The School for

Social Entrepreneurs
in Ontario:
Opportunities and
alternatives

A feasibility study and review prepared by MASS LBP

Commissioned by SiG@MaRS and funded by

The Ontario Trillium Foundation
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 3

ABOUT THIS STUDY 6

ABOUT THE SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS (SSE) 8

WHAT WE HEARD FROM ONTARIANS 16

EXISTING RESOURCES AND DEMAND 24

BUSINESS MODELS 29

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

SELECTED QUOTES 37

THE EVOLVING STATE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION 45

UNDERSTANDING THE MARKETPLACE 50

APPENDIX 59

2
SECTION 1

Introduction

Canada’s Social Innovation Generation (SiG@MaRS) is recognized for bringing global leaders to
Ontario, fostering relationships and seeding new ideas and initiatives across the province. The
idea for an Ontario-based School for Social Entrepreneurs started innocently enough. In
November 2007, a supporter of the School for Social Entrepreneurs (SSE) introduced the
concept to SiG@MaRS and it piqued their interest. It wasn’t long before Allyson Hewitt, the
Director of SiG@MaRS, visited the UK and met with Alastair Wilson, the SSE’s Chief Executive
Officer. In 2008, SiG National invited Nick Temple, the SSE’s Policy and Communications
Director, to Ontario to speak at the Social Entrepreneurship Summit at MaRS. Reciprocally, a
team of delegates from SiG National travelled to the UK where they visited the SSE as part of a
larger UK Study Tour. This learning tour inspired and created new connections between the two
countries and the many people working to promote social innovation and social enterprise. The
Ontario Trillium Foundation approved to the funding to conduct this study in June 2009.

The UK has long been recognized as a leader in the field. Since May 2006, the Office of the
Third Sector (OTS) has operated at the very centre of government and has enjoyed the
patronage of a series of talented young ministers. The OTS “leads work across government to
foster a thriving third sector — voluntary and community groups, social enterprises, charities,
cooperatives and mutuals — enabling the sector to campaign for change, deliver public
services, promote social enterprise and strengthen communities”
(www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/third_sector). This official recognition has worked to amplify the
activity of many organizations and initiatives, particularly in British cities. It has also helped to
create a public consensus on the role of social innovation and legitimate its value as a driver of
economic productivity and positive social outcomes.

Unlike the UK, the US, and Australia, the Canadian government has yet to formally recognize or
fund social innovation or entrepreneurship. The Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN)
published a thorough report on this issue, “Social Innovation in Canada: An Update.” Its author,
Mark Goldenberg explains, “Canada, by comparison, has no office or mechanism to support or
even measure the impact of social innovation in our country. There is also no funding plan or
national strategy in place to enhance and maximize the benefits of [social innovation]. In fact, our

3
study suggests current government funding mechanisms in Canada may well inhibit social
innovation” (The Mark, November 2009).

This makes the UK a destination for anyone looking to learn about social entrepreneurship —
and its future.

The School for Social Entrepreneurs (SSE) was among the many organizations visited by the
learning tour. And it made a good impression. Founded ten years ago by Michael Young, by far
Britain’s foremost social entrepreneur, the SSE has become one of the most successful and
frequently cited examples of an alternative approach to preparing emerging entrepreneurs to
work in the social sector.

Hands-on, fluid, intensely street-smart, and resolutely informal, the SSE offers its students an
opportunity to develop their own social enterprise while learning first-hand from some of
Britain’s most successful social entrepreneurs. At the SSE, there are few books, no teachers,
and a series of guidelines and best practices rather than a formal curriculum. But somehow it
works. Graduates of the program have a high success rate and report a high degree of
satisfaction with the program. What’s more, they create real jobs for themselves and others. In
fact, the School reports that, on average, 3-5 jobs and up to 6 volunteer positions can be linked
to each graduate. It’s an attractive figure for any jurisdiction wanting to ramp up its own social
economy.

Make no mistake: the SSE isn’t the Skoll School or a Reynolds Program and it doesn’t want to
be. Its students come from every conceivable background and educational pedigree. They arrive
with the kinds of ambitions that wouldn’t fit neatly into the confines of more traditional MBA or
public policy programs.

What the SSE does is fill a niche, operating as a powerful accelerator for grassroots social
entrepreneurs who are already in-the-making. It’s a place where people can go who want to
acquire the skills and connections to take their ideas to the next level.

To Canadian delegates on the learning tour, the SSE made a strong impression. Their response
was obvious and intuitive: “We should have one of these.” This report is the result of that
impulse.

4
Commissioned by SIG@MaRS, with funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, we were
tasked with looking back to better understand the SSE — its genesis and the model of
education that it offers — and recommend whether a franchise of the school could succeed in
Ontario.

Along the way we’ve had the opportunity to reflect on the development of social
entrepreneurship more generally and to think about its future. We’ve also learned from other
schools and models. Most importantly, we’ve learned about the needs and ambitions of
Ontario’s social entrepreneurs. This has been one of the joys and real privileges of this research.

Our conclusion and recommendation is straightforward.

Britain’s School for Social Entrepreneurs is an impressive model that clearly serves a distinct
market and deserves to be replicated, both here in Ontario and in many other jurisdictions.

However, we remain unconvinced that opening an SSE franchise is necessarily the only path to
meeting the particular needs and interests of the Ontario market for social entrepreneurship
education. Most of all, we are concerned that introducing a model to Ontario that requires
fundraising to sustain its core business could face ongoing financial challenges over the long
run.

Ultimately, one organization or a consortium of partners will need to decide whether they will
take the experience of the SSE and other models as the basis for a made-in-Ontario approach to
social entrepreneurship education, or else begin the application process to become a formally
recognized member of the SSE network of schools.

In the report that follows, we will attempt to make clear our understanding of the needs and
interests of Ontario’s social entrepreneurs and better describe the opportunity as we see it.

5
SECTION 2

About this study

Language
The language and definitions describing social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship
continues to be refined and formalized. The Social Enterprise Alliance based in North America
defines a social enterprise as “an organization or venture that advances its primary social or
environmental mission using business methods.” For the purpose of this study, we consider
social entrepreneurship to include a broad range of social ventures such as revenue-generating
non-profits and social purpose businesses with a double (social) or triple (environmental)
bottom-line. Social entrepreneurs are the individuals who establish social ventures to address
pressing social problems.

Methodology
Our research combines insights from recent news articles, academic papers, online resources,
as well as an extensive series of interviews held with 35 practitioners and opinion leaders from
the US, UK, France, Australia and Canada. We also conducted five half-day community
consultations with more than 40 social entrepreneurs, educators and potential students in
Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Waterloo and Toronto. Finally, we approached program directors of the
existing SSE locations to learn more about their experience establishing a franchise.

Our job is to assess not only the soundness of the SSE’s program, but also to gauge its fitness
for the Ontario marketplace.

Literature Review & Environmental Scan

The literature review begins by examining activity in the sector, the growing demand for social
entrepreneurship education and its maturation as a learning discipline. The environmental scan
identifies existing social entrepreneurship educational opportunities in Canada and abroad. It
also identifies three major pedagogical approaches to social entrepreneurship education and
situates the School for Social Entrepreneurs within this context.

Opinion Leaders
Thirty-five opinion leaders representing academia, social innovation and community
development agreed to be interviewed for this study. Collectively, they provided insights and
recommendations regarding their perceptions of the demand for social entrepreneurship
education, existing educational opportunities, and their desire to create a climate more
conducive to social innovation and enterprise in Ontario.

We also asked the program directors in the UK and Australia to reply to a series of questions
about their experience establishing a new franchise or network of schools abroad. Of the
existing SSEs, we received written replies from three directors and conducted phone interviews
with one director in the UK and with the director of the SSE Australia. This conversation was
particularly insightful as Australia and Canada share many similarities in terms of geography,
density and demography.

An Advisory Group, selected by SiG@MaRS, also provided recommendations and guidance on

the report. The Advisory includes leaders from across Ontario in the fields of education, non-
profit and social innovation, and community services and outreach. Nine advisory members took
part in in-depth interviews. The Advisory Group has actively followed the progress of the study
and has participated in the review process.

Community Consultations
Five community consultations were held in Toronto (x2), Ottawa, Waterloo and Thunder Bay.
Forty participants, many of them new and established social entrepreneurs, represented more
than 30 organizations. Each session lasted three hours and began with a presentation explaining
the project and profiling the School for Social Entrepreneurs. A series of conversations followed.
We wanted to know where social entrepreneurs in Ontario are currently turning for skills and new
knowledge. We also wanted to gauge their sense of a demand for a more formalized program
and whether the SSE would be a good fit to meet this demand. Participants were then asked to
identify the strengths and weaknesses, as they saw them, of the SSE model.

Following a break, participants began to describe their own, idealized vision of a school for
social entrepreneurs and what this would mean for the curriculum, student body and faculty.
They were also asked to think about how the school might operate, its location and goals.

One additional benefit of the consultation process was that it drew social entrepreneurs
together. Participants were encouraged to exchange contact information and many of them
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet and share their stories.

7
SECTION 3

About the School for Social Entrepreneurs (SSE)

Aims and Vision

The School for Social Entrepreneurs aims to address inequalities and social exclusion by
supporting social entrepreneurs and helping them to achieve real outcomes. The overall
objective is to create effective, sustainable solutions to address unmet social needs in local
communities.

History and Growth

The SSE was founded in 1997 in East London by Michael Young, one of the UK’s leading social
entrepreneurs with start-up funding from Britain’s Millennium Awards Scheme. There are now 8
schools across the UK, and one each in Ireland and Australia.

Students & Application Process

Each location has 8 to 20 students who range in age from 18 to 80. They are diverse and
represent a mix of gender, education and background. As of April 2009, there were over 400
graduates in the SSE “Fellowship Network”. Many of the alumni maintain strong ties to their peer
network and to the school. To be admitted to the program, students must be involved in or have
launched a community-based project. The vast majority of the organizations are early stage
start-ups. Students are accepted based on their project, personal characteristics and life
experience rather than formal educational qualifications.

Teaching Method
The SSE offers a one-year practical learning program. Students meet once a week - typically 30
to 35 times a year - with peers, personal tutors and expert witnesses, who are often SSE
graduates or other successful social entrepreneurs. Together they visit projects sites and
discuss what they see. With the expansion of the SSE network of schools, students are also able
to participate in residential exchanges with other SSEs. The school provides ongoing tailored
support to encourage both personal and organizational growth. The focus is on ‘learning by
doing’, and building confidence and reaching personal goals rather than delivering a static
curriculum.

8
The program is delivered through:
• Group sessions with ‘expert witnesses’
• Project visits
• Individual tutoring
• Optional mentoring
• Action-learning sets (peer / group problem-solving sessions)
• Residential exchanges
• Fellowship network & staff support

Funding Model
The annual operating budget of each school is £200,000.
Most of the operating budget goes towards staffing, paying the salaries of administrators and
personal tutors. Each SSE is responsible for raising the funds it needs to operate. Typically, the
SSEs approach private and public sector funders to ‘sponsor’ the unit cost of putting students
through the program. Sponsorships are valued at £10,000, and so the school must sell one
sponsorship for every student to remain viable. Several schools are exploring whether to transfer
some of the program costs to students in the form of a modest, means-related tuition. The SSE
Australia may incorporate student fees on a sliding scale. At Devon SSE, each student makes a
contribution towards the cost of taking part in the program, typically £1500 – £3000, which
“makes sure they really value the program and demonstrates their entrepreneurial skills in raising
money early on.”

The SSE Network

The annual licensing fee is £10,000.
The SSE has embarked on a strategic plan to increase the number of its schools in the UK and
abroad. It describes its model as a ‘social franchise’. SSE franchises are not centrally
administered. Instead, prospective community partners apply to the London school for
recognition and certification. Franchise schools are largely autonomous and are principally
responsible for raising the funds required for their operating budget. As a franchisee, new
schools use the SSE brand and brand templates, enjoy fundraising support within the UK, and
participate in joint program development, staff training, as well as networking and recruitment.
The SSE conducts an internal and external review and audit of each franchise school each year.
Currently, franchise schools are not represented on the SSE’s board of directors.

9
Core Services and Benefits
Quality System & Best Practice Guide
Strategic Planning & Budgeting
Branding (literature + materials + templates)
Electronic resources (intranet / website) / SSE network
Curriculum / Program outlines
Media and PR
Staff training & support
Student recruitment
Track record & reputation

Analysis and Considerations

The SSE enjoys a strong reputation in London and within Britain’s third sector. It provides a
hands-on learning experience that it strives to make accessible to the widest number of
potential students. It has a good track record in supporting early-stage social entrepreneurs and
helping them to take their projects to the next level, with the added benefit of also creating new
employment and volunteer opportunities for their communities.

Generally, the SSE does not compete for students with existing or more conventional
educational programs. Instead, it appeals to students seeking an applied education outside of
the normal pathways to business knowledge and professionalization. In this respect, the SSE is
a vanguard program. It works to create a space that at once promotes greater social equity and
entrepreneurial excellence.

The SSE also plays a critical role by legitimating the work and local profile of social
entrepreneurs. This has been especially valuable as the discipline has matured, attracting
greater scrutiny and attention.

