nonprofits

It depends on what you’re trying to achieve by having a spokesperson represent your issue.

Many nonprofit organizations have enlisted celebrities to help them not only to raise awareness about a specific issue, but also to support their organization’s fundraising efforts. I bet you can name a few without even having to think twice—there’s Marlo Thomas for St. Jude’s Children Hospital, Heidi Klum for The Heart Truth campaign, and Ryan Gosling who worked earlier this year with the ENOUGH Project.

For some, integrating a celebrity into your promotional model is par for the course—but should it be? While these A-list celebrities certainly draw attention to an issue, just how effective are they when it comes to enlisting the support of donors online?

Today, Geoff Livingston and Henry T. Dunbar of Zoetica released a white paper focusing on the effectiveness of celebrity spokespeople in social fundraisers. The report looked at the effectiveness of a number of online fundraising campaigns for nonprofits—including both those that did and did not— involve high-profile celebrities. 

They concluded that a celebrity “presence” does not always guarantee that a fundraising initiative will be successful. Rather, bringing on board lesser known celebrities and “weblebrities” can often times be more effective in connecting with donors. The key differences for the more successful, but less well known celebrities included the fact that they had: a personal and relevant story related to the cause; a willingness to engage and be active with the community focused on that particular issue; and an authentic tie to the cause.

The authors also found that while integration of a celebrity spokesperson can help galvanize a community around an issue, getting a star’s fans and followers to commit to a particular call-to-action—such as donating—is not always a guarantee.

“Nonprofits have turned to their celebrity partners with fans and followers in the millions to raise money. The numbers can be astounding, both positively and negatively. Save the Children just ran a celebrity campaign on social media with the likes of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber that raised $100,000 in the first day. However, deeper analysis showed the fundraiser achieved $0.0001 per celebrity follower.”

In addition, the 2011 Millennial Donor survey (conducted by Achieve and Johnson, Grossnickle and Associates) found that for Millennials specifically, 85% responded that they are “motivated to give by a compelling mission or cause, and 56% by a personal connection or trust in the leadership of the organization.” Not surprisingly when compared to the findings from this white paper, “only 2% of Millennials were motivated to give by celebrity endorsements.”

Katya Andresen, Chief Strategy Officer of Network for Good offered Livingston and Dunbar three factors to consider when assessing whether or not a celebrity presence could help promote social fundraising efforts:

• Does the spokesperson have a personal story related to the issue?
• Does the spokesperson have a tight knit community that interacts with them?
• Can the spokesperson be considered an authentic messenger who can deliver issue related messages?

Similarly, the white paper offers suggestions for what a nonprofit manager should consider before integrating a celebrity component into their social fundraising campaign.

• Does the celebrity have a personal connections and authentic passion for the cause?
• Does the celebrity spokesperson demonstrate a willingness to ask their personal friends to become involved, and not just their public?
• Welcome the non-traditional celebrity and consider those who are avid users of social media or who have large/strong social networks

Livingston and Dunbar’s ultimate conclusion is that “the best results do not come from the most well-known celebrities and bloggers, but the most engaged ones.” Taking a page from more traditional fundraising techniques that focus on the creation of relationships, the authors conclude that in order for socially driven fundraising efforts be successful, they too must focus on the building of relationships.

Whether or not you get Lady Gaga to do a public service announcement or Justin Beiber to make an appearance at your next fundraiser—real success for any organization’s fundraising and mobilization efforts will come from connections with the creation and cultivation of relationships.

What techniques for online and socially driven fundraising have you used or seen? Have you ever engaged a celebrity spokesperson to help your nonprofit? If so, what lessons learned can you share?

It’s hard to believe that 10 years have come and gone since the day my generation was thrust into a new world – a world where politics at the local, national, and international level suddenly took on new meaning. A world that forced us to grow up a little quicker. A world that helped us develop a civic awareness that many say could only be the result of a national tragedy on a scale like September 11.

