describe a phenomenon that extended into multiple sectors (Battle& Dees, 2006, p.150).

Towards the mid 1990s social entrepreneurs began to gain new meaning as many scholars and presses described them as anyone who started a nonprofit organization, or any business man who integrated social responsibility into their operations. Here, social entrepreneurship is described broadly to include a variety of organization structures and activities within the social entrepreneurship context. Wolk (2004) argues here that social entrepreneurship stems from initiatives that tend to exhibit the characteristics of innovations and risk taking.

He mentions various examples of social innovators throughout his research in illustrating how entrepreneur initiatives act as seedbeds for development for non profit organizations, for profit organizations and rather government programs. For this reason, it’s important to explain the threes sectors in both social and economic perspective of an American economy by describe their specific roles and responsibilities of in social entrepreneurship.. Below is an illustrated of how social entrepreneurs have benefited the society within the context of public, private and voluntary organizations and a description of trends that have eliminated the boundaries between these sectors (Wolk, 2004, p.158).

Private Sector

Building capacity for societal change and fostering the social innovation requires full participation of private and public sectors as well as voluntary organizations. A private sector is defined by Wolk (2004) as “organization that incorporates activities of small business, corporation and enterprises in utilizing market exchange for goods and services while maximizing their profits” (p.158). Their strategies to foster development of social enterprises and social entrepreneurship drive innovation and productivity into the economy.

Economists have long identified innovation as one of the major contributors to private sectors. A former 1900s scholar Joseph Schumer once commended in Milton (1982) that “Further contemporary economist Milton Friedman has argued that free markets, competition, and consumer choices are also essential components of capitalism” (p.50). According to Wolk (2004) reports, private sectors in the U.S economy represent approximately $13 trillion a year in gross domestic product ranking the country top among the world’s largest economy.

This sector is also reported to be the major contributor to the country’s work force with 115 million employees currently working in private organizations. The public sector on the other hand consists of about 87,900 government units with $4.3 trillion in earnings with 18 million employees, while the non profit sectors contributes about $1.4 billion in revenue with 9.4 million employees and consists about 1.4 million organizations. The alliance between the three sectors in carrying out social entrepreneurship has been credited to improve availability of jobs, stimulate innovations and build wealth for the nation (Wolk, 2004, p.160).

Public Sectors

The public sector in support of social entrepreneurship is mentioned by Wolk (2004) to include the following activities; 1) addressing inequalities in the markets by helping families living in poverty by providing unemployment benefits and measurements for disaster assistance; 2) providing public facilities such as policing, public defense, education and libraries to the most needy in the society. In relation to market failure perspective, it seems complicated to define the relationship between public sectors and social entrepreneurship as the services provided are more than what the public is willing to pay for.

Social entrepreneurship distinctly addresses market failures since they are not profit oriented and address the un-met public needs. The government role in re-distributing services to address market failures is another way of contributing to social entrepreneurship. Its support of private sectors in providing goods for the public helps address market inequalities and foster environment for initiative development. Although a lot has been done to support these initiatives, the government continues to face pressure in allocating resources to meet all the societal needs (Wolk, 2004, p.161).

Non Profit Sectors

Non profit sectors have been traditionally known to engage in a variety of activities that support social goals. Perfect examples of such organizations include private hospitals and schools, religious organizations, and social service providers. Nonprofit sectors efforts in support social activities are recognized when both private and public sectors have failed to meet particular social needs and since they can not distribute the profits to their leaders, these sectors are placed at a better position to use their revenues to sustain growth and grow their organizations. Although they are by far the smallest sectors, nonprofit organization are known to be the fastest growing organizations. In 1994 for example, the nonprofit organization were reported to have doubled in number with almost 65 % growth rate which added up to 10.5% of the country’s work force (Wolk, 2004, p.161).

Nicholls (2006) a scholar from Oxford university defines social entrepreneur to include both multi-dimensional and dynamic construct of the economy rather than their organizational form. All the three sectors play distinctive roles in resolving societal needs by ensuring public needs are met. However, several trends have continued to emerge within the social entrepreneurship spectrum bridging the gap between these sectors hence creating conducive environment for social entrepreneurs to emerge and grow.

In private sectors for example, businesses and employees are increasingly engaging in activities previously regarded as non-profitable as many have started engaging in educational and social projects providing companies’ opportunity to offer services that could not have been considered in the first place or regarded as government activities (Light, 2003). Osborne and Gaebler (1993) journal reports states that, between 1999 and 2002, the U.S government reported to have awarded about 700,000 contracts in federal funds to private enterprises and the public sectors seem to have also shifted their focus from maximizing profits to engaging in social activities.

According to Goldsmith and Eggers (2004), the government engages in social enterprises by offering opportunities to public enterprises to privatize their firms which call for business ethics in turn promoting more competitive business environment. Private sectors have also increased demand for efficiency and accountability and bridged the gaps in public sector delivery and created public sector responsibility.

Goldsmith and his colleague also argue that social entrepreneurs have increased efficiency in government funds as they only inject resources to market demands and increased preference on issues ranging from public utilities to public schools. Government’s strategy of monopolizing public sectors and reliance on private sectors in managing contracts and allocating funds has greatly increased social responsibility and helped fill the gap in public service delivery by ensuring the best services are provided (Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004).

Response to Market failures

As already discussed, social entrepreneurs characterized by their ethical skills are able to identify to market failures and commit their resources to affect to the neediest in the society. Because private sectors or even the government are unable to generate enough profits to respond to these problems, these sectors bridge the gap by finding market opportunities and maximizing their potential. Under normal circumstances, the government would try to address the unmet needs by deploying public funds into the sectors, which has already been proven futile in the long run. Social entrepreneurs in this case present viable options for addressing market failures by seeking opportunities to create value rather than economical benefit. Gregory Dees, founder of social entrepreneur argues that market approach to market evaluations on social improvement do not adequately identify harms for people who cannot afford to pay for the service and social entrepreneurs presence would distinctly cater for the economy’s needs (Battle&Dees, 2006, p.160).

Social entrepreneurs insight exploration of societal problems have the ability to provide transformational benefit that targets education and employment activities as well as the marginalized areas that would have never been considered by the government. Wolk (2004) categorizes market approaches into three broad perspectives that include; “no market approach, limited market and low-profit market approach in targeting beneficiaries and responding to market failures” (p.168).

He identifies no market approach as a social entrepreneurship strategy that offers products and services to its potential beneficiaries without requesting for any payments. So this could mean that the organization depends entirely on its own funding to sustain the initiatives. Limited market approach on the other hand required beneficiaries to pay partial of the costs so sustain the project activities, a common trend exhibited in non-profit organizations. He explains low-profit market approach to require full payment of goods and services obtained as illustrated in most private organizations that have the potential of generating profits (Wolk, 2004, p.168).

Transformative Innovations

Social entrepreneurs are described by many scholars as change agents, creating systematic change by introducing new ideas and persuading others to adopt, changing social patterns that create social problems through breaking patterns. In transformative perspective, Bill Drayton defines social entrepreneurs as creative thinkers continuously striving for innovations. Transformative ideas can be seen through the invention of new technologies, methods of production, supply sources and distribution outlets and social entrepreneurs have for this case taken these innovative approaches further by devising strategies that have benefited the whole society (Ashoka, 2010). Social entrepreneur have been evidenced to combine their own innovative skills, research obtained from public sources and political influence in attaining their goals. Their ability to involve major players in the entrepreneurship activities character sets them apart from the traditional profit oriented organizations (Wolk, 2004, p.20).

Financial Sustainability

Market analysts urge private organizations and business to should try and find a model that responds to their unique characters of their social problem. Wolk (2004) statements stressed organization to obtain their own financial sustainability that will cushion them through the hard economic times and engage in social reality projects that prefer productivity and efficient management of their resources. He argues that businesses that adopt this approach often report good report results on organizational performance and cost benefit returns on investment. These organizations are also required to integrated financial and programmatic initiatives into business activities to effectively capture organization problems and maximize their profits (Wolk, 2004, p.170).

Non-financial Resources

Non-financial resources also known as volunteers are social entrepreneurs deemed to posses both skilled and unskilled education and may at one time rely on donations to increase the sustainability of their initiatives. These volunteers engage in public activities that develop and implement social solutions like the Hurricane Katrina volunteers that came out in large numbers to complete intensely needed work in a way the government could have never afforded by themselves (Wolk, 2004, p.171).

Social entrepreneurs in New York State

Social enterprise is a new breed of entrepreneurship that exhibits the characteristics of innovation, risk taking and large-scale transformation. They have provided a fertile ground for young and upcoming entrepreneurship growth by identifying present change in social economic environment. On New York perspective, the practice of responding to market failures with transformative, financially sustainable innovations aimed at solving societal issues is advancing at pace that exceeds comfort zone causing the government to suffer substantial losses in funding charitable organizations. Although there exist a variety of projects within the New Yolk state that seems to address serious challenges faced by the society, local businessmen and social entrepreneurs are called upon by the State’s comptroller to mobilize their efforts in implementing solutions that will lower administrative burdens and improve state’s accountability and oversight (Dinapoli, 2010, p.1).

Some of the State’s initiatives that include youth programs, education services and arts council are currently being threatened by the economic downturn and social entrepreneurs are for this case trusted to have the potential for transform the social innovations. Dinapoli (2010) gives us a perfect example of a successful community-based initiatives that have helped stimulate the economy by illustrating the 2006 human service organizations social entrepreneurship initiative that reported revenues of $132.9 billion in over 24,000 NFPs and provided nearly 1.2 million jobs which contributes to about 17% of the States work force. While in June 2009, the State was reported to have had 31,000 contractors with NFPs totaling to $14.6 billion (Dinapoli, 2010, p.1).

New York State has also been facing serious issues in regard to increased demand for goods and services resulting to increase pressure on the State’s budget. For example, between 2008 and 2009, the State’s unemployment rates increased from 5.8% to 8.9% simultaneously and rose from 6.0 % in 2008 to10.3% in 2009 in the New York City. The overwhelming numbers of dependable people increased the number of people receiving food stamps by 17.5% between January and October the same year. The State continues to struggle with program funding as more households continue to seek assistance of all types.

Dinapoli (2010) mentions other States deficit that might have increased pressure on demand for goods and services to include; the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) increased deficit of 36.3 percent between 2008 and 2009, the State’s budget deficit of $4.1billion for the fiscal year 2009-2010, and the projected deficit of more than $23 billion expected to hit through SFY between 2011 to 2011. Charitable activities have also reduced their contributions to social activities and private corporations and philanthropic organizations no longer provide significant funds to finance societal services (Dinapoli, 2010, p.2).

Contracts Delays and Late Payments

Quite a number of not for profit (NFPs) organizations receive funding from the State through contract allocations. According to the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) of New York State, about 87% of state contracts in 2009 were reported to have been delayed as a result of the economic downturn. These delays forced NFPs to perform activities without any payments hence resulting to increased borrowing to finance their projects. Dinapoli (2010) reports indicated that about 69% of NFPs resorted to borrowing due the delayed government contracts and payments. This gap can be bridged by businesses involvement in community initiatives that require social enterprise participation (Dinapoli, 2010, p.4).

Social entrepreneurs have been identified to present change in social economic environment by engaging businesses in their activities. Social entrepreneurs for this case involve players such as volunteers and not for profit organizations in meeting social needs. Some of the inherent benefits of including community activities in social entrepreneurship include full utilization of human resources, increased diversity which reduces intercultural conflicts among community members, enhances work relationship based on mutual respect and increased knowledge of multicultural issues. It is also argued that community involvement Increases commitment among diverse cultures and across all functions, increases community participation in key-decision making and problem solving and improves productivity and reduces energy spend in solving cultural clashes (Chase, 2000, p. 12; Simons, 2000, p.4).).

It’s important for users, service providers, the community and the government to stay ahead of the societal challenges. Policy makers in this case require the public to take active roles in providing innovative ideas to handle these changes. Chase (2000) requires the integration between society and the economy in evaluating societal needs and the attainment of certain social and economic goals. Chase (2000) definitions of social entrepreneurship are not aimed at describing functions of social entrepreneurs but rather as effective instruments for combating social problems and vehicle for social cohesion.

He defines social entrepreneurs as nonprofit agencies that maximize their mission-related performance through development of new ventures or by reorganizing existing activities to improve operational effectiveness. For profit companies that are involved in social activities can also be referred as social enterprises embedded in social purpose. Non profit can be linked to a wide range of foundations, associated organizations and organizations that operate outside the parameters of common markets (Chase, 2000, p.12).

Although little research has been done on nonprofit organization from social entrepreneurship perspective, Wolk (2004) recognizes them as powerful tools that have revitalized otherwise deprived areas, communities and localities and produced services that are not being produced by mainstream commercial enterprises. Ashoka foundation illustrates a perfect example of social entrepreneurs that have become leaders in social change by providing sources through inter-sectoral resources without limiting themselves to traditional charitable models.

Social entrepreneurs and nonprofit organization seem to be categorized in the same model of community service as they both possess common themes in addressing complex social needs in effective and integrated ways and regenerating communities’ needs. Another common characteristics exhibited in these two organizations includes their ability to recognize the society’s need for an incubation period, allows new ventures to mature, undergo rigorous ongoing assessment to maximize outcomes and identify needs, support and develop them (Simons, 2000, p.4).

To understand how social entrepreneurs contribute to the society. Three factors keep reoccurring throughout the essay. First, social entrepreneurs have a capacity to be a leader in the social field change which is achieved by their ability to break social reforms and design innovative programs. Second, their rigorous approach in maximizing societal changes and outcomes. And third, their ability to take outstanding or emerging social problems. The ability to collaborate, challenge and support community initiatives in reference to the community, business and government activities achieves them higher in the society (Simons, 2000, p.4).

Challenges often faced by social enterprise are their inability to collaborate all the three sectors into long-term and strategic objectives of innovation, research and capacity building. All the three sectors are required to harness capacities of all sectors in order to realize sustainable societal change. For instance, development in social activities requires collaboration of both research and development funds. Their aim is to provide resources that can be adopted into different communities and service providers that will adapt rapidly to changing political, social and funding environment. Research is also needed as means of investment in promoting good practice and development of good policy (Simons, 2000, p.4).

Nonprofit organizations and social enterprises continue to seek solutions to social problems by providing easy to interpret results. Their initiatives translate changing latent needs into explicit demands, provide innovative goods and services by developing or running the local or interregional networks, integrating human and financial services for mutual benefit. Just as traditional enterprises are critical to such areas such as industry and technology, social entrepreneurs are as well critical to areas of human needs such as health, environment, young people, and revitalizing communities.

They transform the community by generating initiative approaches to needy private and public sectors as well as nonprofit sectors (Wolk, 2004). Until corporations are willing to be strategically involved in funding, designing and implementing community based programs, corporate donations will still be necessary. Corporate should also work with volunteers in implement positive and productive community initiatives. Although research in this essay keep shifting from charitable activities to social entrepreneurship, its important to note that social entrepreneurs still serve as seedbeds for innovations (Simons, 2000, p.1).

Adaptation of social entrepreneur initiatives into the community has however not been without challenges. Providing leadership in a dynamic community often receives resistance in adaptation and the sufferers are always the needy society members. Cooperation between economic and social players, including government funding welfare programs should be encouraged since they are the main reason for the growth of social enterprise.

Social entrepreneur have the ability to enhance their research capacity by strategizing in research alliances and partnering with communities and government to ensure accurate identification of problems and appropriate provision of resources. One best activity obtained from social entrepreneurs should be combined community development and business skills to ensure continued developments. The type of interventions emerging from social enterprise model should focus on measures of community social capacity rather than concentrating on profit motives (Simons, 2000, p.3).

Government Support for Social Entrepreneurs

Social entrepreneurs help in testing and developing promising solutions and compliment governments role in addressing market failures that benefit the citizens. Billy shore founder of Share Our Strength pointed out that social entrepreneurs create a pipeline for the government, they take more risks and do things the government cannot do since they are closer to people. Social entrepreneurship have added value to the community research and addressed major micro-dimensions in the society that could otherwise have been ignored.

