Final

Running head: SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP PAPER1

Social Entrepreneurship Paper:

Bethany Christian Services: Safe Families for Children

Jessica L. Hipchen

The University of Georgia

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP PAPER 2

Abstract

This research was conducted in order to evaluate Bethany Christian Services: Safe

Families for Children program on multiple levels including its place in the field of social

entrepreneurship, business model, finances, the way it is evaluated, how is has or has not and, or,

will or will not be scaled, and its transition or succession stage. Furthermore, suggestions on

what could be done in addition to the programs already in existence such as Safe Families for

Children or the pre- and post- adoption services are provided.

Results show that the Safe Families for Children program is indeed considered a social

entrepreneurship due to its innovation and commitment to its social mission. The program took

on the 501(c)(3) nonprofit business model and is not entirely financially stable due to its being a

completely non-revenue generating service. However, it is sustainable due to initial seed money

and numerous grants and donations. The program is evaluated on a variety of valid levels, and

there is a plan to evaluate on more levels in the future. The program has been scaled to all of the

Bethany Christian Services throughout the United States, and there is a potential and a plan to

scale in the future as well. Bethany Christian Services has not yet gone through a phase of

transition or succession; however, there is a potential for one in the future which would involve

determining if the advantages are worth the disadvantages.


Introduction

An entrepreneur can be defined in many ways. Joseph Schumpeter defines an

entrepreneur as a creative destructor who reforms and/or revolutionizes the pattern of production;

they improve the way that pre-existing programs or products are made and run (Dees, 2001, p.1).

Peter Drucker states that entrepreneurs are opportunistic, excellent at “exploiting the

opportunities that change creates” (Dees, 2001, p.2). Howard Stevenson uses the term

resourcefulness when describing entrepreneurship-- not allowing a lack of resources to keep

them from being innovative and accomplishing their goal (Dees, 2001, p.2). As Elizabeth Barret

put it, “Their reach exceeds their grasp” (Dees, 2001, p.2).

So, where does the social aspect of social entrepreneurship come in? Rather than a

monetary mission, as seen in the business world, social entrepreneurship has a social mission.

The mission of any organization outlines goals and how they will be achieved. These goals for a

social entrepreneur are to benefit society as a whole in some way, shape, or form. Social

entrepreneurs attack underlying causes of problems, think about sustaining the impact that they

create, are persistent and willing to make adjustments, treat failure of a project as a learning

experience, and have a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and the

outcomes created (Dees, 2001, p. 4-5). The heart of a social entrepreneur seems to me to be in

creating products that benefit society as a whole.

Bethany Christian Service’s (BCS) mission is to demonstrate the love and compassion of

Jesus Christ by protecting and enhancing the lives of children and families through quality social

services. They will accomplish their mission by focusing on their nine core values of integrity,

selflessness, impact, innovation, stewardship, judgment, passion, communication, and courage.

Specifically, I will be focusing on a program by the name of Safe Families for Children. Safe


Families for Children is an alternative to foster care whose main goal is to reunite children with

their families in a stronger home environment.

The key issue that will be addressed is the need for a decrease and potential elimination of

the foster care system which will be addressed with an in-depth analysis, suggestions, and

alternatives.

Defining Social Entrepreneurship

Bethany Christian Services and its subsidiaries (the “Organization”) is a not-for-profit

corporation whose sources of revenue are derived principally from public contributions,

government grants, and service fees. The Organization operates a child placement agency and

provides such services as foster care, pregnancy counseling, adoptive services, and other related

social services as may be appropriate in stabilizing and/or improving human relationships and

conditions. Currently, these services are provided in 39 home offices in 36 states, with the central

business office located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. For our purposes, we will be focusing on the

Atlanta facility.

The current equilibrium in the field of adoption is for children to either be placed in the

homes of new families immediately after they are born or to be placed in the foster care system

until they are fostered by a family, their family is deemed capable of having them come back into

the home, or a family adopts the child because the parent loses all rights. Additionally, the cost

of a child in the foster care system is approximately $3, 962 a year and is government funded

(Barth, Lee, Wildfire, & Guo, p. 141, 2006).

Bethany Christian Services attempts to break this pattern and create a new equilibrium by

implementing their Safe Families for Children program. Families within Christian churches


volunteer to open up their homes to children who need a safe home due to the parents being in

unmanageable or critical circumstances. Rather than receiving a stipend from the government

such as foster families would, the families involved in the Safe Families for Children program

receive no reimbursement and are asked by the biological parent(s) to temporarily take care of

the child/children. One of the main ideas here is to allow the children to be taken into a safe and

loving environment before the environment they are in gets to where the government would tell

the family that the children will be taken away. This gives the parent(s) time to gain stability in

the home. The ultimate goal is to reunite the child with his/her family and support them during

their time of need.