Yesterday we marked the 10-year anniversary of that fateful day, and today is 9/12/2011. It is the start of a new decade for us as Millennials in a post 9/11 era. For those on the older end of the Millennial spectrum like myself, we have now spent the past decade in the workforce,and many of us have settled down and are starting families of our own. We are armed with new technology and an awareness and appreciation for global issues, and we have been building organizations and reinventing ourselves and our institutions with an entrepreneurial flair. The events of 9/11 suddenly gave us a larger purpose – a reality check of sorts that reminded us we weren’t invincible and that we had an obligation to give back to our neighborhoods, our community, and our country. 

Today as we enter the next decade of life after 9/11, we take with us vivid reminders not only of that day, but of the way in which it changed our individual narratives. We wonder what will come in the next 10 years. We lift up examples of new social innovations and technologies that have brought us closer together as neighbors, friends, and family, from Friendster to Facebook. We lift up examples of organizations that have grown and come into their own to help us find a voice and purpose.  

If you look at the nonprofit landscape over the past decade, there has been a surge of young idealistic change-makers who have started their own organizations to address real problems, be it in their local or global community. They have little concern about whether their venture is a .com or .org – and more concern about whether or not their work is having an impact. While the entrepreneurial spirit that is so engrained in my generation is inspiring, there’s also a reality. The reality is that many of these new organizations are competing for limited dollars and our limited attention spans. There are simply not enough resources to support and fully fund all of the great ideas that are being generated – or the capacity  to ensure they are all able to thrive.

Even so, there are also many success stories. The events of September 11 prompted people like Scott Heiferman, founder of Meetup, who said “the only time I thought about my neighbors [pre 9/11] was when I hoped they wouldn't bother me,”  to suddenly launch a national platform that would bring together millions through meetups across the country and eventually around the world. Or David Smith, founder of Mobilize.org, whocreated an organization that would exist today as a way to empower and invest in Millennials to create and implement solutions to social problems. In the years since 9/11, Mobilize has merged with a half dozen smaller nonprofits with similar missions to work collaboratively to leverage the unique skills of Millennials and create solutions to social challenges.

In this next decade, my hope is that we build upon this momentum and spirit of service andfind greater opportunities to invite these emerging social entrepreneurs into our existing institutions – some of which are in desperate need of an infusion of new life and ideas. And, that we create space for greater cross-generational learning, dialogue, and debate so our institutions are strengthened rather than struggling for new ideas and opportunities.

The world my daughter will inherit is one my generation will help shape. I have full confidence that the idealism and energy that has emanated in the years since 9/11 will help create a solid foundation for continued innovation.

What new ways of thinking do you believe will come as a result of the Millennial Generation coming of age in the next 10years?  How will this influence continue to reshape our institutions?

With more than half of all nonprofit leaders retiring in the next decade -- what does the future leader of the philanthropic sector look like today? What motivates these rising leaders? What drives their vision for the future of the sector? Is it salary – is it satisfaction? Or maybe it’s time we scrap our focus on "the sector" all together and instead look at the blending of sectors and approaches that drive social change.  

As nonprofits prepare for the inevitable leadership transition, a new report by Changing Our World and Future Leaders in Philanthropy provides some compelling perspectives for nonprofits -- from Millennials themselves -- on how to attract and retain future leaders.  It’s not the first time we’ve explored these issues here on Social Citizens, but with the release of the new report, we thought it was worth breaking down these issues a little more.  The report focuses on the following four areas:

•    The disappearance or blending of traditional sectors;
•    A reflection on the importance of salary;
•    Overall job satisfaction; and
•    The Impacts of volunteering.

Let’s take a look first at the disappearance of or blending of traditional sectors.  The study shows that while nonprofits have traditionally “bucketed” their work into the familiar categories of education, health, environment, etc. when Millennials were asked in which “bucket” their work fit into – after “education” the next highest selection was “other” with a wide range of themes coming to light from technology, to social justice, advocacy and human rights to name just a few.  

