“ New trends in social enterprise...” <ul><li>  “ ...and new opportunities    for social investors” </li></ul><ul><li>  Je...
Reality check . . . <ul><li>Social enterprise isn’t new  – despite the recent hype,  the nonprofit sector did not  discove...
Harbingers . . . <ul><li>1960s:   “Our mission is to address  the major unmet needs of society  as profitable business opp...
Some of Control Data’s  social enterprises <ul><li>Creating a vast array of  computer-based learning programs   for colleg...
Harbingers . . . <ul><li>1982:  “Only if business learns how to convert  …major social challenges…into novel and  profitab...
Harbingers . . . <ul><li>1994:   “Making a profit is no more  the purpose of a corporation  than getting enough to eat is ...
Definition of “social enterprise” <ul><li>“ Social enterprise” is  not   the same  as “corporate social responsibility” </...
“ Social enterprise” <ul><li>Social enterprises differ  from traditional businesses and expand  on the concept of corporat...
New opportunities  for social investors <ul><li>Four trends are changing the landscape </li></ul><ul><li>-- and offering t...
Trend #1:  “Pure plays” <ul><li>Businesses that begin life  as for-profit entities  and stay that way </li></ul><ul><ul><u...
“ Pure plays”  (examples) <ul><li>Ombudsman Educational Services (1981) </li></ul><ul><li>and  Educational Services of Ame...
“ Pure plays”  (examples) <ul><li>America Works (1984) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Welfare-to-work program training and plac...
“ Pure plays”  (examples) <ul><li>Adult day care centers </li></ul><ul><li>Childhood learning centers </li></ul><ul><li>Lo...
Trend #2:  “Migrators” <ul><li>Businesses that are born  in the nonprofit sector  and eventually become for-profit compani...
“ Migrators”  (examples) <ul><li>Vitas Innovative Hospice Care (1978) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Started with one patient i...
Trend #3:  “Chameleons” <ul><li>Businesses that begin life as nonprofits  and stay that way – but in every other respect o...
“ Chameleons”   (examples) <ul><li>Pioneer Human Services (1963) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Named by  Fast Co.  magazine as...
“ Chameleons”  (examples) <ul><li>Development Alternatives Group (1983) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mission:  To create “sus...
Trend #4: Mixed revenue enterprises (MREs) <ul><li>NGOs that do not make a profit  from their earned revenue strategies,  ...
MREs  (examples) <ul><li>Delancey Street Foundation (1971) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Started with four employees and a $1,...
MREs  (examples) <ul><li>BRAC (1972) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bangladesh (based in Dhaka) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul...
“ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH  EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Pure play”  companies Potential  finan...
“ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH  EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Migrators” THROUGH  EQUITY OR DEBT FIN...
“ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH DEBT FINANCING YES “ Chameleons” THROUGH  EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES...
“ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH DEBT FINANCING YES “ MREs” THROUGH DEBT FINANCING YES “ Chameleons” TH...
Types of social enterprises <ul><li>Social enterprises that move  beyond mixed revenue streams  are typically one of three...
“ Affirmative businesses”  (“social firms”) <ul><li>Created specifically to provide four things  for people who are mental...
“ Affirmative businesses”  (“social firms”) <ul><li>About two-thirds to three-quarters  of all social enterprises created ...
“ Social sector businesses” <ul><li>Deliver products or services  that directly address a social need  other than job crea...
“ Hybrid businesses” <ul><li>Simultaneously employ  the members of a target population  and  deliver a product or service ...
Implications for social investing <ul><li>Two types of social investors </li></ul>
“ Social investor”:  Type #1 <ul><li>Primarily interested in  social returns </li></ul><ul><li>Rarely expect to recoup fin...
  “ Social investor”:  Type #2 <ul><li>Seeking a  blended return ,  social  and  financial </li></ul><ul><li>. . . but wil...