Bethany Christian Services is considered a social entrepreneur because they are innovative

with a social cause. The Safe Families for Children program is one of many programs within the

organization. BCS strives to find the best way to make the greatest impact. Safe Families for

Children is a new take on foster care. Rather than foster care, where children go in and out of the

system, not knowing where they will be from month to month, Safe Families for Children gives

children a safe and loving temporary home with a Christian family while the parent(s) has/have

time to get their lives together before the child returns. It is a choice that the parent(s) make to

allow the child to go into the program. The child is not taken away from the family. Safe

Families for Children is taking an old service, foster care, and changing it to fit the needs of

today’s society. We have learned through studies of the cognitive and behavioral benefits of

placing children in a permanent and nurturing home. Children need a constant. The closer we can

move towards having a safe constant for these children, as Bethany Christian Services is

attempting to do, the closer we will be to achieving the ultimate goal of providing every child

with a safe and loving family.


The Safe Families for Children program is in the growth stage of the organizational life-

cycle. It has been implemented in all BCS facilities in the United States. These programs are

maturing and have a plan to begin growing/scaling. It would seem as if there is a dynamic social

entrepreneur somewhere at the helm of the program; however due to a lack of information

provided by the organization I cannot identify whether one exists or not.

Creation/Business Model

The business model that Safe Families for Children chose to utilize was 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

There are no revenue generating services provided, and Safe Families for Children is completely

run on grants and donations as mentioned earlier. This is because the purpose of the program is

to provide a home for children during a time of crisis without placing them in the foster care

system. The purpose is not to create a revenue off of the families offering their homes for

temporary care without compensation from the organization or the government. Bethany

Christian Services provides this option to families because ultimately it supports their mission.

I think this is a great structure for the program because it is providing help to children free of

cost. The program works with families who are willing to receive no compensation for their

services, which is a great help for the financials of the program. However, there can be some

disadvantages involved with using this business model. For example, the program cannot make a

profit off of selling items or providing services. This is a disadvantage of which the

consequences will be discussed later on.

Financing

Safe Families for Children is donor based along with a few grants from various foundations

and corporations (C. Kruger, personal communication, October 29, 2014). Due to a lack of


information provided, a specific division of the amounts provided could not be obtained from the

990 form.

Safe Families for Children got their start-up capital from “seed money” provided by

Bethany’s corporate office at inception. Additionally, DFCS initially contributed finances due to

the fact that the program is less expensive than foster care, which was mentioned earlier.

However, these funds have been discontinued (C. Kruger, personal communication, October 29,

2014.). Because the program is a completely non-revenue generating service, it is rather unstable

(C. Kruger, personal communication, October 29, 2014).

I think that it would be of great interest for Bethany Christian Services to consider promoting

the elimination of the foster care system through advocating programs such as Safe Families for

Children and their pre-and post-adoption services. If Bethany Christian Services were to

continue their Safe Families for Children program, which is a non-revenue generating program,

it could be the first step to moving away from the foster care system. An advantage for

promoting their pre- and post-adoption services in addition to the previous program is that they

could use research to show that it decreases the rate of recidivism of children into the foster care

system and saves the government a great deal of money. If more of the adoptive parents involved

with the organization were encouraged and in the future required to utilize the services, then not

only would Bethany Christian Services receive more of an income but they would also be

creating a more consistent life for the children whom they are allowing to be adopted and saving

government spending, which will be discussed in further detail later on.


Evaluation

Safe Families for Children measures financial success by whether or not they are raising

enough funds to cover expenses (salaries, overhead, etc.) so as to “break even”. With the new

model of operation, churches would be contributing to and taking some ownership in the

ministry which will be a great benefit to the program (C. Kruger, personal communication,

October, 29, 2014).

Social impact is measured by a number of means. For example, Safe Families for Children

measures the number of clients/families served, the number of families needing to utilize the

service more than once (which may be a reflection of how well the original challenge in the

family was met or not met), and will soon include how church members embrace opportunities

within the ministry (C. Kruger, personal communication, October 29, 2014). The method of

social impact measurement seems to be valid in that it accurately measures what it is intended to

measure.

I would recommend in addition to the above factors an evaluation of the child’s feelings of

comfort in the home prior to moving in and then again when the child moves out. This could be

done through the use of an interview and would demonstrate how well the family integrates the

child and allows him/her to feel as if the home is safe, stable, and welcoming. It may also be

helpful to measure the family members’ feelings of how the child grows accustomed to living

with them and what they did in an attempt to help the child integrate themselves into the family.

An additional way to measure success of the program would be to measure the feelings of

stability in the biological parent(s) live(s). For example, using a survey, feelings of stability

could be measured in different areas both before the family places their child/children in the

program and then after when they are able to have the child/children come home.


