|
| I
entirely
agree
wit
|
|
 |
|
 |
I entirely agree with Kevin that there must be a chgnae in the traditional methods of getting capital out to social ventures but I am not entirely sure that ensuring financial return is the best method for ensuring a social return (it should go on the record that here at AIDG we create for profit small manufacturing facilities entirely to see magnified and sustained social returns). I am a big fan of New Profit's combination of social return and financial return but even this fails to capture some of the needs. The concern is that, from the outside, New Profit and other similar Orgs seem to play a straight numbers game. Not spending money commensurate with the earning power of the individual impacted seems risky for a NFP in these situations. I was at the Partners in Health annual Tom White Symposium a couple of months ago watching Jim Kim speak. He spoke of how they developed their success, the answer was learning through mistakes, mistakes funded by Tom White. I worry that if funders trend towards requiring return you won't have innovators like Farmer spending 15-20 grand a patient to cure people in Peru for MDR TB and developing DOTS plus. Perhaps not a big deal if you don't think of the consequences of removing that source of what is essentially R&D for the poor. I hope funder desires for returns don't prevent NFPs from posting such losses if it can help their constituencies. After all the primary goal of the NFP and the funder is in the end to actually help chgnae a social ill.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Maki
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
18 december 2014, 05:30:59
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
62.210.78.179
|
|
|
|