Staff and Partnerships

Each school clearly relies on the dedication of its founders. The SSE purposefully seeks to
create schools and does so by identifying potential community partners, including a director,
willing to take responsibility for growing and sustaining the new location. The SSE offers
franchises to local entrepreneurs and educators with a sincere desire to see a local school
succeed. SSE program directors stressed the importance of finding like-minded and
enthusiastic partners and staff. “Successful and meaningful partnerships are, for me, the key.”

10
The director of the Devon SSE applauded the work of its Steering Group (advisory). The director
said that he “spent a lot of time with individual [advisory] members” and helped them to be
active advocates and supporters of the school and its students.

This merits careful consideration and directly impacts the feasibility of any Ontario initiative. The
role of school director isn’t a position that can simply be posted. Any prospective director
should feel a real sense of ownership and be intimately involved in the application process and
the design of an Ontario SSE. The dedication of the director and the senior staff is vital to the
success and sustainability of a school. “I would say about 60% of my time as is devoted to
fundraising.” Great care should be taken to find the right people and this will take time. “I was
surprised at how difficult we found it to recruit the right Learning Manager to deliver the
program. My advice would be to start looking early!” “Take the time to find the right people –
staff and partners.”

Funding and Sustainability

While the London School continues to prosper, the long-term sustainability of its franchises is
more difficult to assess. Currently, most franchises host only a handful of students and the
delivery cost per student (£10,000 approx. $20,000 CAD) can appear high in relation to the
amount of time spent in the program (35 days). By comparison, tuition for a year-long, full time
graduate program at the Institute without Boundaries at George Brown College is $12,000. The
MBA in Community Economic Development at Cape Breton University — a program that was
noted for its early application of social enterprise methodology — costs $6,000 for its summer
program, a total of $18,000 over three years. Other business models are compared in Section 6
of this report.

It is, however, important to note that students are attracted to the SSE precisely because they
are not required to spend large amounts of time in a classroom, yet still have access to
information and a network. A student who graduated from the program in Sheffield in 2009 said:

Juggling surviving financially [while] trying to develop your project and

get it off the ground…means that your project always come second. It
makes you wonder how many potentially life-changing projects never
made it to the light of day. The structure of the SSE is invaluable to me.

Each of the UK schools that provided feedback for the study have received funds from the SSE
UK’s £500,000 investment from the British government. Newly founded schools have used this

11
funding to target other donors, while SSE East Midlands received £75,000 to help sustain its
core program during a time of financial instability. Australia, Devon, Yorkshire & Humber, and
Nottingham managed to secure the bulk of their funding (70+%) for their first years without
much difficulty. Funding the next 3-5 years is more challenging. “It is proving quite difficult to
secure significant ongoing funds.” “A number of substantial grant programs are coming to an
end in 2010/11 and there is a void in terms of what will replace them.”

The funding climate in Australia in 2008 was perfectly primed to develop an SSE. Just before the
global financial crisis, the Australian government announced a multimillion dollar social
innovation fund. Although the SSE didn’t precisely fit the funding guidelines, through a “stroke of
good luck,” the help of the SSE UK and a supporter in the Senate, they secured $1.2 million over
3 years. These funds account for 30-40% of their costs and has helped them to scale up. Private
foundations account for the balance of the program’s funding with space provided by Social
Ventures Australia. SSE Australia wants to mature their funding model by increasing the level of
support from state governments and wealthy individuals, and creating an investment or
endowment fund.

Student Recruitment & Growth

The organizational commitment and resources required to provide the SSE program to a
relatively small number of students may be difficult to sustain without growth, which itself may
be difficult in smaller markets. The SSE East Midlands, now in its sixth year and with a largely
rural catchment area, is finding it difficult to attract students who must travel long distances.
Local funding options are often earmarked for urban centres and could not be applied to
students further afield. The director cautioned, “You must remember that you are dealing with
two sets of customers: the students and the donors.”

In Australia, recruiting the right mix of students has been their “greatest challenge” and they are
making it a high priority to “get it right,” There is a concerted effort to ensure the student body is
balanced between students from the community they seek to serve and students from outside
those communities who want to make a difference. Market understanding of social
entrepreneurship is “still quite vague” so they are working to engage people in underserved
communities, generate media interest in social entrepreneurship and raising their profile. It has
been particularly hard to reach Aboriginal students who are often active in their communities and
can’t justify taking time away to travel. Another feasibility study may be conducted to find the
best way to deliver the program to remote/rural/indigenous populations.

12
Given the swell of interest when a new school launches, program directors strongly advise to
leave plenty of time for marketing, recruitment and reviewing applications. It takes time to “plant
the seed for a new idea” and early applicants, though keen, are not always “genuine social
entrepreneurs.” The success of the SSE is its capacity to bring together a diverse mix of
students and portfolio of projects.

The UK’s New Economics Foundation (nef) interviewed a selection of past students to determine
the impact of the SSE since its inception in 1997 to 2007. They found that students benefited
from:

- Increased confidence & credibility

- A supportive & collaborative environment
- Networking with meaningful contacts
- Personal & organizational growth
- Sustainability and financial success

Additionally, the nef report determined that:

- For every 10 Fellows, 30 jobs and 69 volunteering positions are created.

- 90% of students felt that the program was well suited to their needs.
- 85% of all organizations established whilst at the SSE are still in existence.
- 52% are still leading their original venture.
- 88% of individuals experience a growth in confidence & leadership skills.
- 75% said they made at least 10 meaningful contacts.
- There are an estimated 24,000 direct beneficiaries.

The nef report also highlighted a few improvement areas. These included better methods for
measuring social impact and greater support for their alumni network. Students rated optional
mentorship opportunities and action-learning sets lower than personal tutors, expert sessions
and field trips. Feedback suggested that the mentors were not always matched correctly and
peer learning depends largely on the group’s chemistry.

We believe the SSE offers a valuable program and has developed and innovative and
practical model.

13
This does not mean that it is either wholly original or proprietary. Any decision to apply to create
an Ontario franchise must be weighed against a reasonable estimate of the benefits and costs
that would come from a long-term partnership with the UK headquarters.

“Don’t try and reinvent the wheel. London have been doing this for a long time and are
good at it, so use them as a guide.”

The benefits include the successful precedent the London School and its sister schools
represent — a precedent that would likely be reassuring to Canadian funders but is less
meaningful to Canadian students — as well as regular and independent evaluation, access to
the SSE network and various forms of organizational support. The SSE Australia demonstrates
that there are indeed benefits to belonging to a network, even one that is far away. “The UK
made a huge difference to our bid for funding. People here are predisposed to turning to the UK
as a model of best practice and they have a strong model with lots of flexibility and freedom.”

And while helpful, it’s not clear that a partnership with the SSE is essential to develop a program
that would serve the needs and interests of Ontario students — or that there is anything so
distinctive about the SSE program that makes it optimally suited to the province. Three of the
principal components of any program, a network of local educator-practitioners and local
partner organizations, and a local funding base, could be developed without any meaningful
support or assistance from the London school.

Beyond this, a prospective principal and small team of educators could devise a curriculum that
would be directly tailored to students and published in an open source format — potentially
seeding a network of similar programs in Canada.

To be sure, the extension of the SSE family of schools is a clear priority for the London school. It
will increase the reputation, value, competency, reach and resilience of the SSE program. More
than this, it will also provide a revenue source that will help, in part, to subsidize their operations.

Critically, the SSE does not currently afford member schools representation or status on its
board. This means that franchise schools have no legal authority concerning the conduct or
priorities of the SSE network. This governance gap appears ill-advised and should be addressed
as a condition for subsequent expansion — and participation by a prospective Ontario school.
In time it may be preferable for franchise schools that the London School share their status and
is itself licensed by an independent SSE governing body.

14
What the SSE London does do, and does well, is provide its sister schools with a high degree of
support, notably in the early stages. “SSE London is great! Before my appointment they
supported [the regional partner] through the recruitment process including job descriptions,
person specification, and interview panels. Once I was in the post, they continued to support
with recruitment of other staff. The London staff was very generous with their time, ideas,
insights and advice.” “Since our launch they have continued to be extremely supportive. I’ve
found that they are never too busy to help when asked but are happy to let me run SSE Y&H
without trying to interfere in all the detail.” In the early days, Alastair Wilson, CEO of SSE UK,
spent two months in Australia raising funds and talking to potential partners, which proved to be
“highly successful.” So much so that the SSE UK has agreed to send a member of senior staff or
the program team to Australia every year to train staff and conduct speaking tours.

Overall, we heard positive feedback from the program directors in the UK and in Australia about
the program. “The fact that students say, “Wow! I’m finally understood,” is really powerful.” “I
can’t emphasize how wonderful it has been for Australia – overwhelmingly positive.” “SSE is
unique and special and it’s a privilege to be running a school.”

We remain, however, concerned that the SSE model relies on meeting annual fund-raising
targets. Without the advantage of long-term, dedicated funding, the SSE is vulnerable to shifting
public sector priorities, and interest from private sector donors especially in periods of economic
restraint.

Ultimately the big question is this: Should Ontario learn from the School for Social Entrepreneurs
and develop an independent program or should it join the SSE network?

15
SECTION 4

What we heard from Ontarians

Practical Learning
The most attractive aspect by far was the hands-on ‘action-learning’ program designed to meet
individual needs and foster organizational growth. Applied learning is crucial. “It becomes a live,
learning experience.” “The practical component is invaluable.” “The more hands-on, the better.
It’s the best way to make learning stick as the payoff is immediate.” Participants felt that this
practical, year-long experience addressed a gap in learning that is currently unavailable or not
easily accessible in Ontario.

“If you really want to learn, you have to get your hands a little bit dirty.”

Accessibility
Participants emphasized that accessibility was crucial to the success of the program. “This is a
more accessible alternative to mainstream education.” They liked that educational qualifications
and bursaries ensured that there were no barriers to the SSE, and that it attracted students from
diverse backgrounds. The Toronto and Ottawa groups even suggested that ‘affirmative action’
criteria be put into place to ensure the school’s commitment to accessibility. “It shouldn’t be
exclusionary. It should bring together a mix of people – diversity is important.”

Accreditation
Participants did not feel that formal accreditation was necessary. They felt that academic
standards at universities are too rigid to accommodate an SSE, and that, if desired, community
colleges would be a more suitable partner. Participants also pointed to professional associations
that offer recognized certification courses, such as the Canadian Marketing Association or the
Canadian Council of Human Resources Association, as having value without formal academic
standing. “A recognized or certificate program could be very powerful. Although we have to be
careful that the notion of accreditation does not eclipse the experience, which is important for
social entrepreneurs.” “Where academic involvement can be helpful is by bringing credibility to
the field of social entrepreneurship education. Although we must also be careful that it doesn’t
become solely theory and research based.”

16
Brand and Focus
Many participants felt that the SSE did not have a specific vision. Without a clear goal, they did
not understand who the school was meant to attract, how it creates and measures social impact
and how it might attract potential funders. One informant said, “We need to know who it’s for to
be able to decide what the benefits will be.” Although they could see value at a local level, they
were curious about the wider social impact, “The field is a mile wide and an inch deep. The real
question is how will it create unique, distinctive social value?” Another informant suggested that
it include “a social engagement component that changes every year.” Participants felt that an
explicit set of social goals would provide clarity for developing a strategic plan and marketing,
fundraising and recruitment in Ontario.

Mentorship & Exchanges

Participants had positive things to say about the mentorship and exchange components of the
SSE program. Feedback from SSE students in the UK suggested that the mentors were not
always matched correctly and were subsequently less valuable. Still Ontarians believed that
properly matched, mentors could “provide expert assistance, advice or critical feedback.”
“Mentorship is extremely important. People take notice of those who have “been there, done
that.” “Peer mentoring is very powerful and can help combat isolation.” Participants in Thunder
Bay emphasized that they wanted more opportunities to see what other centres were doing, and
felt that a trip to Toronto would be a strong selling point. The participants in the Ottawa
consultation were interested in international exchanges with the students in the UK and
Australia.

Canadian Context
Participants questioned whether or not the reputation of the SSE would be recognized or
relevant in Canada. Others expressed dismay at the notion of importing a British program. “We
need to take into account the Canadian context and develop a curriculum that works in our
different communities.” Subsequently, the director of the SSE Australia reassured us that, “There
is lots of flexibility and freedom to do things in different ways. [The SSE UK] genuinely want to
make it work.” Local flavour is introduced by the mentors, facilitators, site visits, students and
scope of the projects. Now entering its second year, the SSE Australia is using local student
stories to raise funds and recruit new cohorts.

While it is likely that many of the support services provided by the London program, including
media relations, fundraising and the local learning networks would be much less valuable or
impossible to provide to a Canadian school, from Australia there is evidence that an Ontario

17
franchise could benefit from the reputation of the London school and help to assure potential
funders and partners of its value. Cultural initiatives such as Nuit Blanche have been successful
precisely because of their success in other international cities. Program directors in the UK said,
“We were able to raise money on the back of the SSE UK’s success well before we actually
started our program. The nef evaluation was invaluable in terms of demonstrating the positive
impact of the SSE.” Participants in the community consultations also supported the franchise
model, “It’s a franchise, you get a package, you can see it, you can deliver it, you can promise
it.”

