SOLUTION: Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations | My Assignment Tutor

123VOLUNTAS: International Journalof Voluntary and NonprofitOrganizationsOfficial journal of the InternationalSociety for Third-Sector ResearchISSN 0957-8765VoluntasDOI 10.1007/s11266-016-9704-5A Systems Approach to SocialEntrepreneurshipC. De Ruysscher, C. Claes, T. Lee, F. Cui,J. Van Loon, J. De Maeyer & R. Schalock123Your article is protected by copyright and allrights are held exclusively by InternationalSociety for Third-Sector Research and TheJohns Hopkins University. This e-offprint isfor personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wishto self-archive your article, please use theaccepted manuscript version for posting onyour own website. You may further depositthe accepted manuscript version in anyrepository, provided it is only made publiclyavailable 12 months after official publicationor later and provided acknowledgement isgiven to the original source of publicationand a link is inserted to the published articleon Springer’s website. The link must beaccompanied by the following text: “The finalpublication is available at link.springer.com”.ORIGINAL PAPERA Systems Approach to Social EntrepreneurshipC. De Ruysscher1 • C. Claes1 • T. Lee2 •F. Cui3 • J. Van Loon4 • J. De Maeyer1 •R. Schalock5International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016Abstract Currently, disabilities organizations are increasingly being challenged bythe requirement for individualized service, expectations to show personal outcomes,and the need to base their services on evidence-based practices. Socialentrepreneurship (SE) is being put forward as an innovative approach for dealingwith these challenges. This article presents a systems approach to SE based on aprogram logic model. This model identifies the input factors (a strong social vision,exploiting opportunities, maximizing resources), throughput strategies (entrepreneurial orientation, critical thinking skills, networking, capacity building), and& C. De Ruysscherclara.deruysscher@ugent.beC. Claesclaudia.claes@hogent.beT. Leetim.lee@vtcidd.orgF. Cuifcui@law.harvard.eduJ. Van Loonjloon@arduin.nlJ. De Maeyerjessica.demaeyer@hogent.beR. Schalockrschalock@ultraplix.com1 Faculty of Education Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, ValentinVaerwyckweg 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium2 Vocational Training Center, Taipei, Taiwan3 One Plus One Group for Disability, Xiluoyuan 2 Qu, Building #22, Room 604, Fengtai District,Beijing 100077, China123VoluntasDOI 10.1007/s11266-016-9704-5Author’s personal copyoutcome components (improving people’s lives, community-building, improvingsociety) of SE at the micro, meso, and macro level. Also, the importance of planningfor contextual changes as a social entrepreneur is discussed. The article concludeswith presenting three inspiring practices regarding SE in the field of disabilitiesorganizations.Re´sume´ A` l’heure actuelle, les organisations de handicape´s sont de plus en plusconfronte´es a` l’exigence d’un service personnalise´, aux attentes pour afficher lesre´sultats personnels et a` la ne´cessite´ de fonder leurs services sur des pratiquesfonde´es sur des donne´es probantes. L’entrepreneuriat social est pre´sente´ comme uneapproche novatrice pour faire face a` ces de´fis. Cet article pre´sente une approchesyste´mique de l’entrepreneuriat social base´e sur un mode`le logique de programme.Ce mode`le identifie les facteurs d’entre´e de l’entrepreneuriat social (une visionsociale forte, la recherche de de´bouche´s, l’optimisation des ressources), les strate´-gies de rendement (l’orientation entrepreneuriale, la pense´e critique, la mise enre´seau, le renforcement des capacite´s) et les e´le´ments des re´sultats (l’ame´liorationdes conditions de vie des populations, le renforcement de la communaute´,l’ame´lioration de la socie´te´) aux niveaux macroe´conomique, me´so-e´conomique etmicroe´conomique. L’importance de la planification des changements contextuels entant qu’entrepreneur social est e´galement traite´e. L’article se termine par lapre´sentation de trois pratiques enrichissantes concernant l’entrepreneuriat socialdans le domaine des organisations de handicape´s.Zusammenfassung Ein gegenwa¨rtig wachsendes Problem fu¨r Behindertenorganisationen sind das Erfordernis fu¨r individualisierte Dienstleistungen, die Erwartungen,perso¨nliche Resultate nachzuweisen und die Notwendigkeit, ihre Dienstleistungenauf bewa¨hrte Praktiken zu basieren. Das soziale Unternehmertum steht dabei als eininnovativer Ansatz zum Umgang mit diesen Herausforderungen im Vordergrund.Dieser Beitrag pra¨sentiert einen Systemansatz zum sozialen Unternehmertum beruhend auf einem Programmlogik-Modell. Dieses Modell identifiziert die Inputfaktoren(eine starke soziale Vision, Chancennutzung, Ressourcenmaximierung), Durchsatzstrategien (unternehmerische Orientierung, kritisches Denken, Networking, Kapazita¨tsbildung) und Ergebniskomponenten (Verbesserung des Lebens einzelnerPersonen, Gemeinschaftsbildung, Verbesserung der Gesellschaft) des sozialenUnternehmertums auf der Mikro-, Meso- und Makroebene. Zudem wird dieBedeutung einer Planung fu¨r Kontexta¨nderungen fu¨r soziale Unternehmer diskutiert.Abschließend pra¨sentiert der Beitrag drei anregende Praktiken im Hinblick auf dassoziale Unternehmertum im Bereich der Behindertenorganisationen.Resumen Actualmente, las organizaciones de discapacitados cada vez se ven ma´scuestionadas por el requisito de un servicio individualizado, expectativas para4 Arduin Foundation, Seissingel 4, 4333 GV Middelburg, The Netherlands5 