The Change.org Social Entrepreneurship Blog

I am delighted to announce that I’ve been asked by the Change.org Social Entrepreneurship blog to become a regular contributor.  It’s a real honor to be part of this phenomenal blog, so I hope that you will check it out and join the conversation.

I will still write for the Social Velocity blog as often as I have been, but if you’re interested in my additional posts, check them out there.  My first post “The Danger of Abandoning the Nonprofit Sector” is up today, and here’s an excerpt:

With all the excitement and energy around social entrepreneurship, there’s a tendency to dismiss the sector that was working on social impact long before it was cool: the nonprofit world.  These days, nonprofits get far less airtime in the social innovation movement than their for-profit, social entrepreneur counterparts…Again and again, I’ve heard that innovation will never become part of the nonprofit system — that nonprofits are too set in their ways. Or that the sector is too broken to emerge anew. That attitude, though, is unacceptable. There’s great danger in dismissing the sector. Sure, it’s inefficient, dysfunctional and broken. Yet it has tremendous potential for innovation. Indeed, without innovation in the nonprofit sector, the broader movement to solve social problems is doomed…

Tags: Change.org Social Entrepreneurship blog, nonprofit, Social Entrepreneurship

Climb on Board, Austin

Today wraps up the Social Entrepreneur track of RISE, Austin’s SXSW-style conference for entrepreneurs.  It was a lot of fun putting together the track with Jessica Shortall, with lots of help from Annie Frierson, Suzi Sosa, Andy White and the many amazing, inspiring social entrepreneurs in our area.  I’m so impressed with the speakers and panelists that made up the track.  From design-thinking for social entrepreneurs, to domestic microfinance, to technology for social impact, to social investing, to balancing mission and profit, and much, much more.  It was so great to see those working in the gray area between social impact and entrepreneurship together sharing insights, ideas, knowledge, discussion, debate.

I couldn’t get to all of the sessions in the track, and so I’d love recordings of those I missed.  But because RISE is a free conference there is little budget for “extras” like recording equipment and staff.  However, I heard a rumor that some of the sessions were unofficial taped.  If you know of any taped sessions, let me know, and I’ll post them to this blog.  And I will definitely make the case to the organizers of RISE that next year we find a way to tape sessions.  Because this content is just too rich to be shared by only the 25-40 people in the room.

So I wanted to share my takeaways from the RISE Social Entrepreneurship track and thoughts about where we go from here.

First, the takeaways:

• There is tremendous interest and energy around social entrepreneurship in Central Texas
• However, there is little infrastructure or eco-system to effectively support those entrepreneurs
• More social entrepreneurs in the track and attending sessions were women  (that could entirely be based on the fact that the leaders of the track are women, but I think there’s more to it than that)
• There is a debate about whether social entrepreneurs need to bootstrap as long or as hard as traditional entrepreneurs since the same end reward (financial profit) does not really exist for SEs
• Funders of social entrepreneurs are not present in nearly as many numbers as social entrepreneurs
• An “investment banker” or “broker” vetting and connecting social entrepreneurs to potential investors is a key part of the needed ecosystem

And that’s just a beginning list.  There were far too many conversations, insights, war stories, and needs to catalog here.

Which brings me to where we go from here. There is a disconnect for Austin in the realm of social innovation.  When I talk with people in the social innovation space outside of Texas they are always interested to hear that I am from Austin and are sure that Austin is well along the path of launching and growing social entrepreneurs.  Because of Austin’s reputation for progressive ideas, its wealth, its technology background and its rank as the third largest venture capital city in the country, people assume that social entrepreneurship, which often follows from these things, is burgeoning here.  When I tell them that isn’t the case, they are shocked. What is holding Austin back?

We heard some provocative conversations this week and saw some inspiring examples of social entrepreneurs who are making it and funders who are helping them along.  But that’s not enough, not even close.