Cost & Sustainability

Participants were surprised at the delivery cost per student and felt that it was unreasonably
high. Some were visibly offended, comparing the program to the cost of mainstream
professional, graduate programs. Several participants wondered why the program couldn’t be
delivered for less — possibly from within another organization, and so sharing basic
administration and other costs. Others would rather see the money used to seed social
enterprises directly. Said one young social entrepreneur, “With the $20K, you can start a social
enterprise and learn along the way, which I think would be more valuable.” In the Toronto
consultation, some participants said that they “could network for free” but they also said that
they did not come together often enough, if at all. Participants were also concerned that
fundraising in Ontario or Canada could be time-consuming and unsustainable in the long run.
“Non-profits don’t have enough money right now to put into professional development.”
“Fundraising will be problematic. It is really hard to raise funds every year. One of the difficulties
that the SSE will face is that it is not sustainable in Ontario without direct government support.”

Curriculum and Outcomes

In the nef report, the SSE emphasizes that its focus “on personal development ensures that the
individual and the organization…grow organically according to their particular challenges rather
than through a rigid “tick-box” approach to each issue.” However, in three of the five
consultations, without being prompted, panelists were confused by the term ‘school’ and felt it
was misleading. “I don’t see it as a school. I see it more as a centre and a place to network and
incubate. Or as a cooperative of enterprises.” They equated the idea of a school with a faculty,
educational resources, an infrastructure and, most of all, a core curriculum with measurable
outcomes. Many of the participants stressed that these are crucial to the continued success of
the program and the sector. “A school connotes a more limited set of activities, while the SSE
appears to serve a broader purpose.” Some suggested replacing the word ‘school’ with
accelerator, hub, centre or some other designation.

18
Program outline
The people we spoke to felt that some kind of program outline would help prospective students
to grasp what they might expect to learn. “I totally agree that a school should establish, “These
are the things you are going to learn, this is how you’re going to learn them and this is how you
are going to apply it.” For social entrepreneurs, tangibles included access to funding, specific
technical skills, or access to ‘well-known’ experts or mentors from private and public sectors.
“What is the learning that’s coming out of it? What are they teaching? That’s what I want to
know.” Others disagreed: “I think it’s limited to say that if you want to become a social
entrepreneur you need to learn business skills, marketing skills and managerial skills. I think
that’s defeating the whole point of social entrepreneurship in and of itself. Social
entrepreneurship is supposed to be a non-traditional approach to solving problems. You need to
base it on something, but if it’s too specific you may as well go to business school.” “The SSE
delivers a core set of competencies around social entrepreneurship. There are not a lot of
institutions that provide this kind of training.”

Metrics & Development

Learning goals and metrics were seen as an important driver in curriculum development, not just
for an SSE but also to develop best-practices for educating social entrepreneurs in general.
“[Measurements are] the only way you can establish yourself. Otherwise there is no evidence of
what you are accomplishing.” “A school should measure results and impact and provide
compelling evidence to generate awareness and future enrolment.” Tracking the social return on
investment would support the business case for potential funders and partners, as well as
attracting potential students.

Accessibility and indicators of future success

Some participants were concerned that the SSE selected only students who were already
working on a project. They wondered if the school should also reach those who have the
mindset to be entrepreneurial or want to address a social need but don’t know where to start.
“Sometimes, getting started is the most difficult step.” Others said that sometimes social
entrepreneurs need to know when ideas are not viable. Not to discourage them but to focus
their energies in a more productive and ultimately successful direction. Other participants
disagreed and said that prospective students should have a project ready to avoid people
“learning for the sake of learning.” One informant suggested that a short ‘pre-program’ on
project development could help potential students to establish their ideas and identify
individuals who might benefit from the year-long program. “I don’t think that an established idea
should be a necessity. Maybe that could be your goal or part of the program to work towards for

19
the end of the year.” In its third year facing financial constraints, the SSE East Midlands was
forced to condense the core program to 14 weeks. While this was not in keeping with the SSE’s
best practices, it did help to identify a group of students interested in a shorter program.
Subsequently, the school has offered site visits and a mentorship program to individuals outside
of the core program, which has helped to spur market awareness and enrolment.

Involving High School Students

In four of the five community consultations participants felt that a program like the SSE might
attract high school students and help establish the third sector as a viable career option. Several
participants also suggested that the 40 hours of volunteer service or Junior Achievement could
be incorporated into SSE Ontario programming. Involving younger students could build market
awareness as they would talk to friends and family about the program. It would also plant seeds
for long-term student recruitment. Based in Vancouver, 4Real.com is a production company and
online community for young change makers. Recently they launched 4Real School, a set of
teaching guides based on their successful television series that engages students in grades 6-12
on issues such as poverty, human rights, and the environment. “If you are part of the high school
curriculum, you can access an entire generation.” “Teenagers are often entrepreneurial. They are
at a point in their lives where they think anything is possible.”

Generational Mindset
Many participants agreed that the SSE program spoke to an important set of emerging social
values. “This school is consistent with what I’m seeing. There’s a new generation that is not just
interested in money, they also want to affect social change.” Another participant suggested that
“an SSE can capitalize on the social commitment of young people to make a change. We can
capture the imagination of the next generation. The possibilities are immense.”

Social Cohesion
Several participants indicated that minority or disadvantaged populations such as immigrant
newcomers, First Nations, at-risk youth and remote settlements would be among those who
would benefit greatly from an Ontario SSE. “If there’s a market for this school, it would be in our
isolated communities.” Another said “An SSE would be perfect for newcomers. They’re often
involved in the creation of community groups or ethno-specific agencies that fill a need and help
their community.” In Thunder Bay a participant said that “An SSE could create jobs and provide
a really meaningful experience for young people disconnected from their communities. The other
group that’s really been neglected is the Aboriginal population. We have almost 90 reserves in
the Three Treaty area. To me, that’s where the future growth is.” Other participants focussed on

20
the advantage to newcomers, many of whom start their own business. An SSE might help to
shift the focus from purely entrepreneurial activity, to businesses that are more deeply engaged
in making a social contribution to their communities. An SSE geared to these populations might
also serve important ends concerning social equity and could help its students to overcome
substantial barriers to accessing traditional job-markets, education, training or funding.

A centre for social entrepreneurship

Participants acknowledged that the sector needed more opportunities for learning. “Demand for
education versus training might be a bit different but there is definitely a need for education for
social entrepreneurs. They often need business or technical skills.” In spite of existing resources
and opportunities, social entrepreneurs in the community consultations said that they had
trouble finding information that applied to them. Although some said they had tapped into
existing educational or development opportunities, the information was not tailored to meet their
specific goals - for example maintaining a double or triple bottom line. One individual at the
Ottawa consultation said that his business plan would, “fail any true business course as no for-
profit business would ever employ at-risk youth.” This sentiment was echoed in Toronto, “I don’t
need the same skills as a non-profit: I want to make money.” Others stated that they simply did
not always know where to turn to for advice or information. There is no ‘one-stop shop’ for
social entrepreneurs. “Right now, everyone is doing a bit of everything. We need someone to
help get this field together.” “We need more collaboration between social organizations. Right
now, everyone’s in their own corners.” Participants also stressed the importance of sharing
information and having, “…more conversations around our work and best practices.” One
informant in Toronto said that it would be useful to hear what other organizations were doing.
They might not be suited to teach financial literacy, for example, but could then direct people to
those who are, and are doing it well. Just as social entrepreneurs benefit from face-to-face
meetings, so might those driving the sector. “It would be wonderful to have a thriving SE
network in the city.”

As well as talking to each other more frequently, leaders of social entrepreneurship and social
innovation were keen to reach out to other sectors and, “integrate visionary companies or
organizations”. “We can’t overlook the business community – we should bring them in!” “By
teaming up with businesses and NFPs, we can learn to speak to new markets.” “All sectors
need to start thinking about their social commitment and strategy “them and us” is over!”
“Partnerships could allow easy access to the business community, which when combined,
would provide a rich resource of management and small business knowledge as well as
volunteer and social sector expertise.”

21
Online component
Online learning was widely debated. Although most participants liked the idea of creating an
online repository of resources, they didn’t want this to be the sole focus of an SSE Ontario. “I
wouldn’t recommend a long distance learning program as many SEs are already quite isolated.
Long distance learning doesn’t feel true to the spirit of the SSE.” A website would simply be a
place to aggregate content useful to social entrepreneurs, particularly as it, “…would create
flexibility and reach social entrepreneurs in remote parts of Ontario. No one should feel isolated.”
At the Thunder Bay consultation, we learned that Northern communities were no strangers to
using webinars and webcasts because of the vast distances. In fact, webinars came up more
than just once. Participants wondered if places like SiG could contribute video content from
“Entrepreneurship 101” which could be watched to learn from or discuss in groups. “Online
learning could be useful as it would allow SEs to learn according to their own schedule. But I
very much like the idea of people getting together and it not being totally online. A ‘capstone’
residential program might be a good way to combine the two.”

We also heard the words “open source” time and time again. Free information was seen as a
way to make formalized learning more accessible, and self-directed learning possible.
Furthermore, it would create a greater awareness. “Some things should be free. Open source
information will capture the sector for other people to see. Videos, worksheets, webinars and
webcasts will help to get the word out.”

22
Participant SWOT Analysis
Internal Strengths
• Successful hands-on learning
program
• Creates jobs & volunteer
opportunities
• Accelerates social initiatives
• Accessible and tailored to SEs
• Creates confident and credible
individuals
• Supports its franchisees with
program templates / best practices
• International brand & solid reputation
External Opportunities
• No other hands-on, year-long
learning program for SE
• Become THE place for resources
related to SE
• Under served communities ie.
Immigrant / newcomers, Gen Y, etc.
• Cross-promotion to other sectors
• Curriculum development
• Mentorship matching program
• Incorporate high school students
Weaknesses
• Broad program, no specific audience or
focus for recruitment or fundraising.
• Difficult to measure outcomes and impact
(ROI)
• Physical locations limits customer base
• Mentorship program rates low
• Fellowship program could be more robust
• International franchises receive less support
from head office
Threats
• Business development courses, community
college programs or NFP courses.
• Recession might impact fundraising
• Lack of market awareness could affect
recruitment or fundraising particularly in
remote/rural areas.
• Low population density will impact demand
• Competition for funding dollars ie.)
incubators and business development orgs.
• Distance might affect support for
international franchisees
• Government not yet supportive of SE/SI
23
SECTION 5

Existing resources and demand

Social entrepreneurship is unique because it touches the private, public and voluntary, not-for-
profit sectors. It incorporates business development, public policy and volunteer management.
Across Ontario participants identified organizations that offer services that social entrepreneurs
could access, or are already accessing, to help them get ahead. Many of them cater to
entrepreneurship or business development and much of this knowledge can be applied to social
entrepreneurship.

Most formal --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Least formal

Degree programs Incubators Courses / Workshops General support / networking

University programs
International business schools reported that the number of students interested in their SE
programs has increased exponentially in the past 5 years. Across Canada, business schools are
introducing courses or programs that focus on social innovation or entrepreneurship. In August
2009, The University of Guelph announced a $400,000 grant from the Cooperator’s Group to
launch a new Centre for Business and Social Entrepreneurship. The Schlegel Centre for
Entrepreneurship at Waterloo specialises in MBAs and BBAs in innovation and entrepreneurship.
Their Entrepreneurship Accelerator Program helps students to launch an enterprise while
earning course credit. SiG@Waterloo is in the process of developing an M.A. in Social
Innovation. SFU’s Centre for Dialogue offers an undergraduate program that promotes social
entrepreneurship for high-achieving students. Degree programs are usually 2-3 years long,
require formal education and are largely theoretical.

Business and Leadership Development

Business and leadership development programs or courses are available, often at a low-cost, to
promote traditional profit-based businesses or develop leaders to encourage growth in urban
centres. The Canadian Community Leadership Network, which includes branches in each of our
consultation cities, provides training to increase the number of individuals in leadership roles.
The Toronto Business Development Centre, Small Business Centres and Chambers of
Commerce offer courses, online resources, and e-learning. Participants, specifically social
entrepreneurs, had used some of these resources but felt that they focused heavily on traditional

24
profit-based models. “Some think that you can merely apply a business model to social
enterprises. It’s more complex than that.” One-off courses do not provide follow up, support or
continuity, which the SSE does and does well.

Incubators & Support for Social Ventures

A growing number of incubators across Canada accelerate the successful development of
companies or organizations through common services and community networks. The Centre for
Social Innovation in Toronto, CISED in Ottawa, and the CCID in Waterloo focus specifically on
helping groups with a social mission, compared to traditional business incubators. A range of
associations or groups such as Ashoka Canada, Tides Canada or the Young Social
Entrepreneurs of Canada, support social entrepreneurs and enterprise by providing access to
workshops, networking or funding. Teaching labs at the Institute of Entrepreneurship and
Community Innovation at George Brown College and Rotman Nexus at the University of Toronto
offer social enterprises and not-for-profit organizations free or affordable consulting services
while providing a hands-on learning experience for graduate students. Funding bodies such as
the Toronto Enterprise Fund, Enterprising Nonprofits, the Canadian Youth Business Fund, and
the Ottawa Community Loan Fund, also provide financial support and/or consulting services.
Some of the organizations are more holistic in their approach and clearly provide a great deal of
support for social entrepreneurs, but they do not specifically target people in marginalized
communities.