Investment priorities <ul><li>Both types of “social investors”  differ from “traditional investors”  and “socially respons...
“ Investment priorities matrix” ® NOT A  PRIORITY THIRD  PRIORITY SECOND  PRIORITY FIRST  PRIORITY Traditional  investors ...
“ Investment priorities matrix” ® THIRD  PRIORITY SECOND  PRIORITY FIRST  PRIORITY NOT A  PRIORITY Socially  responsible i...
“ Investment priorities matrix” ® SECOND  PRIORITY FIRST  PRIORITY THIRD  PRIORITY NOT A  PRIORITY Social investors   seek...
“ Investment priorities matrix” ® FIRST  PRIORITY SECOND  PRIORITY THIRD  PRIORITY NOT A  PRIORITY Social investors   prim...
Forthcoming research <ul><li>Carnegie Mellon University  (H. John Heinz III School  of Public Policy and Management) </li>...
For additional information . . . <ul><li>Jerr Boschee </li></ul><ul><li>Founder and Executive Director </li></ul><ul><li>T...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

New trends in social enterprise and new opportunities for social investors.

1,178 views

Published on

Jerr Boschee, Founder And Executive Director - The Institute For Social Entrepreneurs - USA

Published in: Economy & Finance
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,178
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

New trends in social enterprise and new opportunities for social investors.

  1. 1. “ New trends in social enterprise...” <ul><li> “ ...and new opportunities for social investors” </li></ul><ul><li> Jerr Boschee </li></ul><ul><li> Founder and Executive Director </li></ul><ul><li> The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs </li></ul><ul><li> Copyright ® 1999 – 2007 Jerr Boschee. All rights reserved. </li></ul><ul><li> Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium </li></ul><ul><li> without the express written permission of Mr. Boschee is prohibited. </li></ul>
  2. 2. Reality check . . . <ul><li>Social enterprise isn’t new – despite the recent hype, the nonprofit sector did not discover it full-blown ten years ago </li></ul><ul><li>With a few notable exceptions, most social enterprises prior to the mid-1990s emerged from the commercial sector </li></ul>
  3. 3. Harbingers . . . <ul><li>1960s: “Our mission is to address the major unmet needs of society as profitable business opportunities.” </li></ul><ul><li>(William C. Norris, </li></ul><ul><li>Founder and Chair, </li></ul><ul><li>Control Data Corporation) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Some of Control Data’s social enterprises <ul><li>Creating a vast array of computer-based learning programs for colleges, universities and self-paced learners </li></ul><ul><li>City Venture and Urban Venture: Revitalizing entire urban neighborhoods and rural communities </li></ul><ul><li>Working with Chief Justice Warren Burger to create businesses and training opportunities in prisons </li></ul><ul><li>Launching the first small business incubators in the country </li></ul><ul><li>Developing some of the nation’s first corporate wind farms </li></ul><ul><li>Operating mobile medical vans on a Native American reservation </li></ul><ul><li>Herding Caribou beyond the Arctic Circle by using computer technology </li></ul>
  5. 5. Harbingers . . . <ul><li>1982: “Only if business learns how to convert …major social challenges…into novel and profitable business opportunities can we hope to surmount these challenges in the future.... </li></ul><ul><li>“ Social needs can be solved only if their solution in itself creates new capital, profits, that can then be tapped to initiate the solution for new social needs.” </li></ul><ul><li>(Peter Drucker) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Harbingers . . . <ul><li>1994: “Making a profit is no more the purpose of a corporation than getting enough to eat is the purpose of life. Getting enough to eat is a requirement of life. Life’s purpose, one would hope, is something broader and more challenging. Likewise with business and profit.” </li></ul><ul><li>(Kenneth Clark, Chair, Quaker Oats) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Definition of “social enterprise” <ul><li>“ Social enterprise” is not the same as “corporate social responsibility” </li></ul><ul><li>. . . and “social investors” are not the same as “socially responsible investors” </li></ul>
  8. 8. “ Social enterprise” <ul><li>Social enterprises differ from traditional businesses and expand on the concept of corporate social responsibility by directly confronting social needs through the business itself </li></ul><ul><li>. . . rather than indirectly through socially responsible business practices such as corporate philanthropy, equitable wages and environmentally friendly operations </li></ul>