Their approach has also helped the government recognize the compatibility of their approach in informing and influencing social policy according to emerging models hence improving relationship between themselves and non-governmental organizations. Social entrepreneurs are hoped for benefits, develop skills in anticipation and responding to those most at risk, and enhance the ability to broker evidence based policy development.

They develop close to the grassroots, they interpret and anticipate the needs of most vulnerable groups and further their integration into social and professional life. They can be hotbeds for ideas and experiments. After they identify new and emerging demands, they present their ideas to the public sector decision makers through their partnership with them. Their ethical approach to new ideas adds extra value to production of goods and services to the society and decrease administrative burdens (Wolk, 2004, p.188).

Building capacity for societal change and fostering the social innovation requires deliberate strategies to foster the development of social enterprise and social entrepreneurs who drive them. Having collected qualitative data from the government, social entrepreneurs are in a better position to become brokers of evidence based policy development. They have a wealth of knowledge and wisdom based on experience with the disadvantaged that can facilitate the adoption of innovative policies at the central, regional and local governments. They facilitate the community greater sense of partnership into the markets generated wealth, unlocking opportunities and encourage community participation into policy making process (Wolk, 2004, p.188).

Successful implementation of social entrepreneurship skills relies upon the active participation of the three sectors which includes the government, business and community focused activities. Social entrepreneurs for this case are required to remain alert to any for strategic alliance with other segments of society that would help realize their dreams. Their main objective of the strategic alliances is to facilitate the initiation and maintenance of relations across sectors and help realize key outcomes, combating social exclusion, promotion of social cohesion and unlocking opportunities for constructive participation.

They also act as outcomes measurements and provide reference points for the development of benchmarks to assess ongoing and planned activities. Responding to the disadvantaged simultaneously requires working for societal change for effective and sustainable outcomes. It considers taking what is considered risky to provide joint leadership in working with others for more a cohesive society (Wolk, 2004, p.189).

Social entrepreneurs are best known to leverage both public and private sectors, and test and develop solutions. As evident from research gathered around the globe, the United States government lacks strategic measures to help address the country’s social problems. The government however has over the years tried supporting social entrepreneurs through creating enabling environment for social entrepreneurial initiatives, rewarding initiatives for performing, encouraging social innovation, scaling initiative success and producing knowledge that enhances social entrepreneur efforts (Wolk, 2004, p.189).

Launching new initiatives in the markets may be a challenging task for social entrepreneurs. To help them endure trials of the start up phase, many foundations such as Echoing Green and Ashoka have been set up to provide support for early organizational development. Various academic programs that sponsor competition and awards have also stepped up to encourage social innovation and foundation of new initiatives.

The government should in this case follow this approach by taking proactive roles in encouraging social innovation by acting as seedbeds in supporting their initiatives mostly in the start-up phases. For example, the ITNAmerica would not have achieved its goals without the federal monetary support. The Transit IDEA program sponsored by the Transport Research Board benefited the public by providing feasibility study that enabled the foundation explore senior citizens consumer behavior related to fee-based automobile transport services and helped the foundation explore innovative payment plans and information system technology (Wolk, 2004, p.189).

Social entrepreneurs often experience barriers addressing social problems, and the government should in this case help by creating an enabling environment through removing barriers, supporting collaboration and lending credibility. Existing laws and policy changes can act as barrier for social innovation and the government should shift its focus from bureaucratic rules and allow social cohesion and sustainable development. The government ca also show support by rewarding performance. Howard Husock, the director of the Manhattan Institute Social entrepreneurship Initiative points out in Wolk (2004) that “social entrepreneurs want access to reliable sources of financing that recognize performance” (p.191).

Therefore the government can step up by supporting their initiatives through performance-based rewards and by funding and purchasing their products and services. For example, the RSVP’s initiative of reducing recidivism among criminal offenders, San Francisco city managers continued funding RSVP line item long after grand funding ran out. Another example is illustrated in Arkenstone Reading Machine that was purchased by U.S. Department of Veterans Affair (VA) hospitals (Wolk, 2004, p.192).

Most societal innovations rely on published information provided by the government in helping them find the target social problems and identify how many people are affected. Available research data, funds evaluation that provide critical information documented by the government helps in identifying problems and compare various interventions against standard for success for those working towards solving social problems. Some of the initiatives that have relied on government‘s data include KaBOOM and Benetech in understanding the nature of the social problem.

For example, the federal funded ITNAmerica financed transport services that revealed the safety concerns for older drivers that have become essential for citizens. Consensus data provided by the government also helped social entrepreneurs predict the growing size of American population that allowed program planning. Social entrepreneurs use government reports to initiate projects, development and start up similar programs around the country. In overall, government data is important in identifying social problems, setting standards and gauging success (Wolk, 2004, p.196).

Conclusion

Research obtained from this essay argues that collaboration of any strategic plans in support of the social entrepreneurship is particularly important to policy makers. Collaboration of community members and the government in social entrepreneurship should therefore be encouraged as it has seen to influence social entrepreneurship growth in the recent years. Integration of business models and government initiative roles in utilizing market innovation and productivity in responding to market failures, providing goods and services will decrease administrative burdens, create transformative solutions and financial sustainable innovations aimed at solving social problem.

The government on the other hand should shift its focus of bureaucratic rules and concentrate on entrepreneurship innovations that provided a fertile ground for growth. In reducing New York State’s deficit, the government should standardize contracts, make timely payments, prioritize state funding and encourage financial support. Since social entrepreneurs facilitate the community greater sense of partnership into the markets generated wealth, unlocking opportunities that would have otherwise been ignored and includes community input into the policy making process, public and private sectors partnership should always be encouraged in order to develop solutions.

Organizations on the other hand should integrated financial and programmatic initiatives into business activities to effectively capture organization problems and maximize their profits. Incorporating new ideas from experts in the field of social entrepreneurship provides a fertile ground for young and upcoming entrepreneurship growth by identifying present change in a social economic environment. In evaluating the benefits of social entrepreneurs in our society, it’s important for the government to award their efforts through sponsorship, purchase of their products, prize awards and providing necessary research to facilitate their innovations.

Although there exist a variety of projects within the New Yolk state that seems to address serious challenges faced by the society, local businessmen and social entrepreneurs are called upon by the to mobilize their efforts in implementing solutions that will lower administrative burdens and improve state’s accountability and lives of the local citizens. Since the process of social entrepreneurship and its strategic goals for improving social welfare of the society requires collaboration of different sectors across the economy, public, private and the community enterprises should work in unity to help facilitate the initiation and maintenance of innovative activities.

References

Ashoka. (2010). What is a social entrepreneur? Web.

Battle, A. B., & Dees, J. G. (2006). Rhetoric, Reality, and Research: Building a Solid Foundation for the Practice of Social Entrepreneurship.”In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited by Alex Nicholls, 144–68. London: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Bush, G. W. President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address. Web.

Chase, W. (2000). Cultural diversity in organizations and business: Gaining a competitive advantage. Affiliation of Multicultural Societies & Service Agencies of BC, 34, 1-82.

Dinapoli, T.P. (2010). New York State’s not-for-profit sector. Office of the State Comptroller, 1-4.

Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1982.

Goldmsith, S., & Eggers, D.W. (2004) Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Light, P. C. (2003). Fact Sheet on the New True Size of Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited by Alex Nicholls, 1–35. London: Oxford University Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006). Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993.) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Penguin Books.

Roger. M. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, 29–39.

Schumpeter, J. (1982). The Theory of Economic Development. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Simons, R. (2000). Social enterprise: An opportunity to harness capacities. Research and Advocacy Briefing, 7, 1-4.

Skloot, Edward. (1983). Should not-for-profits go into business? Harvard Business Review , 61, 20-25.

Wolk, A.M. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and government: A new breed of entrepreneurs developing solutions to social problems. Social Entrepreneurship and Government, 59, 151-221.

Introduction

Our business plan presents an analysis of how not-for profit organizations can sustain their organizations as social entrepreneurs. We present social entrepreneur activities in Chautauqua County and focus on engagement strategies not-for-profit organizations should employ in solidifying their presence and improvement of the overall economic condition of the county. Our careful analysis proposes for proactive approaches that would encourage cooperation at multiple levels, create regional networks and flexible enough to survey and respond to specific county needs and spread the benefits to the society as a whole.

The plan also proposes for economic development activities that expand the needs of the growing population and diversify farm business that includes agric-tourism as viable mechanism that can further encourage land use zoning and develop national identity. Our plan includes collaborative activities and aligns alternative strategies that can be reinforced to maximize land use and sustain not for profit organizations.

Various techniques that can be used to develop communities within individual and national level as well as strategies that relate to the underlying philosophy in social entrepreneurship are integrated into the approach. Therefore our comprehensive business plan narrows down to regional agric-tourism activities, building regional networks, collaboration among civic and municipal councils and colleges and universities to increase capacity for regional coordination.

A review of a range of activities detailing different approaches used by social entrepreneurs link land diversification as the most alternative way of bridging the gap between economic growth and employment issues in the Chautauqua County. In summary, social entrepreneurship activities have strengthened the social fabric of our communities and continue to present communalistic notion of innovation as a way of transforming and encouraging participation by taking risks. Diversifying land use for products and services designed for tourists and creating new markets for agricultural tourism business such as farm stands and farm beds, are good examples of how Chautauqua County can expand existing tourism businesses.

The goal of this plan is to propose for alternatives activities that can help not-for-profit organizations become social entrepreneurs. This proposal present a perfect example of how agriculture and tourism can core exist in close proximity while stimulating economic growth. Promoting Chautauqua County as a tourist destination requires enlightening the residents about promotional agricultural- tourism and attraction centers in the county. Showcasing what is special to the community by displaying county’s grape and wine industry, is projected to attract visitors to the county. Positioning the community to attract convections, organizing sporting events and agricultural events are just among few strategies projected to assists in publicizing the organizations.

Previous studies on social entrepreneurs have evidenced that collaborations driven by local entrepreneurship prioritize vital economic sectors such as tourism, agriculture, healthcare and manufacturing. Integration of economic activities such as Agric-tourism development will help in expanding social entrepreneurship and extend to focus on engagement strategies. I have aligned alternative strategies that can be reinforced to maximize efficiency and ensure business survival through donor considerations via grants to directly help business upgrade the skills of their workforce.

Executive Summary

Evidenced by employment intensity, proposing several unique approaches such as agric-tourism, collaboration among colleges, civic and municipal councils and community projects approach in Chautauqua County will be viable solutions to sustaining not-for-profit organization as social entrepreneurs. The challenge they pose however is lack of development skills and talent to attract tourists and retain talent in the region.

In this regard, agric-Tourism development project will include a workshop of skilled based tourism, mobilize support from local education and establish good coordination among variety agencies and programs that are working on different aspects of the situation. Stronger consensus to target most visited tourism places will help best create favorable business climate and encourage retention service.

Simons (2000) argues that incorporating new ideas from experts in the field of social entrepreneurship may always require capital to develop their activities. Wolk (2004) extends this argument by stating that monetary support may not adequately sustain these organizations when the system becomes strained and funding for these organizations becomes limited. Perhaps, therefore, it is time to conceive alternative ways to sustain these projects.

To this extent, the processes perceived as ones which are likely to see the survival of social entrepreneurships and not-for-profit organizations are collaborations and partnerships. In replication of this analysis, Amanda Walden, Director of Literacy Volunteers of Chautauqua County was quoted in Rukavina (2010) stating that, “the idea of Social Entrepreneurship – bringing agencies together to share resources and build capacity within our several organizations, trying to save taxpayer dollars,” (p.1). Authors that I have reviewed argue that a range of collaborations are sometimes necessary and appropriate for organizations that find it difficult to achieve economic goals.

Proactive sustainment strategy includes prioritizing tourism attractions sites and activities and reinforces efforts to recruit new businesses and entrepreneurs to the county and diversify the economy so that the economy doesn’t depend on industries alone. It is to the reason that tourists might to potential investors subsequently increasing levels of income and lowering costs for basic amenities and services to local communities hence positioning themselves in as primary givers to the most needy.

Having a market place that is full of choices is imperative in preparing not-for- profit organizations long term business strategic plan. Significant amount of visitors’ attraction that will appeal to families and baby boomers sites such as mountains, amusements parks and collaborating with neighboring counties in packaging trips and planning re-unions will be good for good marketing foundation.

The proposal focuses on the activities of social entrepreneurs in the development of projects in various communities. It highlights strategies such as fundraising and collaboration among different organization to ensure social entrepreneurship activities are supported. Incorporating new ideas from experts in the field of social entrepreneurship provides a fertile ground for new expanding entrepreneurial growth by identifying existing change in a social economic environment. In evaluating benefits of social entrepreneurs have on our society, we recommend government involvement through sponsorships and building infrastructure to ensure regional networks through workshops and training.

Recommended Action

Sustainable Work force

Energized, talented and committed workforce is evidently essential to economic development. Therefore actively engaging in economic development opportunity that would attract and retain talented workforce should be given top priority. Not for profit organization should device strategies that aim at economic and workforce development. In this case, taking leadership roles by supporting workforce and identifying priorities by collaborating with community colleges to moving in the same direction and make a difference for a sustainable work climate is a better way giving Chautauqua opportunity in reaching its full potential in all areas.

It is argued that identifying priorities and making collaborative efforts ensures combined essential building blocks for sustaining their organizations. Strategies aimed at pulling collaborative efforts from universities, businesses and community colleges in structuring a cohesive plan in sustaining their organizations as social entrepreneurs should be driven towards essential building blocks for success (P4PActionPlan, 2008).

As earlier evidenced by McNamara (2009), people are the backbone of our society and availability of jobs is resourceful to a stable economy. A review of existing literature considers high unemployment rates in the County as a lagging economic indicator, which calls for a proactive approach that would ensure new jobs created. Earlier studies provided by Chautauqua County Workforce Investment Board (WIB) as quoted in The Chautauqua County (2010) stated

Unemployment rate has increased since the last US Census Bureau American Community Survey, particularly given the drastic economic downturn that began in the fall of 2008. As of June 2009, the county unemployment rate is 8.7%, which is similar to the state rate of 8.6%, and slightly lower than the national unemployment rate of 9.7% (p.15).

These worrisome statistics presents a strong relationship between economic growth and employment which calls for practical solutions, perhaps affirmative action by social entrepreneurs to ensure highest priority needs are provided. It will therefore be of paramount importance for Chautauqua County design a comprehensive plan aimed at increasing employment opportunities and develop human resources for the next 5 years. Agric-tourism business plan should incorporate realities of the environment, strength of economic sustainable activities and ability of the plan to create future workforce (Kuehn et al, 2000, p.1).

Work force, high quality healthcare, education, transportation and other services at a affordable prices are just a few of the many major complex issues that not for profit organizations must examine in new comprehensive planning process of sustaining social entrepreneurs. Re-emphasis on consensus of people within Chautauqua County, partnerships and collaborative activities from all sectors of the economy are needed to expand existing services to locals and visitors. Start-up phase should be relevant to the current County challenges and must go way beyond traditional land use plan. As I have already proposed, workforce detainment will be the greatest asset for which investment and attention should be concentrated (Burchett, 2001; Dreschler, 2001).

As earlier mentioned by McNamara (2009), employment intensity of economic growth is limited to the issue of developing agric-tourism plan that would discourage the youth moving away from the County in search of better opportunities. In other studies conducted by Federal Reserve and NYS Department of Labor Research and Statics quoted in McNamara (2009) founded that “Chautauqua is not losing population under thirty years old at a higher rate than other areas, in other words, the brain drain is comparable to other areas” (p.3).

This interesting statistics affirms my findings that agric-tourism investment will upgrade skills in technology, healthcare and other skills required for manufacturing sectors. Focusing efforts on one-stop development plan and collaborating with regional partnership and brain gain through programs such as ENET (Engage Now, Network for the Future) will help showcase talent in Chautauqua County and attract individuals from other states in implementing strategies that would retain talent. Therefore, not-for-profit comprehensive long term plans should considers education, healthcare and future workforce (McNamara, 2009, p.3).