Demand across Ontario

One exercise during the community consultation asked participants to assess the potential for a
School of Social Entrepreneurship in their region. The criteria included:

1) Need: the perceived need to fill gaps in educational opportunities for social
entrepreneurs and the need to address social issues.
2) Access: the perceived ease in which social entrepreneurs could access existing
educational opportunities and networks.
3) Awareness: the perceived level of public awareness of, interest in and support for social
entrepreneurship education.
4) Demand: the perceived demand for social entrepreneurship based on need,
accessibility, awareness, and demography.

25
The demand and need for social entrepreneurship education varied depending on the size and
location of the city where the consultations were held. This was largely due to demography and
geography, as well as the ability to access existing educational opportunities and networks.
Awareness also affected demand: enrolment is contingent on potential students identifying
themselves and the public’s willingness to support and integrate the school and its students in
their community. Each criterion was rated on a scale of high, medium and low.

City Demand Need Awareness Access*

Waterloo Medium Low High High
Ottawa Medium Medium Medium Medium
Thunder Bay Low High Low Low
Toronto High High High Low
*to existing resources

As Canada’s largest city, Toronto’s large, diverse population provides an obvious home for
emerging social entrepreneurs. MaRS has developed several educational resources to meet the
growing needs of entrepreneurs and, increasingly, social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship 101, a
series of lectures and workshops, was amended in 2009/2010 to include content specifically for
social entrepreneurs and has engaged speakers such as international thought leader, Jed
Emerson. Similarly, the Entrepreneurs Toolkit now includes a selection of articles and resources
for social entrepreneurs. As a cohort, connected to institutions like SiG@MaRS, the Centre for
Social Innovation and organizations like ManifesTO and the Toronto City Summit Alliance,
Toronto’s young social entrepreneurs are already better equipped, educated and connected to
create successful organizations. Established or older social entrepreneurs reported that it was
hard to know where to start looking for information -- the choice in Toronto is overwhelming and
they did not have a strong network of social entrepreneurs to tap into. Finally, care should be
taken that a school launched in Toronto, unless it is positioned carefully, may encounter a bias
as yet another “Toronto-centric” initiative.

Waterloo region has a robust network that supports entrepreneurship and innovation. These
organizations include Leadership Waterloo’s Core Community Leadership Development
Program and Social Innovation Generation, among others. Waterloo Region is currently
conducting a feasibility study for a Centre for Community Innovation and Design – a network of
centres or ‘multi-tenant spaces” that offer services and programs to facilitate collaboration
across sectors. CCIDs would act as brokers of existing resources and expertise to incubate
social, environmental and/or arts enterprises.

26
Ottawa has a relatively robust network that includes courses and resources, although these did
not always address the needs of social entrepreneurs. A new initiative, the Collaborative for
Innovative Social Enterprise Development (CISED), aims to address this issue by identifying and
integrating services for new and established social enterprises in Eastern Ontario. It supports
opportunities that improve access to jobs for traditionally hard-to-employ or disadvantaged
individuals. CISED, funded by OTF, has partnered with a number of agencies and institutions
including Causeway Work Centre, 3Ci (Carleton Centre for Community Innovation), Ottawa
Community Loan Fund, and Algonquin College, among others.

Thunder Bay has a smaller more dispersed population. In an effort to rejuvenate its economy,
the city is working to attract alternative industries, and enhance its offerings in education and
tourism. Participants cautioned that it might be difficult to attract enough students to sustain an
SSE due to demography as well as a lack of awareness about social entrepreneurship. If a
school were to launch, it would need a substantial marketing and recruitment campaign to help
potential students self-identify as social entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, participants also said that
Thunder Bay needs social entrepreneurs. The decline in traditional economies has meant
increased social pressures, less infrastructure and more people seeking alternative ways to earn
a living. Potential community partners should be chosen with care as they would set certain
expectations that might affect recruitment. If the SSE were to open a location in Thunder Bay,
participants suggested starting with a small pilot project with several community partners,
perhaps with rotating meeting spaces. They said they would also love to see if Thunder Bay
could become a destination for social entrepreneurs from across the province who might not
have a specific project in mind. Instead, they would get a hands-on experience working in some
of the remote and rural communities that face rising social needs.

Observations
1. Participants in each city identified a network of organizations that are already providing
select resources to social entrepreneurs.
2. Participants stressed the importance of creating a program that was well tailored to their
local needs. Many balked at the idea of a ‘franchise’, preferring a program that was
‘homegrown’.
3. For different reasons, enthusiasm for an SSE or SSE-like program was highest in Toronto
and Thunder Bay. In Toronto, participants felt that an SSE would be a natural addition to an
active and established community of social entrepreneurs. In Thunder Bay, participants
hoped that an SSE program would stimulate interest in social enterprise, provide a new
educational pathway and lead to new forms of employment.

27
4. Both Ottawa and Waterloo were cooler to the proposal and instead preferred that attention
be given to local initiatives and networks. Arguably this is because both cities are in an
adolescent stage with regards to social entrepreneurship. Neither have the critical mass of
Toronto, but nor are they starting out or looking for a catalyst like Thunder Bay.

What our participants want:

We asked each of our participants to describe what they wanted most from a program
dedicated to developing the professional capacity of social entrepreneurs.

Established social entrepreneurs:

• Want access to experts in different sectors, particularly in business.
• Want access to specific tools or information.
• Want mentorship and to be part of a network.
• Want supplementary advice from other sectors and from other SEs.
• Want help with scaling and sustainability.
• Want advocacy for the sector.

Emerging social entrepreneurs:

• Want access to funding.
• Want a range of business and technical skills relevant to social ventures.
• Want to be matched with a mentor.
• Want to belong to a network.
• Want open access to resources and information.
• Want hands-on learning not classroom learning.

Associations / organizations that support social entrepreneurship:

• Want to connect more often.
• Want to share knowledge and leverage resources.
• Want to see the sector unified and formalized.
• Want more intersector & cross-sector collaboration.

28
SECTION 6

Business Models

The SSE relies principally on charitable donations, grants and franchise fees to meet its
operating needs. Although this model has been successful and has helped to fuel the expansion
of the SSE program, a significant number of participants were concerned about its long-term
viability, particularly in Canada. Participants suggested three different economic models, each
with slightly modified social goals.

A social enterprise model uses a traditional business model to sustain a social mission. St.
Stephen’s Community House has successfully used this model for years. They offer free or
subsidized community services supported by the revenue from professional development
workshops in communication and conflict management. St. Stephen’s has carved a niche as
conflict management specialists, which drives the continued success of the workshops. Another
example is Family Service Toronto’s Employee Assistance Program, which accounts for 24% of
annual revenue. Other organizations that incorporate a traditional business model are the Girl
Guides of Canada, whose cookies sales account for 16% of their revenue. “PARO Presents” in
Thunder Bay incorporates a member-run storefront, a dry cleaners and a consignment clothing
shop. For the most part the revenue covers the overhead of the store, which plays an important
role for PARO. It provides a place for members to sell their wares, learn retail and marketing
skills, and brings PARO into the community. One key informant suggested that an SSE ON could
offer workshops to help businesses become socially responsible. This model would support
operational costs while creating a space to bring social entrepreneurs and the private sector
together.

CASE STUDY: PARO Centre for Women’s Enterprises

The PARO Centre for Women’s Enterprises incorporates microlending, peer support,
educational opportunities, a storefront, and acts as an incubator. This model stood out in terms
of its programming and its financial model. It has also succeeded in launching sustainable
female-led enterprises in Northern Ontario, which has raised the profile of the organization. From
1995 to 2008, PARO programs provided training to 1285 women, organized networking and joint
marketing opportunities for 3847 women, and facilitated peer-to-peer loans from $500 to $5000,
totaling $244,500.

29
They offer a diverse portfolio of women-centred programs and resources including:
• Business plan development and business counselling
• Small business loans through peer lending funds
• Professional development workshops and training
• Assistance with grant/loan/funding applications
• Links to employment and training resources
• Networking events
• Retail outlet marketing and training programs
• Incubator facilities offering affordable and shared office space
• Resource Centre with access to computers and the internet
• Mentoring and confidential advisory services

PARO on Wheels is a traveling van that offers a visible, mobile information and training service
for women living in outlying regional communities. PARO Presents is a storefront that
showcases members’ products and provides retail and marketing experience. Peer Circles are
groups of 4-7 self-selected women who learn together and establish small funds to apply for
PARO community loans. PARO showcases its members and their successes at its annual
Women of Distinction Celebration Awards, Trade Show and Annual General Meeting. Successful
women entrepreneurs continue to support each other beyond PARO: one member who opened
a spa serves tea from a fellow member’s shop. The member who owns the tea shop provides a
discount on spa services to loyal customers. In 2007, PARO worked with Carleton’s Centre for
Community Innovation to track its impact by calculating its economic and social value using the
Expanded Value Added Statement (EVAS) model. Like the SSE, PARO provides its members
with accessible, continuous, practical support but it also incorporates microfinancing, a retail
outlet and shared office space.

A membership model is based on individuals paying a fee to cover the cost of services and
administration. Girl Guides of Canada pay a yearly membership fee of $125.00, which accounts
for 65% of the organization’s revenue. Donor support accounts for 19%. They also pay weekly
“dues” to support the cost of running their unit and will fundraise as a group for special events
or camps. Perhaps the best example of a membership structure is that of Alcoholics
Anonymous. The organization is entirely supported by its members and volunteers. Members
pay according to their ability to support the group’s basic expenses (rent, refreshments,
literature) and set aside an emergency reserve. Once this has been accomplished, they are
encouraged to send money to their area committee or the General Service Office. Another well-
known company that follows a membership model is the Canadian Automobile Association
(CAA). PARO also incorporates a small membership fee ($25.00) and encourages its ‘peer
circles’ to set aside additional funds for microlending.

30
A social network model is similar to the membership model but is less structured. A
personality, publication or cause attracts groups of likeminded people who increase their
knowledge through conversation. Historically, this model has roots in the salon (rather than a
society or club). A modern example is Company of Friends, the “very first business social
network.” Founded in 1997 by Fast Company magazine, Company of Friends unites passionate
readers and forward-thinking business leaders and innovators. Similarly, book clubs are now a
recognizable cultural phenomenon. Personalities such as Oprah in the US or “Richard & Judy” in
the UK, are largely responsible for popularizing the movement. Young Social Entrepreneurs of
Canada fall into this category as they have yet to establish a clear financial model. The cost of
their ‘meet ups’ and workshops are free or affordable ($6 - $20). In all cases, participants are
encouraged to connect, communicate, and collaborate with each other, both online and face-to-
face, in communities around the world. Members do not pay fees other than the cost of
materials or social events; however, front end costs must be taken into account. There is a cost
in creating interesting, relevant content.

The college model offers a way to support independent programs or institutes within
community colleges, universities or other post-secondary institutions. These programs usually
focus on a specific area of study – innovation, design, entrepreneurship – that are taught using
alternative educational methods particularly through hands-on learning in a ‘lab’ environment.
The best local example of this model is The Institute without Boundaries (IwB), housed in the
design school at George Brown College. This post-graduate certification program aims to drive
global change through an interdisciplinary program that teaches research, design, innovation
and project management. IwB accepts 10-20 candidates each year and has its own separate
application process. Although George Brown College provides administration and infrastructure,
the IwB maintains a fair degree of autonomy and has earned a reputation independent of the
college. Similarly, George Brown recently announced The Institute of Entrepreneurship and
Community Innovation, a “living lab” that will be part of the school’s Centre for Business. Tuition
for the year-long program (40 hours+ per week) is $12,000 for Canadian students.

There is no one best model. Different models speak to different goals.

Recommendation: conduct a thorough financial feasibility study once program goals have
been established.

The social enterprise model is a compelling option because it helps to sustain the organization
financially and in terms of its social mandate. Several key participants confirmed that this model
sets a ‘living example’ of social entrepreneurship and generates market awareness as well as

31
revenue. It provides students with an opportunity to practice technical skills before applying
them to their own project and can integrate the private sector. However, the services or
products must be commercially viable. Panelists in Thunder Bay said that offering courses
geared towards businesses or NFPs, for example, would not be sustainable as their traditional
economy is in decline. PARO Presents works because it satisfies a demand. Success is
contingent on identifying a niche market.

The membership model creates a strong sense of community and upholds a central
administrative structure that oversees the mission and growth of the organization. The costs are
not restrictive but are enough to keep participants engaged. Team fundraising builds cohesion
but could also take time away from individual projects. This model relies quite heavily on
volunteers and a critical mass of members, as fees are not always enough to pay for widespread
human resources or infrastructure.

If creating networking opportunities were the sole aim of an SSE ON, then the social network
model would be sufficient. Costs would be limited to creating, aggregating and managing
content relevant to social entrepreneurs. This model is affordable, accessible and requires little
overhead. Participants can be as involved as much or as little as they choose. This model,
however, does not finance much beyond the immediate groups, has no quality control or best
practices

To establish an SSE Ontario based on the UK model, the social enterprise and membership
models are most compelling. Although it will still be necessary to attract donors, incorporating
alternative sources of income will show the school’s willingness to achieve long-term
sustainability. As with AA, many of the program ‘graduates’ will continue to support the
organization both financially and as volunteers. As the school builds its brand and aggregates
resources, a “friends” program could be deployed to bring self-funded peer groups together.

