Citing the "common challenge" of replicating innovation, the authors ask the fundamental question of how social innovations can be successfully spread to reach greater populations. Following years of interviewing social entrepreneurs and social-sector leaders, Dees, Anderson and Wei-Skillern suggest a need to assume a "more strategic and systematic approach" to the definition of social innovations and their ability to be adopted. They provide case studies of both successful and unsuccessful examples of spreading social innovations. 

[Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). "Scaling Social Impact: Strategies for Spreading Social Innovations." Stanford Social Innovation Review 1(4): 24-32.]

Social innovations are disseminated, according to the authors, in three ways:

• organizationally;
• via a program;
• and through principles.

The organizational model is spread within an "overarching structure," which utilizes people and resources for a common good.  The program model is based on a set of actions which serve a defined purpose, often requiring community organizations to follow specific guidelines, some of which are licensed.  Finally, the principles model uses a more general format as a guideline to achieve a given purpose.

Forms of Social Innovation

Dees, et al. give specific examples of these social innovation forms, which have been transferred or scaled successfully acknowledging that the three main forms often overlap.

1. Organization: The first "community" foundation was created in Cleveland by Frederick Goff in 1914.  Goff brought together individual donor assets and community board expertise with charity-needs knowledge in a manner that allowed for pooling of resources and sharing of overhead reaching beyond the scope of private foundations.  He introduced the community foundation model to community leaders nationwide, and variations on hundreds of those foundations are in existence today, note the authors.
2. Program:  In 1990 at a Cleveland hospital, Boot Camp for New Dads (BCND) was launched by a father of four to help new fathers learn how to care for their babies.  In response to growing demand, founder Greg Bishop designed a fee-based program package to help hospitals, churches and other organizations implement, train and market the boot camp program.  More than 180 BCND programs are now located in 38 states.
3. Principles:  The founders of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) have helped develop a national network of high-performing schools in underprivileged areas by recruiting and training leaders in that field. The general guidelines include a core-set of principles called the Five Pillars (i.e., the first principle is "High Expectations").  The principles can be applied flexibly but are backed by stringent goals for academic performance. The KIPP network has expanded from serving 50 students in Houston in 1994 to a network serving 4,000 in 32 public schools nationwide.        

Three methodologies for spreading social innovation are delineated: 

• dissemination,
• affiliation, and
• branching.

 Dissemination is the simplest form of transferring innovation.  It resembles a "recipe" for change by providing direct information, instructions, and a model for communities to follow and replicate.  Thus, dissemination has the least local control or input into its implementation.  Affiliation is less dogmatic and more flexible in its approach to spreading innovation than dissemination.  Although affiliation is a formal relationship between parties over time, it exists within a network structure, which can be either loose (organizations committed to the same goals) or tight (business franchises.)  Finally, social innovations can be spread through branching, which can have either tight central control or more local autonomy.  Branching works much like "company owned stores" in that there is one large, central organization that then "branches out" into locally-owned and controlled businesses.  Successful branching depends on the specific practices, knowledge, and values of the central organization being followed by local agencies.  The authors place these three modes of spreading innovation on a continuum with greater and lesser degrees of central coordination and larger amounts of resources.  Specific examples of each form of scaling are cited.

Finally, the authors analyze five guiding questions, "The Five R's" that social entrepreneurs must address in order to determine the most strategic way to scale social innovations.  They are:

• Readiness (Is the innovation ready to be spread, and can it be defined clearly to others?)
• Receptivity (Will the innovation be well received by the community or met with resistance?)
• Resources (Are there sufficient resources available for scaling?)
• Risk (What are the chances for success or failure of the innovation, and is the scope of risks understood?)
• Returns (What is the bottom line? How well will the community be served?)                                                                       

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts/Etc:

Social Innovation Entrepreneurs, Projects, and Initiatives examined: 

• Interview with Bill Strickland (Manchester Craftsmen's Guild, an after school arts program for at-risk kids, Bidwell Training Center, an adult vocational training program); 
  
• Greg Bishop (Boot Camp for New Dads);
  
• Frederic Goff (community foundations);
  
• Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and Five Pillars (excellence in schools programs);
  
• Interview with Darrell Hammond (KaBOOM! local community playground building);
  
• Paul Brainerd (Social Venture Partners, individual philanthropists teaming up with local non-profits);
  
• Nancy Lublin (Dress for Success, suits for low-income women to wear to job interviews and in early employment);
• Dorothy Stoneman (YouthBuild USA, construction and refurbishment of buildings by at-risk youth, and associated academic and job training program).
• author email contact:  J. Gregory Dees -- gdees@duke.edu.