Statistics indicated by P4PActionPlan (2008) showed trends in workforce and economic developments in Chautauqua County are lagging behind other counties. Plans to establish collaborations and garner support among retired and present political leaders, universities and colleges representatives, and residents from urban and rural municipalities, business owners, arts and cultural organizations as well as venture capitalism in agreeing to share resources must be made.

Dramatic shifts in retaining young generation of talented and creative workforce committed to giving back to the community. P4PActionPlan (2008) once stated “understanding the need to shift from the Baby Boomers to the y-generation is crucial in supporting this Action Plan and today’s workforce” (p.6). Eliminating county lines and municipal boundaries to encourage collaboration in assessing the needs and development strategies will be important in sustaining the well-being of the organization.

Agric-tourism Development

Chautauqua County is rich in unique cultural entertainments and facilities and provides a home for many historical sites. Therefore not-for profit organization should use their ability to interface and assist in developing tourism attraction while supporting the existing local attraction and businesses. This active participation will in turn stimulate entrepreneurship spirit and create sense of belonging and sharing of traditional activities in the county.

Inclusion of community development initiatives at very local levels represents substantial and diverse base for social entrepreneurship and opens up multiple avenues for regional integration. Encouraging regional identity through collaborations among counties encourages community interactions and facilitates culture while practicing best practice to sustaining not-for-profit activities. We however argue that tourism is indeed an important economic growth opportunity that will encourage locals to experience cultural and social events in the county.

Agric-tourism presents a viable option in addressing market failures by seeking opportunities to create value rather than personal monetary benefit. This is to the same reason why donor funding represents large percentage of the budget. Below are outlined strategies aimed at enabling not-for profit organization in Chautauqua County become social entrepreneurs by integrating network of social and natural resources of agric-tourism business.

The objectives are mentioned as;

• Making sure hotel’s in the county incorporate tourism activities that support leisure activities for leisure travelers to the county. Renovating current hotel and building new firm stands to provide more rooms for major activities such as sporting, family vacations and even bigger tournaments.
• Designing unique retail stores with cultural crafts in farmland areas
• Promoting and restyling rural towns for relaxing vacations with local charm and hospitality.
• Educate locals on the available attraction sites
• Targeting specific audience such as retirees, baby boomers, visitors and even locals
• Organizing customized sporting events and tournaments and developing relationships and parks and recreation directors for complete tourist packages

Collaborating with donor agencies and local residents to assists in branding and promoting their individual counties for designing an integrated package.

• Expanding public relations and marketing activities to promote Chautauqua County hotels and other attraction centers.
• Establishing strong relationships with the media and locals to help in promotion activities such as and regular press release and publicizing public events
• Incorporate social media such as twitter and facebook in promoting events and helping business website up to date websites with current information regarding the county (Waters et al, 2009).
• Recruiting technical support and organization to help in planning

Agric-Tourism Development Benefits to the Community

Since Chautauqua County has extensive public beaches, I intend to collaborate with the existing recreation facilities with the aim of expanding existing businesses and creating new farm markets. Agric-tourism in Chautauqua County will aim at diversifying land by engaging in products and services designed for commercial gain by tying agriculture with tourism with the aim of expanding existing businesses and creating new farm markets.

Activities such as farm stands and farm beds combined with regional agric-tourism activities and agricultural events. The new agric-tourism enterprises will precede project feasibility which includes technical development and implementation as well as financial evaluation. Agric-tourism Development has clearly identified and prioritized farm stands and farm beds goals and plans to develop new ventures such as promotion festivals and special skills of entrepreneurs.

Since Chautauqua County already has summer activities concentrated on coastal areas, the plan should include revitalization strategies such organizing agricultural events aimed at showcasing special and unique products in farmers markets. These events will in turn promote community activities by bringing tourists down to farm land areas for additional shopping.

Also, combining interesting customized meals and complimentary types of services such as crafts that reflect different cultural and historical differences reflecting different cultural backgrounds encourage further development of national identity and encourages, strengthens and nurtures cross-cultural exchanges and national tourism. These collaborative activities help the community realize shared benefits and increase their participation in planning, development and management of the comprehensive plan. Encouraging local participation in developing national identity and maintenance through tourism activities aims at expanding the industry and increase revenues (Kuehn et al, 2000).

The 2007 Income and Poverty data statistics presented Chautauqua County as one of the poorest counties in New York. The reports listed median income for 54,556 the county’s households at $38,942, and ranked it fourth lowest of the sixty-two counties in the state (The Chautauqua County, 2010, p.12). Earlier reports by Roger and Osberg (2007, p. 30) focused on solutions to Chautauqua’s County societal problems and proposed for three stages to include; market failures, transformative innovations and financial sustainability. In this case, Chautauqua County may not be able to address these problems until proactive action is taken.

Major areas that will be our primary concern are housing, education and quality healthcare. Since the focus here is on how social entrepreneurs can influenced the economy, it is crucial to demonstrate how employment can improve the County’s economy and the lives of the residents. Although different aspects of social entrepreneurism appear in all parts of this paper, case examples illustrated throughout the paper help us understand how social entrepreneurship influences public and private resources, test and implement solutions to social problems by highlighting a number of successful social entrepreneurial initiatives (Wolk, 2004, p. 156). We present work force in the county as major driving force to any sound economy which will be included in our new agricultural-tourism comprehensive plan.

Community Collaboration

Creating transformative and financially sustainable innovations aimed at solving social problems in achieving full profitability and sustainability should be prioritized. In this regard, an element of collaborative program between community members and stakeholders to meet organization’s primary goals, fostering social development and maximizing employment opportunities.

McNamara (2009) argues that regional partnership with neighboring towns such as Niagara, Seneca, Wayne, Monroe, Montgomery and Erie and southern tier counties along the 1-86 should be utilized in developing economic sustainability strategy. These coordinated strategies would result to a unified approach aimed at streamlining talent pipelines for the future and retain qualified professionals necessary for companies dependent on what McNamara (2009) states “STEM (science, technology, engineering and math)” (p.3).

Public outreach programs and activities that enhance regional collaboration through formalizing relationships with organizations along neighboring states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio will mobilize regional efforts resulting to increased resources to business areas and workforce projects. Communities can chip in by engaging in fundraising and development projects and reviewing the implemented structural strategies proposed for creating phantom to increase revenues in the area.

Common understanding as to why they are engaging in certain activities and how their participation would impact them and the community as a whole should be highly emphasized (Light, 2003). Focusing on mutual benefits in return for the commitment of community members or donors seems like the most viable approach for the utilization of agric-tourism proposal.

An earlier study conducted by Wolk (2004) stated that public sector in support of social entrepreneurship should engage in activities such as; 1) addressing inequalities in the markets by helping families living in poverty by providing unemployment benefits, welfare, and disaster relief; and 2) providing public facilities such as policing, public defense, education, and libraries to the most needy in the society.

The spatial mismatch between people and jobs is another upstate problem contributed by either county’s pool of vacancies or even worse lack of better paying jobs. McNamara (2009) analysis further adds that “within 15 to 20 years, our work force will not be able to sustain a competitive, prosperous economy in Chautauqua County, unless better solutions are found beginning today” (p.4). In this regard, Agric-tourism business plan will concentrate more on brain gain in the county by prioritizing education system.

To achieve these goals, McNamara (2009) affirms that “through a coalition with the Chautauqua County Education Community, Chamber of Commerce, and others in the WIB developed ENET with directly works with high school, college and recent college graduates to increase the awareness of career options locally” (p.4). The agric-tourism comprehensive plan will also concentrate apprenticeship efforts as stated by McNamara (2009) as “job shadowing, career clubs, career fairs, internships and development of youth professional networks” (p.4) as strategies to retaining talent.

Encouraging retirees and baby boomers to move to and invest in Chautauqua County is another promising investment strategy that should be prioritized. In this case, Chautauqua County should strive to create and sustain favorable conditions considered among best retirement communities such as waiving taxes on property and income taxes. Chautauqua County should also provide an immediate and objectified guide outlining where retirees or potential investors should make future investments to improve the current situation (McNamara, 2009).

Since the project is aimed at providing expert business development, assistance from local community members from Chautauqua County will be required. Also, collaboration with Chautauqua Department of Planning and Economic Development and the CCIDA as stated by Dally (2009) to be “principle force in attracting new businesses and industry and formation of partnership that support in the existing companies” (p.3) should be integrated in the labor force as a financial strategy in securing financial assistance, providing advocacy services and for develop effective infrastructure in the transport and communication sectors and industrial parks viable for county’s economic environment. Also, engagements of such organizations ultimately result to what Dally (2009) states as “injection of capital into the local economy, improved quality of life and increased employment and brain retention” (p.3).

Supplemental income from combining agriculture with tourism will be targeted on specific visitor niche-more particularly in Chautauqua Lake. Examining other types of local recreation facilities such as swimming and fishing, public beaches and parks combined with rolling valleys and steep slopes help identify potential tourists attraction sites (Barone, 2009, p.1).

In this regard, our comprehensive plan includes targeted customers, products to be sold and expected sales date. Chautauqua is demographically surrounded by public beaches, therefore integrating agric-tourism activities such as farm beds and farm stands will greatly stimulate economic activities in the county. The target market will experience a hive of activities needed for support of economic and workforce development aimed at creating community vision that maximize land use to generate income and facilitate public transit services.

The community will also experience new investment in local infrastructure such as fiber-optic cable that will enhance communication between bordering states such as Dunkirk, Mayville and Jamestown. Agric-tourism Development is also anticipated to improve access to healthcare services and facilities. The advantage here is that Chautauqua County already has public beaches with regular visitors, therefore customizing the Agric-tourism Development with motor coaches and farm beds will be of a great advantage. Relevant aspect of consumer behavior and product use such as swimming in public beaches will also be integrated in our recreational packages.

Josephson (2010) mentions some of the ongoing SEP programs in Chautauqua County to include MissionFish, Image Makers’ Technology, and Community Peddler. He also evidences that use of social media such as twitter, facebook, mission fish and kickstarter in networking encourages social entrepreneurship and increases fundraising workshop opportunities.

On the Agric-tourism website, activities such as “Project of the Day” as mentioned in the kickstarter website will be useful (Kickstarter, 2010). Social networks will be resourceful in braining storming ideas that would increase financial resources and establish frameworks for specific fundraising activities. This is because everyone’s ideas will be considered in some way and members may feel useful, which will in the long run increase agency’s capacity and effectiveness while encouraging community collaborations.

Environment challenge prevalent to Chautauqua County is the limited land use in the area. This issue has posed challenges and affected with businesses minds in the area. Not-for -profit assesing community overall needs and prepare a proposals on how these needs can be met in the coming years is of paramount importance.

Another critical challenge was lack of required skills and education in some technical positions. This can be evidenced through comments made by McNamara (2009) “the shortage of professional and skilled labor [nursing, engineering, physicians, welding are few examples]” (p.2). This trend is likely o pose a problem is finding reliable workers to work for the firm. McNamara (2009) findings also provide that “since the 2009 economic downturn mitigated labor shortages, it’s anticipated that the same problem is likely to occur as a result of retirements” (p.2). In this case, strategies of job orientation and training should be given top priority.

Chautauqua County is highly linked with agricultural activities and economic diversification will be an increasingly important economic plan. Revitalization strategies that combine agriculture with tourism such as farm stands and farm beds combined with fresh farm produce will be the strongest strategy that would ensure their activities are sustained and the county is developed as well.

Evidently, economic development initiative will subsequently result to increased communication, collaboration and skill professionalism and overall economic stability Chautauqua County. Ensured strong relationships between local communities and the operators should be established and the development of modern communication network and culture that embraces its heritage and facilitates learning should also be considered.

The distribution plans should capitalize heavily on natural assets which will include organic foods within the region in promotion collaboration. The distribution plans will also include marketing collaterals aimed at developing brand awareness and strategies such as ‘stopovers’ aimed at encouraging longer stays. Agric-tourism Development will use a penetrating pricing strategy by setting farm stays at relatively low prices to attract more visitors.

In this case charging lower pricess for bed and breakfast and requesting for extra payments on additional amenities with an attempt to attempt to gain high sales volume and market shares will be a cost advantage. Promotion strategies will include development of walking trails to support drive trails by visitors, participating in cooperative marketing, promotion of specific destination activities, utilizing unique cultural themes in the area as public beaches, recreational parks, bushwalking and diverse landscapes.

McNamara (2009) adds that use of survey and public participatory activities and encouraging use of internet and interactive websites with follow-up month by month reports will help in promotion activities. He provides an example of Tompkins County comprehensive business plan as a successful project that enabled diversified land use to include a range of activities important to county’s economic well being. McNamara (2009) credits such projects to have increased economic stability, encouraged construction of schools and colleges and availed necessary training required for the industrial plants. The appendix document 4 includes an advertising sample that will used by Agric-tourism Development in attracting tourist to Chautauqua County. Agric-tourism Development marketing plan will be evaluated in terms of how many employment opportunities it has created within the first quarter and the growth of Net profit within the same period.

Since Agric-tourism is projected to be a major investment strategy, including Geographic Information System (GIS) in facilitating and assisting in planning process and advising on the local laws and permits will ensure growth of education and informed interactive activities in the county. Also, collaboration with Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board and Empire State Development Corporation will be prioritized since Dally (2009) states the agencies to top leaders in New York’s economic development agency aimed at foreseeing new projects start up and establishments and enlargement of workforce by giving them competitive edge in international markets (Scott, 2009).

New economic stimulus incentive programs such the ESD’s Empire zone program for state’s tax incentives such as Tax Reduction Credit and Sales Tax Exemption will be particularly important for Agric-tourism development. Dally (2009) also proposes for collaborative activities with Grape Heritage Center as he credits them for “assisting in pilot agreements, abatements, mortgage tax reduction and other financial incentives”(p.3).

Counties within New York face severe financial difficulties that demands government intervention. The government has the ability to interface and assist in economic development activities as earlier mentioned to include tourism and manufacturing activities. Since Chautauqua County’s presents a lag between economic growth and employment opportunities, addressing root causes for high expenditure is New York State as a whole will be important. As stated by Acbook (2009) “the state now spends more than $20 billion annually on state operations, including more than $15 billion for salaries and non-personal services costs”.

In this case, the government should closely monitor State’s operations and bureaucracy to ensure efficiency and productiveness. Acbook (2009) also mentions ‘Rightsizing’ approach as a strategy of a reducing numbers of authorities and commissions through consolidation as it has been evidenced to improve system performance, quality and efficiency of providing services. Overall, Acbook (2009) argues that finding better way of operating government activities such as restructuring how they provide services assist in sustaining economic activities.

Acbook (2009) goes on to add that “we must review work rules and procurement requirements that increase the cost of providing services without providing sufficient offsetting benefits” (p.14). He urges the government to encourage savings without compromising quality of services to further development in national growth. Acbook (2009) proposes few incentives such as making Medicaid more efficient and affordable. In a statement to support this claim, Acbook (2009) argues “New York will spend almost $52 billion on Medicaid in 2010-11, including federal, State and local funding.

And State operating funds spending on Medicaid is projected to grow by another $1.8 billion in the 2011-2012 fiscal year” (p.14). In this case, he argues New York State to balance its spending with other states. Acbook (2009) further states “NY Spends 69% more per beneficiary than the national average….NY’s Medicaid program suffers from spiraling costs, inadequate outcomes and widespread inefficiency” (p.14). This problem is linked to the unregulated services provision where any provider is free to enter the market without meeting regular requirements.

It’s also argued that people with complex health conditions are not adequately provided for in the spending budget due to uncoordinated services. Therefore implementation of a proactive approach aimed at restructuring Medicaid with aim of achieving long term benefits and focuses on service quality and improved healthcare outcomes is needed will ensure social entrepreneurial activities are sustained. Acbook (2009) proposes the plan to include measures such as; controlling of overutilization, controlling costs through designing a program that selects individuals with chronic health issues likely to use expensive services and proactively managing and coordinating their services.