Department of Psychology, Hastings College, PO Box 285 2435, Cottonwood Creek Road,Chewelah, WA 99109, USAVoluntas123Author’s personal copymostrar resultados personales y la necesidad de basar sus servicios en pra´cticasbasadas en la evidencia. El emprendimiento social (SE, por sus siglas en ingle´s) sepresenta como un enfoque innovador para tratar estos desafı´os. Este artı´culo presenta un enfoque de sistemas del emprendimiento social basado en un modelolo´gico de programas. Este modelo identifica los factores de entrada (una potentevisio´n social, explotacio´n de oportunidades, maximizacio´n de recursos), las estrategias de rendimiento (orientacio´n empresarial, habilidades de pensamiento crı´tico,trabajo en red, creacio´n de capacidad) y los componentes del resultado (mejora delas vidas de las personas, construccio´n de la comunidad, mejora de la sociedad) delSE a nivel micro, medio y macro. Asimismo, se trata la importancia de la planificacio´n de cambios contextuales como un emprendedor social. El artı´culo concluyepresentando tres pra´cticas inspiradoras relativas al SE en el campo de las organizaciones de discapacitados.Keywords Social entrepreneurship Disabilities organizations Program logicmodelIntroduction and OverviewNot-for-profit organizations providing services and supports to persons withdisabilities are increasingly expected to be more efficient and effective in theoutcomes they achieve and the resources they use. This requires that they thinkoutside the traditional ways of funding and providing services and supports, andtransform their service-delivery system into one that is customer-centered,community-based, sustainable, and responsive to the needs of diverse populations(Kidd and McKenzie 2013; Schalock and Verdugo 2012a, b). As discussed in thepresent article, this shift in thinking is best exemplified in the concept of socialentrepreneurship (SE) which we define as ‘‘a systematic process that aims to createsocial value at three levels: improving people’s lives, community-building, andimproving society. It is facilitated by a strong social vision, the capacity to exploitopportunities and to maximize resources, using strategies based on an entrepreneurial orientation, critical thinking skills, networking, and capacity building’’. Thisdefinition is based on the work of Gray et al. (2003), Mair and Marti (2006), Kiddand McKenzie (2013), Kumar and Gupta (2013), Light (2005), Lumpkin et al.(2013), Peredo and McLean (2006), and Roberts and Woods (2005).Although it is a promising and emergent approach for dealing with thesechallenges and complex social needs, the concept of social entrepreneurship is stillvariably defined and its boundaries remain fuzzy (Mair and Marti 2006). Thepurpose of this article is to build on our current understanding of socialentrepreneurship and to clarify the phenomenon by describing a comprehensivemodel of social entrepreneurship, including its components and application. In thisarticle, we focus on: (a) a conceptual model of SE, (b) a systems approach to SE,(c) the importance of planning for contextual changes, (d) inspiring practices in thefield of disabilities organizations, and (e) future directions in the field of SE.Voluntas123Author’s personal copyA Conceptual Model of Social EntrepreneurshipAs an overview to the conceptual model presented as Fig. 2, it is important fordisabilities organizations to have insight into the input, throughput, and outputcomponents and the critical indicators of their service-delivery system. Thesecomponents and indicators can be represented in a program logic model such as thatin Fig. 1. To this end, a program logic model shows the interconnectedness of theinput-throughput-output process at the micro, meso, and macro level of anorganization (Schalock and Verdugo 2012a; Bronfenbrenner 1992; Funnell andRogers 2011; Isaacs et al. 2009). In doing so, it provides insight into the alignmentbetween system-level processes and organization-level practices (vertical alignment) and the alignment between the organization’s input, throughput, and outputcomponents (horizontal alignment) (Schalock et al. 2008; Schalock and Verdugo2012a, b, 2013).Frequently there is a tension between individual support needs at the micro leveland the ability for organizations (the meso level) to provide supports that are bothindividualized and reduce the discrepancy between the individual’s capabilities andthe demands of his/her environment. This tension confronts disabilities organizationswith a double challenge. First, the current scarcity of resources and money-savingregulations (the macro level) challenge organizations to fulfill program recipients’support needs. Second, service/support users are encouraged to adopt the attitude ofaccepting less than optimal. On top of that, many organizations are faced with longwaiting lists. This double challenge affects and shapes the organization’s capacity.SE is increasingly suggested as an innovative approach for dealing with thesechallenges. SE operates at the center of the above-mentioned process and is housedat the intersection of the mesosystem and the throughput systems component, as isdepicted in the conceptual model depicted (Fig. 2). Because of its central position,SE has an important bridging function at several levels. First, it bridges between themacro and the micro level. Often, social entrepreneurs are capable of getting aroundFig. 