  9. 9. New opportunities for social investors <ul><li>Four trends are changing the landscape </li></ul><ul><li>-- and offering the possibility of a blended return . . . a combination of both social and financial returns on investment </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>. . . sometimes through equity investments, sometimes through debt financing </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Trend #1: “Pure plays” <ul><li>Businesses that begin life as for-profit entities and stay that way </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Private sector social enterprise” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>First wave – 1970s </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>International conference – 1982 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. “ Pure plays” (examples) <ul><li>Ombudsman Educational Services (1981) </li></ul><ul><li>and Educational Services of America (1999) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ombudsman: Teaches potential high school dropouts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>60 schools in 13 states, profitable since year one </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Served 100,000+ students during its first 30 years </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ESA: Students autistic or have severe behavioral or learning problems </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acquired Ombudsman in 2005 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidated annual revenue: $80M; 1,500 employees; 6,000 students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Café Direct (1992) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.K.’s largest Fairtrade hot drinks company (coffee, tea, hot chocolate) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2005: £19.8M annual sales, £568,000 in after-tax profits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Buys from 37 producer organizations in 12 countries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More than 250,000 growers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Raised £5M in expansion funding through a 2004 public share issue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2005: 86% of operating profits funded customized support and training initiatives for the growers </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. “ Pure plays” (examples) <ul><li>America Works (1984) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Welfare-to-work program training and placing people in private industry </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>100,000+ people trained and placed since company’s inception </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Average trainee: 5 years on welfare, 8 th grade ducation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Original focus: Single mothers; recent addition – ex-prisoners </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>88% remain off welfare during their first three years after placement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>$7M annual sales; offices in NY, Albany, Indianapolis, Baltimore </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Community Home Care Associates (1985) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Worker-owned cooperative: $24M annual sales, 100 employees </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Creates jobs for African American and Latino women in South Bronx </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provides personal care assistance, light housekeeping, companionship </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Serves the elderly and people who are chronically ill or disabled </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Also provides private pay health care services (registered nurses) Anchors national cooperative network with $60M+ annual sales </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Network has created jobs for 1600+ individuals </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. “ Pure plays” (examples) <ul><li>Adult day care centers </li></ul><ul><li>Childhood learning centers </li></ul><ul><li>Low-income housing </li></ul><ul><li>Vocational training and placement centers </li></ul><ul><li>Home modification services </li></ul><ul><li>Hospice care </li></ul><ul><li>Outpatient mental health and rehab services </li></ul><ul><li>Computer-based education programs for self-paced learners </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative schools for potential high school dropouts </li></ul><ul><li>Private sector prisons </li></ul><ul><li>Private sector universities </li></ul><ul><li>Wind farms </li></ul><ul><li>Psychiatric and substance abuse rehab centers </li></ul><ul><li>Home care for the elderly </li></ul>
  14. 14. Trend #2: “Migrators” <ul><li>Businesses that are born in the nonprofit sector and eventually become for-profit companies </li></ul>
  15. 15. “ Migrators” (examples) <ul><li>Vitas Innovative Hospice Care (1978) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Started with one patient in the basement of a Miami church </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Today: $699 million business, serving 11,000 people daily in 16 states </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Missouri Home Care (1975) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Began as a one-person nonprofit </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provides non-medical care in the home </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Serves 2,500 frail elderly people in 44 rural counties </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Simultaneously creates jobs for farm spouses earning a second income </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Merged with seven others in 1999 (“Auxi Health”) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Trend #3: “Chameleons” <ul><li>Businesses that begin life as nonprofits and stay that way – but in every other respect operate as for-profit businesses </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Earned revenue represents at least 90% of all revenue </li></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 17. “ Chameleons” (examples) <ul><li>Pioneer Human Services (1963) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Named