I also suggest creating a plan for an even more financially sound and beneficial

organization/program for children and families. Bethany Christian Services already provides

some of the services that I think ought to be provided such as pre- and post-adoption services.

However, I would like to suggest the following recommendations based on information on the

risk factors and mental health problems that many adopted children face.

The emergence of the problem is that in adoption cases handled through state agencies such

as DFCS, the likelihood of a child being put in a foster-care situation and thus increasing

financial costs to the state would be reduced if prospective adoptive families were informed and

prepared for potential risk factors and mental health problems their child could have through a

program of pre- and post-adoptive educational services.

The following graph illustrates the gap in mental health problems between children in general and children who are adopted:

Department of Health and Human Services (2007)

Each year there are thousands of children in group homes and foster-care in the United

States alone who are waiting to be adopted. Likewise, there are thousands of children awaiting

adoption in foreign countries. Regardless of the country, adoptive parents, children, and


biological parents are not receiving adequate pre- and post-adoption assistance. In the hopes of

creating a smooth adoption process, researchers have been looking at the need for policies that

support this adoption triad. Studies have been conducted that prove support of the adoption triad

is beneficial to everyone and should be implemented (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van Ijzendoorn,

& Juffer, 2003; Goldman & Ryan, 2011; Gunnar, Bruce, & Grotevant, 2000; Juffer, Bakermans-

Kranenburg, & van Ijzendoorn, 2005; Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010).

This chart represents the percent of adoptive parents who wanted specific services and did not receive them:

Department of Health and Human Services (2007)

Some of the social indicators include the impact of various factors on children and families.

For children, these include attachment, knowledge of cultural heritage, coping skills, and

resiliency. Attachment of the children could be divided into secure, insecure, and disorganized. If

the family were to receive pre- and post-adoption education services, knowledge of cultural


heritage would be emphasized, allowing the child to have a positive view of his/her background.

The child would gain coping skills such as how to deal with adoption loss, being in a new

environment, how to adjust, and how to identify their strengths and address their weaknesses.

Lastly, the child would learn how to be resilient in that he/she would learn how to regulate

his/her emotions, form a healthy and secure attachment with the adopted family, and enhance

his/her cognitive development from where it was before he/she were originally placed in the

program offering the services.

Some of the impacts on families would include parental responsiveness, preparation for

potential risks, and stability. Parents would learn how to respond positively in certain situations

rather than in a negative way. They would be prepared for the child to have a difficult

temperament, delayed cognitive development, and/or a disorganized attachment, all of which

play a large role in why families place children back into the foster care system. Finally, the

parents would benefit from the services because they would learn the importance of stability.

They would be taught that when a family adopts, it is something that is meant to be a permanent

commitment. Adoption is not something intended to last until times get rough. The children have

already had enough instability in their lives and do not benefit from being adopted into a home

that may or may not want to keep them. Teaching the adoptive parents these skills will help them

to guarantee that the adoption will be permanent.

I believe that there are two possible policy options that should be implemented at some point

in time in order to allow adoption to be more successful. The first option would be that the

adoptive parents are required to participate in some form of pre- and post-adoption services.

Their compliance with the services given and success while involved will determine whether or

not they will be permitted to adopt. The second policy option would be that adoptive parents are


only encouraged to participate, but not required, in some form of pre- and post-adoption services.

Incentives, such as a lowered adoption cost, may be offered if adoptive parents choose to

participate in these services.

I would recommend a policy that would require that adoption organizations encourage

adoptive parent(s) to participate in pre- and post-adoption services and offer a lowered adoption

cost for those that actively participate. This would be a prelude to the mandatory involvement of

pre- and post-adoption services. Otherwise, making it a requirement to pay for such services

would be too much of a change for people from what is currently the equilibrium. A gradual

movement from suggesting the services and offering a discounted adoption cost to a required

participation would be a better course of action. If measures of success were kept and an

evaluation could be done for the services that proved the program successful, then there would

be less of an uproar from adoptive families about the requirement to pay for such services.

I believe that implementing a policy which includes the provisions mentioned above would

be effective because the children being adopted have a higher probability of being permanently

placed into a stable and loving environment. The adoptive parents would be better equipped to

handle any situation involving the child because they will have been trained and will continue to

have assistance if needed.

The policy would also be efficient. There will be start-up costs for the program in

organizations in which the services do not already exist, such as training employees to work

with adoptive parents. Additional costs will come from keeping the program running. However,

these costs will be offset due to the fact that if these children are being placed into homes where

the adoptive parents have already been trained, and will continue to receive assistance, the

children are more likely to stay in the home, reentry into the foster-care system will be reduced,


and ultimately the government saves money. There is a difference of total costs that is

approximately $3,962 per child, per year, for children in foster-care as compared with children

who are adopted (Barth, Lee, Wildfire, & Guo, p. 141, 2006). Therefore, the policy would be

cost-effective, reducing the state’s cost for children by $3,962 per year x the total number of

children.