If social cohesion is a goal, potential partners might be:

OCASI

K/W Multicultural Centre

Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization

Thunder Bay Multicultural Association

Waterloo Region Immigrant Employment Network

Toronto Community Housing

32
Ottawa Community Loan Fund

Toronto Enterprise Fund

PARO Centre for Women Enterprise (Thunder Bay)

Lakehead Social Planning Council

Potential funding might come from:

Toronto Community Housing (Social Investment Fund)

Ontario Trillium Foundation

United Way / Youth Challenge Fund

Indian & Northern Affairs Canada: Aboriginal Business Canada

FedNor: Community Futures Program (Northern / Remote / Rural)*

Community Adjustment Fund (Northern / Remote / Rural)

Canadian Youth Business Foundation (Newcomer / Start Up)* (maybe)

Employment Ontario

Maytree Foundation

Private Sector (ie. RBC, Scotiabank, Manulife Financial, Ernst & Young)

If leadership and advocacy is a goal, potential partners might be:

Ashoka Canada

George Brown College

Centre for Social Innovation & Enterprising Non-Profits

Toronto Community Housing

CISED (Collaborative for Innovative Social Enterprise Development)

Creativision (Ottawa)

Toronto Enterprise Fund

Social Innovation Generation / MaRS Discovery District

Leadership Waterloo / Ottawa / Thunder Bay

Opportunities Waterloo Region

Sprott Centre
Lakehead Social Planning Council

33
SECTION 7

Conclusions and recommendations

“This is an important project that needs to take place in some form here in Canada.”

Although the support for the creation of an SSE franchise in Ontario was not unanimous, it was
strong. The majority of participants agreed that the province would benefit from a program
focused on social impact and providing an alternative pathway to the acquisition of
entrepreneurial skills.

Participants recognized the merits of the SSE program and liked its ethos. They agreed that the
street-smart, hands-on, practical education the SSE offers fills an important niche — one that
can’t be easily reached by either a college or university program.

Participants wanted to know more about the social impact and focus of the SSE, and many
wondered if its public mission couldn’t be amplified or focused on a major public issue like
sustainable development or social cohesion.

They were wary of the franchise model. The advantages of participating in a network of related
schools did not necessarily impress or outweigh what many participants felt were the risks of
joining an institution that was still in the early stages of its own internationalization. Some doubts
were raised about its governance and the role franchise schools were currently afforded. Many
of these concerns were countered by the unanimous and resounding support for the SSE from
the program directors. It was encouraging to hear that the model had succeeded in Australia
and that the SSE UK had been invaluable in establishing the school. We were equally pleased to
hear that the SSE UK was open to finding ways to adapt the core program to different contexts
and cultures.

Lastly, participants voiced heavy concern regarding the program’s cost. Regardless of whether
the individual students were asked to pay none, some or all of their tuition, the idea that the
program had a unit cost of some $20,000 per student for what effectively is 30-40 ‘classroom’ or
‘learning’ days left many people scratching their heads. One UK program director said, “…the
high unit cost is a problem for some potential sponsors” and are consequently looking to
separate core costs and program costs to attract a new pool of donors. Participants also

34
expressed concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of affiliate schools. They wondered
why it wasn’t possible for the SSE to invest in the development of a satellite school, especially if
international expansion also serves their long-term strategic interests.

In part we were surprised with the response to the SSE, which we assumed would be more
enthusiastic. The general sentiment was that a program dedicated to developing social
entrepreneurs should exist. But our participants weren’t certain that the SSE was the right
program for Ontario. We believe timing plays a factor. With the global economy drying up and
public finances under extreme pressure, it is not surprising that participants are genuinely
worried about launching and sustaining a new initiative. Since the founding of the SSE a decade
ago, social entrepreneurship and social innovation has matured and gained momentum and in
this way, the novelty of the School’s central proposition has diminished. It’s likely a sign of
health and civic confidence that the first reaction of many participants was to say “We can do
that — and maybe do it even better.”

This isn’t to diminish the distinctiveness or value of the SSE. They are a vanguard organization
that has a real influence on the social sectors in the UK. But the idea of building on the example
of the SSE, rather then franchising the school, is also highly consistent with the spirit of social
enterprise. Perhaps perversely it’s exactly the sort of instinct we would hope that a successful
school would help to foster.

Ultimately, our recommendation must reflect what we heard during our consultation process.
The impulse for this study was right. Ontarians involved in the social sector want to see this
niche filled and regard the development of a school dedicated to social entrepreneurship as an
essential piece of infrastructure that would create considerable benefits, both for the sector and
the province.

We recommend that SiG@MaRS and its partners:

• Determine if additional or complementary business models could be run in conjunction with

the core program to cater to the needs of different communities, and attract a greater pool of
students and funders.

• That SiG@MaRS provide an ongoing secretariat function working closely with the SSE UK to
field Canadian inquiries, identify suitable partners and a capable and enthusiastic director.

35
• Engage an accounting firm to conduct a full financial feasibility study that can assess the long-
term fiscal sustainability of both the School for Social Entrepreneurs and other alternatives.

• Extend the mandate of the Advisory Committee to oversee the financial feasibility study,
assess potential partners and steer the development of an Ontario based program.

• Begin with a pilot project. Conduct a thorough review and assessment before opening
subsequent locations in Ontario.

We ask that SiG@MaRS and its partners:

• Consider how the intellectual and networking needs of social entrepreneurs across the
province could be better fulfilled.

• Focus on the social mission of any school and make sure that advancing social justice and
equity are core values.

• Remember punk. The school needs an edge and shouldn’t be too polite.

• Refine the financial model and find a way to do it for less. $20,000 per student is a redline in
the minds of many and distracts from the objectives of the school.

• Be less proprietary. The curriculum should be open source. Videos from expert witnesses
should be posted online and made freely available. An Ontario school should understand itself
as both an institution and a movement.

36
SECTION 8

Selected Quotes: What we heard during the interviews

“The benefit should go way beyond the benefits of individual participation. It should have a
catalytic role beyond just a school.”

“This is a good idea, it’s needed.”

“A school connotes a more limited set of activities. It can actually serve a broader purpose.”

”There are summits, workshops and conferences. The problem is that nothing is sustained in
between.”

“What is missing is a place that enables people to continue to work. They should be presented
with opportunities and avenues as well as with some theoretical work.”

“A lot of young people are frustrated with private and public sector jobs. There is a lack of
opportunities to address a social purpose or mission.”

“Social entrepreneurship is almost built to incorporate new web and communication

technologies.”

“Credibility is determined less by links to existing institutions. It is determined by the individuals

who associate themselves with the organization.”

“The field is a mile wide and an inch deep. It’s not just a place to play. There needs to be a
distinctive value and a clear goal.”

“Social impact matters. We need real business skills applied to social challenges.”

“Excellence or die.”

“It should be around outcomes and inputs.”

“It shouldn’t be exclusionary. It should bring together a mix of people - diversity is important.”

“We need to know who it’s for and what the benefits will be.”

“Most of our tenants are already working in the service industry or are running a business from
their home.”

“What about a social engagement component that changes every year?”

“Fundraising will be problematic. It is really hard to raise funds every year.”

“One of the difficulties that the SSE will face is that it is not sustainable.”

“Few NFPs or foundations have budget for professional development. Our philanthropic
community might not be there yet.”

37
“Right now, everyone is doing a bit of everything. We need someone to help get this field
together.”

“We need to find an entrepreneur to drive it and then figure out who they want to collaborate
with. This person will need to bring people together.”

“There is a need for this kind of education.”

“Perhaps accreditation means more in Canada? What about a 2-4 week intensive program, 3 or
4 times a year? This model might hold more traction.”

“In order to assess the demand in Ontario, we need to understand what the SSE is. Maybe it’s
enough to attract a small, committed group and aim for quality not quantity?”

“Broadly, there is a real need to understand social entrepreneurs and what they want.”

“An online component would create flexibility and reach social entrepreneurs in remote parts of
Ontario. No one should feel isolated.”

“We’re ready!”

“Social entrepreneurship education is a powerful option. An SSE could capitalize on the clear
social commitment of young people to make a change and provide a powerful option to do good
and help the economy.”

”The possibilities are immense.”

“An innovative program should be linked to an innovative place with long term viability.”

“Wonderful ideas don’t get developed because of financial difficulty.”

“A personal commitment will ensure that students have a stake in the program and take it
seriously.”

“This model makes sense. Currently, it’s not a model that we’re familiar with – it’s not part of our
culture. So we MUST make sure to contextualize and market it carefully to make sure we are
reaching the right people.”

“The school should have a long term vision.”

“We need more collaboration between social organizations. Right now, everyone’s in their own
corners.”

“Networking is important but it needs to be more than a Facebook group.”

“We need to network in a real way, collaborating on projects for example.”

“No one is really talking about this in Canada like they are in the US at the White House.”

“It should attract partners from all over, even if it’s based in Toronto.”

“An SSE would be perfect for newcomers. They’re often involved in the creation of community
groups or ethno-specific agencies that fill a need and help their community.”

38
“We should be riding the wave. The ability to make money and do social good – more people
want to harness this feeling right now.”

“People are looking for a sense of direction and want another circle of choice.”

“We need to make it institutional across the province. The model needs to take on any condition
and make it work.”

“What about some specific courses or offering a fast-track program for SEs who already have
certain technical skills?”

“Some things should be free. Open source information will capture the sector for other people to
see. Videos, worksheets, webinars and webcasts will help to get the word out.”

“The school should move the movement forward.”

“We need to move away from a silo mentality.”

“You have to decide what the mission and strategy is for the program in Ontario.”

“Even if some of our students don’t end up launching a social enterprise, we want them to be
inspired by the program and find a way to give back or think differently about the sector.”

“There is a sea change in the student body. They expect to be taught how to DO it.”

“It’s uncommon that business schools think about policy or socio-economic factors.”

“If you really want to learn, you have to get your hands a little bit dirty.”

“What allows social entrepreneurship education to happen has never really been captured for a
classroom experience. We’re only just starting to look at the characteristics of a social
entrepreneur.”

“Where academic involvement can be helpful is by bringing credibility to the field of social
entrepreneurship education. Although we must also be careful that it doesn’t become solely
theory and research based.”

“Right now, people will agree that social entrepreneurship education is a good idea, but we need
some research to help substantiate that claim and develop learning strategies. Universities could
help to build a case for support.”

“Sometimes people in the business world think that you can merely apply a business model to
social enterprises. It’s more complex than that.”

“A recognized or certificate program could be very powerful. Although we have to be careful that
the notion of accreditation does not eclipse the experience, which is important for SEs.”

“Peer mentoring is very powerful and can help combat isolation.”

“I wouldn’t recommend a long distance learning program as many SEs are already quite
isolated. Long distance learning doesn’t feel true to the spirit of the SSE.”

39
”Social entrepreneurs can’t always spend time in the classroom. It’s critical that they learn skills
that they can apply directly, the next day.”

“There is a gap that exists. Schools that currently offer this kind of program only scratch the
surface or don’t cater specifically to social entrepreneurs.”

“Demand for education versus training might be a bit different but there is definitely a need for
education for social entrepreneurs. They often need business or technical skills.”

“We have seen a decrease in charitable giving. Social entrepreneurs understand the need to
raise their own money.”

“The SSE excels in this line of education.”

“Hands-on learning and peer mentoring are essential. Practical learning should have a greater
emphasis than a theoretical approach.”

“We have to consider our target audience – they tend to be very busy people. An SSE ON would
need to find a way to reach out them, to market to this audience.”

“A web based component would help people across Ontario to tap into a network and share
with them along the way. Even if they are working remotely.”

“In a nutshell, I feel very strongly that the SSE is a good model to bring to Ontario.”

“The field of SE is growing in sophistication. Leadership in the sector is on the rise.”

“Keep in mind future trends, where things are headed, then introduce new concepts and see
how they work and can be made sustainable.”

“All sectors need to start thinking about their social commitment and strategy “them and us” is
over!”

”There is such potential in the idea of an SSE. But we must get it right. The world is changing
rapidly and we don’t have time to waste “starting to get it right”. We can’t just do the same old,
same old.”

“It’s important to think about what might need to be reconceptualized for our context. It will help
it to be relevant.”

”Demand is definitely increasing. There is a social change in all fields.”

”A school should enhance the condition for social change to happen.”

“This is an important project that needs to take place in some form here in Canada.”

“Partnerships could allow easy access to the business community, which when combined,
would provide a rich resource of management and small business knowledge as well as
volunteer and social sector expertise.”

“If a hub or provincial centre is established, I’m sure it would be of interest to local economic
development practitioners (especially in Northern Ontario).”

40
“The UK model is good, but I don’t think it’s wise (or necessary) to set up a brand new
independent network.”

“It’s ivory towers versus grassroots. An SSE Ontario needs to break boundaries and live out in
the real world.”

“The new generation is not just interested in money, they also want to affect social change.”

“NFPs don’t have enough money right now to put into professional development.”

“Leadership might be a problem. There will likely be a vacuum in 5-10 years as leaders start to
retire.”

“We should identify generic competencies to be a social entrepreneur.”