What’s more, we know that beyond identifying with these issue areas – Millennials aren’t just looking at entering traditional nonprofit institutions to influence social change. They can “do good” by joining businesses with a double or triple bottom line, or by entering a start-up with a pro-social mission.  And until nonprofits are able to attract the entrepreneurial, technologically savvy Millennial – they may  struggle to contend with their pro-social competitors across other sectors.

We tend to think that more than money, prestige, titles or promotions – Millennials have an almost innate desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves.  And the survey further reinforced this notion by exploring why young people choose to do the work they do.  An overwhelming majority cited the “idea of working for a socially mission driven organizations as the primary driver for their choice” – and this answer crossed demographics, young and old, experienced and inexperienced, etc. Of all the reasons to work in the nonprofit sector – salary ranked dead last. 

However, that’s only part of the story. The study showed that “Salary may not be why young professionals enter the sector, but it is a big part of what they think about on the inside, irrespective of gender, length of time in the sector or area of work.”  But perhaps what was most fascinating was that 43% of respondents felt that a nonprofit salary level that is lower than those in the for-profit sector is actually acceptable, compared to 46.4% who felt it was never acceptable. This means that as many people are willing to accept lower salaries in nonprofit work as those who are not, whether because those lower levels reflect “working for a greater cause” or because the nonprofits themselves are “strapped financially for resources.” 

Nonprofits who can’t seem to find ways to be competitive when it comes to salary – are going to have to think again.  According to the study, a much higher percentage of young people consider for-profit/nonprofit salary parity as a motivating factor in choosing nonprofit employment than do older workers.

Whether they want to believe it or not, and whether they’re tired of hearing it or not, today's nonprofit leaders need to recognize that Millennials think about and approach their work differently  just as each generation before them has added their own “flavor” to the workplace. Millennials are mixing things up, and regardless of how driven they are by working for organizations with a social mission - they are just as passionate about being compensated for this work and they expect high performance from the organizations of which they are a part.

For more insights or to download a copy of The Young and the Relentless: An Original Survey of the Next Generation of Nonprofit and Philanthropy Leaders please click here for the whitepaper, or click here to view the webinar.

A few years ago, most of us probably wouldn’t have thought to ask a Salvation Army bell ringer what impact our spare change will have after we drop it in their bucket. But this Christmas, we just might consider it. Whether we’re embracing the information age or just taking a cue from the private sector, donors big and small are increasingly curious about the impact of their dollars.

Donation decisions are generally based on an organization's ability to make a connection with donors. Since people historically give money based on religious beliefs, a desire to feel good or because of a personal ask, fundraising 101 has been focused on telling your story. We've talked at the Case Foundation about how storytelling through videos and photos can be a key to success in fundraising campaigns. We are now seeing this more traditional form of storytelling be linked to social impact measurement and transparency when it comes to how donation dollars are being used. When discussing the future of social impact measurement recently, Anthony Bugg-Levine, Managing Director at the Rockefeller Foundation and Columbia Business School professor suggested the greatest losers of the fundraising game might be the people who are great storytellers but ineffective problem solvers (those unable to move the needle when it comes to social impact)– a shift that would be bad for them but good for the overall efficiency of the sector.

It's not hard to make the case for measuring social impact. Especially in a time when money is tight, people want to know how their donated dollars are being spent. They want to know how many dollars were raised, how those dollars are spent - how many meals were served, houses were built and vaccines were given. But beyond that, people want information about what the real impact of their dollars are. They want to know not only the simple numbers of meals, houses and vaccines, but the "so what" which is much more difficult to measure because it is often part of systematic change.

Let’s take the example of access to water.

