Search

The concept of social innovation has recently emerged as an influential approach to address intractable social problems. Increasingly discussed in academia and policy circles, the concept draws on multifaceted practices and ideas from many disciplines. Yet despite widespread discussion and promotion, there is still limited understanding of precisely what the concept means in practice. This paper serves as a primer on social innovation. It explores the different forms, drivers, and actors involved. It distinguishes among forms such as social entrepreneurship, social intrapreneurship, social enterprise, and various types of social finance such as social impact bonds, with examples. Finally, this paper challenges the Literacy and Essential Skills (LES) field to ready itself to engage in social innovation by posing some key questions about if and how social innovation could be used to improve LES service delivery and programming. The paper refers briefly to, but does not focus on, critiques that have been developed about specific forms of social finance. A glossary is included.

Ontario's Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology have been governed by the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities Act (MTCU) and related regulations and policies since their inception in 1965. In June 2002, the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002 (OCAATA) was passed by the Ontario legislature; proclamation is anticipated in 2003. There has been a great deal of attention paid by a variety of government and private organizations to the issue of accountability, and to the measures that can be taken to improve accountability. This paper offers examples of some Canadian public and private corporations' accountability reports. In addition, the paper examines accountability as applied to community colleges in California and New Jersey, and to Ontario's Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, as well as to colleges in British Columbia and Alberta. There are three basic accountability models that the states use to determine performance: performance funding, performance budgeting, and performance reporting. Performance is measured by institutional improvement over time, comparisons with peer institutions, and comparison against preset targets. In British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta, performance indicators are tied to funding in significantly different ways. The report recommends steps that can be taken to strengthen performance and accountability in Canada's public college and university governance. (NB)

This report discusses the differences between universities and business institutions and why they are different in handling their affairs. The premise of the report is that public universities must become more transparent if they are to receive adequate support from interested parties. Five main areas are discussed in a comparative assessment between these types of organizations. The first asks why universities rarely set specific goals toward which progress can be measured. The second concerns the problems and limited progress universities have made in measuring output and enhancing efficiency in teaching and research. Third is the role of competition in improving research and graduate teaching compared with the relatively weak competitive forces leading to improved undergraduate programs. The fourth area examines the reasons for complex committee structures, widely dispersed authority, and requirements for effective leadership. Finally, the paper examines some of the much-criticized features of academic appointments such as tenure, sabbaticals, irregular hours, and perceived high level of freedom. Contains 12 references. (GLR)