“Mentorship is extremely important. People take notice of those who have been there, done
that.”

“The SSE delivers a core set of competencies around social entrepreneurship. There are not a
lot of institutions that provide this kind of training.”

“People enrolling in this program should be committed to a social cause. We should be looking
for passionate people who want to address a specific social issue.”

“Learning should be competency based and should be driven by an understanding of what skills
are needed to be an entrepreneur. Generic competencies might be communication, financial
acumen, project management, advocacy, and analytical skills. Communications skills could be
broken out into modules such as presentation skills, reading/writing module, grant writing and
then tied to practical applications.”

“We could train people and deploy them across the province to deliver a ‘standard’ SSE Ontario
curriculum or program. Or, use existing institutions to disseminate the information or run the
program.”

“Online learning could be useful as it would allow SEs to learn according to their own schedule.
But I very much like the idea of people getting together and it not being totally online. A
‘capstone’ residential program might be a good way to combine the two.”

“It’s important that people invest in their own education – they’re more strongly committed.”

”An SSE would need to have some kind of financial support to be sustainable. The government
should be involved in some capacity.”

“The interesting thing about [the SSE] that’s different from somewhere else, is that there is a
curriculum. It’s a franchise, you get a package, you can deliver it, you can promise it. It’s not an
ad hoc resource centre where you go in and then you leave.”

“A struggle that a lot of us face is how to raise funding.”

“In a community college where there is a curriculum, you may not be working on your own thing.
This seems to be a hybrid of that [curriculum and incubator] which may not be a bad thing.”

41
“As it [the SSE] is right now, it’s for a specific group of people. It’s not very well known, it’s not
advertised. For myself, some of the phraseology [presented in the session]… I was lost. It’s a
different language. “

“Greater exposure could result in greater social good…”

”If the primary purpose of the school is [to create sustainable social enterprises], then it seems
like it has the network and the curriculum to promote that.”

“I think it’s dangerous for it to be personality driven. It risks becoming a clique or elite. That
already exists in Toronto.”

“A social worker is just putting bandages on the systemic failure of our society. What if every
business, by law, had to have a triple bottom line? No more, “let’s use these people as our
[token problem-solvers]…” You see this [happening] with the environmental movement.”

“You can’t overlook the business community. We need to bring them in!”

“People crave being known and achieve more when they have a shared feeling of working
towards a common goal.”

“At the end of the Social Purchasing Portal, I conducted a survey to see if there would be
interest for a Social Entrepreneurship Centre. I got a really high response from the mainstream
business community.”

“I don’t see it as a school. I see it more as a centre and a place to network and [as an incubator].
Or as a cooperative of enterprises.”

“The SSE is the culmination of education, experience, networking and support. In some ways,
the idea is very important. I think that’s what feels so attractive when you hear “a School for
Social Entrepreneurs.” It’s the idea of a community focusing its energy.”

“This idea helps to open minds about the assets that already exist in the community that should
be woven together. I think some of that is already happening, right?”

“The Laurel Centre didn’t cost a whole bunch of money. It was pulling in assets… and providing
a community energy that said, “Yes! We’ll keep working at those things [issues].

“One of the richest things about the Laurel Centre was that it was student driven. I think the
response they had to it surprised them!”

“When you… give something a name and give people a place where they can take [their]
questions, [their] need to network with other people, [their] openness to learning about new
things, there is a place [to go]. That in and of itself is really valuable.”

“What is it that [the SSE] will offer [students] that a) they can’t get on their own and b) will
enhance their skills to such a level that the tuition cost is worth it.”

“… as a young social entrepreneur, I feel Waterloo’s already offering many opportunities to meet
people, network and find mentors. Even with the $20K, you can start a social enterprise and
learn along the way, which I think would be more valuable.”

“I’ve talked to social entrepreneurs locally. What they seem to be struggling with is not so much
information and support as it is money. They have a really hard time finding money for their

42
expansion. They get to a point where they can’t get any further [based on profits] and can’t get a
bank to help them.”

“A lot of funding is no longer [available] in the traditional sense where you ask and get. It’s now,
how to find a way to create funding for what I’m doing.”

“We could be doing lots more sharing.”

“My business plan would fail any true business course as no for-profit business would ever
employ at-risk youth.”

“It would be wonderful to have a thriving SE network in the city.”

“We should have more conversations around our work and best practices.”

“A school should measure results and impact and provide compelling evidence to generate
awareness and future enrolment.”

“People don’t really know what it [social entrepreneurship] is. I think the first step might be to do
some education around social entrepreneurship before thinking about setting up a school. It
might be a natural outgrowth of the school but people have to be engaged first.”

“You have to know that you’re targeting a narrow audience.”

“It should have a defined curriculum so students will know there is a learning outcome and some
kind of measurement. That is the only way you can establish yourself. Otherwise there is no
evidence of what you are accomplishing.”

“I totally agree that a school should establish: these are the things you are going to learn, this is
how you’re going to learn them and this is how you are going to apply it.”

“The domain of this model is so wide it’s hard to define it. What you could do is adapt it so there
are sub-domains. This way, it’s more manageable, more definable and more measurable.”

“It could create jobs and provide a Canadian experience. It can show people how to take an
idea that worked well where they came from and show them how to make it work in Canada.”

“The other group that’s really been neglected is the Aboriginal population. We have almost 90
reserves in the Three Treaty area. To me, that’s where the future growth is.”

“Thunder Bay ‘fits’ more with the Aboriginal economy that’s growing out West. I was surprised
that I had to travel to Winnipeg or Alberta because the population in Thunder Bay is closer to
those populations than Toronto.”

“Content-wise, we definitely need something in the North that includes the Aboriginal
population.”

“If there’s a market for this school, it would be in our isolated communities.”

”There’s funding there for people in the North, but what are they going to do with it, where are
they going to go?”

“Going to a seminar isn’t necessarily going to give you all the stuff you need to start a social
enterprise.”

43
“Defining the scope of the school is really important.”

“I don’t think that an established idea should be a necessity. Maybe that could be your goal or
part of the program to work towards for the end of the year.”

“What is the learning that’s coming out of it? What are they teaching? That’s what I want to
know.”

“I think it’s limited to say that if you want to become a social entrepreneur you need to learn
business skills, marketing skills and managerial skills. I think that’s defeating the whole point of
social entrepreneurship in and of itself. Social entrepreneurship is supposed to be a non-
traditional approach to solving problems. You need to base it on something, but if it’s too
specific you may as well go to business school.”

“This is a more accessible alternative to mainstream education.”

“There is lots of flexibility and freedom to do things in different ways. They genuinely want to
make it work.”

“Interestingly, we were able to raise on the back of the SSE UK’s success well before we
actually started our program.”

“I was surprised how difficult we found it to recruit the right Learning Manager to deliver the
program.”

“Getting an SSE up and running is very resource intensive…”

“I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to give yourself as much planning and set up time
as you can.”

“Don’t try and reinvent the wheel. London have been doing this for a long time and are good at
it, so use them as a guide.”

“SSE London is great! Before my appointment they supported [the regional partner] through the
recruitment process including job descriptions, person specification and interview panels. Once I
was in the post, they continued to support with recruitment of other staff.”

“The London staff was very generous with their time, ideas, insights and advice.”

“Start early. It takes time to recruit stakeholders, staff and students. Form proactive steering
groups or advisory committees and make use of existing networks.”

“The SSE is unique and special and it’s a privilege to be running a school.”

44
BACKGROUND PAPER

The Evolving State of Social Entrepreneurship Education

When the founder of Ashoka, Bill Drayton, first started talking about “social entrepreneurship” in
the 1980s, he may as well have done so on a mountain top. It was the decade of Wall Street
and Gordon Gekko, and their shared nature had already been foretold by novelists like Martin
Amis. His 1984 novel Money came three years before Michael Douglas’s famous turn as the
embodiment of entrepreneurial excess. From Drayton’s position, there weren’t all that many
people listening back then. But his message managed to catch wind and in the last twenty-five
years it has landed not just across North America, but around the world. Ironically, this has
happened in part as a result of 1980’s zeal for making it new and making it big, which was one
of the forces behind the first courses and schools devoted to entrepreneurship (minus the
social). As entrepreneurship education (EE) caught on in business schools everywhere, social
entrepreneurship education (SEE) kept pace but at a smaller scale. This might be about to
change. President Obama has declared that “the next great social innovation won’t be
generated by the government.” To back up his words he promised to establish a Social
Entrepreneurship Agency that will exist as part of the Corporation for National and Community
Service. EE is now at a point where some of its practitioners claim it has reached full maturity.
Can SEE be far behind?
In reality, people have been learning and teaching others about business and social
entrepreneurship for centuries. After all, when haven’t people taken risks, identified
opportunities or made them themselves, and pursued a novel enterprise to create value in
business? Only recently has the institutionalization of SE taken hold, but choice already extends
from Masters and even Ph.D. programs, to two-day crash courses with a private organizations.
In the U.S. alone in 2006, the number of formal educational programs in entrepreneurship stood
at over 500 – almost five times more than the 104 programs that existed in 1975. It might once
have been the case that this number would have cast a shadow over social entrepreneurship
programs. From the first courses offered in the 1990s at schools such as Harvard and Stanford,
which now have centres devoted to SE, major programs now also exist at Duke, Columbia, NYU
and Northwestern. Leaders outside of the U.S. include Oxford and the University of Alberta,
INSEAD (France), the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (India), along with innovative non-
university schools such as the KaosPilots (Denmark), and the School for Social Entrepreneurs
(based in the U.K.).

45
 Social entrepreneurs are no less ambitious than their business cousins. What sets them
apart is that their work is driven by a social mission. Rather than having profit creation as their
core purpose, social entrepreneurs take on the types of social problems that governments and
the rest of us tend to think are here to stay. And the point isn’t just to make things a little better
for a certain group of people. It’s to wipe out a particular problem altogether. Social
entrepreneurship isn’t about charity; it’s about social transformation. As Bill Drayton has
described, “The core psychology of a social entrepreneur is someone who cannot come to a
rest, in a very deep sense, until he or she has changed the pattern in an area of social concern
across society. Social entrepreneurs are married to a vision of, for example, a better way of
helping young people grow up or of delivering global healthcare. They simply will not stop
because they cannot be happy until their vision becomes the new pattern. They will persist for
decades.”
The curious thing about Drayton’s description is that it makes the social entrepreneur
seem like a natural type – someone that is born with innate qualities rather than someone who
will accumulate them over time. If all entrepreneurs, business or social, have a “certain
something” that the rest of us don’t, then the schools and students of entrepreneurship might be
putting great amounts of energy into efforts that will bring little in return. Is it possible that
entrepreneurship, and social entrepreneurship in particular, can’t be taught? David Birch left a
teaching post at MIT in 1983 for the private sector, where he built his own research company
called Cognetics, Inc., which he sold in 2001. Five years earlier, he was the first recipient of the
International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Birch contends even
though EE is not a contradiction in terms, “quite a few business schools teach you exactly the
opposite of entrepreneurship. Basically, business schools teach you to work for somebody.
Being a good servant is what business school teaches the students.” It is a problem that may
never go away. EE is most commonly found in business schools, where most people think that
even high-flying entrepreneurs should still be able to balance their own books. Birch argues that
it is exceedingly rare for what he sees as the real skills of the entrepreneur – selling, managing
people, and creating a new product or service - to find a place on a course syllabus. Even if
Birch got his way, the problem of codification remains. Can the skills of a business or social
entrepreneur be standardized so that they fit into your average program for hundreds of
students? Howard Stevenson, who teaches at Harvard University, thinks this is exactly what EE
can achieve. “You cannot teach someone to become a Bill Gates, [neither can you] teach
someone to compose like Beethoven. But you can teach someone the notes and scales, give
them the tools they need to become a composer. And you can teach the tools people need to
be entrepreneurs.” For Stevenson, as well as for Birch, there is no teaching genius or

46
innovation. When it comes down to what a school teaches – or what it doesn’t think it can teach
– it often depends on how SEE is defined.
The growth of SEE has been helped by an increasing number of seminal articles that set
out what exactly the field is concerned with. Perhaps the most well-known article is “The
Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship” by Gregory Dees, who is the Faculty Director at Duke’s
Centre for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship. Dees is a pioneer in the SEE field and
offered one of its first courses in response to student demand while teaching at Harvard in the
mid-1990s. His definition of SE has established what many agree forms the core of this activity:
“adopting a mission to create and sustain social value.” He also lists continuous innovation and
the refusal to be limited by resources at hand, which are characteristics shared by the business
entrepreneur. Finding overlapping characteristics of the two entrepreneurial types happens
frequently, which means that knowing how to tell them apart often involves thorny questions.
For example, must social ventures involve revenue generation? Views vary from those who think
that the meaning of entrepreneurship demands that a good or service enters into the market
place, to those who think that the emphasis on social mission makes revenue a strictly
secondary consideration. Two typologies of “social enterprises” help to map out how these
differences are constituted in the real world. The first typology was created in 2001 by Dees,
Jed Emerson and Peter Economy. In their account, the purely philanthropic enterprise is
devoted exclusively to its social mission whereas the purely commercial is concerned only with
creating profit. If you believe that a social enterprise can undertake profit-making without
sacrificing its social mission, then both the philanthropic and the hybrid categories are suitable
homes for the social entrepreneur.
Purely philanthropic Hybrids Purely Commercial

Kim Alter’s 2006 typology is more sophisticated and has the benefit of actually listing the social
enterprise as a category. The move from left to right traces the relationship between social
mission and profit making, or between the concern for social value and economic value.
Traditional Nonprofit Social Socially Corporation Traditional
nonprofit with income enterprise responsible practising for- profit
generating business social
activities responsibility

Alter expands the hybrids category from the previous typology and shows that it includes at
least four different types. The social enterprise sits comfortably in a position where income
generation is perfectly allowable as long as it supports and complements the primary social
mission.

