CARE Connections: can individual humanitarian organizations create successful social networks?

CARE, one of the largest relief and development organizations in the world has just launched “CARE Connections,” a social network for CARE supporters to discuss relief and development issues. The email announcing the launch was inauspiciously titled “Move over Facebook, here comes CARE Connections.”

I think its a smart recognition on CARE’s part that there is space in the digital realm to bring together a varied set of conversations about development and humanitarian issues. The best features of the CARE Connections portal are those that get it away from feeling like you’re just supposed to be discussing the organization itself. They have blog and news feeds which might be useful once they have a few more sources they’re drawing from. Additionally, because CARE incorporates advocacy in many of their development campaigns, there are a variety of action opportunities that users can browse.

At the end of the day though, I have a hard time believing that people will add another sign-in branded around any single organization like CARE to their routine. Many, many people support their work. Many of those people are interested in the sort of digital discussions that happen when you bring groups together around common interests. But few are going to want to hang around and create a new set of log-in data and connections around a specific organization. The buy-in to CARE just isn’t high enough, and the value proposition to the user isn’t unique enough.

I think its really hard to brand a general change focused network around a specific organization. Mycommitment.org (a project of the Clinton Global Initiative) has had some struggles with this as well. I think at the end of the day, sites like Change.org and Justmeans.com have a much better chance as stand alone social change platforms than anything built into just one organization will.

If nothing else, CARE should think about getting rid of the orange and black Halloween feel to the site..

What do others think?

India, Harvard, Social Enterprise: all in a day’s links

Its busy getting ready for an upcoming trip to San Francisco, so I thought I’d flag some of the articles that have come in through my reader that I’ve starred for later:

Base of the Pyramid Themes Underpin India’s Election - From the Acumen Fund blog

The Future of Social Enterprise working paper - from Harvard Business School Working Knowledge

For-profits vs. nonprofits - from Sean at Tactical Philanthropy

Boston beer, small business philanthropy and the era of trust

There was a cool article in the Boston Globe about a week ago about a partnership between Boston Beer Co (brewers of Sam Adams) and Accion USA to set up a nonprofit loan fund that helped small business owners with grants of between $2,000 and $20,000. The fund also provides entrepreneurs with consultation and mentorship with successful local and national business owners.

And while its great to see businesses I like (Sam Adams White mm mm) doing good things for the communities in which they operate, the thing I liked best about the program is that it’s based on a fundamental trust in people. Here’s the key line:

“What we try to do is look beyond the credit score and the assets you have that can be seized if you default,” [Accion senior VP] Parsons said. “We want to look at who you are and what your idea is.”

This isn’t revolutionary, but it is part of a school of thought that recognizes that people are greater than the sum of the numbers we can associate with them. It’s an affirmation of trust in the sense that who you are and what your idea is can reflect upon your capacity and potential as much as your credit history.

One of the things I love about the social web2.0 world is its foundation in trust. I remember once reading an interview with Jeff Skoll, one of the co-founders of eBay and founder of the Skoll Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, where he said something to the effect of eBay was built around the idea that people are basically good and trustworthy. Indeed, that’s the only way eBay, Craigslist, and all the other online marketplaces where average individuals exchange their assets and ideas can work.

Trust is certainly a fundamental currency in the world of social change, whether its trusting that the dollars you donate will end up where they’re intended or that local people have the ideas, capacity and wherewithall to lead in their own development, the whole show only works if its built on a foundation of trust. That’s probably why it hurts extra to be burned.

Anyone out there have a good story of trust affirmed or lost and how its impacted your approach to creating change?

Question of the week: how can nonprofits maximize their use of consultants and skilled volunteers?

In the Spring issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review, James. W Shepard, Jr. of the Taproot Foundation wrote a great piece called “MBAs Gone Wild: Nonprofits must rein in pro bono MBAs.” He writes:

like the proverbial bull in a china shop, MBAs like me can, without appropriate understanding of nonprofits, actually wreak havoc when let loose in the often alien world of nonprofit strategic planning. Here’s how it usually works:

Step 1: MBAs arrive at the nonprofit with great fanfare (preferably to the musical accompaniment of Celine Dion’s “I’m Your Angel”).