Measuring the impact of water programs goes beyond counting the gallons of water provided. In rural areas where women and children have to spend 3-4 hours a day collecting water, they often miss out on educational and economic opportunities. This cycle continues to impact their communities by limiting sustainable development and progress. On top of that, clean water means saved lives, reduced health care costs, and increased productivity. The links are clear, but it’s a challenge for even a substantial nonprofit organization to allocate the resources required to quantify these effects. Since the majority of nonprofits have annual budgets of less than $1 million, it’s not surprising that so far, many take a look at social impact measurement and decide that it’s not worth it.

Resisting the measuring stick.

By nature, nonprofits are very cause-oriented. In the past this has led to resistance against spending funds on other non-service items. Many nonprofits have now accepted that in the long run, it’s worth investing funds in marketing, technology and earned income initiatives. The most common argument against social impact is that adding the task of social impact measurement to an organization's list of to-dos requires the use of scarce resources - resources that must be pulled away from something else, and often that something else is service the organization provides. To continue the water example, charity:water can give one person clean drinking water for 20 years for $20; I'm sure it's difficult in the short term to reduce the number of people served to divert some of those funds into measurement. But in the long run, such an investment could ultimately bring in more money, which will have a greater overall impact.

Ok, measurement might be good, but how?

Unlike a company's financial performance, which can be easily compared through established metrics like return on equity and stock performance, social impact measurement lacks established methods and benchmarks. But never fear – there are people who are already dedicated to fixing that. For example, the Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) at the Global Impact Investing Network are meant to provide common metrics for social and environmental performance. The chicken and egg part of this situation is that organizations need to adopt these metrics for them to be helpful standards, and people are wary about adopting a method before it’s a standard – especially when adopting means another budget line item.

It's all about balance.

Before you trade your old fundraising material for statistical analysis and spreadsheets, remember that both your donors and your employees are will still be human and they still like a good story. Employees who are drawn to the mission could get disillusioned when they see the individuals that were the reason they sought a nonprofit job turned into numbers that can be crunched this way and that to maximize efficiency. Even when done well and with limited reallocation of resources, there are still dangers of making social change too much about the numbers. When it becomes too much about efficiency and numbers, the people can get lost. And if metrics become more and more important in how donors allocate their numbers, we could accidentally create incentives for people to neglect the real mission or even game the system. When the goal becomes big numbers, it could be tempting to sacrifice quality.

The truth is that organizations need to be able to do both storytelling and impact measurement, and focusing on one doesn't eliminate the need for the other - kind of like how companies need both good stock performance and good ad campaigns. Bugg-Levine concluded that efforts to measure social impact "should be relevant and reliable but not reductionist."

How do you think organizations should balance storytelling and social impact measurement? What are you interested in when spending your dollars as a donor?

Evidence points to yes.

I never really thought of just how much doing good has become a general part of our mainstream culture in America until I was speaking with Shira Lazar at a conference, and she mentioned that being in the nonprofit world is actually “kinda sexy now.” I had to do a double-take when she said that to see that she was serious, and internally chuckle to myself a little. I’m deep in this world, and a total geek, so yes, I absolutely think that being in the cause-related field is awesome, but to hear it from her, it really hit me: we do live in an environment now, where doing good has surely gone mainstream.

Then, I tried to think of the factors that prove this, and here is what I initially came up with.

Mainstream media is talking about it.

As in my example above, mainstream media has embraced doing good as an interesting story. Not only do media outlets, like the NY Times and Huffington Post have charity-related verticals and reporters covering the cause-related beat, but it’s also pervading other mainstream media outlets like TV. Major television networks are getting into the good game like never before. For example, the four major broadcast networks – ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC – and other cable channels featured giving and volunteerism in more than 90 shows' plotlines during the Entertainment Industry Foundation’s iParticipate Initiative last October, including shows like Ugly Betty, The View, and Desperate Housewives. The networks have also devoted prime time spots for airing large fundraising telethons. Just in our recent history, who doesn't remember the star-studdeed telethons for Haiti, Katrina, September 11, and the Tsunami. They're also even taking risks on shows and series based on doing good. Although short-lived, the TV series, the Philanthropist, was a pretty big deal for those in philanthropy in 2009. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, a show based on designers racing against the clock to provide home renovations for deserving people, which always ends in a tear jerking story, has been a hit since it first aired in 2003 and is still going strong. And, it's a reality show ... I think we can all agree, if there's a reality show on it, it can be considered mainstream!

Celebrities are doing it.

Interrelated to mainstream media is celebrities; one thrives on the other. There have been quite a few posts over on the Case Foundation site about celebrities doing good and we  will continue to feature great projects we come across, because one thing is for sure - people pay attention to what celebrities do. Like it or not, they have the ability to draw public attention to their interests and influence trends. Who doesn’t know that Bono is tied with relief work in Africa, Angelina Jolie is a UN Goodwill Ambassador, Ashton Kutcher is all over Twitter in support of causes like Malaria, or of Oprah’s Angel Network. Although you may not know exact details of their involvement, there is a general knowledge and common understanding among most of the country of these stars' interests and goings on, probably due to the fact that mainstream media reports on and highlights it.

Social media makes it so easy to join the do good bandwagon.

Or, the Slacktivism argument. As defined by Wikipedia, Slacktivism is “considered a pejorative term that describes 'feel-good' measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction. The acts also tend to require little personal effort from the slacktivist.”

What people have considered as examples of slacktivism include wearing awareness wristbrands that support a cause, taking part in short-term boycotts such as Earth Hour, putting a magnet/bumper sticker on a vehicle. And now, the quick and easy online versions include signing online petitions, joining a Facebook group, tweeting to support a cause, donating small dollar amounts online or via text-to-give campaigns, etc. Although Wikipedia notes that slacktivism has little or no practical effect, the merits and impact of slacktivism has been hotly debated. Here is what Dan Morrison wrote earlier this year in a guest post, that I tend to agree with:

Slacktivism emerged because social media tools gave slackers with a heart an opportunity to get involved on their own terms. It is a mistake to think that slacktivists are just lazy. Some are too busy or uncomfortable getting involved with a cause in a public manner. Texting, tweeting and social media gave them the ability to give during the limited time they had or provided the social cover they needed to get involved. So I think we should ask not what the slacktivist can do for us, but what we can do for the slacktivist.

For some other great takes on the topic, check out these articles and posts:

• Fast Company: Helping Humanity With a Click of the Mouse by Nancy Lublin
• The Seattle Times: Social network campaigns push ‘slacktivism’ to new heights by Christopher Borrelli
• The Huffington Post: Slacktivism Strikes Back by Andrew Sniderman

Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, the fact of the matter is that the internet is making it so much easier to pipe up and say you support a cause. Examples like the prevalence of people sporting the yellow Livestrong bracelets and success of campaigns like the American Red Cross's text-to-give for Haiti campaign that resulted in over $32 million in donations shows that people are doing their small part - en masse.

Big brands are adopting causes.

Cause-marketing is everywhere - big brands are aligning themselves with causes as part of their companies' marketing strategies - and studies show it works. One consumer behavior study conduced by Cone showed "cause-related marketing can exponentially increase sales, in one case as much as 74 percent, resulting in millions of dollars in potential revenue for brands." Cause marketing campaigns cover a wide spectrum from getting people involved with walks and events, like the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer and American Express being a supporter of Taste of the Nation from the beginnings, to actual point of purchase and merchandising partnerships, like Product (RED), which has partnered with so many huge brands like the Gap, Emporio Armani, Nike, Apple, and Starbucks to donate a portion of proceeds from sales to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. Consumers express their power through their purchasing decisions, and inevitably, those purse strings' pulls help drive business decisions.

A new generation of do-gooders.