1 A program logic modelVoluntas123Author’s personal copyinstitutional barriers and even influence policy decisions at the macro level in orderto realize adequate support (Desa 2011; Di Domenico et al. 2010; Montgomery et al.2012). Also, SE creates links between organizations and stimulates collaborationand community-building across the boundaries of different sectors. This collaborative action is necessary to gain support and legitimacy in the community andprovides cultural and social diversity (Montgomery et al. 2012). And mostimportantly, SE has become an indispensable bridge towards a higher quality of lifefor people with disabilities (Thake and Zadek 1997).A Systems Approach to Social EntrepreneurshipA systems approach to SE starts with a logic model that is used to both explain thephenomenon and to provide the framework for its implementation (Isaacs et al.2009). The logic model presented in Fig. 3 summarizes the input, throughput, andoutcome components of our model. As depicted in Fig. 3, the input componentinvolves having a strong social vision, exploiting opportunities, and maximizingresources (Dees 1998; Johnson 2000); the throughput component involves SEstrategies involving an entrepreneurial orientation, critical thinking skills, networking, and capacity building; and the outcome component includes creating socialvalue at the micro-, meso-, and macro-system levels (Mair and Marti 2006; Peredoand McLean 2006).Input FactorsA Strong Social VisionThere is broad agreement that social entrepreneurs and SE are driven by values andsocial goals that benefit individuals, organizations, and society (Peredo and McLeanFig. 2 A conceptual model of social entrepreneurshipVoluntas123Author’s personal copy2006). Values form the vision and culture of an organization and include dignity,equality empowerment, self-direction, nondiscrimination, inclusion, and focus onimproving people’s lives, the community, and society (Kidd and McKenzie 2013;Peredo and McLean 2006).Exploiting OpportunitiesCharacteristic to social entrepreneurship is a shift in perceptions towards seeingsocial ills and social problems as opportunities, and to see entrepreneurship as asource of solutions (Light, 2005; Lumpkin et al. 2013). In other words, each of thechallenges mentioned in the Introduction can be viewed as an opportunity to ‘dothings differently’. However, for an opportunity to become a SE strategy, it isgenerally necessary to plan for contextual changes in larger service-deliverysystems. Therefore, social entrepreneurs need to understand the context of theirorganization and realize that there is frequent resistance to change that occursaround changing current rules and regulations and developing new practices.Maximizing ResourcesSE also builds on resources, but an expanded conception of what resources are. Asdiscussed by Schalock and Verdugo (2012a, b, 2013), resources need to be thoughtof as something more than financial capital. Indeed, resources include time,expertise, tacit knowledge, and explicit knowledge.Throughput StrategiesEntrepreneurial OrientationSocial entrepreneurs feel the need to be proactive and innovative, taking intoaccount an above average degree of risk. Employing an entrepreneurial orientationoften results in the creation of a social enterprise, which encompasses a valuesFig. 3 A logic model of social entrepreneurshipVoluntas123Author’s personal copybased project, a business organization, or a systematic purposeful activity (Lumpkinet al. 2013; Peredo and McLean 2006; Roberts and Woods 2005).Critical Thinking SkillsInnovation and creativity require critical thinking skills related to divergent thinking(i.e., standing outside the box and viewing things differently, alignment and systemsthinking). Alignment forces entrepreneurs to think logically and place or bringservices and supports delivery processes into a logical input, throughput, and outputsequence. Systems thinking focuses on the multiple factors that affect humanfunctioning at the micro-, meso-, and macro-system levels (Schalock et al. 2014).Networking involves partnering through networks composed of local actors,stakeholders, for-profit organizations, not-for-profit organizations, and publicentities. In doing so, social entrepreneurial organizations are strongly embeddedin their community and able to provide a practice-based response to problems intheir community, because their solutions are built on local knowledge andexperience, shared values, common goals, and a sense of belonging (Kidd andMcKenzie 2013; Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Peredo and McLean 2006).Capacity BuildingOrganizational capacity is the critical toolkit that encompasses the knowledge,systems, and processes that contribute to organizational effectiveness (Kapucu et al.2011; Linnell 2003). Capacity building involves designing and implementingactivities related to enhancing the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency interms of services/supports delivery, resource development, and research andevaluation (International Research Consortium on Evidence-Based Practice 2013;Schalock et al. 2014).Valued Social OutcomesAs Glenn (2014) states, ‘‘it is unreasonable to expect societies to cooperativelycreate and implement strategies to build a better future without some generalagreement about what that desirable future is’’ (p.20). In other words, creatingsocial value needs to be defined operationally in reference to outcomes at threelevels. At the micro-system level (i.e., the individual), social value is defined asimproving people’s lives in reference to valued personal outcomes such as humanfunctioning and/or quality of life domains. At the mesosystem level (i.e., theorganization and community), social value is defined in terms of organization and/orcommunity-building. Community-building is defined by Weil (1996) as ‘‘activities,practices, and politics that support and foster positive connections amongindividuals, groups, organizations, neighborhoods, and geographic and functionalcommunities’’. At the macro-system level (i.e., societal), creating social value isdefined in terms of improving society as reflected in indices reflecting socioeconomic status, positive health, environmental quality, and subjective well-being.Voluntas123Author’s personal copyTable 1 provides an overview of the how ‘creating social value’ is definedoperationally in terms of measurable indicators related to improving peoples’lives, community-building, and improving society. The quality of life outcomeslisted in Table 1 are based on the published work of Brown et al. (2013), Chiuet al. (2013), Claes et al. (2010, 2012), Felce and Perry (1995), Petry et al.