47
 The place of social enterprise in Alter’s typology implies that SEE programs can be
viably taught, to an extent, within a traditional classroom setting. Essentially it backs up Howard
Stevenson’s claim that even the Beethoven’s of the SE world will need the same grounding as
those of us with more modest talents. The classroom setting can arm social entrepreneurs with
invaluable knowledge before they migrate into the world. In their article “The Distinctive
Challenge of Educating Social Entrepreneurs,” Paul Tracey and Nelson Phillips explain that the
longer list of challenges faced by the social entrepreneur result from the added complexity of
their field. A social mission means that a less well off social group becomes involved as a
primary stakeholder. Such relationships can be difficult to establish and delicate to maintain. It
requires being able to manage people, which is one of the skills that David Birch said business
schools too rarely focus on. The social entrepreneur is also confronted by a phenomenon
known as the “double bottom line.” Social enterprises that fit into the categories proposed by
Alter must balance a social and a commercial bottom line. Overall success requires success in
both respects, whereas poor performance for just one side of the equation can mean doom for
the whole endeavour.
The third issue that Tracey and Phillips explore is the need to have a properly managed
identity. The most famous businesses in the world such as Sony, Toyota and Coca-Cola have
had the same vision statements for decades. Does this mean they haven’t been successful?
Far from it. Their visions – Sony’s involves “encouraging individual ability and creativity” as well
as the “elevation of Japanese culture” – combine their core reasons for being, which remain
steadfast, with an envisioned future, which is what they aspire to achieve. Regardless of
whether people happen to work more on the business or the social side of an enterprise, the key
to managing an identity is having an identity that acts as a compass to orient everyone in the
same direction. As James Collins and Jerry Porras explain in the Harvard Business Review, “the
key is not what core values an organization has, but that it has core values at all.” Their
research adds an important footnote to David Birch’s call for reform. You won’t do particularly
well at selling, managing or creating if you are unsure of the purpose behind it all.
These extra considerations that must be taken into account by social entrepreneurs help
illuminate the present direction of SEE. On one hand, there is a drive to create a more common
understanding about what students of SE need to be learning and which parts can fit in the
classroom. On the other hand, it is becoming clearer to teachers of SE that a considerable
amount of students’ education will need to take place away from a campus and classrooms.
Instead of relying on established methods of mock case studies and business plans, emphasis
is shifting to the emotional and experiential learning that occurs in real consulting projects and
internships. As a result, the old equation where education prepares students to carry out work is
being reversed. Only by doing the work can SEE even begin to take place. At its most

48
innovative, the curriculum for SEE includes project design, management and overall
sustainability. When Gregory Dees argues that continuous innovation is a mark of a successful
entrepreneur, it should also be clear that innovation will soon be the hallmark of
entrepreneurship education as well. Pushing more of SEE through the classroom door and into
the world the students will be working in addresses one of the ongoing issues about how we
understand social entrepreneurship pedagogy. Virtually everyone agrees that taking advantage
of opportunities is what makes a successful entrepreneur. But identifying and exploiting an
opportunity is not the same as creating an opportunity, which is something more of an art and
harkens back to the earlier question of whether some people are just born with it. One of the
leading voices on this issue, Leo Paul Dana, argues that opportunity identification is perfectly
teachable, but that the art of opportunity creation will elude the grasp of every teacher. There is
considerable upside to this reality, however, because it means that opportunity creation can only
be learned (as opposed to being taught). If SEE practitioners understand this point, then it
shouldn’t be long before they are looking to integrate as much “real world” time as possible into
their courses and programs.
The appeal and demand for SEE is growing. It will continue to do so if the ratio of non-
classroom work experience to classroom time increases, particularly because project-based
learning fits the psychological profile of the social entrepreneur as described by Bill Drayton.
Why be stuck in a classroom when the social problems ready to be solved are outside where the
best learning will take place anyway? Given its current growth, the future of SEE promises
increased enrolment, more courses, and more professors who have SE as one of their primary
areas of research. The robust debates about the extent to which SE can be taught suggest that
the field may mature rapidly over the next ten to fifteen years. These debates are much more
encouraging than their absence would be, since even philosophy – which nobody would call an
immature discipline – maintains its vitality precisely because its practitioners continue to
challenge each other’s work and disagree about pedagogical practices. What makes the future
of SEE so compelling is that it is unlikely to become a university-dominated domain.
Organizations such as Ashoka are social entrepreneur pioneers and will always perform a
function that universities cannot. The School for Social Entrepreneurs and the KaosPilots are
examples of non-university institutions that can provide highly successful social
entrepreneurship education outside of a university setting. Meanwhile, the global reach of SEE
beyond North America and Europe to Asia and now South America is just one more indication of
its expansion. Greg Dees describes entrepreneurs as having “a mind-set that sees the
possibilities rather than the problems created by change.” If change is one of the things we can
always count on, there will be an ongoing need for SEE that will leave it well positioned to
continue its growth and mature into a dominant educational field.

49
BACKGROUND PAPER

Understanding the Marketplace for Social

Entrepreneurship Education

In the early 1990s social entrepreneurship education (SEE) did not exist as a field of study. The
term ‘social entrepreneurship’ had been around for over a decade, but institutionalized courses
and programs remained absent. The first course in SEE was taught at Harvard in the mid-1990s
(the first course in Europe only hit the books in 2003 at the University of Geneva). In the space
of 15 years, courses, programs, centres and institutions all devoted to SEE have sprung up in
more than 35 countries spread over every continent except for Antarctica. As remarkable as this
growth has been, it is just as striking to note how different the rationales and requirements are
across the SEE spectrum. Our research and interviews show that existing SEE options are as
varied as the pedagogical approaches that define them. Examining the SEE field revealed three
different organizational models: 1) independent-institutional; 2) university-institutional; 3) third
sector or private training organizations. Although the examples within each category are not
uniform, the similarities run deep enough that comparisons can be made across the three
models. The result includes an organizational DNA of examples from each model as well as an
analysis of their respective strengths and weaknesses. Putting them together offers a picture of
SEE’s potential future given the present state of its development.

Independent-institutional Programs
Two of the most successful independent-institutional models are the UK’s School for
Social Entrepreneurs (SSE) and Denmark’s KaosPilots. Both schools have a clear mandate for
what their programs should achieve and an organizational framework in which to do so, at the
same time offering more flexibility for students than is usually found in a university setting. The
SSE has nine sites across the UK, one in Ireland and one in Australia. Since its founding in
1997, more than 400 fellows have completed its year-long program of what it calls “action
learning.” The SSE prioritizes individual needs rather than putting each fellow through the same
program or having them choose from a limited number of options. Action learning is in many
ways the opposite of theory-based education that is then applied to real situations. In fact, this
approach is premised on the assumption that social entrepreneurship can only be learned
through doing, and not through class-based teaching. The SSE model includes project visits,
expert witness sessions with social entrepreneurs currently working in the field, one-to-one time
with mentors, and “action learning sets.” These are facilitated small groups which work together

50
throughout the year to develop practical solutions to common problems faced by social
entrepreneurs. In many cases these groups continue to meet after they have finished at the
SSE.
Students at the SSE are very diverse, ranging in age from 18-80 and coming from
different class and cultural backgrounds. Acceptance to the program is based on experience
and personal motivation rather than on existing academic qualifications. Fellows often have field
experience or hold a position at an existing SE organization. It is this pre-existing knowledge of
the types of challenges they face that allows the SSE to tailor its programs to focus on solutions
to real social problems. Students pay close to £10,000 ($20,000) for the SSE’s program,
although the school insists that it will not allow fees to prevent anyone from enrolling. To lower
tuition costs it helps students to win scholarships and bursaries, or to generate enough income
project income to cover their expenses.
The KaosPilots (KP) occupies a mid-point between the SSE’s lack of a traditional
vocational approach, and the highly structured approach found in university programs. KP
offers a three-year program where students who are primarily in their early 20s are trained to
work in all three sectors of society: public, private and voluntary. Each class contains roughly 20
students. The core skill that students learn is “situation-based leadership,” which is defined as
the ability to produce and implement solutions to complex problems. There is some
pedagogical overlap with the SSE, since KP also stresses action learning. Where KP differs is
that it stresses the need for practice to be informed by theory so that a more robust learning
process can take place. Much of the students’ time is spent on projects that are commissioned
by external clients, which is complemented by theory-based learning. The result is a double
commitment to an “academic focus” on project design, process design, business design and
leadership design, and to a “world focus” on sustainability, cultural diversity, and social
innovation. Uffe Elbaek, the founder of the KaosPilots, explains that “it’s qualifications that get
you hired, but if you are lacking in the other areas, that’s what gets you fired.” In their second
year, teams of students visit a “creative hotspot” outside of Denmark to watch and participate in
a project. In year three, students strike out on their own to undertake international internships.
Not surprisingly, the costs for such a program are higher than with the SSE model. EU
applicants can expect to pay the equivalent of approximately $27,000 (CAD) for the full three-
year program. For non-EU applicants the fee rises to almost $60,000. EU students are eligible
to secure assistance from national funding bodies, which is also encouraged for overseas
students.
Certificates that students receive from the SSE and KP have no guaranteed standing
with registered universities. This is of little worry to either school because they’re not places that
people would choose if they were merely curious or wanted nothing but to sit in a classroom.

51
Their approaches are intended to equip students with the skills they need to flourish outside of
the classroom by putting them there in the first place. The greatest differences between these
schools concern the students they accept, length of program, and fees. The SSE is highly
practical in its approach: students generally enroll to address problems they have already
identified, compared with those at KP who are likely to have less experience in the field. It is no
surprise then that the SSE tries to mould its curriculum to the needs of incoming students.
Comparing the benefits involved – lower fees, relatively short program, and highly individualized
learning at the SSE, versus a wider range of experiences and a longer period for students to
develop their skills at KP - ultimately depends on the needs of the particular students.

University-institutional
University-based SEE programs are now common in the United States and are growing
in number in Canada and Europe. Almost all SEE options exist as part of a larger educational
program within a business school. For example, Duke University’s Centre for the Advancement
of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) is housed in its Fuqua School of Business. MBA students
can pursue a concentration in social entrepreneurship, which requires them to take at least two
elective courses with CASE (perhaps 30 students each year fulfill these requirements). While
CASE is one of the most developed research centres devoted to SE, its pedagogy differs from
schools such as the SSE and KP. Despite its claims about a comprehensive SE education, there
are only two for-credit opportunities that are hands-on (small business consulting and mentored
study in entrepreneurship). There are considerably more hands-on volunteer opportunities but
such status is indicative of how the university approach to SEE tilts considerably toward the
classroom experience. The presence of a business school is also influential. While CASE
focuses on core SEE skills such as SE theory and business models for social impact, it also
addresses public-private partnerships and corporate social responsibility, which arguably have
more to do with business than SE education.
The Reynolds Program in Social Entrepreneurship at New York University is housed in
its Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service rather than a business school. Each
year the program chooses students from across all NYU schools – 10 undergraduates who are
entering their third year and up to 20 graduate students – who spend two years specializing in
SE alongside their traditional degree program. Successful undergraduates receive $20,000 (US)
and graduates receive $25,000 for each of the two years the study at Reynolds (which helps to
offset yearly tuition of almost $40,000 for undergraduates). The program’s Director, Gabriel
Brodbar, says that its approach “is not simply business skills applied to social and
environmental ends.” The pedagogical emphasis is always on change, or helping to foster what

52
Brodbar calls “pattern breaking visionaries.” Every student takes “Finance 101 for Social
Entrepreneurs” but this is one of the only components that would also fit in a business school.
One-on-one coaching, summer internships and on-site consulting with SE organizations provide
a considerable hands-on component with individualized learning.
In Canada, a number of schools have started developing and expanding their SEE
options. At the University of Alberta’s School of Business and Canadian Centre for Social
Entrepreneurs (CCSE), students have the option of taking a 13-week course that focuses on
social entrepreneurship, innovation and responsibility. The most recent class had 22 students
who were divided between MBA students and advanced undergraduates. Despite bringing in
multiple expert presenters, there is no hands-on component. Gary McPherson heads up the
CCSE and admits that even though “what allows SEE to happen has never really been captured
for the classroom experience,” academic involvement is useful because “it can bring credibility
to the field of SEE.” McPherson’s point about credibility is one that is widely held throughout
the academic literature on SEE, but it does not necessarily extend to schools of the
independent-institutional model. Both the SSE and KP operate on the assumption that while a
strong SEE program requires intellectual rigour, academic credibility is a issue more unique to
university-based programs that currently do not incorporate the same amounts of hands-on or
action learning.
The Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia has introduced a
number of components related to SEE. The school’s Centre for Sustainability and Social
Innovation markets itself as an incubator for teaching and research in social innovation. MBA
students can choose from among half a dozen courses in Business and Sustainability, such as
‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ and ‘Sustainable Entrepreneurship.’ The Business Families
Centre (BFC) is another branch of the Sauder School that has the social impact of business as
part of its core focus. Although the BFC is designed for the needs of business families and the
professionals who work for them, the programs it offers (from a few days to three weeks in
length, costing anywhere from $3,000 to $23,500) include custom offerings in philanthropy and
social enterprise. Of note is the BFC’s language about providing capacity and sustainable
outcomes for ‘poor and vulnerable populations,’ in contrast to traditional charitable programs
and donations.
At Wilfrid Laurier University, the Schlegel Centre for Entrepreneurship has been
instrumental in increasing the range of programs and courses in entrepreneurship (but not social
entrepreneurship). Laurier offers an MBA in Innovation and Entrepreneurship (launched in
January 2008) as well as an MBA with an entrepreneurship concentration. What is particularly
notable is the opportunity to earn degree credits by launching an original business. MBA
students in the Innovation and Entrepreneurship option can pursue this option by applying to the