Also, encouraging county collaboration with federal government in providing programs aimed at improving care in both Medicare and Medicaid services and in turn share benefits realized from both services should be encouraged. Acbook (2009) also proposes for a comprehensive plan aimed at improving healthcare of what he states as “taking advantage of the enormous buying power of New York State to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals by aggregating purchases of the State, local government and school districts and even eligible private businesses and labor unions into a massive pharmacy benefit management agency that would reduce costs and share savings” (p.17).

Tough emergency action plans such Universal Tax exempt Policy (UTEP) to ease the burden of struggling New Yorkers trying to set up business avenues. High quality healthcare, education, transportation and other services are among the few mentioned high priority needs requited in Chautauqua County. Acbook (2009) argues that New York State is already overburdened with over spending and therefore overtaxing doesn’t seem to fix the problem.

Acbook (2009) goes on to add that New York provides a considerable higher percentage of person income of 8.97% compared to other states. He further argues that despite higher taxes recorded in the State, the State continues to loose population and jobs at a higher rate. Acbook (2009) goes on to state “Local property tax levies in New York grew by 73 percent from 1998 to 2008, more than twice the rate of inflation during that period” (p.3). Here, the problem is linked to the inability of the State to meet its budgets due to inadequate revenues by spending money it didn’t have.

A proactive approach will therefore involve actively involvement in County activities and advising on how they can provide high quality services at lower costs. In healthcare department for example, Acbook (2009) argues that Medicaid program has proved expensive and did nothing on improving healthcare of the locals. In education sector, New York is evidenced to spend more on student education and fails to reflect higher percentages of graduate rates. Acbook (2009) also adds resources set aside for vital needs such as transport are being used for miscellaneous expenses allowing limited room for supporting new business ventures.

Conclusion

Not-for-profit organizations can successfully integrate social entrepreneurial capacities in their activities by encouraging creativity and support for new ideas. Building social entrepreneurship incentives around arts and cultural organization sets a climatic stage for regional economic development. Bringing out exciting theme of engaging festival planning committee with diverse set of people and skills in assisting in marketing activities and maximize resources will indeed ensure not-for-profit organizations are sustained.

Engaging multiple sponsors to share the responsibility funding the organization and community volunteers to day to day running of the organization will be of paramount importance. Developing budget strategy that explores additional resources for funding projects such as state corporations, entrepreneurs and financial institutions will also be considered. Agric-tourism integration activities is essential plan that balances entrepreneur’s involvement and community development and ensures labor is supplied from locals for free.

Viewed as mass recruiters, social entrepreneurship in not for profit organizations should be able to influence change and provide fertile ground for social and economic development. All activities in not-for-profit organizations should be built on the Social fundamental concept of community development as it is through not for profit organizations that community projects can be designed, coordinated and implemented.

While social entrepreneurs strive to meet their long term mission goals, it’s important to note that achieving coherency and integration is equally important in sustaining the relationships between the entrepreneur, the business world and the society. The entrepreneur has to strike a balance that will ensure activities and projects are carried out effectively and efficiently while at the same time sustaining these relationships. Collaborations with community members should be highly encouraged to ensure social activities attain the intended purposes.

An organization that promotes better understanding of community members and capable of transforming the society towards a shared vision should be encouraged. Better understanding of community needs is vital for resolving social conflicts among different groups in the society. Shared vision from community members, colleges and donor organizations in developing activities that help the homeless, disabled persons and other disadvantaged people in the society who are often neglected should be encouraged.

References

Acbook. (2009). The new NY agenda: A plan for action. Get our fiscal house in order, 1, 1-27.

Barone, B. (2009). Free Summer Activities in Chautauqua County. Web.

Burchett, C. (2001). Fleurieu Peninsula Tourism 2001-2003 Marketing and Business Plan. Goolwa: Fleurieu Peninsula Tourism.

Dally, W. (2009). Chautauqua County plan economic development focus group survey. County of Chautauqua Industrial Development Agency, 10, 1-10.

Dean, N. (2009). State decides on county sales tax. The Post-Journal, 1, 1.

Dreschler, J. (2001). Chautauqua Tourism Marketing – Marketing Plan 2010/2012. Murray Bridge: Chautauqua Tourism Marketing Josephson, J. (2010). NCC Discusses ‘09 Success. Web.

Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1994). The Wisdom of Teams. New York: Harperbusiness Kickstarter. (2010). A new way to fund- follow creativity. Web.

Kuehn, D., Hilchey, D., Ververs, D., &Lehman, P. (2000). Considerations for Agritourism development. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 431, 1-28.

McNamara, S. (2009). Chautauqua County’s workforce may not be able to sustain economic prosperity unless action is taken now. Chautauqua County Department of Economic Development & Planning, 45, 1-6.

Roger. M. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The case for Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, 29–39.

Sandy, J., & Stephanie, J. (2009). Engagement Strategies: Making the Most of Working Together. Web.

Scott, B. (2009). Chautauqua County New York. New York: American Publishing Images Simons, R. (2000). Social Enterprise: An Opportunity to Harness Capacities. Research and Advocacy Briefing, 7, 1-4.

The Chautauqua County. (2010). Community Health Assessment Chautauqua County. Chautauqua County Health Department, 1, 1-118.

Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A. & Lucas, J. (2009) Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review (2009), Elsevier Inc., Web.

Wolk, A. M. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship and Government: A New Breed of Entrepreneurs Developing Solutions to Social Problems. Social Entrepreneurship and Government, 59, 151-221.

Introduction

With the challenging nature of work and society, it is argued; many demand newer approaches that encourage collective views on contributing towards “solving societal issues,” as part of the framework for developing a vision for the future. Sharing responsibilities is increasingly becoming a common theme within many organizations.

The aspects of public and private sectors as well as not-for-profit organizations mobilizing their efforts in addressing market failures draws together a diverse, yet comprehensive set of information to act as a reference (Belbin, 1993). Their innovative skills are known to attract mass crowds of both local and international interest in influencing change and providing fertile ground for the development of improvements to society’s problems (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; McGregor, 1960).

Schumpeter (1982) notes that markets exhibit entrepreneurial characteristics that have not been optimized to their full potential. Social entrepreneurs who have these characteristics such as ethics and morality can be able to identify failed opportunities in the market and use their resources to revert the failed opportunities to successful ventures.

Simons (2000) argues that social entrepreneurs are opportunists who harness the capabilities and use their entrepreneurial potential to bridge the gap in finding market opportunities. Entrepreneurs are known to be creative and innovative, characteristics that are vital in a market that has experienced failed opportunities. Their innovations are used as viable options for seeking opportunities and creating solutions to failed business projects.

Entrepreneurs according to Tichy and Devanna (1986) are also known to possess factors that influence change and transformation that will be beneficial to a society or community that has been marginalized and considered to be not suitable for business activities by the government. Apart from innovation, entrepreneurs also exhibit characteristics such as risk taking and large scale transformation.

Investing in an entrepreneurial business requires a degree of risk taking with investments and capital to ensure there are some returns. Large scale transformational activities entail the entrepreneur changing the whole scope and direction of the business to one that will be able to receive financial returns. Social entrepreneurship identifies current changes in the social environment and provides youth with a fertile ground to incorporate their ideas and actualize them into viable businesses that will not only benefit them but the society (Ashoka, 2010); Roger & Osberg, 2007).

As such, entrepreneurs have been engaging businesses in their activities to make that socioeconomic change. They introduce new ideas and persuade other people to adopt these new ideas which ensure that there is a change in social patterns. These changes in social patterns reduce the risk of social problems and behaviors that were detrimental to the society’s moral fabric while at the same time ensuring that the socio economic environment is suitable. The entrepreneurs also create business opportunities and jobs in the society where they are based.

Their ideas transform the way businesses operate because they introduce new technologies and methods of performing work. They combine their own innovative skills, research obtained from public sources and political influence in attaining their goals. Their ability to involve major players in the entrepreneurship activities sets them apart from the traditional charitable organizations. They help in testing and developing promising solutions and compliment governments role in addressing market failures that benefit citizens (Ashoka, 2010).

Simons (2000) argues that incorporating new ideas from experts in the field of social entrepreneurship may always require capital to develop their activities. Wolk (2004) holds an argument that monetary support may not adequately sustain these organizations when the system becomes strained and funding for these organizations becomes limited. Perhaps, therefore, it is time to conceive alternative ways to sustain these projects. To this extent, the processes perceived as ones which are likely to see the survival of social entrepreneurships and not-for-profit organizations are collaborations and partnerships.

In replication of this analysis, Amanda Walden, Director of Literacy Volunteers of Chautauqua County was quoted in Rukavina (2010) stating that, “the idea of Social Entrepreneurship – bringing agencies together to share resources and build capacity within our several organizations, trying to save taxpayer dollars,”(p.1). Authors in this research argue that a range of collaborations are sometimes necessary and appropriate for organizations that find it difficult to achieve economies of scale. This makes us re-examine the critical questions; do community members, while being served, become productive and more likely to become independent? Further, do social entrepreneurs encourage local philanthropy?

Overview of Chautauqua County

Located in the western gateway of New York State, Chautauqua County is socially and economically divided into two regions; the north region that includes the city of Dunkirk and SUNY Fredonia and the southern region including the city of Jamestown and Chautauqua Lake area. According to Census 2000 data, Chautauqua County is documented as one of the most populous counties in New York state with a population of 139,750 (Scott, 2009). U.S. Census estimates in 2007 indicate a decline of 4.2 percent to 133,945, according to data reported in The Chautauqua County (2010).

The county’s economic activities are bound in many sectors, ranging from manufacturing and processing center to a number of competitive business activities provided by social entrepreneurs as mentioned in this paper. As a home to many manufacturing industries such as Cummins, RHI Monofrax, Bush Industries, Special Metals, SKF Aero-Engine, Hope’s Windows, and ECR International, Cliffstar, Carriage House, and TitanX. Chautauqua County is also a center for agricultural industries including 229 dairy firms, ranking fifth in the state.

According to Income and Poverty data statistics, Chautauqua County is represented as one of the poorest counties in New York. In 2007, median income for the county’s 54,556 households was listed at $38,942 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fourth lowest of sixty-two counties in the state, (The Chautauqua County, 2010 p.12).

Scott (2009) classifies the county as part of Appalachia, an area characterized by what he states as, “Poverty, lack of education and difficulty accessing (affordable) health care” (p.4). The Chautauqua County Workforce Investment Board (WIB) as quoted in the Chautauqua County Community Health Assessment Report (2010) states:

“Unemployment rate has increased since the last US Census Bureau American Community Survey, particularly given the drastic economic downturn that began in the fall of 2008. As of June 2009, the county unemployment rate is 8.7%, which is similar to the state rate of 8.6%, and slightly lower than the national unemployment rate of 9.7%,” (p.15).

These worrisome statistics call for practical solutions, perhaps affirmative action by social entrepreneurs to ensure highest priority needs are served. Re-emphasis on community participation, partnerships and collaborative activities from all sectors of the economy are needed to expand services to individuals and institutions.

Social Entrepreneurship in Chautauqua County

Social entrepreneur David Doino, is recognized for his remarkable work for establishing the Northern Chautauqua Community Foundation (NCCF) in 1986. Mr. Doino was known for his long time commitment to the local community as evidenced by his long list of affiliations with business organizations in a leadership capacity such as the Dunkirk Free Library, the Dunkirk Harbor Commission and the American Red Cross. He was the president of the Rotary club, Shorewood Country Club and the Chamber of Commerce. His experiences in leadership positions enabled him to establish the NCCF and also be a successful social entrepreneur.

His famous motto: “give where you live,” greatly motivated people to generously give back to the community, an approach that saw the Northern Chautauqua Community Foundation experience immense asset growth of over $11, 997, 810 and $14,197, 542 between years 2008 to 2009. After his death, Doino continues to be honored as one of the founders of the organization that further stimulated the 134 grants and 243 scholarships totaling $361,783 in 2009. Diane Hannum, executive director of NCCF as quoted in Josephson (2010) stated that, “since NCCF was founded, $8.1 million in scholarships and grants have been awarded to individuals and organizations,” (p.1).

Although there have been a number of projects operating within New York state that seem to address critical challenges faced by society, local business people and social entrepreneurs are called upon by the state’s comptroller to mobilize their efforts in implementing solutions that will reduce administrative burdens and increase the state’s accountability and oversight, (DiNapoli, 2010, p.1). The notion of “giving” emphasizes the ability of a community to serve a common goal, a further central element of the program that may vary depending on the nature of partnership and collaborations (Josephson, 2010).

In replicating this analysis, Lin Liedke (2010), co-director of Great Lake FX was quoted as saying that community members engage in social activities by:

“Cleaning up their beaches, planting flowers along the waterfront, sweeping streets and parking lots, planting trees on Earth Day, shoveling snow away from fire hydrants and in front of senior citizens homes. Let’s not forget the educational aspect of what we do- and the magnificent art work our students produce which we share throughout the city-bringing nothing but accolades to our area.”

According to the survey results, Mr. Liedke stated that the Great Lake FX had been turned down for local CDBG funds for the second time for failing to meet the criteria needed for accessing grants according to the community development grant program for the City of Dunkirk. Further more an investigation by County Legislator Keith Ahlstrom revealed to the newspapers that the company was mishandling the funds they had been granted which led to withdrawal of the small amount of funding they had been awarded. The money was channeled to purchase a water treatment plant instead. This showed that there was a lot of political interference when it came to fund allocations for community development activities in Chautauqua County (Survey results, 7).

As earlier defined, collaboration is a situation in which two or more groups jointly

work together in fulfilling their primary goals and objectives. Skloot (1983) mentions partnerships and funding as the major streams for mobilizing funds for social entrepreneurs and not-for-profit organizations. Most partnerships and collaborations are being formed at program levels that seek funding through collaborative fundraising with investors and the community, grants and donations as the most recent recession has strained many organizations making them unable to fund their operations.

Battle and Dees (2006) explains that organizations in these collaborations with the community and business investors are able to build trust and social capital that places them in a better position to explore community fundraising and partner with organizations (GIFT, 2010). This approach supports survey results gathered from Amanda Walden, Executive Director of Literacy Volunteers, who indicated that mobilizing the community ensured there were fundraising possibilities, generating interest from new volunteers who would bring in additional funding. For the entrepreneur, collaborative fundraising will not only involve mobilizing the community’s fundraising activities but also mobilizing resources to look for investors and stakeholders to invest in the business.

Social entrepreneurs are seen to function at various levels of development within the society. In the case of Chautauqua County, residents donated over 1000 monetary gifts to NCCF as a first step to fostering community development. The NCCF treasurer, Daniel Reininga , who was quoted in Josephson (2010) stated that the main goal was to see a balance in the entrepreneur’s involvement and community development. The notion that social entrepreneurs are evangelistic and multi talented individuals with special skills is fading due to the fact that they are involved in so many activities both at the societal and business level. Social entrepreneurs are gaining leadership roles and have mobilized community members in achieving community development projects (Burgoyne and Kimona, 2001; Fiedler, 1967).

Katzenbach and Smith (1994) argue that: “Leaders who know when and how to follow build deep common understanding, not superficial consensus, around the purpose, goals, and approach at hand. They submit themselves and others to the discipline of ensuring that all sides to any disagreement are fully understood by everyone, recognizing that mutual understanding is far more powerful than any particular decision to choose path A over path B. All people will follow strong, commonly understood purposes and goals more easily than the ‘put-up jobs,’ (p.57).

Members of the NCCF have also used their social entrepreneurship spirit to increase awareness of what is available in the county as well as knowledge of the county by forming a contest known as, “AmazingCounty.com” which involves an online treasure hunt. Participants solve clues and tasks and are awarded points that can be converted into opportunities to enter drawings for prizes. The winners’ names were also displayed on the OBSERVER and Post-Journal’s websites for everyone to see. AmazingCounty.com was formed as a collaboration between the NCCF and Chautauqua Region Community Foundation to identify fundraising opportunities that would further development in the county, (Josephson, 2010).