Social entrepreneurs need access to significant funding at every step of the game from seed to growth, whether their  model is nonprofit, for-profit or a hybrid.  We need to give social entrepreneurs the skills to create solid business strategy around a great idea, language for creating a compelling pitch, infrastructure to grow results.  We need to create communities for social entrepreneurs and social investors to interact, network, learn from each other, forge partnerships.  But most of all we need to collectively say, it’s not enough.  One week a year is not enough.  A handful of social entrepreneurs and social investors in a city of 1.7 million is not enough.  Social innovation is a growing industry, one that Austin should and must climb on board.  I’m not satisfied.  I want to see more.  A lot more.

Tags: Austin, Central Texas, design-thinking, microfinance, RISE, social entrepreneurs, social innovation, Social Investing

Can PRIs Support Fundraising and Capacity Building?

Lucy Bernholz is hosting a great conversation on her Blueprint Research and Design website called “What Capital When?” As part of their work with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in their Digital Media & Learning initiative, Blueprint is hosting this online conversation around the theories and strategies of program-related and mission investing to advance knowledge and research in the field. They asked that I do a guest post on using PRIs (program related investments) to improve the fundraising effectiveness of nonprofit organizations. Below is that post. You can also read the post on their What Capital When site here, and you can read the whole series here.

I think there is a tremendous opportunity that most foundations and nonprofits are missing.  PRIs (program-related investments) are an under-used tool that could provide much needed capital for nonprofits to transform how they finance social impact.

PRIs are loans that foundations make to nonprofits at low, or no interest.  At the end of the loan period (typically 3-7 years) the loan is repaid, or forgiven.  PRIs are usually used for capital projects or land purchases in the nonprofit world.  But they could also be used to increase the fundraising capacity of a nonprofit organization, through increased fundraising knowledge, planning, tools and staffing.  The current economic climate seems like the perfect opportunity for this new use of PRIs when foundations are trying to hold on to their dwindling corpus while maintaining their past level of community support.

A nonprofit could use a PRI to improve their fundraising infrastructure in several ways:

• Create a strategic development plan. Many nonprofits don’t have the expertise or time to put together a strategy for how they will bring money in the door.  With funding to hire an outside consultant to put together such a plan, the nonprofit would have a much better chance of increasing their fundraising revenue.
• Get fundraising training for their staff and board. If a nonprofit staff and board have the tools and expertise for successfully raising money, they will be more likely to do so.
• Hire a seasoned Development Director. Many nonprofit organizations can only afford to pay the bare minimum for a Development Director, which means that they are often forced to hire someone with little experience who must learn on the job.  If instead they had enough funding to pay a market rate salary for a seasoned fundraiser, they could hit the ground running, increasing the likelihood of fundraising success.
• Purchase a new donor database. A key element to success in individual donor fundraising is an organization’s ability to capture and use data about donors and prospects.  A good donor database makes this effort easier and more successful.
• Upgrade their website, email marketing, social media efforts. As direct mail appeals (a nonprofit fundraiser’s traditional standby) continues to become less and less effective, nonprofits need to move effectively into the online world.  Funds for technology upgrades and staff could help them do this.
• Launch a major gifts campaign. The vast majority of private funding in the nonprofit sector comes from individuals (80+%), so to stay competitive nonprofits need to move into the world of major gift solicitation.  But that takes expertise, staff, collateral and other infrastructure elements.

These are just a few examples of how nonprofits could make investments to strengthen their fundraising efforts. But currently it is difficult to find funding to support things like this.

But a PRI could provide an initial investment that sets the nonprofit on a path toward more diversified, more sustainable fundraising for the social impact they are working to create.

There are tremendous benefits to a PRI program like this.  First, for the foundation:

• Increases their ability to meet past levels of giving, despite any losses they might have found in the market, because the loaned money will eventually come back to them.
• Encourages their nonprofit grantees to be proactive in creating fundraising streams that will make them more sustainable.  Thus, increasing the likelihood that their nonprofit grantees a) won’t have to come back to them year after year for ongoing support and b) will become more sustainable and thus achieve greater social impact.
• Stretches their capacity-building dollars further. Because PRI money eventually comes back to the foundation, they can increase their level of impact by helping more nonprofits improve their capacity than they could with grants alone.
• Increases the level of accountability among nonprofit recipients because of the expectation of repayment.

