The Global Rail

By Dave Holloman

October 14, 2009

Gary Slutkin would not consider himself an entrepreneur.  He likely is not familiar with the term “social entrepreneurship.”   That is exactly what he is though.   A medical doctor by training, Dr. Slutkin found himself moving home to Chicago more than 13 years ago.  A veteran of successfully fighting the AIDS infection rate in parts of Africa, he did not wait long to find a new disease to fight.  That disease – as he thinks about it – is youth homicide. 

Long before the media lights currently shining on this problem in Chicago, Dr. Slutkin looked out of place walking the streets of gang infested neighborhoods thinking differently.  What if we thought about murder as a disease?  Would that allow us to innovate a solution?

Like the horrible epidemics and subsequent public health victories past, Dr. Slutkin believes the root of stemming homicide rates in the inner city starts with stopping behavior before it spreads like a virus.  Think about gang violence in this way.  Gang member A steps into Gang B territory.  Gang member A is shot and killed.  Gang B retaliates, in the process killing an innocent bystander.  Relatives of innocent bystander feel motivated to take matters into their own hands.  Etc.  Dr. Slutkin’s premise is that, if you can position the right antidote early in the sequence, then you can break the chain of violence that often seems inevitable…..and save lives.   For you business types, think of it as Malcolm Gladwell meets the gun.  Gang violence and youth homicide spreads virally, born like many of the lifestyle trends spoken about by Mr. Gladwell.  It has passed the “tipping point,” in which new antidotes are required to tip the scales in the other direction.

Enter Ceasefire.  Founded in 1995, Dr. Slutkin gained his seed capital from the University of Illinois Chicago, who believed in a new approach to combat inner city homicide.   There are 4 components to the basic operating model.  Ceasefire targets a specific neighborhood for homicide reduction.  Then they find their messengers.  These messengers, called “violence interrupters,” are typically ex-gang members themselves who have contacts and are weaved into the network of the neighborhood.  They know those who need to be influenced.  Those people are trained in the tools of conflict avoidance and sent out into the streets.  They are out there each night, listening for hints of potential violence.  When gun shots ring, they are on the scene and intercede in ways law enforcement often cannot, to calm tensions, re-route anger, and defuse thoughts of retaliation.  This model has been proven out and received national attention for its results.  A New York Times magazine cover story and profiles in Time magazine being just a few, compelling examples.  

Chicago has recently been the center of awful news concerning violent teen beatings.  Gang violence continues to take an enormous toll from the city.  This year alone, more than 36 Chicago public school students have been murdered.  Perhaps it’s not a shocking number because it seems so unreal.

In the Ceasefire campaign, we have something that works.  Not the whole solution, but part of the portfolio to be sure.  So here is the issue – funding.  Innovation on the delivery model has not equaled innovation on the model to supply the funds.  This is a classic problem in the non-profit sector.  Government cutbacks are commonplace.   Twice in the last four years, Ceasefire has scaled back its operations and the neighborhoods it serves, only to have its funding restored.   Why must an organization like this rely solely on the taxpayer?  There should be a better way.

A recent article in The Stanford Social Innovation Review recently laid out ten standard funding models for the non-profit enterprise.  It’s a good description of existing models, but is scarce in addressing how traditionally non-profit organizations might further integrate with private corporations.  By integration, I mean partnerships that go beyond the non-profit seeking funds through the foundation arms of private companies, but joining forces in ways that benefit the private company’s economic mission and the social mission of the non-profit.

Whole Foods is an example of one company where this integration is possible.  “Buy groceries on Tuesday, and we’ll allocate a portion of your purchase towards saving lives in Chicago.”  Such a campaign would boost their demand and make upscale shoppers feel good about shelling out more disgressionary income.   It’s not just Whole Foods of course.  The upscale retailer these days, to be sure, is looking for new ways to deliver its brand promise and drive more traffic through the door. 

That’s one idea.  Any other ideas?