The policy would also be equitable because the program would be beneficial and available

for everyone choosing to adopt. The services target the adoptive parents. In an attempt to create a

service that is equitable to everyone in the adoption triad, specialists would need to provide

services to the biological mothers and child in addition to the adoptive parents. This unique

system has not yet been widely implemented and therefore could be a future area of study in an

attempt to benefit the adoption triad and the government

Scaling

Safe Families for Children is scalable. Not only is this service offered in all 39 home offices

in 36 states but it can also be used by any adoption organization. The main difference would be

that not all adoption organizations are Christian based therefore would not require that the

temporary families that the children are placed with be Christian. Regardless of religious

preference, I believe that this program would absolutely be scalable in any area and would

benefit the child/children involved.

I believe that scalability is not always important, however, because sometimes it is not

necessary that an organization or program be scalable since something needed in one area may

not be necessary in another. On the other hand, due to the widespread need of homes for children

around the world, I feel as if a transition from the previous ways of foster care to this new shift

of focus is needed. The shift would include the goal of placing children back into their homes


once the family has had a chance to get back up on their feet. These transitions, in addition to

other services offered by Bethany Christian Services, have the potential to make a large and

much needed shift in the field of adoption.

A critical aspect of scaling is having the money to carry out the process. Safe Families for

Children as a whole within Bethany Christian Services does have a plan to access expansion

capital (C. Kruger, personal communication, October 29, 2014). However, due to lack of

information provided I am not able to explain how it will be implemented.

Transition/Succession

Safe Families for Children has not yet gone into a phase of transition or succession. I

believe that they have the potential to become a model for other adoption organizations that may

one day be able to merge into Bethany Christian Services or vice versa. I am not aware of any

other organization that has a program such as Safe Families for Children. I think that if another

organization were to implement a similar program and have the ability to begin advocating for

the slow dissipation of foster care and the focus on more pre- and post- adoption services with

the common goal of finding a permanent home for the child/children, then there could be a major

switch in the field of adoption. If Bethany Christian Services were to merge into a larger

organization, criterias such as religion and/or foster care may need to be removed. This could in

turn go against their mission which would be a disadvantage. However, if a well-equipped

organization with similar intentions as Bethany Christian Services did take them on, then they

would have far more opportunities to make an impact because they would have access to more

resources. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages and the major determiner is

whether or not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages enough to make a transition or

succession.


Conclusion

Results showed that the Safe Families for Children program was indeed considered a

social entrepreneurship due to its innovation and commitment to its social mission. The program

used the 501(c)(3) nonprofit business model and is not entirely financially stable due to it being a

completely non-revenue generating service. However, it is sustainable due to initial seed money

and numerous grants and donations. The program is evaluated on a variety of valid levels and

there is a plan to evaluate on more levels in the future. The program has been scaled to all of the

Bethany Christian Services throughout the United States, and there is a plan to scale in the future

as well. Bethany Christian Services has not yet gone through a phase of transition or succession;

however, there is a potential for one in the future which would involve determining if the

advantages are worth the disadvantages.


References

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-

analysis of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological

Bulletin, 129, 195–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.195.

Barth, R. P., Lee, C. K., Wildfire, J. J., & Guo, S. S. (2006). A comparison of the governmental

costs of long-term foster care and adoption. Social Service Review, 80(1), 127-

158.

Bethany Christian Services (2014). Safe Families for Children: Giving a hand to families in

crisis. Retrieved from http://www.bethany.org/atlanta/safe-families-children?link=menu.

Dees, J. (2001). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”, 1-5.

Goldman, G., & Ryan, S. D. (2011). Direct and modifying influences of selected risk factors on

children's pre-adoption functioning and post-adoption adjustment. Children & Youth

Services Review, 33(2), 291-300. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.012.

Gunnar MR, Bruce J, Grotevant H.D. (2000). International adoption of institutionally reared

children: Research and policy. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 677–693.

Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2005). The importance of

parenting in the development of disorganized attachment: Evidence from a preventive

intervention study in adoptive families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46,

263-274. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00353.x..

Palacios J, & Brodzinsky D. (2010). Adoption Research: trends, topics, outcomes. International

Journal of Behavior Development, 34, 270–284. doi:

10.1177/0165025410362837.


Table 8. Percentage distribution of children ages 0-17 by social and emotional well-being, by

adoptive status and adoption type: United States, 2007

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/chartbook.cfm?table=8 .

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Percentage of adopted children whose

parents wanted to receive various post-adoption services (adoption specific) but

did not. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/chartbook.cfm?

id=32 .

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Percentage of children according to

measures of social and emotional well-being, by adoptive status. Retrieved from

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/chartbook.cfm?id=20.


Documents

Final