Survey Results Analysis

The SUNY Social Entrepreneurship Program (SEP) mission is to help community based not-for-profit organizations sustain longevity. Not-for-profits are motivated not just by financial gain, but by a sense of meeting community needs and to ensure that their organization remains viable and financially stable to continue meeting those needs. Key motivators are:

Changing demographics

If an organization’s staff, board and volunteers are not representative of its community, it can directly affect its ability to provide service.

Demand for services

Despite (or because of) challenging economic conditions the needs for services not-for-profit organizations provide continues to increase steadily.

Competition for scarce funding revenue

Traditional forms of funding are becoming smaller and less reliable, forcing not-for-profits to seek out more creative options to maintain service to the community.

The not-for-profit environment has changed. Community needs are growing in size and diversity. Changing demographics have impact on service delivery and programs. An organization, situated in a diverse community, can no longer provide effective service without staff and volunteers from those same communities. By exploring the avenue of social entrepreneurship and engaging in collaborative efforts, not-for-profits can continue to sustain their organization in any economic climate.

More not-for-profits are competing for the same government and philanthropic funds than ever before. Traditional forms of funding are becoming smaller and less reliable. Between 2007 and 2008, endowments for philanthropic foundations declined by an average of twenty-nine percent, (DiNapoli, 2010, p. 2). Many foundations indicate that they will continue to decrease the amount of grants and/or restructure grant-making activities as they seek to prioritize investments. Thus, many not-for-profits to need similar support required in the private sector to function:

• Business planning
• Assistance with legal/environment issues
• Financial management
• Grant writing
• Recruiting and supervising both paid and volunteer staff
• Employee/volunteer training
• Information technology resources
• Human resource management
• Marketing/research, community outreach and media releases
• Organizing fundraising activities
• Purchasing supplies and services

Without adequate financial support some not-for-profit organizations have been forced to limit or curtail programs and services, reduce or eliminate staff and in some extreme cases, not-for-profit organizations have simply gone the way of the “dinosaur,” ceasing to exist.

During a conference on March 31, 2010 at the SUNY Fredonia Technology Incubator in Dunkirk, N.Y., a group of twenty representatives from not-for-profit organizations across Chautauqua County participated in a survey to identify the areas which they felt their organization needed the most assistance:

Table 1: Areas of assistance as identified by not-for-profit organizations in Chautauqua County, 2010

Source: Data collected from an informal survey during a workshop conducted by the Center for Social Entrepreneurship Program.

These results did show a little inconsistency on data collected regarding collaboration strategies, fundraising, community contribution and partnership. To further this analysis, a similar survey and introduction letter was sent out to sixty-two not-for-profit organizations via email on June 7, 2010 (see appendix, pg. 35.) A follow-up letter was then emailed along with the survey on June 14, 2010 (see appendix, pg. 36) to verify the quality of data gathered on various organizations.

Of the sixty-two not-for-profits contacted only twelve organizations responded. The poor response was due, in part, to out-of-date contact information or email servers that could no longer accept mail because the capacity had been maxed out (when contacted by phone, some agencies admitted they no longer had access to the email accounts used to send the surveys.) In addition, many of the organizations responded that they are too under-staffed and did not have the time to participate. Some organizations were simply unwilling to share information, a barrier to any proposed collaborative efforts.

As one of the many county collaborative organizations, the SUNY Fredonia Center for Social Entrepreneurship Program (SEP) presents a strong example of a successive collaborative activity that has had an enormous impact on how an organization can enhance creativity and motivation. Developing a fundraising workshop that requires member registration has attracted both not-for-profit organizations and the donor funding to community projects. When asked how organizations engage in social entrepreneurship, Walden (2010) stated in her survey results that social entrepreneurship:

“Stimulated a different take on fundraising possibilities, generated interest from a number of new volunteers and brought in funds. It has not grown the way I was hoping. I have only had limited success and can’t really say that I consider the project a SE success even though I think it could very well be one in future. I keep trying to ask everyone I meet if they would like to coordinate the position and get money but I haven’t found the person or persons to do it,” (Survey results, 9).

Walden’s response supports the analysis that workshops combine a variety of cultures and encourage participants to dialogue on social entrepreneurship and discuss potential collaborative fundraising opportunities. The workshop also encourages not-for-profit organizations to exploit alternatives on which collaborations can be used to maximize fundraising efforts (Snyder, 2010; Anonymous, 2010 (a)).

The SEP is aimed at assisting young and upcoming community projects including the not-for-profit organization become stable. The program provides a wide range of community projects ranging from business support services such as strategic planning, information technology, and communications. Josephson (2010) mentions some of the ongoing SEP programs to include MissionFish, Image Makers’ Technology, and Community Peddler.

In another NCCF’s collaboration project, BICEP Project merged with SUNY Fredonia’s Center for Social Entrepreneurship Program (SEP) in encouraging social entrepreneurship to form collaborative fundraising workshops. Participants were required to brain storm ideas that would increase financial resources and establish a framework for specific fundraising activities. In replication of this analysis, one of the survey responded added that: “(We) listen to everyone’s ideas, but you have to be able to keep them focused and on track at the same time (agendas, meeting minutes, and meeting rules). Try to include everyone in some way, make them feel useful.

Make sure decisions are made as a group when possible.” (Survey results, 10) The BICEP (Building Institutional Capacity and Engaging Partnerships) project was designed to increase agencies capacity and effectiveness while encouraging community collaborations. In this regard, BICEP provides ongoing grant writing training, Foundation Directory Online training, resources information, capacity building grants and not-for-profit resources sharing directory. BICEP exhibits social entrepreneurship spirit by committing to furthering community development through enriching the county and encouraging participation. In support of this analysis, Liedke, (2010) when asked how social entrepreneur attract talent stated that:

“That is the $64,000 question. We donate our time, and always have for the past 10 years. We had a college intern this past semester from SUNY Fredonia’s FACE program who received 1 credit hr. towards his degree.”

Liedke (2010) added that: “We research grant opportunities and write our own grants. We also try to be very visible within our local area as we promote ourselves through community service, and art shows. We also have spoken to several groups such as Rotary Club and the Kiwanis Club,” (Survey results, 7).

Conclusively, the SEP is largely ceded to assisting community based not-for-profit organization become financially stable which may indeed be key to their survival, (Anonymous, 2010 (b)).

Dr. Laurence Johnston Peter, an educator and an hierarchiologist was recognized as one of the best social entrepreneurs since his formulation of the, ‘Peter Principle’ in which he stated in Scott (2008) that: “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise his level of incompetence … in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties … work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence” (p.3). This principle is a widely used principle of management and heavily quoted in most business schools.

In another principle, Dr. Laurence Johnston Peter was quoted in Laurence & Hull (1969) saying “(the) noblest of all dogs is the hot-dog; it feeds the hand that bites it” (p.15). Dr. Laurence Johnston Peter principle that emphasizes member promotion depending on their level of competency which is consistence with Patricia Munson, executive director of Chautauqua Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Council Inc. (CASAC, 2010) survey response: “Extensive interviewing and checking not only references they listed but also with people we may know in common. Keep motivated by providing opportunity to help plan direction of agency and events,” (Survey results, 3). In other words, finding the right people and keeping them motivated requires patience and time.

Dr. Peter’s principle is literally applied to mean that consistency and progression improves one’s ability and level of efficiency over time. He emphasizes that consistency tends to yield better results when applied effectively. In the hierarchical principle, the application of hierarchy allowed assessment of potential employees for promotion based on his or her performance (Laurence & Hull, 1969; Lazear, 2000).

Although social entrepreneurship has been especially beneficial to the community, the ongoing speculations about the inclusion of a tax system in their activities could greatly hurt their operations. According to Hottle (2010), more than 200,000 not-for-profit organizations are expected to shut down following implementation of the new policy that requires them to file their tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Some of the many not-for-profit organizations may be forced out due to their razor thin budgets. Suzanne Coffin, a spokeswoman for Guidestar, was quoted in Hottle (2010) stating that, “the not-for-profit in your backyard, some of them are going to be gone” (p.1).

The tax exempt program which is set to go into Jan. 1, 2011 applies to groups making more than $25,000 including churches and charitable organizations. Those groups will be required to submit income information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS Form 990-N) detailing where funds come from and how they are spent within the organization. While some not-for-profits have been submitting these forms already as part of their financial management on a voluntary basis, the new requirement may place significant burden on agencies that lack the staff or expertise to meet the new requirement. Failure to comply may force some of those charitable organizations to lose their tax exempt status and are most unlikely to be awarded future grants (Hottle, 2010).

As we continue to explore strategies used by not-for-profit organizations and social entrepreneurs to meet their long term mission goals, it’s important to note that achieving coherent and integration is equally important in sustaining these relationships. Most organizations require multiple strategies to survive in the ever-growing needy societies. This might include aspects such as strategies that will ensure the participation of the society’s members in the survival and integration activities of the entrepreneur as well as reviewing the social entrepreneur’s structure.

Other aspects include decreasing expenses and increasing revenues of the entrepreneur’s business. However, this has not been the case for a while now since many of them are concentrating on engagement strategies where they mobilize community members as they look for ways to make the most out of their not-for-profit resources. Valerie Walawender (2010) Program Director of Dunkirk Historical Society reflects this analysis by adding that:

“While wearing many hats is par for the course for social entrepreneurs, it also divides the focus needed to succeed. Marketing, product or program development, outreach, networking, sales, etc. – all takes time and money (phone, gas, bills). Ideally – the social entrepreneur would provide creative energy and direction, and others would contribute their own special talents and skills to the enterprise,” (Survey results, 6).

Another survey responded stated that:

“This year we wrote letters to all of the local clubs asking for donations, or for volunteer help at our event. We wanted to do this last year, but time and help was an issue. This year we ended up with a new member who was willing to take on this task … We have community pin-up events which gives us a chance to go into businesses and start to get to know owners and for them to know us. We also have plans to expand this by having some short educational sessions with some of the local businesses and clubs for next year. We hope that this will help inform them of our cause and efforts,” (Survey results, 10).

These statements are strong evidence that community collaborations remain viable options to sustaining social entrepreneurships in the county.

Nicholls (2006), a scholar from Oxford University, defines social responsibility to include aspects such as the multi-dimensional and dynamic design of the economy instead of the organizational structure a view which is seen to be the dysfunction of a social entrepreneur’s qualities and caharacteristics. On the other hand, Liedke (2010) defines qualities of a social entrepreneur to include “honesty, integrity, an incredible work ethic, vision, motivation, and an unwillingness to give up – no matter what” (Survey results, 7) while Brian Davis, President of Wishberry/Cooperative defines them as people with, “will power, goal oriented and critical thinkers” (Survey results, 12). These survey results draw upon Nicholls (2006) analysis that provides that gaining commitment from community members to contribute toward “community initiatives” that facilitate easy communication, enhance innovations and enables organizations to collectively work together towards getting a shared meaning.

Survey results gathered from various organizations emphasized the importance of community inclusion in organization activities. Focusing on mutual benefits derived from collective responsibility in return for the commitment or loyalty of community members or donors seems like the most viable approach. Walawender (2010) said this about her engagement in social entrepreneurship, “we have brought our programs to diverse audiences, who now support us in a variety of ways. By benefiting the community, we have benefited,” (Survey results, 6). Conclusively, reaching shared meaning has seen many community projects come to completion and benefiting them in the long run (Sandy and Stephanie, 2009).

Engagement Strategies for Social Entrepreneurs

Collective responsibility happens when all community members have a common understanding as to why they are engaging in certain activities and how their participation would impact them and the community as a whole. Engaging in activities previously regarded as outside of the scope of not-for-profits facilitates educational opportunities and gives companies an opportunity to offer services that could not have been considered previously or regarded as government activities/responsiblities, (Light, 2003).

In this case therefore:

1. Social entrepreneurs should know where they fit. Since most of their environments are competitive and collaborative, organizations should consider if partnership is the best approach. In this regard, identifying potential partners and assessing unique contributions that should be utilized.
2. Jenny Sullivan, the Northern Chautauqua Walk MS Committee Chairman (2010) makes a valid point when it comes to creating collaborations as well as recruiting other forms of support for an organization; “The only thing I can really say so far is to never turn anyone who wants to help away. I would have been much more involved (in Walk MS) a long time ago, but was never given the opportunity by local organizers or the local chapter office. I always felt pushed away and not included or taken seriously. One staff member at the Buffalo office finally realized how eager I was to help and provided me with the opportunity and support. The more people you have to help, the more can be accomplished. One person cannot do everything. And anyone who wants to help has some sort of talent or skills they can contribute, even if it’s just their thoughts and ideas,” (Survey results, 10).
3. Social entrepreneurs should consider a culture shift when considering collaborations and partnerships to weigh in on what it takes to make a successive cultural shift.
4. Use of social networking tools such a Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn to attract and enlighten participants on continued projects and educate them on how they can contribute. Sullivan, when asked how her organization goes about finding the right people to keep them motivated replied:“I have recently posted on our Facebook page and sent out an email asking others to join our committee. We have had people reach out to us at some of our events. I don’t turn anyone away. The right people are anyone who wants to help. Anyone can be beneficial in some way. As far as keeping them motivated, this time of year is very hard, especially coming off of our major event and a lot of hard work. We are working on a committee plan to help keep us going and focused. We are also starting to discuss other events for the year,” (Survey result, 10).Research conducted by Waters, Burnett, Lamm and Lucas (2009) indicated that not-for-profit organizations used Facebook and other social networking sites to create a feeling of openness and transparency about their activities. Some features of Facebook have been created to help these non profit organizations with their fundraising and investor relations activities. One of the most notable features in Facebook for fundraising is the Causes application which allows individuals to donate monetary or non-monetary aid to a registered non-for profit organization. The feature also allows for the recruitment of other Facebook users to join the cause. Other fundraising applications include ChipIn, SponsorMe and Justgiving (Waters et al, 2009).
5. Use of common communication tools such as marketing campaigns increases exposure. Davis (survey respondent,) when asked how he lures investors into their organization, stated, “Direct marketing. You have to fully understand your goals and express them passionately” (Survey results, 12).
6. It is also evidenced that social networking enlightens community members on the social welfares of their community. In providing educational opportunities, there is a whole webpage maintained by the National Council of Not-For-Profits requiring members to join a state association (Martin and Osberg, 2007, p. 30; Sandy and Stephanie, 2009).
7. As already discussed, collaborations help organizations save on operational expenses. Susan G. Komen gives us a perfect example of not-for-profit mergers when she founded Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
8. Engaging community in organization welfares requires understanding the community’s most pressing needs and how they can assist each other.
9. Creating, building and cultivating long term relationships with community members and sponsors require time and practice. An entrepreneur should know when to push and when to wait while keeping the goals in mind.
10. Social entrepreneurs and not-for-profit organizations should classify their social activities as a form of business collaboration partnership and stay away from the traditional recognition as potential corporate donors. Sandy and Stephanie (2009) argue that not-for-profit organizations should not be afraid of taking risks and concentrate on the long-term benefits.
11. Collaboration with the government in local entrepreneurship activities helps shape public policy and attracts more donors to the organization. In this regard, not-for-profit organizations and social entrepreneurs should share their interest with the government to help them shape decisions that would eventually impact the community. Sandy and Stephanie (2009) recommend passing articles to the government program officers as the first step to achieving primary goals (Martin and Osberg, 2007, p. 30; Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004).
12. Advocating for policies and laws that benefit the sector and the organizational goals might be a viable strategy (Chase, 2000).
13. Partnering with schools right from high school to graduate schools should be the next move as students can be very resourceful in offering volunteer support. Student volunteer-ship as best illustrated in Joseph’s Home, Inc., located in Rockland County, (see pg. 25) that extends community services to local schools and universities. Liedke, one of the survey respondents supported this argument by adding that, “we also solicit new participants through the local school districts and through Kid’s College at Jamestown Community College,” (Survey results, 7)
14. As already mentioned, engaging in collaboration helps organizations reach out and find investing partners. Partnerships help organizations reach wider markets in efficient ways. A former 1900s scholar, Joseph Schumer commented in Capitalism and Freedom (1982) that, “Further contemporary economist Milton Friedman has argued that free markets, competition, and consumer choices are also essential components of capitalism,” (p. 50). However, one could argue that starting small and simple then progressively moving upward enables the organization to build trust with donors and learn practical experience with collaborations.
15. And last, considering merger possibilities on local and regional levels would be an even bigger strategy in cutting down on operational costs. Most importantly, an organization should think about ways to thrive in their endeavors rather just dwelling on survival strategies. Bridgespan Group quoted in Sandy and Stephanie (2009) state that, “mergers strengthen nonprofit organizations effectiveness, enable them to expand their reach and best spread their practices,” (p.1). It further adds that tactical strategies such as streamlining accreditation should be considered in determining whether they would make something greater in mergers (Sandy and Stephanie, 2009).

