First, Define Your Government Partnership Goal(s)

In order to leverage government’s unique assets, social enterprises must clearly define their goals for partnership, i.e., the role they envision government playing to achieve the vision of scale.

Photo by Yiqun Tang on Unsplash

Our interviewees shared a spectrum of goals that they pursue with host-country government partners, which fit largely into four categories, as outlined below. Of note, the idea of government as a provider of capital did not surface as a goal in and of itself but, rather, as a potential input that can occur throughout almost any category. The framework below is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive but to provide the most common options as articulated by interviewees.

In that vein, the boundaries between these goals are blurry, and the pursuit of one over another often continues to evolve as enterprises evolve. In fact, many social enterprises eventually pursue multiple goals simultaneously: notably, 100 percent of the enterprises in our survey reported that they are currently working toward multiple partnership goals.¹

1. CLEAR THE PATH

Enterprise directly implements its own product/service, engaging with government to seek informal permission and/or avoid potential barriers.

Key Features:

• Informal relationship with government with low level of effort and intensity.
• Mostly transactional (i.e., gaining permits, licenses, or informal permission to operate).
• Social enterprise maintaining control of implementation.

Most Common When:

• Government does not (and is not envisioned to) play a deep role in the sector or path to scale.
• Enterprise wants/needs close control of implementation (and potentially IP).
• Note that while some enterprises see Clear the Path as their ultimate goal, many others pursue this type of engagement during start-up phase while they develop a model and evidence — but may ultimately pursue other end goals for government partnership.

Example:
Clearing the path is often about cost or barrier avoidance, e.g., social enterprises engaging with government simply to get needed permits, tax exemptions, business license/registrations, or customs designations. Although this is a largely transactional relationship, it can be critical. We heard of one organization having its product locked up in customs for more than six months because the host-country government deemed that it did not have the right certifications in place. Clearing the path can also be about a more proactive approach to receiving “permission to operate” in a certain location — stopping short of a formal endorsement or active support. MyAgro CEO and Founder, Anushka Ratnayake, spoke of always “seeking permission” from local government officials before beginning work in a new region, but not immediately formalizing this partnership. MyAgro meets with village chiefs, mayors, and regional government representatives (e.g, regional agriculture or social development officers) to explain its work, make introductions, and ensure that these important local leaders feel a part of the solution (even ensuring that its demo days are hosted at the mayor’s office, as possible).

2. OUTSOURCE

Government outsources to the social enterprise to deliver a product or service — either through a fee-for-service/product government contract or by allowing the enterprise to leverage government resources/infrastructure for implementation.

Key Features:

• Formalized relationship with government.
• Social enterprise controlling direct implementation.
• Government generally providing resources, which may include financial resources (through fee-for-service/product contracts) or infrastructure that the enterprise can leverage.

Most Common When:

• Complex solutions requiring tighter control by enterprise.
• Enterprise is interested in protecting intellectual property (often for-profit enterprises).
• Enterprise is providing a service/product that the government does not have the capacity to directly implement.

Example:
Outsourcing relationships can look like a typical vendor/vendee relationship in which the government pays an organization to provide a product or service. For example, the California Department of Social Services contracted Code for America to deliver and scale the GetCalFresh program, which improves Californians’ ability to effectively and efficiently access the statewide Food Stamps program. Outsourcing can also include partnerships in which government is not paying or implementing, but is providing a platform for the social enterprise to deliver a product/service that supplements government’s own service provision — either through enabling direct delivery or by formally endorsing a product/service. For example, mothers2mothers in South Africa provides trained “Mentor Mothers” who work within communities and low capacity public health clinics to ensure that women receive important HIV-related health advice and medications. The Mentor Mothers are managed by mothers2mothers, but are able to use government facilities as a platform for program implementation. Unlike social enterprises pursuing the goal of clearing the path, outsourcing is a more formal engagement which includes endorsement and approval from government and often integration of the enterprises’ work within existing government systems or infrastructure.

3. ADOPT

Government takes on management/implementation of the solution — either fully or partially.