Just try to throw an aluminum can in the trash and not recycling bin in front of my six year old niece, and she will be all over you with a lecture on where it's supposed to go. It seems that children and teens are being raised with a consciousness about doing good and giving back that is infused in them from multiple angles now.

Volunteering in America claims that 26% of teens volunteered as of 2009, and while volunteer rates among teenagers declined between 1974 and 1989 (20.9% and 13.4%, respectively), the percentage of teenagers who volunteer more than doubled between 1989 and 2005 (from 13.4% to 28.4%). This may have something to do with the trend in schools requiring service credits for graduation from high school, and sometimes even junior high. There is some level of this happening in elementary schools as well, because my brother and sister-in-law never had to teach my niece about recycling. So, something that may have been taught to children and youth mainly by their parents, families and friends, is now being exposed to them via their schools as well.

So, what does all this mean?

I think there is plenty of evidence out that there suggests doing good has gone mainstream. But, the more important question is, what do we do with that? Although it's fantastic that this idea of doing good is part of our nation's general culture and psyche, does it mean that people will lose sight of real impact and will it be an excuse for people to feel like they don't need to do more? How can the nonprofit sector (or all sectors for that matter) really embrace and then leverage this attitude?

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and I will be expanding on the ideas in this post and integrating your comments into a series of posts over on the Case Foundation blog.

Over the last couple of years, Facebook users have gone through the love-hate relationship cycle with the social media platform as its privacy settings have continued to change crumble, but the options have been limited to either sucking it up or closing your account and missing out on all the benefits of Facebook - an option now being explored by so many people that if you type in "how do I" in Google, the first autofill that pops up is "...delete my Facebook account." I should say those were the only options until now. 

Four NYU students and self-proclaimed nerds decided to take matters into their own hands and build a new social network. They're calling it Diaspora. Others are calling it the anti-Facebook. New social networking sites and platforms are cropping up all the time, but this one may be just as significant for what it is as for HOW it’s being built. The team of four 19 to 22-year-olds began fundraising on Kickstarter in late April so they could spend their summer creating Diaspora. They blew past their fundraising goal of $10,000 in less than two weeks, and now, just shy of three weeks, they are rolling past $130,000 from more than 3,500 people – and rising all the time.

It's any nonprofit or cause-champion’s dream to capture that kind of support from their networks, so what can we learn from Diaspora?

1. Pursue a cause people are dying to support.
   If you have to spend a lot of time explaining to potential supporters why your project is necessary, you may need to rethink your project. It wasn’t difficult for these guys to rally people behind their privacy battle cry because they’re meeting a need in their community. When you can address a problem people already recognize, they'll jump in to help you succeed.
    
2. Offer measurable results.
   At the end of the summer, the team promises their software will be released, and it will be free. Plain and simple. Not all nonprofit projects can offer such concrete outcomes, especially when the problems you’re addressing are mammoths like world peace, poverty or cancer, but whatever your cause, it’s important to be able to tell people what you will do and then to demonstrate whether or not you have done it. Creating deliverables in the form of SMART goals can help break large issues down into distinct steps which will help you show return on investment.
    
3. Show your passion by putting some skin in the game.
   With two members of the team just graduating from college and two others looking forward to their dwindling summer days as students, they would normally be getting jobs, taking trips or just finding a pool nearby. But they are sacrificing all of that to spend 12 hours a day writing code without pay. While I’m not advocating slave labor at nonprofits, short-term campaigns where you’re rolling up your sleeves and making sacrifices of sleep, food or pay for the common good, often make people want to get behind you and cheer you on.
    
4. Offer a chance to participate.
   The fundraising levels (from $5-$2,000) that the Diaspora team created would make any marketing department proud. And the fact that the vast majority of backers so far have given less than $50 each shows that lots of small-dollar donors want to give a little and be a part of something meaningful. The largest two levels (which are both sold out) provide the extra perk of giving sponsors the ability to check in on Diaspora's daily progress on the build server. Aside from the thoughtfully tailored levels of financial support, they have committed to release their code as free software at the end of the summer so anyone can use it, build on it and make it better. This transparency and willingness to let others participate and take some control are characteristics people like to see in nonprofit projects as well.