(2005), Schalock et al. (2007), Schalock and Verdugo (2012a, b), and Zuna et al.(2010). Those outcomes associated with community-building are based on thepublished work of Adler and Kwan (2002), Putnam et al. (2004), and Stone(2003). Those outcomes associated with improving society are based on thepublished work of Brown et al. (2013), Burchardt (2008), Emerson et al. (2006),and Snell and Luckasson (2009).Besides being a mediator between the input, throughput, and output componentsof the logic model (horizontal alignment), social entrepreneurship also has animportant bridging function between the micro-, meso-, and macro-system levels(vertical alignment). This alignment is depicted in Fig. 4. For example, whencertain policy-level decisions (at the macro level) hinder the implementation ofdesirable systems of support for a person with a disability (at the micro level),social entrepreneurship can find innovative ways to influence policy makers toadjust their regulations. In other words, social entrepreneurship fulfills animportant moderating and conciliatory function between the micro- and macrosystem levels.Table 1 Measurable indicators of valued social outcomesOutcome category Measurable indicatorsImproving peoples’ lives (individualand family quality of life)Individual referenced quality of life domains: personaldevelopment, self-determination, interpersonal relations,social inclusion, rights, emotional well-being, physical wellbeing, material well-beingFamily referenced quality of life domains: family interactions,parenting, emotional well-being, personal development,physical well-being, financial well-being, communityinvolvement, disability-related supportsCommunity-building (social capital) Social capital networksNorms of reciprocity and trustInclusion and community involvementMutual support systems (‘circles of supports’)Community ties/affiliationImproving society (the good life) Socio-economic position (education, occupation, income)Health (longevity, wellness, access to health care)Environmental quality (air, water, green space)Subjective well-being (life satisfaction, positive affect(happiness, contentment), absence of negative affect(sadness/worry, helplessness)Voluntas123Author’s personal copyPlanning for Contextual ChangesSE does not occur in a vacuum. The interaction between the social entrepreneur andthe context is indispensable. To be most effective, social entrepreneurs need torecognize that planning for contextual changes is equally important as planning forchanges in practices. The context within which not-for-profit agencies operatefrequently generates resistance to change that occurs around new practices(Manchester et al. 2014). Many of the contextual issues causing resistance tochange can be viewed from the perspective of mental models that are deeplyingrained assumptions, generalizations, and images used to understand the worldand form the vision and culture of an organization, service-delivery system, orsociety (Schalock and Verdugo 2012b). Examples from the disability field include:(a) an emphasis on defectology, segregation, and control in reference to personswith disabilities; and (b) a focus on organizations as mechanistic entities that needto be highly regulated, as opposed to organizations as self-evaluating and improvingsystems. Other contextual issues causing resistance to change involve societalattitudes towards—and approaches to—persons with disabilities, and outdated, butstill operational, rules and regulations.Social entrepreneurs need to analyze their context for such inhibiting factors.Since SE is housed at the intersection of the mesosystem and the throughput systemscomponent of the logic model (cf. Fig. 2), social entrepreneurs find themselves in acentral position to conduct a critical exploration of all the contextual factors relatedto their organization. This is important, because inhibiting factors can be found inall horizontal (input, throughput, output) and vertical (micro, meso, macro)components of the model. In this respect, it can be helpful to apply a mechanism forchange, that focuses on five factors involved in the ‘unfreezing’ and change process,and uses the input, throughput, and output components of a program logic model toorganize the analysis. The five factors involved in the ‘unfreezing’ process are:(a) identifying contextual factors that hinder change, (b) conducting a discrepancyanalysis that identifies the ‘disconnects’ between where one is and where one wantsto be, (c) identifying the forces for change that will increase momentum andFig. 