Examples of Social Entrepreneurship Projects

Funded by HHAP in Surrounding Areas

The Homeless Housing and Assistance Program (HHAP) is another New York state collaborative project that offer extensive assistance to nonprofit organizations and social entrepreneurships dedicated to seeking community members best interest by providing capital grants and loans. HHAP offers a practical philosophy which supports people by constructing and rehabilitate housing for homeless people and unprivileged members in the society who are unable to secure decent housing without special assistance. These housing projects are aimed at serving the youth, elderly, families, and single individuals who meet program guidelines. The project also included facilities for special needs people such as the mentally disabled, people with AIDS, veterans, and even victims of domestic violence (Spitzer & Hansell, 2006, p.3).

HHAC was enacted in chapter 61 of the 1983 laws which later came into effected in 1990 as an organization that highly prioritize societal needs by providing loans to charitable and religious organizations as well as not-for-profit organizations. After extensive research on this topic, it became apparent that HHAC is the only state resources available to fund capital development. It operates as a subsidiary of the New York state Housing Finance Agency that targets special needs populations by providing substantial financial resources.

Since its inception, HHAC has been able to build new and remodel old structures within the city that has led to national advancement and rehabilitation of vulnerable members of the society such as the chemically addicted and incarcerated men and women. It also conducts regular inspections on projects in progress and moves families from homeless and poverty towards formal settlement where they will be self-reliant and economically independent once the projects are completed (Spitzer & Hansell, 2006, p.5).

• Safe Harbors of the Hudson received an award in August 2002 for rehabilitating an old building that created 128 units for the homeless, victims of substance abuse as well as mental disturbed individuals. The project grant opening ceremony was held on December 2006.
• Westhab, Inc. engaged in or resolved a number of projects by construction of a new building that created twenty-nine units and ninety-five beds in permanent housing for homeless families in Westchester County, it become operational in 2006.
• Family Resource Center of Peekskill engaged in or resolved a number of projects by constructing two single-family homes that created two units and twelve beds for homeless families in Westchester County.
• JCTOD Outreach, Inc. engaged in or resolved a number of projects by acquiring and rehabilitating a building that created three units of permanent housing for homeless people in Oneida County, it became operational in December, 2006 (Spitzer & Hansell, 2006, p.16).
• Joseph’s Home, Inc. engaged in or resolved a number of projects by rehabilitating a building that created fourteen units and forty beds of permanent housing for homeless families and single people living with HIV/AIDS in Rockland County.
• Barrier Free living, Inc. Was recognized in 2002 for the construction of a new facility that created forty-four units and eighty-six beds for emergency purposes for homeless families and the physically disabled in New York County.
• Concern for Independent living, Inc. Engaged in or resolved a number of projects by acquiring and rehabilitating single family homes that created a four unit and sixteen beds of permanent housing with people of psychiatric disabilities in Suffolk County.
• The Lantern Group, Inc. Engaged in or resolved a number of projects by constructing of new a building that created 116 units of permanent housing for young parent teenagers and low income families in the Bronx.
• Community Counseling and Mediation Services engaged in or resolved a number of projects by constructing new building that hosted forty-eight units and forty-eight beds of permanent housing for mentally disabled in Kings County among others.
• Buffalo City Mission engaged in or resolved a number of projects by constructing new facilities that created seventy-seven units and 122 beds of emergency and transitional housing for young mothers and women with children in Erie County.
• Albany Housing Coalition, Inc. Engaged in or resolved a number of projects by acquiring and rehabilitating buildings that created thirteen SRO units of transitional housing for disabled homeless veterans and chemical abuse people within the county.
• Suffolk Co United Vets engaged in or resolved a number of projects by acquiring and constructing new modular homes for singe families that created 4 units and 20 beds of permanent housing for single veterans with HIV/Aids in Suffolk County become operational in 2006.
• Neighborhood Coalition for Shelter engaged in or resolved a number of projects by rehabilitating a substantial building that preserved 65 units for homeless single people and people with mental disabilities. Become operational in 2006.
• St. Timothy Lutheran Church engaged in or resolved a number of projects by rehabilitating and constructing new buildings that created 8 units and 19 beds for emergency and transitional housing for homeless families within Rensselaer County. Become operational in 2006.
• High bridge Woodycrest Center engaged in or resolved a number of projects rehabilitating and creating new buildings that accommodated 40 units and 99 beds of permanent housing for families living with HIV/AIDS in the Bronx County.
• Hands Across Long Island, Inc. Engaged in or resolved a number of projects by acquiring and rehabilitating four single family homes that created 16 units and 16 beds of permanent housing for people with mental disability within the Suffolk County.
• Fairview Recovery Services, Inc. engaged in or resolved a number of projects by rehabilitating a new building that preserved 6 congregate units of transitional. housing for people with mental disability and substance abuse victims in the Broome County.
• Fifth Ave Committee, Inc. engaged in or resolved a number of projects by rehabilitated a building that crated 16 units of permanent housing for homeless and low income families in Kings County.

Summary of Awarded Funds

HHPA capital funds have been primarily concentrated on what Spitzer & Hansell (2006) quotes as, “Property acquisition, demolition and site work, rehabilitation or new construction, equipment costs, architectural and other professional fees (p. 6). Spitzer & Hansell (2006) also documented that since its HHPA inception; about 12,100 units of housing totaling to $632 million projects have been funded. Population served by HHAP program ranges from the elderly, persons living in correctional facilities, parenting teens among others.

While the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) recognizes the primary focus in developing housing for homeless and special needs, HHAP on the other hand recognizes the needs of this special population by assisting the vulnerable groups become independent and economically sufficient by incorporating social services into the program operation.

HHAP proactive approach of addressing humanitarian challenges through social housing programs is a social entrepreneurship spirit that seeks to address the problem of chronic homeless among individuals and families. Through the Homeless Housing and Assistance Program, OTDA in collaboration with HHPA has committed to construct 1,000 more units for persons who are mentally ill or chemically addicted (Spitzer & Hansell, 2006, p.10).

HHAP Funding History

Since its implementation, HHAP program has seen the completion of about 586 projects yielding over 12,100 units of housing both for transitions settlement, permanent residents for homeless families and individuals units for emergency basis.

HHAP Housing Type Funded 1983-2006

HHPA grants have sponsored projects over fifty-six counties throughout New York State in which majority of them are committed and social development. This analysis reflects the greater incidents of less privileged people in New York metropolitan area, higher costs of housing and the not-for-profit sponsors. HHAP projects awarded between 1983 and 2006 are illustrated as follows;

Table 2: HHAP Projects by the Most Money Awarded 1983-2006

Source: Data collected on funds appropriated on HHAP Projects between 1983 and 2006.

Asset Management

The Asset Management Unit (AMU) is another social entrepreneurship project in Chautauqua County that dedicates its services to managing and preserving operating projects. In collaboration with HAAP, AMU ensures that projects in progress are adequately monitored, reported, and provided technical assistance where needed. When necessary, AMU may intervene in distressed projects and inform donors on how their funding is being utilized. While optimizing community development, AMU is well equipped to provide effective oversight, detection, and assessment on operation issues and quickly respond to crises when needed (Spitzer & Hansell, 2006, p.19).

Technical Assistance

AMU provides technical assistance by supporting structures and systems that reinforce organization primary goals, maximizes developments and guarantees security by assessing and approving projects operating within the counties. Most of the services include training of property management, capital budgeting, assessment of repair needs, operations and so forth (Spitzer & Hansell, 2006, p.22).

Data Tracking

AMU’s new system of data collection from annual reports, monitoring visits, and financial statements are introduced to bridge the long standing tradition of grappling things in the dark. Data on HHAP projects provide reports on vacancy rates for units and beds to ensure they are financially stable and well maintained. By gaining commitment and providing leadership, AMU also ensures that compliance issues are met and are operating within the budgets (Spitzer & Hansell, 2006, p.23)

Special Organizations Support

Moshenko (2010) and Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006) present a number of social welfare projects dedicated to helping children with disabilities or adults by providing services and support they need. Since health insurance companies limit the frequency of visits to health institutions and does not cover children with such disabilities, Moshenko (2010) argues that social services such as the Medicaid HCB Waiver Program, Epilepsy Association of Western New York and others are well equipped to give children the intervention and attention they desperately yearn for. In her statement, Moshenko (2010) adds that children with special needs that don’t have adequate health insurance often experience challenges accessing medical care making their life even more difficult.

These are mentioned as;

1. Medicaid HCB Waiver Program extends Medicaid funds to community developments that offer their services at patients’ homes. The U.S department of Health and Human services was quoted in Moshenko (2010) stating that “Medicaid’s home and community-based services waiver program affords States the flexibility to develop and implement creative alternatives to institutionalizing Medicaid-eligible individuals” (p.1). Medicaid enables people to be cared in their homes at subsidized costs. The program waives fees for individuals with HIV, technology dependent children and some special illness.
2. Epilepsy Association of Western New York located at 339 Elmwood Avenue dedicates some of its services to supporting employment opportunities by offering comprehensive job searches at no fee.
3. Guild Care program covers includes special activities such nursing supervision, teaching, medical assistance, speech therapy for adults 18 years of age or older.
4. Neighborhood Legal Services (NLS) is nonprofit organization aimed at providing free legal services to people with low income and people with disabilities and advocates agencies to serve them.
5. People Inc. offers extensive services such as employment opportunities for individuals and families with disabilities to become independent and live productive lives.
6. Community Employment Office patterns with Public and Voluntary Agencies in providing employment opportunities to disabled individuals in Erie County.
7. The VA Regional Office-Departments of the Veterans Affairs provides Vocational Rehabilitation services for disabled veterans and special home adaptation programs.
8. Western New York Independent Living Center concentrates on helping the disabled people secure appropriate services by offering wide range of services such as rent subsidies, home modifications and free transport.
9. NYS Department of Family Assistance provides a variety of social security programs that includes providing basic income for the elderly, the blind and the disabled people.

A further central element of collaborative programs is to jointly work together to meet organization’s primary goals, fostering social development. An online article documented by Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training (GIFT, 2010) mentions collaborative organizations such as galas, auctions, and street fairs to have successfully mobilized efforts and shared responsibility to helping the community. Center for Volunteer and Nonprofit Leadership (CVNL) later renamed, “The Human Race” currently hosts a 5K run/walk that attracts over 100 groups and gives the funds collected to participating organization (GIFT, 2010).

Another collaboration mentioned by GIFT (2010) includes a joint list rental for direct mail that charges participants per the number of names they submit. The website allows participants to join a number of collaborations such as BIG, joint capital campaigns that enables them to mobilize funds and buy buildings that suit their needs. Here, organizations with common goals could share a common service room, such as bathrooms, a kitchen, equipment and a meeting space and may receive overlapping donors. GIFT (2010) also argues that use joint staffing may be a better strategic move toward saving on operational costs.

The above projects and programs have benefited the County’s members and the community as a whole. The support programs have been instrumental in ensuring that community members are able to access vital services that are important and necessary for their well being.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Recommendations

While there have been notable achievements made by social entrepreneurship in the Chautaqua County, more needs to be done in terms of funding and getting more support for the social entrepreneurship programs.

The use of websites such as the AmazingCounty.com website could be increased. More not for profit organizations should be encouraged to use social networking sites such as Twitter, Myspace and Facebook to inform potential donors and investors about their activities and also highlight the causes they are focused on as well as seek funding. Social networking sites are also a good forum to enlighten users about the welfares of community members in the county.

Collaborative strategies such as community participation in fundraising and development projects, reviewing structural strategies for the social entrepreneurship environment, decreasing expenses and increasing revenues should be a high priority for the social entrepreneur. Focusing on mutual benefits derived from collective responsibility in return for the commitment or loyalty of community members or donors seems like the most viable approach social entrepreneurs should prioritize.

While there are many not for profit organizations in the area, more organizations need to be established to improve the living and health standards in the county. This can be achieved by collaborating with the government to seek financial assistance which will in turn see more local and international donors lending assistance to the programs. Government collaboration will also ensure proper policies are developed to address the social entrepreneurship concept in communities or societies that are not performing well economic wise.

Diversifying the projects will ensure that all members in the community can be able to access the benefits of the social programs that have been established in the county. The programs should not only be focused on alleviating poverty in the Chautauqua County but also on ways of empowering the community members to pursue avenues that will allow them to generate income that will improve their lives as well as the County’s economy.

Conclusion

The focus of this paper has been on social entrepreneurship and not for profit organizations with particular focus on Chautauqua County. According to income and data statistics, Chautauqua County is one of the poorest counties in New York. To deal with the poor communities, not for profit organizations have been established.Social entrepreneurship has therefore been seen to play an important part in the development of the communities that are based in both the Northern and Southern parts of the county.

The discussion focused on the activities of social entrepreneurs in the development projects in the surrounding communities. It highlighted the role of fundraising and collaborations to the social entrepreneur as well as engagement strategies. The discussion also involved data analysis of survey questions to gain more insightful information with regards to the topic in the selected area which is Chautauqua County. The analysis involved looking at organizations that are involved in community development projects within the County, what these organizations do and the amount of funds awarded to various projects within the county.

Social entrepreneurship is gaining more prominence today as more and more organizations spring up with their main focus being on sharing responsibilities. Societies are being encouraged to foster and cater for these organizations by playing collaborative and supportive roles. Communities have played an important role especially when it comes to fundraising for these organizations as the results of social entrepreneur activities will benefit the in the end.

At this point, a re-examination of fundamental questions are in order; do community members, while being served, become productive and more likely to become independent? What should social entrepreneurs do to encourage local philanthropy? As evidenced in this paper, collaborative fundraising remains a great way for social entrepreneurships and not-for-profit organizations to raise money and share expenses. Quoted from the Center for Servant Leadership website, Bolden et al. (2003) stated that, “Servant-leadership encourages collaboration, trust, foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment.” (p.13).

In this regard, social entrepreneurship should not only be viewed as mass recruiters that influence change and provide fertile ground for development but also as important tools for both social and economic development. Social entrepreneurship has proven to be a fundamental concept for community development as it is through not for profit organizations that community projects can be designed, coordinated and implemented.

While social entrepreneurs strive to meet their long term mission goals, it’s important to note that achieving coherency and integration is equally important in sustaining the relationships between the entrepreneur, the business world and the society. The entrepreneur has to strike a balance that will ensure activities and projects are carried out effectively and efficiently while at the same time sustaining these relationships.

The community has also been seen to play an important role in this research especially when it comes to fundraising activities for the social entrepreneur as well as collaboration activities. Collaborating with the community will ensure that the benefits of the social activities will reach the society’s members who are in the most need for financial assistance. Social entrepreneurship in the long run is a concept that is meant for the society and the community. While their focus is on achieving business success, their focus in the end should be maintained on improving the society and its member’s livelihoods.