53
Entrepreneurship Accelerator Program (EAP). Once a market analysis and business plan has
been approved, students gain access to the EAP Incubator which provides them with legal and
financial services, as well as sales training and coaching. At the undergraduate level, students
can apply to run a business franchise as part of their business co-op requirement. Laurier’s
‘Entrepreneur-in-Residence’ provides advice and evaluates student proposals at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels. These programs are uncharacteristic within
entrepreneurship education in a university setting, which usually goes only so far as providing
work opportunities at existing companies.
One characteristic about each of the schools profiled so far is that their average class
intake is no greater than 20-30 students, regardless of what model they employ or whether it is a
three-year program or a one-semester course. This trend holds as well for the INSEAD business
school which is based in France and also has a campus in Singapore. INSEAD offers MBA and
PhD programs in business, as well as an executive education program that houses the INSEAD
Social Entrepreneurship Program (ISED). ISED is designed for social entrepreneurs who already
have significant experience in the field and likely hold senior positions at their organizations. The
five-day course costs €2,800 and is designed as much as an opportunity for high-level
networking as it is to work with faculty and guest speakers on topics such as leadership,
governance, strategy and growth for SE organizations. Director Hans Wahl says that because
the school emphasizes faculty research and ISED tends to focus on macro issues such as
developing SE business models, there is considerable distance between INSEAD and the SSE.
Clearly the average participant at the two schools is radically different as well. INSEAD MBA’s
do have the option of undertaking field projects to assist SE organizations, except that they
often do so without stepping out of a business mindset - providing financial advice, for example
– and have no intention to stay in the SE field for an extended period.
Within the university-institutional setting there is enough variety that students and
advanced practitioners of SE can choose a school based on their preferred orientation: primarily
scholastic and theoretical work, a more even balance of theoretical and hands-on experience, or
highly specialized short courses. Universities will always appeal to those who desire to graduate
with widely recognized designations. Unlike the independent-institutional model, however,
courses and even entire SE schools are usually located within larger business degrees and
faculties. The consequence is that concentrating on SE doesn’t necessarily result in as much
time spent working on SE as compared to specialized schools. In some ways this is
unavoidable. Universities are constrained by having to ensure that students meet program
requirements, and currently programs in SE only constitute up to approximately half of a degree
program, but often much less.

54
Third Sector or Private Training Organizations
The remarkable growth in the roster of SE organizations is due in part to private groups
that have no university accreditation (they may qualify under a state accreditation scheme) and
generally do not provide the type of extended learning opportunities of independent schools. In
most instances anyone can sign up for their seminars or short courses. Social Enterprise
London (SEL) is a social enterprise consultancy that also runs training sessions for newcomers
and veterans of the SE field. “Understanding social enterprise” is SEL’s three-day primer for
new social entrepreneurs that is offered on a monthly basis. One and part-day events are often
free to the public and cover topics such as winning public sector contracts and measuring social
impact. SEL makes a point of using the language of action learning, but the practical meaning it
takes on is one of learning from past experiences rather than learning through present hands-on
work, as defined at the SSE. Similar examples to SEL include The Institute for Social
Entrepreneurs, which is based in Dallas and also uses the language of action learning, and The
Social Enterprise Academy in Edinburgh.
An alternative approach is taken by the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (REDF)
based in San Francisco. REDF is made up of venture philanthropists who partner with young
non-profit organizations that employ people who are marginalized by the mainstream workforce.
Each year REDF takes on summer interns and 12-month fellows who must have MBAs or
equivalent work experience. Unlike the claims of other private organizations, this robust work
experience qualifies as action learning. One aspect of REDF that is rare in this field is that it
cites concrete evidence of the return on investment that its work has helped to produce. The
success of the original five organizations it partnered with now results in jobs for 600 people
each year and, in 2007, $12 million (US) in revenue. Although this success is not directly
attributable to its internship and fellowship programs, REDF stands out in its ability to
demonstrate positive social impact.
In Toronto, the United Way is an example of third sector involvement in
entrepreneurship. In partnership with George Brown College, it established an initiative in 2008
called Start-Up: Planning to Start a Small Business. Run through its Building Agency Capacity
program, Start-Up provides five training sessions on the basic aspects of entrepreneurship that
can then be directed toward starting a small business or social enterprise. Participants come
from different social and community agencies across the city, all of which are funded by the
United Way. A second program that is funded by the United Way as well as all three levels of
government is the Toronto Enterprise Fund (TEF). The TEF provides business development
training as well as funding for start-up and established social purpose enterprises dedicated to
providing employment to the homeless or those at risk of becoming homeless. However, as

55
with other third sector programs, the TEF may not be around for long; its funding currently does
not run beyond 2011.1

Sustainability and Popularity of SEE

Across all three models of SEE - especially the university and independent-institutional
models - there is little disagreement about what will ensure its long-term success as a field of
study. This is despite the fact that there is no broad agreement about the exact scope of social
entrepreneurship and its practices. The most commonly cited success factors include the
following:

• Establishing a clear identity as a field of research and practice: will academics,

practitioners and the public have a common understanding of SE and an accompanying
vocabulary?
• The availability of different educational models based on how people want to learn and
where they are at in their lives (in terms of age and professional experience)
• A balance between the need to provide technical business skills such as financial
literacy and creative and emotional skills
• Hands-on learning, field work and mentorships
• Understanding how a social mission and good business can work harmoniously
• The commitment of tenured faculty and deans
• Funding for student scholarships and endowments for teaching positions
• Increased sophistication of social entrepreneurship research tied to a community of
practice
• Innovative teaching curriculums so that SE programs can match the best MBA programs
• Requiring students to pay for part of their education to help establish their commitment
(this comment is made primarily in respect to models such as the SSE which do not
allow a lack of financial means to prevent students from enrolling)
• Employability post-graduation

1
Launched in April 2000 as a three-year program, the Fund has been extended to 2011 by the funding partners
(www.torontoenterprisefund.ca)

56
Maturity for the SE sector will require many and perhaps all of the success factors listed above
to be in place. Additional characteristics of a mature field may include the following:

• Increased demand for places in SEE and a corresponding growth in the number of
programs and their intake
• The ability of students to concentrate primarily and perhaps exclusively on SE within a
university setting
• Award winning faculty and practitioners

One final factor that will be very influential is the ability to demonstrate that investments in
SEE bring short and long-term economic and social benefits. It is possible to measure
economic benefits, although very few schools or organizations have data linking economic
returns to their particular type of SEE. The SSE is almost unique in this regard. It reports that
85% of all organizations created by its students while they are at the SSE are still in existence
today. For every ten fellows, 30 paid positions and 69 volunteer positions are created. Over
60% of fellows reported an increase in financial turnover at their organizations, with the average
being a five-fold improvement. Like the rest of the SEE sector, the SSE seeks to improve their
capacity to define performance metrics and measure their social return on investment. In order
for the SEE field to provide the evidence that will convince sceptics and demonstrate its
potential impact, a shared system of measurements for both economic and social benefits
needs to be put in place. Performance measurements will also enable researchers to compare
different organizations and schools. This will have the added benefit of being able to link
pedagogical approaches to future benefits. Until this happens, there is very little research to
draw on and comparative studies are virtually impossible to conduct.

Conclusion: Present State and Desired Future

If the aim of a jurisdiction is to have a robust SEE opportunity for young people and
students put in place in a short period of time, the independent-institutional model embodied by
the SSE and KaosPilots has the greatest promise. University-based models go through a
development phase where SEE is available as a small component of a larger business degree
training. And independent organizations rarely offer the type of sustained educational
opportunities and pedagogical breadth required. It is conceivable that schools such as the SSE
could partner with local universities or community colleges. Given the type of student,
individualized attention, and amount of field work involved with the SSE model, there may be a
more natural fit with community colleges rather than universities. The SSE also lends itself to
having sites established in smaller regional cities that do not have a university. These sites can

57
operate independently of one another or they can be part of a collaborative initiative where
students communicate and meet with each other over the duration of their enrolment.
We know that right now the SEE field as a whole is in a state of development. In order
for it to be regarded as mature, it will need to have some of the characteristics listed above
regarding sustainability, including funding, the commitment of senior academics, and
sophisticated quantitative measures that demonstrate a social return on investment in particular.
Another indication of maturity could well be whether social entrepreneurs become widely known
as people responsible for bringing positive social changes that governments either are unwilling
or unable to initiate. If the schools and programs that provide SEE are thought of as the natural
incubators for social entrepreneurs and their ideas, maturity will be achieved.

58
APPENDIX

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ann Armstrong, Lecturer and Director, Social Enterprise Initiative, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
Marco Campana, Online Capacity Development Coordinator, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
Allyson Hewitt, Director, Social Entrepreneurship, SiG@MaRS
Anne Jamieson, Project Manager, Toronto Enterprise Fund
Charmian Love, Chief Operating Officer, Volans
Earl Miller, Director of Strategic Partnerships, MaRS
David Newhouse, Chair of Indigenous Studies; Associate Professor, Trent University
Albert Plant, Volunteer Advisor, MaRS
Sonia Pouyat, Chief Executive Officer, KidsLINK
Jacqueline Powell, Program Manager, Future Fund, Ontario Trillium Foundation
Cheryl Rose, Director, Partnerships and Programs, SiG@Waterloo
Nick Temple, Director, Policy and Communications, School for Social Entrepreneurs
Cathy Woodbeck, Executive Director, Thunder Bay Multicultural Association

OPINION LEADERS
Ontario / Canada
Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, University of Alberta
Dave Meslin, Founder, Toronto Public Space Committee
George Brown College
MaRS Discovery District
Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, University of Toronto
Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
Ric Young (Founder, EYE - Eric Young Enterprises)
Rotman School of Management, Social Enterprise Initiative, University of Toronto
Social Innovation Generation, MaRS
Social Innovation Generation, Waterloo
Sprott Centre on Social Enterprises (SCSE), Sprott School of Business, Carleton University
The Centre for Social Innovation
Toronto Enterprise Fund
Toronto Family Service Association

United States
Alan Webber, Founder, Fast Company magazine
Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE), Fuqua School of Business, Duke University
Reynolds Program in Social Entrepreneurship, New York University
Social Enterprise at Kellogg (SEEK), Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
Social Enterprise Program, Columbia Business School, Columbia University

United Kingdom & Europe

Demos
Fair Trade England
Innovation Exchange, Cabinet Office UK
NESTA
The Young Foundation
thinkpublic
Volans
INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship Programme (ISEP), France
Uffe Elbaek, Founder of KaosPilots, Denmark

59
Community Consultations
Five community consultations have been completed in Toronto (x2), Thunder Bay, Ottawa, and Waterloo. 40 individuals
participated representing more than 30 organizations.

Toronto
Ashoka Canada
Canadian Merit Scholarship Foundation
Canadian Youth Business Fund
Manifest Communications
PointerWare
Social Enterprise Centre of Excellence (SECE) / Youth Challenge Fund, United Way
St. Stephen’s Community House
Tiffinday Inc.
Toronto Community Housing
Turnaround Couriers
Web Networks
Young Social Entrepreneurs of Canada
Zatoun Fair Trade

Ottawa
3Ci – Carleton, Creativision
3Ci – Carleton, LEAP
Causeway Work Centre
Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization (OCISO)
Ottawa Community Loan Fun
Rideau Street Youth Enterprises
Sprott Centre on Social Enterprises (SCSE), Sprott School of Business, Carleton University

Waterloo
Centre for Entrepreneurship, Wilfrid Laurier University
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Social Planning, Policy and Program Administration Division
Chelsea Prescod
Nick Petten
Kitchener Small Business Centre
Opportunities Waterloo
SiG@Waterloo
Waterloo Small Business Centre
Waterloo Social Purchasing Portal

Thunder Bay
Habitat for Humanity, Thunder Bay
Lakehead Social Planning Council
Lakehead University, Faculty of Business Administration
PARO Centre for Women's Enterprise
Regional Multicultural Youth Council (RMYC)
Volunteer Thunder Bay

60
The School for Social Entrepreneurs in Ontario: Opportunities and alternatives.
2010

Project by: Funded by: Consultants: