34 research outputs found

    The potential of trading activity income to fund third sector organisations operating in deprived areas

    Get PDF
    In the United Kingdom, as in other countries, Third Sector Organisations (TSOs) have been drawn towards income sources associated with trading activities (Teasdale, 2010), but many remain reliant on grant funding to support such activities (Chell, 2007). Using a multivariate analysis approach and data from the National Survey of Charities and Social Enterprises (NSCSE), it is found that trading activities are used relatively commonly in deprived areas. These organisations are also more likely to attempt to access public sector funds. This suggests policy-makers need to consider the impact of funding cuts on TSOs in the most deprived areas as TSOs are unlikely achieve their objectives without continuing support

    Why Social Enterprises Are Asking to Be Multi-stakeholder and Deliberative: An Explanation around the Costs of Exclusion.

    Get PDF
    The study of multi-stakeholdership (and multi-stakeholder social enterprises in particular) is only at the start. Entrepreneurial choices which have emerged spontaneously, as well as the first legal frameworks approved in this direction, lack an adequate theoretical support. The debate itself is underdeveloped, as the existing understanding of organisations and their aims resist an inclusive, public interest view of enterprise. Our contribution aims at enriching the thin theoretical reflections on multi-stakeholdership, in a context where they are already established, i.e. that of social and personal services. The aim is to provide an economic justification on why the governance structure and decision-making praxis of the firm needs to account for multiple stakeholders. In particular with our analysis we want: a) to consider production and the role of firms in the context of the “public interest” which may or may not coincide with the non-profit objective; b) to ground the explanation of firm governance and processes upon the nature of production and the interconnections between demand and supply side; c) to explain that the costs associated with multi-stakeholder governance and deliberation in decision-making can increase internal efficiency and be “productive” since they lower internal costs and utilise resources that otherwise would go astray. The key insight of this work is that, differently from major interpretations, property costs should be compared with a more comprehensive range of costs, such as the social costs that emerge when the supply of social and personal services is insufficient or when the identification of aims and means is not shared amongst stakeholders. Our model highlights that when social costs derived from exclusion are high, even an enterprise with costly decisional processes, such as the multistakeholder, can be the most efficient solution amongst other possible alternatives

    A Corporate Social Entrepreneurship Approach to Market-Based Poverty Reduction

    Get PDF
    In this article, we aim to conceptualize a market-based approach to poverty reduction from a corporate social entrepreneurship (CSE) perspective. Specifically, we describe some market-based initiatives at the base of the economic pyramid and relate them to the social entrepreneurship literature. We refer to the entrepreneurial activities of multinational corporations that create social value as CSE. We then conceptualize CSE according to the corporate entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship domains and shed light on how corporations can implement CSE. Finally, by reviewing relevant literature, we propose some of the factors that can stimulate CSE in organizations and some of the benefits companies can gain by implementing CSE

    Extent and patterns of community collaboration in local health departments: An exploratory survey

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Local public health departments (LHDs) in the United States have been encouraged to collaborate with various other community organizations and individuals. Current research suggests that many forms of active partnering are ongoing, and there are numerous examples of LHD collaboration with a specific organization for a specific purpose or program. However, no existing research has attempted to characterize collaboration, for the defined purpose of setting community health status priorities, between a defined population of local officials and a defined group of alternative partnering organizations. The specific aims of this study were to 1) determine the range of collaborative involvement exhibited by a study population of local public health officials, and, 2) characterize the patterns of the selection of organizations/individuals involved with LHDs in the process of setting community health status priorities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Local health department officials in North Carolina (n = 53) responded to an exploratory survey about their levels of involvement with eight types of possible collaborator organizations and individuals. Descriptive statistics and the stochastic clustering technique of Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) were used to characterize their collaboration.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Local health officials vary extensively in their level of collaboration with external collaborators. While the range of total involvement varies, the patterns of involvement for this specific function are relatively uniform. That is, regardless of the total level of involvement (low, medium or high), officials maintain similar hierarchical preference rankings with Community Advisory Boards and Local Boards of Health most involved and Experts and Elected Officials least involved.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The extent and patterns of collaboration among LHDs with other community stakeholders for a specific function can be described and ultimately related to outcome measures of LHD performance.</p

    Circumventing 'free care' and 'shouting louder':Using a health systems approach to study eye health system sustainability in government &amp; mission facilities of north-west Tanzania.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Little is known about the contributions of faith-based organisations (FBOs) to health systems in Africa. In the specialist area of eye health, international and domestic Christian FBOs have been important contributors as service providers and donors, but they are also commonly critiqued as having developed eye health systems parallel to government structures which are unsustainable. METHODS: In this study, we use a health systems approach (quarterly interviews, a participatory sustainability analysis exercise and a social network analysis) to describe the strategies used by eye care practitioners in four hospitals of north-west Tanzania to navigate the government, church mission and donor rules that govern eye services delivery there. RESULTS: Practitioners in this region felt eye care was systemically neglected by government and therefore was 'all under the NGOs', but support from international donors was also precarious. Practitioners therefore adopted four main strategies to improve the sustainability of their services: (1) maintain 'sustainability funds' to retain financial autonomy over income; (2) avoid granting government user fee exemptions to elderly patients who are the majority of service users; (3) expand or contract outreach services as financial circumstances change; and (4) access peer support for problem-solving and advocacy. Mission-based eye teams had greater freedom to increase their income from user fees by not implementing government policies for 'free care'. Teams in all hospitals, however, found similar strategies to manage their programmes even when their management structures were unique, suggesting the importance of informal rules shared through a peer network in governing eye care in this pluralistic health system. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems research can generate new evidence on the social dynamics that cross public and private sectors within a local health system. In this area of Tanzania, Christian FBOs' investments are important, not only in terms of the population health outcomes achieved by teams they support, but also in the diversity of organisational models they contribute to in the wider eye health system, which facilitates innovation

    Book Review: Scaling Social Impact: New Thinking

    No full text
    corecore