Our environmental resources are diminishing, our economy is crumbling, and according to a Washington Post Breaking News Alert that came in as I was writing this, “more Americans are going hungry” (49 million to be precise). Even as our problems seemingly become more and more complex, we are also being asked to take the reins, to look to the future and to predict what’s next for the nonprofit sector. We know that business as usual (if ever there was such a thing) is no longer going to cut it and it seems we’ll never go back to our pre-crisis standing. So, how do we take hold of this moment in time, and what role will the rising generation of Millennials have in helping lead the change?

Earlier this month, the James Irvine Foundation released a new study, Convergence: How Five Trends Will Reshape the Social Sector.  In it, LaPiana Consulting outlines five ways the nonprofit sector will be redefining its role, noting that, “The nonprofit sector is at an inflection point that will fundamentally reshape it long after the recession, when surviving nonprofits find themselves in a new reality — not just economically, but demographically, technologically and socially.” The five trends focus on the following areas:

• Demographic shifts that redefine participation
• Abundant technological advances
• Networks that enable work to be organized in new ways
• Rising interest in civic engagement and volunteerism
• Blurring sectoral boundaries

While reading the report, I couldn’t help but reflect back almost two years ago, to the beginning of Social Citizens. As I worked with Allison Fine to develop the key themes of the report, you’ll find some commonalities.  Remember, our goal was to see how the future of the nonprofit sector was being reimagined through the lens of the Millennial Generation. We defined a social citizen as someone who is, “energetic and passionate about social causes; brimming with new approaches and ideas for problem solving; disposed toward sharing the responsibilities and rewards of affecting change in the world; and using digital tools and people power (on and offline social networks) to make it happen.”

We found some distinguishing characteristics of “social citizens” – let’s take them point for point in comparison to the above study.

• Demographic shifts: Millennials are the most ethnically diverse generation in our history
• Technological advances: Millennials are net natives, growing up with cell phones in tow
• Organized Networks: Millennials go against hierarchical structures and have adopted a new collaborative style of leadership
• Civic engagement/volunteering: Millennials are volunteering at the highest rates of any generation
• Sector Boundaries: Millennials are merging lines between for profit and nonprofit structures and concepts. Social activism has become a new marketplace where goods and services are exchanged not just for money and profit, but good social outcomes.

I applaud the Convergence report for pointing out what’s changing and what it will take to survive amid these changes, and I hope that as a sector we’ll begin to break down some of the generational boundaries that still abound.  Call me naïve or an idealistic Millennial, but there has perhaps never been a better time to experiment, to let go of the status quo, and to embrace new opportunities for change.  We need to look at the world through a new lens.

The rising generation has a lot of ideas, and we’re being invited to more tables as evidenced by the record number of NextGener’s who participated at the Independent Sector Conference earlier this month.  Since Millennials seem to be inclined toward the types of behaviors that will shape the future of the sector, don’t you think greater cross generational collaboration could help ensure a smoother transition? How can we continue to bridge these generational gaps and recognize we're all in this together? 

Since my recent post encouraging would-be nonprofit founders to think again before converting their passion and ideas into a 501(c)3, I have been excited to see the great conversation around this issue. Thanks to everyone who has weighed in thoughtfully on entrepreneurship, innovation and replication - those who gave me an amen, gave me a strong rebuttal and, last but not least, gave me a raise. Since this issue seems to have struck such a nerve and it's not as black and white as to found or not to found, I think there's still more conversation to be had about how we can achieve a balance that benefits society.