And second, for the nonprofit:

• More diversified and sustainable fundraising streams.
• Increased fundraising knowledge and experience.
• Increased ability to work towards social impact.

Although PRIs used in this new way seems, at least to me, to be an obvious win-win, very few foundations are doing it.  PRIs in general are used (according to the Foundation Center) by only a few hundred of the thousands of grantmaking foundations in the country.  And I know of only one example of a foundation using a PRI to upgrade the fundraisng capacity of a nonprofit (the KDK Harman Foundation in Austin just launched a program like this last Fall, but does not yet have any participants).

So what is holding foundations back from launching a PRI program like this?  A number of things:

1. Nonprofits lack the expertise to put a plan together and pitch it to foundations. This is where Social Velocity comes in to help nonprofits create a plan to upgrade their revenue function and pitch that plan to foundations and other funders.
2. Most foundations  have an aversion to capacity building funding and prefer that their money go to direct program service.  However, as more nonprofits can demonstrate to funders that capacity building actually results in even more impact, this aversion can be alleviated.
3. Foundations lack awareness of or experience with PRIs.  However, this is changing, especially in the last year when the poor economy has made foundations increasingly interested in finding alternative ways to maintain community investment levels.
4. Foundations that are experienced with PRIs are not aware of using them to improve a nonprofit’s fundraising function.

So there is a disconnect.  But I am optimistic that as nonprofits learn to put a plan together to upgrade their fundraising function and articulate to funders how PRI’s could finance it, more examples of this new use of PRIs will surface.

Tags: Blueprint Research and Design, Development, Foundation Center, Fundraising, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, KDK Harman Foundation, Lucy Bernholz, nonprofit, PRIs, program-related investments, What Capital When

The Power of a Case

Most businesses that are looking for funding know the power of a case for support, although they probably call it their “pitch” or “deck.”  But most nonprofit organizations don’t have an articulated case for support, and this is a real missed opportunity. A case for support is absolutely critical to any kind of fundraising campaign, in the nonprofit or for-profit world, and whether the money sought is investment capital or operating revenue.

A case for support lays out a clear, articulate, compelling argument for why someone should invest in the solution you are providing the marketplace.  Nonprofit organizations do tend to put together a case for support when they embark on a capital campaign to raise significant money for a new building.  But a case for support should be the fundamental building block to ANY fundraising campaign.  Without a case for support, nonprofits are just holding out a tin cup.

I’m not suggesting that a nonprofit create a case for support and then trot it out whenever they meet with, mail or talk to a potential donor.  Rather a solid case for support is a starting point from which the nonprofit can pull arguments and language for use in every aspect of their fundraising operations:  website, appeals, thank you notes, presentations, major donor calls, foundation proposals, etc.

The very exercise of a nonprofit board and staff creating a case statement can be, in itself, transformative.  It makes the organization as a whole articulate why someone should invest in them and what the payoff is.  This articulation can energize and focus the organization and make their fundraising efforts that much  more effective.

A case for support has some key elements:

1. The Need (Market Opportunity)
   What social problem exists in your community, region, state, country, world that needs to be addressed?  Why is this problem significant, why should people care?
2. The Solution
   What is your solution to the social problem? Why is this the right solution?
3. Competitors and Competitive Advantage
   Why is yours a superior solution to other alternatives out there? Something that is often missing in nonprofit articulations of their case is how their solution fits into the competitive landscape.
4. Value Proposition
   Why is your organization uniquely positioned to deliver on this solution?  What is the value proposition you offer and how do your core competencies feed this solution?
5. Resources Required
   How much money, what type, and over what timeline do you require for this particular project (start-up, growth, increased capacity, general operating, etc.)? This section will vary based on the fundraising campaign.
6. Projected Social Return on Investment
   What does the potential investor get by investing in your organization (change to a social problem, increased breadth or depth of service delivery, etc.)?  If you can demonstrate a social return on investment, that’s great.  If you can demonstrate an increase in program and operational efficiency (in the case of a capacity building fundraising campaign) then do.