by Fast Co. magazine as a model for all nonprofits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Partnerships with Boeing, Starbucks, Hasbro, many others </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Employment/training; housing; behavioral health; re-entry/corrections </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: $63M revenue, 99% earned </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: 42 programs, 48 locations, 11,375 people served </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Minnesota Diversified Industries (1968) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Started with $100 + 14 employees who were developmentally disabled </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Plastics manufacturing; fulfillment; packaging and assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blended workforce (610 employees, 72% disabled/ disadvantaged) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2005: $40M revenue, 98% earned </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2005: Five plants, contracts with U.S. post office and 50+ corporations </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. “ Chameleons” (examples) <ul><li>Development Alternatives Group (1983) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mission: To create “sustainable livelihoods in large numbers” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based in New Delhi; also operates in Bangalore and Madhya Pradesh </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Numerous commercial enterprises (information technology; housing; energy systems; water; financial services; others) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: Rs52M annual revenues, 94% earned </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: 500 staff, more than a million people using DA services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>500,000+ livelihoods created since inception </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>330,000+ houses built since inception using DA technologies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>FRC Group (1988) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based in Liverpool – creates jobs for the long-term unemployed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>One of Britain’s best-known social enterprises </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Today: £3.3 million annual sales, 94% earned </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Three trading companies: Furnishings and removals; retail sales; waste management and recycling </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Trend #4: Mixed revenue enterprises (MREs) <ul><li>NGOs that do not make a profit from their earned revenue strategies, but use them to reduce dependency on philanthropy and government subsidies </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Earned revenue represents less than 90% of all revenue </li></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 20. MREs (examples) <ul><li>Delancey Street Foundation (1971) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Started with four employees and a $1,000 loan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Has never accepted funding from the government </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>San Francisco (HQ), LA, New York, North Carolina, New Mexico </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Today: $24M (est.) annual revenue, 60% earned; 12 businesses </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>10,000 “graduates” (former convicts, drug addicts and prostitutes) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 21. MREs (examples) <ul><li>BRAC (1972) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bangladesh (based in Dhaka) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Numerous commercial enterprises that employ low-income men and women (retail handicraft chain stores; second largest liquid milk plant in Bangladesh; poultry hatcheries and feed mills; sericulture process centers; fish and prawn hatcheries; iodized salt factory; cattle breeding; vegetable export; others) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: Serves more than 100 million people and employs more than 97,000 in Bangladesh </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: Operates in 12 other countries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2006: $250M annual revenues, 80% earned </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. “ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Pure play” companies Potential financial returns? Potential social returns?
  23. 23. “ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Migrators” THROUGH EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Pure play” companies Potential financial returns? Potential social returns?
  24. 24. “ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH DEBT FINANCING YES “ Chameleons” THROUGH EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Migrators” THROUGH EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Pure play” companies Potential financial returns? Potential social returns?
  25. 25. “ The Social Enterprise Investment Matrix”® THROUGH DEBT FINANCING YES “ MREs” THROUGH DEBT FINANCING YES “ Chameleons” THROUGH EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Migrators” THROUGH EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING YES “ Pure play” companies Potential financial returns? Potential social returns?