4 Vertical alignment ofsocial entrepreneurshipVoluntas123Author’s personal copyreceptivity, (d) identifying ways to promote adoption, and (e) identifying ways toincrease stakeholder participation (Lewin 1951; Manchester et al. 2014; Schalockand Verdugo 2012a).Figure 5 provides an illustration of such a contextual analysis. It summarizes theresults of an extensive contextual analysis completed recently by the Consortium onCommunity Living in Taiwan (Lee, personal correspondence). Once the contextualanalysis is completed, an action plan can be developed around specific cells withinthe contextual analysis matrix.Exemplary Social Entrepreneurial PracticesSE flourishes best in the interaction between the dynamics at the micro, meso, andmacro levels. It is a process that can be compared with improvisational theater. Theonly given at the start of the performance is the de´cor and a group of actors thatembark on a creative journey as they take on several roles in order to build up to themoral of the story. Inherent to improvisation is the unpredictability of many possiblestorylines building up to the same moral. Just like improvisational theater, there isno standard recipe for social entrepreneurship. Once an innovative idea is created,social entrepreneurs embark on a creative journey in search of resources,stakeholders, and strategies that help putting their ideas into practice (Di Domenicoet al. 2010). However promising, this daring and creative aspect of SE still raisesquestions among disabilities organizations, policy makers, and practitioners whoprefer the safety of top–down regulations and funding.SE is not a new phenomenon in not-for-profit organizations. Many suchorganizations were founded by pioneers who managed to turn a strong social visioninto reality, starting with little financial and social capital. In other words, socialentrepreneurship is as old as the sector itself. There is a wealth of tacit knowledgeavailable in organizations who are explicitly or implicitly involved in socialFig. 5 Contextual analysis as a mechanism for changeVoluntas123Author’s personal copyentrepreneurial processes. Therefore, it is inspirational to take a closer look at threeorganizations (BOSKE Bakery Cafe´, One Plus One and Arduin) who apply socialentrepreneurial strategies in order to create social value.BOSKE Bakery Cafe´ (Taiwan)Qi Zhi Vocational Training Center is a social services organization that providescommunity living and vocational rehabilitation services to adults with intellectualand developmental disabilities (IDD). The first cafe´ was established in 2002. Acentral bakery was added in 2006. Currently, there are three cafe´ locations and arecently expanded central bakery, employing 35 individuals with disabilities. Theeveryday practice of these cafe´s is built around three central operating principles:having a social business, being market competitive, and having a positive image.Social BusinessBOSKE Bakery Cafe´ has operated as a social business from the very beginning. Asocial business is seen as a double bottom line enterprise, aiming for both financialand social profit, combining the effectiveness and the efficiency of the businessmindset with the values and mission of not-for-profit organizations. BOSKE is builton a business model that strives for an efficient and effective operation, resulting ina self-sustaining business, independent of government funding or charitable donations. Therefore, BOSKE has a greater potential to provide long-term benefits toindividual employees and to have an impact on the larger society.Market CompetitiveIn order to be a self-sustaining social business, BOSKE’s products and services haveto be market competitive. A lot had to be learned about product segmentation, targetcustomers, value proposition, and many other business strategy concepts to competewith other bakery and cafe´ businesses. The general aim of BOSKE is that peoplebuy their products because they love the baked goods and services, rather thanpeople buying products out of a sense of pity, compassion, or duty. This insistenceforces BOSKE to strive for quality and efficiency and show the larger society thatindividuals with different life challenges can and do bring great value to the society.Positive ImageBOSKE aims to inspire people to see individuals with disabilities in a different andpositive way. The restaurant experience is designed so that customers are drawn bythe products and environment first. As they enjoy the shopping and diningexperience, subtle cues are positioned to help them discover the more significantsocial purpose of BOSKE. Many customers frequent BOSKE for months beforerealizing that all the products and services are provided by individuals withdisabilities. They are all pleasantly surprised by their discovery, and are left with apositive impression of the staff members. Such a positive portrayal both changes theVoluntas123Author’s personal copysociety’s attitudes and strengthens the value proposition of BOSKE as a business,earning strong customer loyalty to our brand and products.The bakery cafe´s creates social value in several ways. First, they aim atenhancing personal quality of life. Having a meaningful and productive job is amajor driver for a person’s happiness. Many of BOSKE’s employees experiencesignificant improvement in their quality of life as a direct result of working in thecentral bakery or cafe´. They wear their baker’s uniform with pride. They show offtheir freshly baked breads with big smiles on their faces. They interact withcustomers with ease. One can readily observe clear gains in areas such as job skills,relational connectedness, and economic position. What is even more significant isthat many of the individuals working in BOSKE do not qualify for government’svocational programs. The social business model is able to serve those not served bythe system. Second, BOSKE aims at creating a greater