A full case for support is not something you would normally share with potential donors.  However, the process of articulating your case for support and then using elements of it in all of your fundraising work can dramatically increase your ability to effectively communicate with and secure investments from donors.

Tags: capital campaign, case for support, Fundraising, nonprofit

What We Can Learn From Idealist

At the risk of going against the crowd, I’d like to add my perspective to the Idealist crisis.  Idealist.org is a job site for nonprofit organizations that has been around for 10 years.  It’s a great site that brings nonprofit organizations and aspiring nonprofit job seekers together.  It has launched many a great career, including that of Rosetta Thurman, nonprofit consultant and Gen Y leader who is a huge supporter of the site.

Earlier this week Ami Dar, Executive Director of Idealist, sent out an emergency appeal for funding to Idealist supporters.  It seems that the recession has taken a serious toll on the nonprofit organization, and they are desperate for funding to stay afloat.  Ami’s impassioned appeal has made its way around social media sites and raised quite a stir. They are hoping it will bring in some serious donations.  And it seems to be doing that–you can see the running tally of recent donations on their homepage.

I admire what Idealist does and think they serve a real need, but with this campaign they are making a mistake that nonprofits sometimes make when they hit a crisis like this.  An appeal for emergency funding can raise quite a bit of money, for a time, but then what?  What is the long-term plan? How will Idealist overcome the obstacles that got them to this place so that they can emerge stronger, more effective and more financial sustainable in the future?

In his appeal, Ami says that the weak economy got them to this place because of a significant decrease in job posting revenue over the past 16 months.  That is completely understandable.  But over those past 16 months what has Idealist done to diversify their funding model?  What has been the result of those changes?  And what are their plans for the future?  Ami is fairly vague on these points:

Very briefly, here’s what happened. Over the past ten years, most of our funding has come from the small fees we charge organizations for posting their jobs on Idealist. By September 2008, after years of steady growth, these little drops were covering 70% of our budget. Then, in October of that year, the financial crisis exploded, many organizations understandably froze their hiring, and from one week to the next our earned income was cut almost in half, leaving us with a hole of more than $100,000 each month. That was 16 months ago, and since then we’ve survived on faith and fumes, by cutting expenses, and by getting a few large gifts from new and old friends. But now we are about to hit a wall, and this is why I am reaching out to you.

I understand why they are in this position. But what I don’t understand is how they are going to get out of this position after the emergency funds that they are attempting to raise dry up.  According to Ami, their plans for the future are:

If in the next week or two we can reach everyone who’d give us a hand if they knew we are in trouble, I believe we’ll come out of this crisis even stronger than before. I believe this because while this has been a tough stretch, I’ve never been more optimistic about the future. The content on Idealist has never been richer, our traffic is surging, we are building a whole new Idealist.org that will be released later this year, and the potential for connecting people, ideas, and resources around the world has never been more urgent or more exciting. Your contribution will allow us to maintain all our services…and it will also give us some time to diversify our funding. Being able to breathe, recover, and plan ahead for a few months will be an incredible blessing.

If Idealist hasn’t been able to figure out financial sustainability in the last 16 months, why should I think that they will be able to do it in “a few months”?  And scarier still is the fact that economist are predicting that the jobless economic recovery will continue for the foreseeable future.  So I’m not sure “a few months” is really going to change things all that much.

What I would like to see from Idealist is a bold plan for action, a revamped business model that will allow them to continue to provide needed services to the nonprofit community in a financially viable way.  Emergency funding is great, but only if it is a stop gap measure that will get an organization through a very specific, finite period of time and that on the other side of the crisis is a new business model for a viable way forward.