Appendix

There was little inconsistency in the survey results collected on various organizations regarding collaboration strategies; fundraising, community contribution and partnership showed tremendous impact on managers. Below is the letter sent via email to every correspondent before the survey was conducted:

June 7, 2010

Dear Agency Director:

I am working on a research project concerning not-for-profit organizations within Chautauqua County as part of an internship under the direction of Richard Goodman from the Center for Social Entrepreneurism at SUNY Fredonia’s Technology Incubator. As part of my research for this project, I’ve developed a survey which I am sending out to various not-for-profits in the County. The results will be used to gauge the status of not-for-profit agencies in the county, what needs are being met, what can be improved upon and evaluate the overall, “health” of social entrepreneurship in our community.

I hope that you would take the time to respond to the survey and e-mail it back by Tuesday, June 15, 2010.

Thank you for your time and sharing your experiences.

Sincerely,

Erica Yunghans

SUNY Fredonia Intern

A list of survey questions were distributed as illustrated below:

• Name:
• Position:
• Organization:
• Date survey was completed:

1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?
2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?
3. How do you cope with setbacks?
4. How do you get funders or investors interested in your organization?
5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?
6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?
7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?
8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?
9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?
10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?
11. How do you go about planning for the future?
12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?
13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?
14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?
15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurism practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

A follow-up letter was distributed a week later as illustrated below;

June 15, 2010

Dear Agency Director:

As you may already be aware, my name is Erica Yunghans and last week I emailed a needs assessment survey to a number of Chautauqua County not-for-profit organizations. The information obtained from this survey will be used by planners within the Program for Social Entrepreneurship to develop a strategy for addressing the most pressing of those needs. Information obtained will be reported as an aggregate and responding agencies will remain anonymous.

Although I had hoped to have the completed surveys returned to me by this week, I understand how busy everyone is at this time of year and that you might not been able to find time to complete it. Since I am working under a fairly tight deadline, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a few moments to answer the survey questions and get them back to me by Monday, June 21, 2010. Please be assured that everyone will receive a copy of the final project report.

If you have additional questions you may contact me via e-mail (omitted for privacy) or by phone (omitted for privacy).

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance and for sharing your experiences

Sincerely,

Erica Yunghans

SUNY Fredonia Intern

• Survey Results 1
• Name: Ruth Lundin
• Position: President
• Organization: Jamestown Audubon Society, Inc.
• Date survey was completed: 06-15-10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

Flexible work hours, friendly work environment, dynamic job duties, authority to act.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

No avenue for advancement

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

Re-engineer the process

4. 4. How do you get investors interested in your organization?

Personal contact, develop an intimacy with the mission and programs of the organization.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Try to go it alone. Need to build bridges.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

There is much that goes on without my input.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Finding the funding. There are many more excellent opportunities than there is funding for.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

Networking, interviewing LOTS of people. Motivation by flexible work hours, friendly work environment, dynamic job duties, authority to act.

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Flexibility. Positive attitude. Valuing each individual.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

There is no one right way.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

Brainstorming with the staff. Finding ways to duplicate successful programs.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

You have to go with your gut and accept some compromises.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

Yes, it runs the organization.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

We have been struggling with sustainability for the last ten years. We try to add value and find marketable programs and products.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurship practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

It has raised the visibility in the community.

Survey Results 2

• Name: Gary Travis
• Position: Vice Chairman
• Organization: Brocton Portland Community Festival
• Date survey was completed: 06/14/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

Look for people that have a passion for the purpose of the organization. People with the same goals as the organization will do whatever it takes to succeed.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Lack of interest from others

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

Think outside the box. Every setback gives you a new chance to succeed.

4. 4. How do you get funders or investors interested in your organization?

It’s all about your presentation and your goals.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Don’t be afraid of hearing “NO.” Also don’t be afraid to try anything.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

I went from laborer to Vice Chairman.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Funding.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

Since ours is a Community activity, we have found that the people that have attended in the past are willing to help out now.

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Must have a, “Can Do Attitude.”

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

By example.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

We always had a goal in mind when we started, each year our goal may change for any given reason however, we always strive to meet our ultimate goal.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

For our organization, they work hand in hand.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

No it does not, strictly donation driven.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

No.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurism practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

N/A

Survey Results 3

• Name: Patricia Z. Munson
• Position: Executive Director
• Organization: CASAC – Chautauqua Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Council, Inc.
• Date survey was completed: 06/17/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

I am not sure. Sometimes it is by offering people the opportunity and freedom to develop something new.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Not sure.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

Just look at what we did, could we have done it better or differently. Try again if possible.

4. 4. How do you get investors interested in your organization?

One on one contact as much as possible.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Not sure.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

Less direct community work.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Finding appropriate staff to fill positions used to be a problem.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

Extensive interviewing and checking not only references they listed but also with people we may know in common. Keep motivated by providing opportunity to help plan direction of agency and events.

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Not sure. Maybe being able to change course quickly if needed and having a vision of how the projects could work. Some employees cannot “envision” end results of a project.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

Provide a vision to start with and then see what rest of community or board or staff think and make changes accordingly. Depends on how exactly new it is.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

Very hard in this economic climate but look at what trends are in the field for needed services and plan for them. Always remember a strategic plan isn’t written in stone and course changes can be most beneficial.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

Very carefully.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? Revenue through fees for service. How is it used?

To support those services.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

Working on it in this economic climate.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurship practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

Not done so yet.

Survey Results 4

• Name: Judy Metzger
• Position: Executive Director
• Organization: Campus and Community Children’s Center
• Date survey was completed: 06/16/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

Speak to people’s passions – something personal.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Burn out? Lack of support.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

By talking to anyone who might be able to add a new perspective or suggestion.

4. 4. How do you get investors interested in your organization?

By providing the best care for children and families.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Try not to get discouraged and think outside your comfort level.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

Many more responsibilities added without extra time or funds. Stress level is high.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Money is presently our biggest challenge.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

Advertising, experience interviewing, try and provide warm welcome and try to build strong teams.

9. 9. What are the key qualities of a successful social entrepreneur?

Patience, true passion, building a network.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

With genuine interest and caring but make sure you take some leadership courses or seminars. Communication skills are key.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

By tapping into resources (human and financial and expertise).

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

By making difficult decisions that can affect many.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

Yes, it is used for salaries and equipment – the running of the center.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

We plan to sustain but we have had a deficit budget three years in a row.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurship practice how has it

benefited? If not why?

We try to spread the word about the importance of early care and education in all aspects of our business.

Survey Results 5

• Name: Claudia Monroe
• Position: President
• Organization: Centaur Stride
• Date survey was completed: 06/15/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

The applicant must be desperate and no other options, and no government support.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Lack of community support.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

One day at a time, one foot in front of the other!

4. 4. How do you get investors interested in your organization?

Not looking for investors- just supporters.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Expect fast success.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

More work.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

You need to invest money to lure money – so finances have been the challenge.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

Luck!

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Perseverance and passion.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

Optimism.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

Get a good BOD.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

Selflessness!

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

Fee for service, fundraising, used to pay staff and expenses.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

Hopes for sustainability.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurship practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

(No response given)

Survey Results 6

• Name: Valerie Walawender
• Position: Program Director
• Organization: Dunkirk Historical Society
• Date survey was completed: 06/16/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

Offer creative control and at least a living wage.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

While wearing many hats is par for the course for social entrepreneurs, it also divides the focus needed to succeed. Marketing, product or program development, outreach, networking, sales, etc. – all takes time and money (phone, gas, bills). Ideally – the social entrepreneur would provide creative energy and direction, and others would contribute their own special talents and skills to the enterprise.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

Creatively. When I can, positively – by realizing that setbacks are just part of the overall process to achieve worthwhile goals. If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

4. 4. How do you get investors interested in your organization?

Good question. Having a high quality product or program. Having a solid marketing program. Personal contacts. Leverage with funds already achieved. Also – high profile endorsements. Good track record of prestigious or interesting clients.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Don’t give up. Have a clear vision and don’t muddy your vision with trying to please a committee. An old quote I like: In all the parks in all the cities of the world, you will never find a sculpture created by a committee.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

I have more of a leadership role.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Money. Technology. Human resources.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

Intuition. Open mind. Wanting to help everyone achieve their own dreams. Staying focused and positive myself – and thereby acting as a role model – by overcoming phenomenal odds and the negativity of naysayers. Continually working on my own personal growth – staying motivated and excited myself. It comes naturally to me – and for those who are like-minded – it’s contagious.

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Having a clear vision and personally meaningful purpose. Knowing yourself. Compassion, passion, acceptance, love.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

Respectfully. Respecting yourself and others – and tradition as well as innovation; slow movement as well as quick decisions and action. With Clarity. Being very clear about the mission – and your own commitment to the mission. Creatively. Respond to problems creatively and lovingly. Decisively. Kindly. Ethically. Consciously. Even if you need to make some hard decisions, make them with as much thought, kindness, and ethical consideration as possible.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

Look at the vision – the ultimate end goal. Develop 1 year, 3 year, 5 year – 10 year plans – with concrete steps to take to achieve the mini-goals along the way. Consider the obstacles. Don’t focus on the obstacles. Focus on your vision.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

Like an Eastern Indian juggler – spinning a dozen plates on long sticks simultaneously – going from one to the next – to keep them all going.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

Revenue comes mainly in the form of grants at this point. The grants are used mainly for presenting programs. We hope to develop products and programs that will be self sustaining.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

Yes.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurship practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

We have brought our programs to diverse audiences, who now support us in a variety of ways. By benefiting the community, we have benefited.

Survey Results 7

• Name: Lin Liedke
• Position: Co-Director
• Organization: Great Lake FX
• Date survey was completed: 06/10/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

That is the $64,000 question. We donate our time, and always have for the past 10 years. We had a college intern this past semester from SUNY Fredonia’s FACE program who received 1 credit hr. towards his degree.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Money; Time; Affordable transportation for participants. Lack of support from local officials.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

It is sometimes very frustrating because we are a very small grassroots youth organization which meets with at-risk youth 1x/week. We are often overlooked for funding because of our small size. We do try not to “compete” with “big-box” organizations who typically receive the majority of local funding. We feel we are unique and fill a niche within the community that other groups do not. We have a proven track record of success in this area.

4. 4. How do you get funders or investors interested in your organization?

We research grant opportunities and write our own grants. We also try to be very visible within our local area as we promote ourselves through community service, and art shows. We also have spoken to several groups such as Rotary Club and the Kiwanis Club.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Do NOT give up.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

We do everything as our mission has become more clear: soliciting new participants, meeting with parents and school officials, taking professional development courses, transporting students, writing grants, raising money, etc. the list goes on and on. The original idea of, “working with kids” has been redefined several times.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Dealing with the incredible amount of negativism within this local area. It is totally amazing to me that we are met with such opposition when we are trying to provide community service to the city and also providing positive role models for the youth of this city who already have 1 strike against them.

Cleaning up their beaches, planting flowers along the waterfront, sweeping streets and parking lots, planting trees on Earth Day, shoveling snow away from fire hydrants and in front of sr. citizen’s homes, exhibits at the county fair, etc. Let’s not forget the educational aspect of what we do-AND the magnificent art work our students produce which we share throughout the city – bringing nothing but accolades to our area. BUT, we have been turned down for local CDBG funds again, and not only that – Mr. Ahlstrom intimated via the newspaper, that we were mishandling the funds that we had been granted, and promptly took the small amount of funding they had awarded us back to purchase a part for the water treatment plant. Every cent of that money goes right back into the community-to put a better face on the city of Dunkirk. We NEVER take a salary for ourselves. Our time and our vehicles are all donated.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

WE are the two people who have created Great Lake FX 10 yrs ago and to be truthful, it is sometimes very difficult to keep ourselves motivated due to some of the reasons listed above.

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Honesty, Integrity, an incredible work ethic, vision, motivation, and an unwillingness to give up – no matter what.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

The organization must have a board of directors that is motivated and works to promote the mission of the organization.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

We research the availability of funding- which is definitely dwindling. We also solicit new participants through the local school districts, and through Kid’s College at JCC.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

We do appear at local fundraisers for organizations that have supported us financially. We have also donated artwork our students have created to various organizations that have supported us.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

We have participated in fundraisers. Every cent goes right back into the program, to pay for supplies, materials, and professional development, and to take our students on educational field trips.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability

We would like to think so.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurism practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

We feel that our community service, as listed above, has benefitted not only our local community, but also tourism as what we have done is very visible. The benefits of modeling and encouraging stewardship for our students are immeasurable. Our beautiful artwork, entirely created by students, depicts not only the beauty of our local area, but points to a focus these students do not receive in school. Visitors to our city and county are constantly telling us how impressed they are with the visible products our students have produced. The invisible, that of self-confidence, scholastic honors, motivation, and the desire to succeed, are the natural by-product of an organization where the directors (leaders) have led by example.

Survey Results 8

• Name: Diane K. Clark
• Position: Director
• Organization: Greystone Nature Preserve
• Date survey was completed: 06/16/10

1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

Good vibes, In our experience, people want to feel good about themselves and the direction of their lives. Contributing time and energy to a good cause is sometimes more important than receiving money.

2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Poor time management.

3. How do you cope with setbacks?

We expect them, and don’t get ourselves emotionally tumbled.

4. How do you get funders or investors interested in your organization?

We get them connected to our mission statement; most folks want to help efforts to preserve our environment, especially trees, and to connect children with nature.

5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Do not forget to say thank you….several times.

6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

More computer work.

7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Ah ha! Our goal is NOT to scale up. We believe small and home based is the way to go in the current time. With no big “improvements,” we are able to offer a great program, without going into the red. Our home made operation fits our mission statement and our financial one too.

8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

SUNY FREDONIA….CHRISTINA JARVIS… our two best and most excellent sources!!!!!!!

9. What are the key qualities of a successful social entrepreneur?

Honesty and a sincere desire to serve.

10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

Listen to your board and the concerns and desires of the general public.

11. How do you go about planning for the future?

By listening, I get many ideas for programming.

12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

My social life revolves around home cooked dinners, strolls around our preserve enjoying nature and company, etc. We are home based and try to stay away from corporate influence, like fancy restaurants, big entertainment. Good we live in a community where we can go to free concerts, and attend events with little financial cost. We strive for that!

13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

We charge $2.00 per child for a day or experiential environmental education, here or in the classroom. So our main goal is NOT generating revenue, but in serving the community. The money we do receive is used for things like purple martin bird houses. Every time we receive a contribution outside of programming, we let that individual know exactly how we are spending the money, i.e. planting native trees, repairing the tipi, improving the pond. We send pictures of the result of the money gift do folks know exactly what happen to their contribution.

14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

We are sustainable, but not in the usual corporate way. We raise our own vegetables, chickens, and have agreements for our other meat with neighbors, usually using a barter system, we both shy away from the concept of making a profit, and we are interested in making a mark…. Since we don’t have a big overhead, we can look ahead to the future of the needs for children…. to appreciate and respect the natural world.

15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurism practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

I am not sure what this means. But every agency that has had a field trip here is eager to come back again, that includes, public schools, BOCES, the Resource Center, home schoolers, and toddlers, and several “at risk” programs.

Survey Results 9

• Position: Executive DirectorName: Amanda Walden
• Organization: Literacy Volunteers
• Date survey was completed: 06/11/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

People want to be a part of something cutting edge and different. It is a matter of educating them and letting them choose the role they feel best suits them. This is true of any volunteer.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Often it is boards of directors who are not educated or afraid of doing something outside the traditional or safe. Target and educate.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

My mantra is: Willful determination/Non-concern for results.

4. 4. How do you get funders or investors interested in your organization?

Same as #1.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

(No response given.)

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

I am constantly asked to do more and more with less and less.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Finding a consistent volunteer base and finding adequate funding.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

See # 1 again.

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Someone who wants to help and make changes from within the system.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

Surrounding yourself with good people and listening to their ideas and solutions.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

As far in advance as possible but usually decisions are based on knee jerk reactions.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

I try to serve the people first-fulfill the mission first even if that means serving fewer people better to serve a few well than a lot poorly.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

In limited book sale fundraisers-Mission Fish- right now.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

Yes.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurism practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

Stimulated a different take on fundraising possibilities, generated interest from a number of new volunteers and brought in funds. It has not grown the way I was hoping. I have only had limited success and can’t really say that I consider the project a SE success even though I think it could very well be one in future. I keep trying to ask everyone I meet if they would like to coordinate the position and get money but I haven’t found the person or persons to do it!