  26. 26. Types of social enterprises <ul><li>Social enterprises that move beyond mixed revenue streams are typically one of three types </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Affirmative businesses </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social sector business </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hybrid businesses </li></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. “ Affirmative businesses” (“social firms”) <ul><li>Created specifically to provide four things for people who are mentally, physically, economically or educationally disadvantaged </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Real jobs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Competitive wages </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Career tracks </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ownership opportunities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Usually migrators or chameleons </li></ul>
  28. 28. “ Affirmative businesses” (“social firms”) <ul><li>About two-thirds to three-quarters of all social enterprises created by NGOs are affirmative businesses </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>. . . because one of an NGO’s greatest assets is an available labor force </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. “ Social sector businesses” <ul><li>Deliver products or services that directly address a social need other than job creation </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can be sub-divided into categories such as “human service businesses,” “environmental businesses,” “educational businesses,” and so on </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Can be pure plays, migrators or chameleons </li></ul>
  30. 30. “ Hybrid businesses” <ul><li>Simultaneously employ the members of a target population and deliver a product or service that directly addresses a social need </li></ul><ul><li>Usually migrators or chameleons </li></ul>
  31. 31. Implications for social investing <ul><li>Two types of social investors </li></ul>
  32. 32. “ Social investor”: Type #1 <ul><li>Primarily interested in social returns </li></ul><ul><li>Rarely expect to recoup financial investment </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If they do, they recycle the money into another social enterprise </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If they do not, they take a tax deduction </li></ul></ul></ul>
  33. 33. “ Social investor”: Type #2 <ul><li>Seeking a blended return , social and financial </li></ul><ul><li>. . . but will accept a lesser level of financial return than traditional investors </li></ul>
  34. 34. Investment priorities <ul><li>Both types of “social investors” differ from “traditional investors” and “socially responsible investors” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>. . . and the four types of investors have different priorities </li></ul></ul></ul>
  35. 35. “ Investment priorities matrix” ® NOT A PRIORITY THIRD PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY Traditional investors seeking financial returns Nonprofit social enterprises (chameleons) For-profit social enterprises (pure plays and migrators) Businesses with a single bottom line that practice corporate social responsibility Businesses with a single bottom line (financial)
  36. 36. “ Investment priorities matrix” ® THIRD PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY NOT A PRIORITY Socially responsible investors seeking both social and financial returns NOT A PRIORITY THIRD PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY Traditional investors seeking financial returns Nonprofit social enterprises (chameleons) For-profit social enterprises (pure plays and migrators) Businesses with a single bottom line that practice corporate social responsibility Businesses with a single bottom line (financial)
  37. 37. “ Investment priorities matrix” ® SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY THIRD PRIORITY NOT A PRIORITY Social investors seeking both social and financial returns THIRD PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY NOT A PRIORITY Socially responsible investors seeking both social and financial returns NOT A PRIORITY THIRD PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY Traditional investors seeking financial returns Nonprofit social enterprises (chameleons) For-profit social enterprises (pure plays and migrators) Businesses with a single bottom line that practice corporate social responsibility Businesses with a single bottom line (financial)
  38. 38. “ Investment priorities matrix” ® FIRST PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY THIRD PRIORITY NOT A PRIORITY Social investors primarily seeking social impact SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY THIRD PRIORITY NOT A PRIORITY Social investors seeking both social and financial returns THIRD PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY NOT A PRIORITY Socially responsible investors seeking both social and financial returns NOT A PRIORITY THIRD PRIORITY SECOND PRIORITY FIRST PRIORITY Traditional investors seeking financial returns Nonprofit social enterprises (chameleons) For-profit social enterprises (pure plays and migrators) Businesses with a single bottom line that practice corporate social responsibility Businesses with a single bottom line (financial)
  39. 39. Forthcoming research <ul><li>Carnegie Mellon University (H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management) </li></ul><ul><li>Longitudinal studies (pure plays, migrators, chameleons) </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative and quantitative </li></ul>
  40. 40. For additional information . . . <ul><li>Jerr Boschee </li></ul><ul><li>Founder and Executive Director </li></ul><ul><li>The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>www.socialent.org </li></ul><ul><li>+01-214-866-0472 </li></ul><ul><li>6215 Sandydale Drive </li></ul><ul><li>Dallas, Texas 75248 </li></ul><ul><li>United States of America </li></ul>

×