Step 2: We offer advice and recommendations (based largely on forprofit business models that may or may not work in a nonprofit setting).

Step 3: We accept warm thanks for our work (and hear a host of reasons why our proposals won’t fly).

Step 4: We return to our comfortable for-profit worlds not knowing whether our work will have any real impact; still, we feel warm and tingly about having made a contribution to the greater good.

His point is that there is incredible potential for MBAs (and other skilled consultants and volunteers) to add value to and support the work of nonprofit organizations, but there are areas in which external advice might be incorrectly at odds with the nonprofit staff.

Some of his major points:

• Nonprofits should retain the integrity of their stakeholder engagement. While it may seem ‘inefficient’ to consult staff, beneficiaries, and supporters in the decision-making process, this engagement is integral to the long-term support and success of most organizations.
• He notes that with little time to build trust between nonprofit staff and external consultants, there is a tendency for the staff to praise the advice and ideas of the consultants, but in the absence of trust, even good recommendations aren’t implemented. Indeed, the value proposition for nonprofits may be to generate future financial support from the consultants.
• He thinks the best projects for pro bono MBAs and other skilled consultants include: “collecting and analyzing external data, such as issues the nonprofit will confront in the next three years; analyzing options for the organization itself to consider and debate; benchmarking against great nonprofit and for-profit organizations, particularly those willing to share critical best practices; and creating summary reports that enable the nonprofit’s leaders and board to track implementation successes easily and sustainably.”

I like the article because I think it adds a deeper dimension to the sector blending discourse that’s an increasingly important part of creating social benefit. My sense is that we need a broader conversation about where and how nonprofits differ from for-profit entitites. The need for stakeholder engagement in ultimate decision-making that Shepard discusses, for example. When nonprofits are confident about what they do differently, and what they do well, they are much better able to work with external supporters to address other issues.

One organization to check out as you read about this is campusCatalyst, another innovative organization coming out of Northwestern University. cC puts undergrads through a course where they learn about nonprofit consulting, and work in teams to support local nonprofits.

I’m wondering how other people have experienced these questions? For readers out there who are nonprofit leaders, how have you maximized the expertise of skilled volunteers, MBAs, and other professional supporters? For consultants, what seem to be the most succesful interventions?

Live from America: happy 4th of July!

The graphic to the left is from one of the earliest issues of GOOD magazine, and almost perfectly conveys my feelings about this big, complicated place

This is the first 4th of July I’ve spent in the states since the summer after my freshman year in college. Since then I’ve been: hiking a 1200 year old pilgrimage across northern Spain, visiting a joint Israeli-Palestinian peace building organization in the West Bank, and twice in Gulu, northern Uganda planning and implementing a student global development program.

Each trip has, in its own way, instigated questions about the sense of American exceptionalism we seem to take for granted. Indeed, everywhere I go, the main lesson seems to be that people are people are people are people, for good and bad…Mostly good if you believe, as I do, that almost all of us are basically good, honest, and full of potential.

At the same time, the simple fact of being in those places has reminded me about what’s special about the opportunities I have largely because of my Original fortune to have been born where I was. I do believe that there’s something special- not necessarily “unique” in a exclusive way - but certainly special about America, and its that something I love to share when I travel, and that something I think we need to remember today.

Enjoy those burgers.

Continuing the conversation on the Question of the Week: Should nonprofit salaries mirror those of the private sector?

Great discussion in progress on our Question of the Week: Should nonprofit salaries for middle and upper management mirror those in the for-profit sector?