Geoff Livingston suggests rather than discouraging entrepreneurs, who we're not going to be able to stop anyway, we should help them be successful by providing education and resources. That was my thought with suggesting people pursue incubation or fellowship programs - so that new ideas and models can flourish with help - but the existing programs obviously will not accommodate all the innovators ready to start up. I agree that smart innovation and unique entrepreneurial ways of addressing social problems makes the sector stronger and keeps established organizations on their toes by challenging the status quo. But can we encourage the social innovators we need while redirecting people who have passion and ideas, but who would be more effective as part of an existing initiative?

I will also concede Colleen Dilenschneider's point that even if the new nonprofits fail, there's nothing like hands on experience to teach leaders what it means to run an organization. She cites a 2006 Bridgespan Group study, which says the upcoming leadership deficit in the nonprofit sector will require about 640,000 new senior managers in the next 10 years. No doubt experienced young people will be in high demand. But is there another way these Millennial leaders can capture this learning experience without spending charitable dollars to no other end than knowledge of how to do it better next time?

My colleague Eric Johnson added his thoughts as well, comparing the nonprofit and for-profit sectors. He suggests that as a nonprofit startup, it can be more difficult to know if you're making progress because we don't have great established metrics for success, market valuation, and other mechanisms of the for-profit world. And while many nonprofit leaders are starting to recognize that you have to treat donors like consumers, the structure is complicated because the people who are funding your work are often different, and may have different interests than, the people you are serving.

So what are some possible solutions? As Geoff and I talked more about it, we tossed around one idea. If nonprofits are charged with looking after the social health of our communities, like doctors are charged with looking after our physical health, why shouldn't nonprofit leaders have to be certified to operate? If we require something more of doctors than just a desire to make us well, should we require something more of nonprofit executives than just a desire to make a difference? People have to get licenses to do our taxes, to drive our cabs, to cut our hair, and apparently to collect our rags (see photo), but we are going to give them our extra income without having any guarantee they know how to use it effectively to make the world a better place?

In an ideal world, we would all do thorough research to see how effective organizations are before we give our hard-earned money to them, but the reality is most of us don't. The average person does not have Guidestar bookmarked and is not motivated to break his piggybanks because he sees a tightly run NGO. We don't check nonprofits' 990s, what executive salaries are or how much goes to overhead. Research has indicated that including that financial information in an appeal actually makes donors less likely to give than if they receive an emotional appeal alone.

I know increased regulation sounds like a big Debbie Downer, but it can protect and benefit both donors and nonprofit founders. Is it better in the long run if someone spends two years in a program learning how to run a successful nonprofit than if they spend two years wasting money and time, jumping in before they're ready? If we have a nonprofit version of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Mark Zuckerberg, who have all achieved amazing success and benefitted society without even a college degree, it may not serve us to delay their brilliant innovations, so exceptions would have to be made, but most people fit the rule and not the exception. Maybe a license requirement is just another roadblock, but it's helped me to trust my dentist, my accountant and my stylist as professionals. I think we should brainstorm and consider ways to help steer and encourage people with entrepreneurial passion and ideas toward the smartest choices and the greatest social good.

Oh, what the good folks at United Airlines must have thought – just another little customer service mishap, nothing new. But, in the new world we’re living in, customer service mishaps take on a whole new meaning when everyone is a broadcaster, and the twitterverse is your stage.

Warning nonprofits: the concept of the “customer service experience” also applies to you! In fact, most donors stop giving to charity not because of financial problems, but because of dissatisfaction of how they were treated by the nonprofit. From too many emails, to not sending a follow up thank you note, customer service is important, and in the uber-connected world it’s as important as ever. Perhaps we can all learn a lesson about staying ahead of the game from a recent incident involving musician, Dave Carroll on a flight last March.

It’s always tough coming off of a holiday weekend – so, in an effort to ease back into the work week we thought it would be best to do a roundup of some of the stories that caught our attention, got us thinking, and were worthy of passing along.  Also,  what's a "good read" in your feed right now? Please share with us in the comments.