I think the nonprofit sector can learn something from Idealist’s crisis.  There are many other nonprofits in this same position.  And many who are contemplating or have launched an emergency appeal.  But keep in mind, you can only cry wolf once.  So while you are working to stay afloat, you also need to be taking a hard look at how to radically change your approach, your business model, your funding streams. And you need to put those changes into a comprehensive plan and communicate that plan to your funders. In that way, you all will know that you won’t be back here again.

UPDATE: The Tactical Philanthropy Blog hosted a debate between Nell Edgington and Rich Polt from Louder Than Words about the Idealist appeal.  You can read the debate and comments here.  

Tags: Ami Dar, Idealist.org, Rosetta Thurman

Convergence Can’t Be Denied

There is a fascinating debate going on in the blogsphere touched off by Michael Edwards, author of  Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World and former director of the Ford Foundation’s Governance and Civil Society program.

In essence, the debate is about whether the convergence of the private (business) and the nonprofit sectors is a good or bad thing, whether market forces help or hurt social change efforts.  Michael kicked off the debate on Monday with the first in a week-long series of posts called “Should Civil Society Be Reduced to a Subset of the Market?” In subsequent posts he went on to attack the emerging social capital market among other things.  You can read the whole series here.

Sean Stannard-Stockton, of the Tactical Philanthropy blog, took up the charge and debated many of his points.  Then the two have gone back and forth over the issues. And the debate expanded on the New Philanthropy Capital blog where Tris Lumley wrote that Michael’s argument “boils down to social capital markets vs civil society – impact measurement vs social justice, data vs values, competition vs solidarity. And in this binary view of the world, he threatens to undermine the very real progress that’s being made towards a much more balanced and realistic perspective.”  Michael responds and so does Tris.

It seems to me that fundamental to Michael’s argument is his fear about the growing convergence between the nonprofit, private and government sectors.  That somehow the “market” will sully social change efforts.  Michael argues that civil society and the market are separate entities: “Civil society operates on solidarity and commitment—the willingness to hang in there for the long haul even if results don’t go your way. Markets work on the opposite principle, “exit”: consumers are free to move from one supplier to another whenever and wherever they like. Otherwise the efficiency of resource allocation would suffer.”

But the fact is that social change efforts and the nonprofits leading them have always existed within a market economy. Resource allocation to nonprofits is very much based on a market. If nonprofits can’t convince donors or governments that their work is important or has meaning, they won’t receive resources.  Nonprofit funders are consumers who are “free to move from one supplier to another whenever and wherever they like.”  It would be great if social change efforts could exist in some sort of vacuum where their good work automatically finds resources, but the world doesn’t work like that.  And as resources for social change efforts become increasingly competitive, nonprofits, and for profits working towards social change, have to become smarter about responding to the marketplace. And as the marketplace demands more social change efforts, which is increasingly the case, more resources will be brought to bear on those social change efforts, thus the creation of the social capital market.

The growing convergence among the public, private and nonprofit sectors is a reality we can’t avoid.  Nonprofits have to respond more effectively to market forces, governments have to be more efficient in their allocation and use of resources, and businesses, in order to survive in a marketplace that increasingly values social good, have to understand and respond to the effects their products and services and business model have on the broader society.

Binary systems and separated sectors just don’t exist anymore.  The lines are blurring.  The market is part of the reality of social change efforts.  To deny that is silly.

Tags: Ford Foundation, Michael Edwards, New Philanthropy Capital, Sean Stannard-Stockton, Small Change, Tactical Philanthropy, Tris Lumley

Let’s Take a Step Back in the Outcomes Debate

There is a growing discussion among social impact organizations and those who fund them about how to measure impact.  It is indeed a very slippery endeavor.

Mario Marino, Chairman of Venture Philanthropy Partners (a venture philanthropy fund in Washington D.C. that makes growth capital investments in nonprofits) has been encouraging nonprofits to measure outcomes for years.  Indeed one of the fundamental characteristics of venture philanthropy is a reliance on metrics and outcomes for investment to happen.  He recently wrote a post arguing that he is “increasingly worried that the vast majority of funders and nonprofits are achieving, at best, marginal benefit from their efforts to implement outcomes thinking.”  He argues that in an zealous pursuit of metrics we have left common sense and “softer” impact behind and encouraged nonprofits to move away from the impact they were working towards.