connection with the largercommunity on multiple levels. On the individual level, cafe´ employees connect withcustomers and suppliers on a daily basis. On the meso level, partnerships areestablished with other like-minded businesses. Also, it is possible to gain entry andestablish connections with traditional for-profit businesses through their need toimplement their corporate social responsibility programs. Also, BOSKE as a socialbusiness connects with other agencies and governmental departments, for synergistic partnership and mutual sharpening. A social enterprise approach forcesBOSKE to think in ways that integrate the strengths of business and not-for-profitmodels, and innovate something new that brings social change. It forces not-forprofit agencies to consider the effectiveness and efficiencies of a business mindset.It also forces business operators to consider the importance of creating social value.Social and financial bottom lines are no longer mutually exclusive. Instead, they areequally vital and both obtainable.One Plus One (Mainland China)One Plus One Beijing Cultural Exchange Center for Persons with Disabilities wasfounded as one of earliest not-for-profit social disabilities organizations in China in2006 by a group of eight persons with disabilities. Currently, the organization hassections in Beijing and Shanghai, and there are 34 employees: 19 of them havedisabilities, including hearing, intellectual, visual, and physical disabilities.Reflecting the potential of social entrepreneurship, the organization has evolvedfrom a media center to a multi-functional social organization, functioning as aplatform for persons with disabilities to realize their life goals and values and for allstakeholders to work together for rights advocacy, training, and public education.Their activities include having a radio program, a magazine, a research team, acommunity service center, and a culture exchange center.In the past eight years, the development of One Plus One indicated the typicalgrowth of disabled persons’ organizations in China (DPOs) to change the way thegeneral public perceives disabilities and to promote social inclusion. During theprocess of development, members in this group have experienced huge systematicbarriers, such as a lack of support from the government as part of civil society,financial challenges, and disassociation with other groups. When they began toVoluntas123Author’s personal copybroadcast radio programs, for example, they realized that the main problem was notto show what persons with disabilities could do, but rather to show society thatpersons with disabilities could be accepted as equal human beings and could begiven opportunities to participate as equal members of society. Meanwhile, theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)functioned as a driving force to raise awareness, address attitudinal and socialbarriers, empower persons with disabilities and their representative organizations,and require a support network for inclusion.International and professional support interwoven with local rich experience andwisdom of DPOs initiated a transformational period of development for One PlusOne to not only work within the disabilities community, but also to realize thecritical need to reach out to other groups, such as parent organizations, publicinterest law firms, and universities in order to create a multidimensional networkand joint efforts. Through collaborating with partners at both local and internationallevels, One Plus One conducted a series of projects, including creating handbooks inplain and simple language on CRPD and Chinese laws and policies, collecting andpublicizing narratives of persons with disabilities. These narratives are importantand powerful means to address discrimination and prejudices, to train staff membersto be advocates of disability rights, to bring stakeholders together, and to stimulatethem to work together on sustainable projects.Arduin (The Netherlands)Arduin is a Dutch organization that provides services and supports to 800 peoplewith intellectual disability, in living, work and/or daily activities. Fifteen years ago,Arduin shifted away from a facility-centered organization to a service-deliverycenter and a community-based approach starting from a quality of life framework(Van Loon and Van Hove 2001). By focusing on quality of life instead of quality ofcare, the emphasis is on personal outcomes and on identifying the processes neededon an organizational level to enhance these outcomes.According to Linnell (2003), capacity building is a critical toolkit that enablesnot-for-profit organizations to operate effectively under uncertain and dynamiccircumstances (Kapucu et al. 2011). The literature of capacity building forces us tolook outside the box and introduces innovative terms such as field-building work,peer learning groups, social capital, collaborative partnerships, and groupworkshops (Linnell 2003; Kapucu et al. 2011). Eisinger (2002) refers to capacityas ‘‘the resources, effective leadership, skill and sufficient staff, a certain level ofinstitutionalization, and links to the larger community from which an organizationmight draw help’’ (p. 117). Arduin embraces capacity building in its broad sense atdifferent levels of the organization. In its consequential policy of focusing onquality of life and supports, it was often necessary to think creatively. For example,because of the expanding costs of transport, Arduin once started its own taxicompany to reduce the costs of buying cars (a taxi company has lower taxes whenbuying a car). There are no problems, only challenges.As an organizational