Survey Results 10

• Name: Jenny Sullivan
• Position: Committee chair
• Organization: Northern Chautauqua Walk MS committee
• Date survey was completed: 06/16/10

1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

In our organization a lot of talent is found through people who have the disease or are directly affected by it (loved one, family member, etc). We are all volunteers and not able to pay anyone (on the local level). So far we have been extremely lucky with the group we have. A lot of the help we get is from people who have the disease and are on disability, but they do not want to just sit there and do nothing. It gives them something to do, so that they do not feel helpless.

They feel that they are making a difference (and they are). I think our committee even gives them a social outlet, a place to gather and meet with others that our cause is important to. It gives them a place and reason to use their talents. I think (and am hoping) that if you make being part of the group fun, if you include everyone and listen to what they all have to say and want to do, the members will want to keep helping.

There is a downside to this. Cognitive problems and fatigue are a big symptom of the disease we try to help people with. The group is limited by how members with the disease are feeling and doing. A lot of our members have been out of work (on disability) for a long time, and technical skills are lacking (computer mainly).

2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Time, money. Money, time! Money as far as for the organization as well as this takes up a lot of time and so money personally also. It’s also difficult trying to balance out all the priorities for the organization as well as your many responsibilities to yourself and family. There is a lot on all sides that just does not get done. Education also, at least for me a lot of this is new and a lot of things would be easier if I knew where to go or look for certain information. It would also save me time. Not having a place to work out of.

The stuff for our events seems to overtake my personal space and prevents me from working on other things I need to get done. It would be great if I had a workable space where my group could come and help with things too (accessibility issues). We have been meeting at the Darwin Barker Library this year and that works well, but when we need to have longer meetings to put things together (crafts, posters, etc) we do not currently have a space that works well for all of us.

3. How do you cope with setbacks?

This is a little different for our group. We work directly with the National Society and their offices in Buffalo (and Rochester since they oversee the Buffalo office). Our group has only existed so far mainly to organize the main event for the Chapter in our area. This year we are really becoming a stronger more independent group. Our setbacks so far have been mainly in dealing with the Society and the support we receive from them. They also seem to have a high employment turn-over rate and in the past three years the Buffalo office has been working with a severe shortage of staff, which directly impacts programs here (has delayed starting anything).

So far, this year our committee spent entire meetings for nearly a month or so, writing a letter to the President of our chapter and other staff members in which we discussed the problems we have had in the past and ways we think that we could work better with them. We attended a recent meeting at the Buffalo office to meet the new President of our chapter. We are meeting with the Chautauqua group from Jamestown next month to discuss our issues and concerns with them also.

After meeting with them, we are going to start further discussions of becoming more of our own separate organization. Our plan is to still work with National at the Chapter offices as well as the Chautauqua group, but we feel we might be more powerful and get more accomplished in this area if we were our own non-profit. So, I guess we are trying to be less independent on National and take more responsibility and control ourselves.

4. How do you get funders or investors interested in your organization?

This year we wrote letters to all of the local clubs asking for donations, or for volunteer help at our event. We wanted to do this last year, but time and help was an issue. This year we ended up with a new member who was willing to take on this task.

We have community pin-up events which gives us a chance to go into businesses and start to get to know owners and for them to know us. We also have plans to expand this by having some short educational sessions with some of the local businesses and clubs for next year. We hope that this will help inform them of our cause and efforts.

5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

I do not feel I can really answer this question as I am new to this. I will take any advice anyone has to offer! The only thing I can really say so far is to never turn anyone who wants to help away. I would have been much more involved a long time ago, but was never given the opportunity by local organizers or the local chapter office. I always felt pushed away and not included or taken seriously. One staff member at the Buffalo office finally realized how eager I was to help and provided me with the opportunity and support. The more people you have to help, the more can be accomplished. One person cannot do everything. And anyone who wants to help has some sort of talent or skills they can contribute, even if it’s just their thoughts and ideas.

6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

Last year was difficult because we had no idea of everything that was involved with organizing the whole walk event (it was our first year). This year I tried to divide the work up better. This worked in some instances and failed in others. Our committee needs more members. I am hoping as we acquire more members, I can organize the workload better. I am hoping to scale back immensely on my responsibilities within the next few years since there is another project I would really like to start and will need the time for that.

7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

We need more committee members. Education – as far as how and what can we do. We also have a very limited email list, which we like to use because it’s greener and cheaper for us, but I think we have trouble reaching out to certain areas of the community. We are currently working on addressing these issues.

8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

I have recently posted on our Facebook page and sent out an email asking others to join our committee. We have had people reach out to us at some of our events. I don’t turn anyone away. The right people are anyone who wants to help. Anyone can be beneficial in some way. As far as keeping them motivated, this time of year is very hard, especially coming off of our major event and a lot of hard work. We are working on a committee plan to help keep us going and focused. We are also starting to discuss other events for the year.

9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Someone who is passionate about the cause, can think creatively, and is willing to try new solutions sometimes. Works well with others and on a team, listens to and is open to the ideas of others. Someone who has leadership abilities.

10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

Listen to everyone’s ideas, but you have to be able to keep them focused and on track at the same time (agendas, meeting minutes, and meeting rules!) Try to include everyone in some way, make them feel useful. Make sure decisions are made as a group when possible.

11. How do you go about planning for the future?

Right now we are working on a “committee plan” (instead of a business plan). We are detailing all of the things that we want to do as well as the problems that we have (everything!). We are writing down how we are going to go about making these things happen or fixing the problems. We are hoping that this gives us a clear idea of where we want our committee to go and provide us with a way to stay focused.

12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

We are currently trying to work on figuring this out. We really haven’t had any financial goals so far set by ourselves. The Society sets our goal for the walk event and we just do our best to reach it since this is only our second year organizing it. Social goals can be fundraisers. We are trying to plan an assortment of programs as well as other fundraisers in our area.

13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

Other than our fundraiser for the walk (all money goes to National – research & services/programs), not really. Our committee has started to try to come up with ways to raise money for operating funds (selling ribbons and collecting ink cartridges/cell phones). We get no real working money for operating costs from the Society. We have used the money for paper, ink (printing) costs, postage so far. We used some of the money along with a gift card we received from Wal-Mart to purchase a plastic folding table that we can use for events. It is helping us feel more relaxed knowing we do not have to depend on our own empty pockets for things we need. We will be using the money also to help fund other fundraisers.

14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

No, probably not.

15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurism practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

(No response given.)

Survey Results 11

• Name: Diane Hannum
• Position: Executive Director
• Organization: Northern Chautauqua County Community Foundation
• Date survey was completed: 06/14/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

Promote quality of life in Chautauqua County.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Unsure.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

Patience.

4. 4. How do you get investors interested in your organization?

It depends on the investor and what his/her motivation might be. Some are motivated by altruism, some are not.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

They must engage the community in some way.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

In generally, more administrative work.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

See #6. As we grow, more of my time in spent on required admin work, which in pulls me away from work which is directly related to our mission.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

(No response given.)

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

(No response given.)

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

(No response given.)

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

Working with the board on planning.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

Our mission comes first.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

(No response given.)

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

(No response given.)

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurship practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

We have sold a few items on MissionFish; I would not call it successful. We need to spend more time with it.

Survey Results 12

• Name: Brian Davis
• Position: President
• Organization: Wishberry/Cooperative
• Date survey was completed: 06/19/10

1. 1. How can social entrepreneurs attract talent without high salaries and options?

Offering opportunities and experience that is rare in other careers.

2. 2. What are the things that keep potential social entrepreneurs from succeeding to fulfilling their potential?

Learning curve for start-up is steep. Lack of support from established business groups.

3. 3. How do you cope with setbacks?

Developed skilled on my own time.

4. 4. How do you get investors interested in your organization?

Direct marketing. You have to fully understand your goals and express them passionately.

5. 5. Is there anything you’d advise new social entrepreneurs NOT to do?

Do not accept any information that you do not acquire first hand.

6. 6. How has your role changed as the organization has grown?

I have had to get comfortable with giving up control.

7. 7. What have been the challenges of scaling up your organization?

Keeping the community as impassioned as I am.

8. 8. How do you go about finding the right people and keeping them motivated?

Not sure I’ve been completely successful.

9. 9. What are the key qualities in a successful social entrepreneur?

Will power, organization, critical thinker.

10. 10. What do you think is the most effective way to lead a new organization?

By example.

11. 11. How do you go about planning for the future?

Five year chunks. Business plan.

12. 12. How do you balance your social and financial goals?

The social goals are far more important but realistically they are linked.

13. 13. Does the organization generate revenue? How is it used?

It is used to develop benefits for our community members.

14. 14. Does the organization plan to achieve full profitability or sustainability?

Sustainability. We are non-profit.

15. 15. If your organization has engaged in social entrepreneurship practice how has it benefited? If not, why?

We are continually gaining good will and strengthening our brand.

References

Anonymous, (2010, March 12) (a) Social Entrepreneurship-Collaborative Fundraising Workshop Scheduled. Web.

Anonymous, (2010, April 22) (b) Social Entrepreneurship-Collaborative Fundraising Workshop Scheduled. Web.

Ashoka. (2010). What is a Social Entrepreneur? Web.

Battle, A. B., & Dees, J. G. (2006). Rhetoric, Reality, and Research: Building a Solid Foundation for the Practice of Social Entrepreneurship. “In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change,” edited by Alex Nicholls, 144–68. London: Oxford University Press.

Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P.( 2003). A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies, 18, 1-44.

Burgoyne, J., & Kimona, J. (2001). Leadership Development: Best practice guide for organisations. London: Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership.

Chase, W. (2000). Cultural Diversity in Organizations and Business: Gaining a competitive advantage. Affiliation of Multicultural Societies & Service Agencies of BC, 34, 1-82.

Chautauqua County. (2010). Country Overview. Web.

Dinapoli, T.P. (2010). New York State’s Not-For-Profit Sector. Office of the State Comptroller, 1-4.

Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, D.W. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training (Gift). (2010). Collaborative Fundraising. Web.

Hottle, M. (2010). Thousands of nonprofits may lose tax-exempt status. The Seattle Times, 1.

Josephson, J. (2010). NCC Discusses ‘09 Success. Web.

Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1994). The Wisdom of Teams. New York: Harperbusiness.

Laurence, J., Hull, R. (1969). The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong. New York: William Morrow and Company.

Lazear, E. P. (2000). The Peter Principle: Promotions and Declining. Hoover Institution and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

Light, P. C. (2003). Fact Sheet on the New True Size of Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

Moshenko, S. (2010). Finances an Added Burden for the Disabled and Their Families. Web.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited by Alex Nicholls, 1–35. London: Oxford University Press.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006). Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Penguin Books.

Roger. M. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The case for Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, 29–39.

Rukavina, M. (2010). Incubator Graduates, Literacy Volunteers Head to Dunkirk Loft. Web.

Sandy, J., & Stephanie, J. (2009). Engagement Strategies: Making the Most of Working Together. Web.

Schumpeter, J. (1982). The Theory of Economic Development. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Scott, B. (2008). Schott’s Miscellany Calendar 2009. New York: Workman Publishing Company.

Scott, B. (2009). Chautauqua County New York. New York: American Publishing Images.

Simons, R. (2000). Social Enterprise: An Opportunity to Harness Capacities. Research and Advocacy Briefing, 7, 1-4.

Skloot, Edward. (1983). Should Not-For-Profits Go into Business? Harvard Business Review, 61, 20-25.

Spitzer, E., & Hansell, D. (2006). Homeless housing and assistance program. Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature, 34, 1-23.

Snyder, G. (2010, January 20). City CDBG Resolutions Cause Stir. Web.

The Chautauqua County. (2010). Community Health Assessment Chautauqua County. Chautauqua County Health Department, 1, 1-118.

Tichy, N. and Devanna, M. (1986). Transformational Leadership. New York: Wiley.

Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A. and Lucas, J. (2009) Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review (2009), Elsevier Inc., Web.

Wolk, A.M. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship and Government: A New Breed of Entrepreneurs Developing Solutions to Social Problems. Social Entrepreneurship and Government, 59, 151-221.

Review on Bartlett and Goshal’s research article (1994)

In their research article, Bartlett and Goshal (1994) addressed the idea of following certain organizational structures. They evaluated the second half of the 20th century and came to the conclusion that high-growth environments presuppose the presence of structure and strategy. Regardless, they are certain of the fact that the existing business environment is different. Markets are now global, the lines that separated businesses are now gone, and overcapacity has become a commonplace event. In addition to this, Bartlett and Goshal (1994) point out that even an early entry in the market is not as beneficial as before.

The author of the article explained that a new approach to management is necessary if businesses expect to become successful. The researchers conducted a study that involved numerous companies from all over the world and concluded that change is necessary, especially in the roles of top management. Bartlett and Goshal (1994) claimed that senior managers should be subject to changing their way of thinking and going out-of-the-box. In other words, there should be a definite organizational purpose that will allow them to focus on the development of core business processes.

Review on Dees’ research article (1998)

In his research article, Dees (1998) addressed the question of behaviors which contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship. He was certain of the fact that such behaviors should be remunerated and stimulated because they led to the advent of capable teams that were led by a passionate leader. However, Dees (1998) explicitly stated that not everyone could become a social entrepreneur because not everyone possessed the qualities that were necessary to ensure that an entrepreneurial leader would be born. He applied the same concept to the business environment and hypothesized that entrepreneurship is not something that every leader should pursue.

Even though the entrepreneurial approach is beneficial, we need to consider the idea that our society is functioning on the basis of a huge variety of leadership styles and forms. Dees (1998) concluded by saying that social entrepreneurs should be recognized as the owners of an idiosyncratic status but never a commonplace breed of leaders that can manage everything. We need social entrepreneurs in our lives, but we should find a way to integrate this form of leadership into the existing business environment without distressing the essential vocation of social entrepreneurs.

Review on Dees and Anderson’s research article (2003)

In the research article written by Dees and Anderson (2003), the concept of the importance of social entrepreneurs was extended even further. They considered the transition experienced by conventional boundaries between businesses in public and private sectors. These transformations can be validated by the necessity to find cost-effective ways of running a business that would positively affect sustainability and allow the leaders to solve social problems that transpire during the process. At the moment when these transformations began, the number of social entrepreneurs in both sectors started growing exponentially.

Their key objective was to organize businesses in a way that would allow them to set up a for-profit background with a social purpose. Dees and Anderson (2003) addressed the majority of the complications that are met by social entrepreneurs on this route and listed the most difficult challenges which could adversely influence the business environment that was created by social entrepreneurs. The authors of the article critically approached all the limitations and provided the readers with a series of intelligent solutions.

Review on Porter and Kramer’s research article (2011)

The last article was written by Porter and Kramer (2011), and it discussed the benefits of coming up with a new approach that would promote shared values and updated management styles. The authors of the article explained that the private and public sectors followed different paths in terms of career and education, which might be the key contributors to the existence of differences between their social and economic concerns.

On a larger scale, Porter and Kramer (2011) hypothesized that only a limited number of modern managers are aware of environmental and social problems existing on both sides of the fence. This hints at the idea that these managers who do not possess the required knowledge should train and transform their mindset in order to be in line with modern business practices. Porter and Kramer (2011) concluded by saying that the implementation of a shared value model is a critical add-on to any organization which is interested in getting rid of cynicism and starting to use and allocate resources more efficiently.

Implications for Business

Based on the readings presented above, it can be concluded that we are living in the era of an ever-changing business environment. We witnessed how the concepts of social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility changed over time. Right now, we should focus on minimizing the effects of the market being split up into its public and private forms. There should be a way to eradicate the difficulties revolving around their opposing business objectives and to develop a unified model which would take into account all the issues that currently exist. The most important thing here is to let entrepreneurial leaders take the reins of government into their own hands and manage business structures more flexibly.