To add further confusion to the outcome measurement discussion, the Gates Foundation’s Melinda Tuan studied 8 approaches to measuring cost vs. social impact, or the value that nonprofit organizations create versus the cost of their activities.  The results of the study were disheartening; none of the approaches they studied was a magic bullet, all had significant drawbacks, which led them to conclude: “Integrated cost approaches to measuring and/or estimating social value are still in the nascent stages of development due to the lack of maturity in the field of social program evaluation.”

And there are other camps working towards outcome measurement, like those debating about whether randomized control trials (a research methodology where a random group of program participants is tracked and compared to a random group of cohorts who did not participate in the program) are feasible for nonprofits. And on the social business side, the GIIN (Global Impact Investing Network) is developing standards for measuring and communicating the social impact of investments known as The Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS).  And that’s just a start.

This whole social impact measurement endeavor is incredibly important because if we can figure out a way to measure which social change efforts work, and which don’t, we can allocate resources accordingly and, in theory, get closer to solutions to social problems.

But I think we need to first take a step back.  As is so often the case in efforts to build nonprofit capacity, effectiveness and infrastructure (including, in this case, the ability of nonprofits to evaluate their work) the focus is on the largest, most resourced nonprofit organizations.  Let’s remember that more than 80% of nonprofit organizations have budgets under $1 million (see the Nonprofit Almanac).  Budgets that small leave very little room for funds to support randomized control trials or other kinds of outcome measurements.

But an even bigger roadblock is the fact that many nonprofit organizations have not articulated their theory of change, or their logic model.  Many nonprofit organizations are doing good work, but they don’t necessarily have an articulated strategy around that good work.  A logic model helps an organization understand and articulate how they believe that they translate resources (inputs) into social impact, or change in a community.  This understanding allows the organization to better articulate (to potential funders, volunteers, supporters, partners), and create strategy around, their work.  A potential logic model for an English as a Second Language after-school program could be as follows:

One of the first steps Social Velocity undertakes with clients who want to increase organization capacity, sustainability, revenue, growth, or really any kind of progress, is to create a logic model with the organization.  The majority of nonprofits that I encounter don’t have an articulated logic model or theory of change.  It may seem like an academic exercise, but I would argue that it is absolutely critical to just about anything a nonprofit does.  In order to understand their place in the community, the value that their work adds, how additional inputs (like funding) can increase impact, and their strategy for delivering services, they need to articulate this process.

But the larger debate about outcome measurement ignores the fact that the majority of nonprofit organizations have not completed step 1 in outcome measurement: articulating a strategy for using resources to create outcomes.  Once this is articulated, we can talk about how to measure whether that strategy is actually coming to fruition.

Tags: Gates Foundation, GIIN, IRIS, logic model, Mario Marino, Melinda Tuan, Nonprofit Almanac, outcomes, randomized control trials, social impact, Social Velocity, theory of change, Venture Philanthropy, Venture Philanthropy Partners

Losing the Charity Mindset

Along with the burgeoning social entrepreneurship movement comes a bit of hubris that social entrepreneurs know better how to create social change than do the nonprofits that have been working toward social change for years.  Some social entrepreneurs argue that nonprofits are too set in their ways to embrace a new way of creating solutions.  I tend to disagree.  We can’t, nor should we, discount and dismiss an entire sector of people and organizations that have been working on social problems for centuries.  However, I do think that there are some things that nonprofits can learn from social entrepreneurs.  One of those is how to lose the charity mindset.