Key Features:

• Formalized relationship with government.
• Moving toward government as primary implementer (may include co-implementation).
• Enterprise moving toward ceding control of implementation but often maintaining a longer-term supportive role (e.g., training, technical assistance).

Most Common When:

• Intervention is lower cost, easier to implement and codify, and — critically — in an area where the government is motivated and engaged.
• Government’s service provision has significant gaps, yet government is best positioned to deliver the solution in the long-term.

Example:
Adoption is the most common goal pursued by social enterprises²: in our survey, 68% chose adopt as their primary partnership goal. An example is Partners In Health (PIH) which works with governments to provide direct healthcare services and strengthen health systems. PIH directly implements services — allowing it to understand needs, tailor interventions, and build evidence — but is careful to simultaneously strengthen the capacity of government partners rather than create parallel systems. Over time, government is able to adopt the work, taking ownership of program implementation and freeing PIH to move on to next level health challenges. For example, in Lesotho, PIH was invited by the national government to address HIV care. As thousands of people enrolled in long-term HIV treatment and government capacity was built, PIH was able to shift its focus to tackling other health challenges, including TB and maternal and child health. Similarly, in Rwanda, PIH first focused on primary care systems in a rural district; then, as government adopted the work, PIH began to focus on non-communicable diseases, cancer care, and more. PIH views its work with governments as a long-term engagement and, like many of the enterprises profiled in this paper, has not fully exited a country and does not see a full exit without significant consequence within the short (or even medium) term.

A word of caution on the Adopt goal: Some funders and enterprises vigorously pursue a goal of ‘100 percent hand-off’ adoption — the idea that after some time, the government partner would operate independently without needing any ongoing support from the social enterprise. However, in practice, the experience of many social enterprises is that when handing off control to government partners, there is often a dip in impact resulting from limits in capacity, resources, and bandwidth and from the realities of implementing beyond a more controlled pilot setting. Therefore, most social enterprises we interviewed who are pursuing the Adopt end goal are actually trying to achieve some degree of adoption rather than the 100 percent hand-off. The “Go” section includes additional advice from the field regarding maintaining quality of impact relevant to Adoption.

4. CHANGE POLICY

Government changes the way it approaches or implements policy, allocates resources, and/or structures regulations or standards as a result of the enterprise’s influence.

Key Features:

• Enterprise serving as adviser and often having had a direct implementation role to add to its credibility.
• Based on rigorous data, track record, and/or experience.
• Enterprise often seeking other end goals concurrently with Policy Change.

Most Common When:

• Government is motivated and has capacity to make systems changes.
• Enterprises, in later stages of implementation, are bringing deep technical expertise, ideally from that country/region or from similar work in other countries

Example:
Social enterprises may try to influence government to change policies and prioritize an issue at an institutional level; help government develop a strategy or national guidelines around a specific issue; and/or advise on allocation of budget. For example, an important part of education non-profit Pratham’s work is influencing governments in India to shift their focus in educational programming from increasing enrollment to learning outcomes. In part due to Pratham’s evidence of impact, compelling data, and advocacy efforts, in 2012 India’s erstwhile Planning Commission came out with a learning outcome policy for the country’s 12th Five-year Plan. The following year, the central government’s education department issued guidelines in line with the core of Pratham’s methodology. These guidelines have since been actioned by several state governments in the country and has driven traffic to Pratham as a key government partner.

Read next: What Role Do You Need to Play with Government?, Manage the “What Ifs?” of government partnerships, or return to see all articles in Government Partners.

Access the full PDF of Leveraging Government Partnerships for Scaled Impact here or the key takeaways checklist here.

This article was written by Erin Worsham, Kimberly Langsam, and Ellen Martin, and released in September 2018.

1. All mentions of a survey throughout the site, which are not otherwise credited, refer to the surveys delivered by the Scaling Pathways team to 100+ social enterprises in the Skoll Foundation and USAID Development Innovation Ventures portfolios.
2. This point is also aligned with existing literature. For example, see Andrew Stern, in “Want Your Big Bet To Pay Off? Don’t Forget About Government Capacity,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, 16, no. 2 (2018), states, “A review of these efforts reveals that approximately 80 percent of shortlisted organizations had government adoption as their primary end game.”