unit, Arduin moved away from a typical hierarchicalorganization in which a lot of energy is being put on vertical structures andVoluntas123Author’s personal copyarrangements. Important for the embedding of the concept of quality of life in anorganization is the involvement of consumers (Schalock et al. 2007). In other words,it is essential to give meaningful roles to the consumers of the organization. Animportant question in this respect is the following: to what degree are consumersinvolved in the development and implementation of their individual supports plan?In order to meet this demand, Arduin developed an Individualized Supports System.As the outcomes of an individual supports plan for a person should be an enhancedquality of life, determining whether this outcome occurs requires the reliable andvalid assessment of quality of life-related domains. The Personal Outcomes Scale(POS), which is based on the conceptual quality of life model and measurementframework by Schalock et al. (2002), was developed for that purpose. A POSinterview results in scores for the eight quality of life domains that are specified inthe model of Schalock et al. (2002).Future DirectionsThis article describes how SE is an innovative catalyst for making change happen atthe level of the individual (micro), the organizational level (meso), and society(macro). By developing a conceptual and comprehensive model, based on aprogram logic model, we aimed to create conceptual clarity and to facilitate theimplementation of SE in the daily practice of disabilities organizations.However, in order to transform these models into tools that can be applied indaily practice, they need to be further operationalized. This can be done in twoways. Firstly, SE is a process that is propelled by inspiration. Therefore, moreinspirational practices need to be identified in order to inspire other individuals,organizations, and societies to join in and to stimulate collaboration across theboundaries of sectors. Secondly, a toolkit needs to be developed to support not-forprofit organizations in their social entrepreneurial process. In this respect, it could behelpful to establish Communities of Practice, which consist of actors from both themicro, meso, and macro level (e.g., persons with disabilities, professionals, policymakers, actors from for-profit organizations), in order to ensure that the voices of allactors are taken into account in the development of such a toolkit (Sterk et al. 2013).A major characteristic of SE is that it evolves from small events, obstacles, andchanges that persons and organizations deal with in a creative and innovative way.By bringing together local expertise and creating networks in which these creativesolutions can be shared, people become co-owner of the learning processes takingplace. This connectedness, we believe, forms the key to success for SE.ReferencesAdler, P. S., & Kwan, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of ManagementReview, 27, 17–40.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Brown, I., Hatton, C., & Emerson, E. (2013). Quality of life indicators for individuals and families withintellectual disabilities: Extending current practice. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51,316–332.Voluntas123Author’s personal copyBurchardt, T. (2008). Monitoring inequality: Putting the capacities approach to work. In G. Craig, T.Burchardt, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy (pp. 205–229). Bristol: Policy Press.Chiu, C., Kyzar, K., Zuna, N., Turnbull, A., Summers, J. A., & Gomez, V. A. (2013). Family quality oflife. In M. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp.365–392). New York: Oxford University Press.Claes, C., van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). The influence of supportstrategies, environmental factors, and client characteristics on quality of life-related outcomes.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 96–103.Claes, C., van Hove, G., van Loon, J., Vandevelde, S., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Quality of lifemeasurement in the field of intellectual disability: Eight principles for assessing quality of liferelated outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 98, 61–75.Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’. Draft Report for the Kauffman Center forEntrepreneurial Leadership. California: Stanford University.Desa, G. (2011). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as amechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 727–751.Di Domenico, M. L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creationin social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703.Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level foodassistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 115–130.Emerson, E., Graham, H., & Hatton, C. (2006). The measurement of poverty and socio-economic positionin research involving people with intellectual disability. In L. M. Glidden (Ed.), International reviewof research in mental retardation (pp. 77–108). New York: Academic Press.Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 16, 51–74.Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change andlogic models (Vol. 31). Hoboken: Wiley.Glenn, J. C. (2014). Our global situation and prospects for the future. The Futurist, 48, 15–25.Gray, M., Healy, K., & Crofts, P. (2003). Social enterprise: Is it the business of social work? AustralianSocial Work, 56(2), 141–152.International Research Consortium on Evidence-Based Practices. (2013). The organization effectivenessand efficiency scale. Retrieved from www.oeesonline.com.Isaacs, B., Clark, C., Correia, S., & Flannery, J. (2009). Utility of logic models to plan quality of lifeoutcome evaluations. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 6(1), 52–61.Johnson, S. (2000). Literature review on social entrepreneurship. Toronto: Canadian Centre for SocialEntrepreneurship.Kapucu, N., Healy, B. F., & Arshan, T. (2011). Survival of the fittest: Capacity building for smallnonprofit organizations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 236–245.Kidd, S. A., & McKenzie, K. J. (2013). Moving the mental health equity dialogue forward: The promiseof a social entrepreneur framework. Administration Policy in Mental Health, 40, 55–57.Kumar, S., & Gupta, K. (2013). Social entrepreneurship: A conceptual framework. International Journalof Management and Social Sciences Research, 2(8), 2319.Lewin, K. (1951). Problems in research in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory insocial science (pp. 125–142). New York: Harper & Brothers.Light, P. C. (2005). Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they might be found,what they do. In Draft presented at the Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit andVoluntary Organizations, November (pp. 17–19).Linnell, D. (2003). Evaluation of capacity building: Lessons from the field. Washington, DC: Alliance forNonprofit Management.Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2013). Entrepreneurial processesin social contexts: How are they different, if at all? Small Business Economics, 40, 761–786.Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, anddelight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36–44.Manchester, J., Gray-Miceli, D. L., Metcaff, J. A., Paolini, C. A., Napier, A. H., Coogle, C. L., & Owens,M. G. (2014). Facilitating Lewin’s change model with collaborative evaluation in promotingevidence-based practices in health professionals. Evaluation and Program Planning, 47, 82–90.Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship:Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 375–388.Voluntas123Author’s personal copyPeredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy ofManagement Review, 31(2), 309–328.Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journalof World Business, 41, 56–65.Petry, K., Maes, B., & Vlaskamp, C. (2005). Domains of quality of life of people with profound multipledisabilities: The perspective of parents and direct support staff. Journal of Applied Research inIntellectual Disabilities, 18, 35–46.Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L., & Cohen, D. J. (2004). Better together: Restoring the American community.New York: Simon and Schuster.Roberts, D., & Woods, C. (2005). Changing the world on a shoestring: The concept of socialentrepreneurship. University of Auckland Business Review, 7(1), 45–51.Schalock, R. L., Bonham, G. S., & Verdugo, M. A. (2008). The conceptualization and measurement ofquality of life: Implications for program planning and evaluation in the field of intellectualdisabilities. Evaluation and program planning, 31(2), 181–190.Schalock, R. L., Brown, I., Brown, R., Cummins, R. A., Felce, D., Matikka, L., & Parmenter, T. (2002).Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for persons with intellectualdisabilities: Report of an international panel of experts. Mental Retardation, 40(6), 457–470.Schalock, R. L., Gardner, J. F., & Bradley, V. J. (2007). Quality of life for persons with intellectual andother developmental disabilities: Applications across individuals, organizations, communities, andsystems. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Schalock, R. L., Lee, T., Verdugo, M. A., Swart, K., Claes, C., van Loon, J., & Lee, C-S. (2014). Anevidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizationsevaluation and program planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 45, 110–118.Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012a). A conceptual and measurement framework to guide policydevelopment and systems change. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1),70–79.Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012b). A leadership guide for today’s disabilities organizations:Overcoming challenges and making change happen. Baltimore: Brookes.Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013). The transformation of disabilities organizations. Intellectualand Developmental Disabilities, 51, 273–286.Snell, M. E., & Luckasson, R. (2009). Characteristics and needs of people with intellectual disability whohave higher IQs. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 220–233.Sterk, E., Specht, M., & Valraven, G. (2013). Sociaal ondernemerschap in de participatiesamenleving:Van de brave naar de eigenwijze burger. Antwerpen: Garant.Stone, W. (2003). Bonding, bridging, and linking with social capital. Stronger Families Living ExchangeBulletin, 4, 13–16. Australia.Thake, S., & Zadek, S. (1997). Practical people, noble causes. How to support community based socialentrepreneurs. London: New Economics Foundation.Van Loon, J., & Van Hove, G. (2001). Emancipation and self-determination of people with learningdisabilities and down-sizing institutional care. Disability & Society, 16(2), 233–254.Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building community practice. Social Work, 41, 481–499.Zuna, N., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, A. P., Hu, X., & Xu, S. (2010). Theorizing about family quality oflife. In R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: Fromtheory to practice (pp. 241–278). Dordrecht: Springer.Voluntas123Author’s personal copy