Nonprofits are sometimes referred to as “charities,” and it is a real misnomer.  But beyond semantics, the word, and more importantly the mindset, does a real disservice to organizations working toward change  A charity mindset is when an organization, its board, its funders or others promoting its work have a narrow view that the organization is benevolent, but not critical, to the world at large.  The charity mindset assumes that a nonprofit starts from the position of need, inadequacy, and burden, rather than a position of opportunity, strength, and effectiveness.  The charity mindset differs from a social entrepreneur mindset in a number of ways:

• Symptoms vs. Solutions: A charity, by its very definition, exists to provide aid to the needy, not to solve the underlying cause of the need.  This is not to say that every nonprofit can work toward solving an underlying problem; there will always be organizations that exist simply to provide basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.).  But I wonder if too many nonprofit organizations view their work as residing in the “charity” camp, instead of working, as social entrepreneurs do, to understand the cause of the need and how how they may be able to attack and solve it.




• Fundraising: A fundraiser in the charity mindset apologizes for the burden of asking someone for money, but a social entrepreneur offers investment opportunities to prospects.  Wendy Kopp from Teach for America went around evangelizing the Teach for America story and sought investors who wanted to get in on the ground level of an incredible opportunity to change the American public education system.




• Investment in Infrastructure: Charities spend every last penny on the program and leave little money for building the organization.  Social entrepreneurs understand that it takes organizations, infrastructure, systems, and talent to effectively execute on a solution to a social problem.




• Respect: Charities may be beloved by their supporters, but they may not garner a lot of respect from them.  Social entrepreneurs behave as equal partners with funders in creating solutions, and, as such, they command and receive real respect from investors, volunteers, partners and others.




• True Costs:  Charities like to claim that as much money as possible goes to direct services, but social entrepreneurs recognize the true costs of their endeavors and are open and honest with funders about those costs.  In fact they demand that funders understand and support those true costs.

I think the old adage is true, people will treat you the way you ask to be treated.  If a nonprofit acts like a charity, people will treat it like one.  Nonprofits need to stand up and demand to be treated as critical, equal partners in creating solutions.

Tags: charity, Fundraising, Nonprofits, Social Entrepreneurship, Teach for America, Wendy Kopp

MLK Day of Service Virtual Town Hall

On this Martin Luther King day, January 18th, Points of Light Institute and HandsOn Network will engage the nation in a MLK Day Virtual Town Hall—an online, interactive dialogue about community service.

Through this virtual town hall, you can tune in to conversations across seven cities, highlighting over 70,000 community organizations at the forefront of interaction, civic engagement and community service.

If you want to see the virtual town hall meeting, come back here on Monday, January 18th. The schedule for the simulcast is as follows:

Monday January 18 Simulcast Schedule

• 8:00 AM EST – 8:30 AM EST Atlanta – Opening at the hub (HON office)
• 8:30 AM EST – 9:30 AM EST Atlanta – Hands On Atlanta Annual King Summit Freedom Rally at Morehouse School of Medicine Auditorium with Congressman John Lewis
• 9:30 AM EST – 10:00 AM EST Back to the hub (HON office), pre-taped messages (i.e., Philadelphia)
• 10:00 AM EST – 11:00 AM EST Washington, D.C. – Greater DC Cares service project at Powell Elementary Schools with Council member Muriel Bowser
• 11:00 AM EST – 12:00 PM EST New York City – Youth HandsOn service project at James Weldon Johnson School
• 12:00 PM EST – 1:00 PM EST Sacramento – Hands On Sacramento service project at Quinn Cottages with Mayor Kevin Johnson
• 1:00 PM EST – 2:00 PM EST Phoenix – HandsOn Greater Phoenix service project with Mayor Phil Gordon
• 2:00 PM EST – 3:00 PM EST Chicago – Cities of Service announcement with Mayor Michael Bloomberg
• 3:00 PM EST – 4:00 PM EST St. Louis – United Way of Greater St. Louis service project and dialogue
• 4:00 PM EST – 4:30 PM EST Atlanta – Closing at the hub (HON office)

I hope to see you back here on Monday!

Tags: Day of Service, HandsOn Network, MLK Day, Points of Light Institute