We’ve had great some great comments so far and want more people to jump into the conversation. Here’s my recap of the comments:

Thanks everyone for your responses. I think this is a fascinating and really important conversation. Pragzz, your experience from the trenches sounds reflective of a huge number of my friends. Jon (appfrica.org for those who don’t know!), your sense that people get into the industry with a time-frame that’s too long is interesting. Do you people get in with this mindset or is there sort of a “mission creep” or “i want to keep my job and that means my nonprofit needs to keep existing” effect?

Finally, Mas (by the way, great to hear from you man) and Tom, I think your posts are dead on. One of the things that I’d like to see more of is investment in the professional development of staffers, so that it makes nonprofit employees more capable and confident. The confidence that comes from knowing you have marketable skills would, I believe, make it a lot easier to invest more deeply in a fulfilling but less financially rewarding job.

What do you guys think are the top three things nonprofits could do to better recruit and retain quality employees?

Click here to join the conversation.

Kristoff column on micro-giving

CX Chua, one of the students from the Northwestern University ENGAGE Uganda Program 2007, celebrates with his Global Youth Partnership for Africa soccer/peer mentor team after finishing a 5-week after school program in the Namuwongo slum of Kampala, Uganda.

Nick Kristoff’s column today, “The Luckiest Girl,” tells the story of Beatrice, a bright girl from Uganda who, through her own smarts and the right type of support, was able to achieve greater and greater educational goals, finally graduating from Connecticut College in the US.

The column seems to me to be aimed at the cynics who use the problems of a challenged system of international aid as an excuse to disengage. His point, I think, is that even though we recognize that corruption and governance can cripple aid effectiveness; even though we understand that development goals can reinforce global power dynamics; and even though we know that even the best aid programs are not silver bullets, small investments in people’s capacity to achieve more can have tremendous ripple effects.

One of the most exciting possibilities the internet has opened for social change is the ability for everyday average people to support  each other’s capacities in small ways. Kiva.org, GlobalGiving.com, Change.org, the list is long. There is even a new aggregator being built at SocialActions.com to allow you to search across platforms for actions that most resonate with your passions and skills.

These types of 1-to-1 connections will not change policies or structures on their own, but I think Kristoff’s point - on that I agree with - is that they don’t have too. They’re an immensely important part of the big picture - and with new tools to collaborate and coordinate, potentially more transformational than ever before.

The nonprofit vs. government service gap

A Fine Blog posts on the gap between nonprofit volunteerism and governmental public service among the “millenial” generation. The post notes that nonprofit-based volunteerism and service face issues of both scale and scope when it comes to addressing the big problems.

One of the best points:

Private voluntary efforts can pick and choose the issues and populations with which to work. Organizations like Volunteers of America choose to work in very distressed communities with people who have significant, sometimes overwhelming, problems. Most groups don’t – and that is their choice, they are private efforts and can choose where and with whom to work. Through public policy, government is supposed to serve all people and communities. (If you want a refresher of how important this concept was to the Founding Fathers, take a peek at the Federalist papers, you will be taken aback, I think, by their passion over this particular issue.) We know that it often doesn’t, but, this is what government is intended to do, and what idealist young people can press it to do better, to help those least able to help themselves by directing resources to large public problems.

I posted this response as a comment:

Great post and important discussion. I think the problem you’ve identified is a real one, but I’m optimistic. I graduated from school a few years ago and since then have been designing undergrad focused global service and social entrepreneurship programs. I think the common denominator with young people today is a desire for real impact. Whether that impact comes from the nonprofit, for profit, or government sector seems to matter a little bit less than if there is real impact or not.

Young people start with volunteerism because its something they can do now. There ARE big youth advocacy movements (particularly around Darfur) but a lot of young people (rightly) question just how effective they are. That said, the sort of sector agnosticism I mentioned above means that as people graduate and begin to survey their options, they’re looking across the spectrum of opportunities to make a life that has an impact on problem solving.

If public service expands to include meaningful government work, I do think people will join. Barack’s national service plan/tuition credits are something that I think will find major traction with people. At the end of the day though, us millennial are idealistic but we’re not fuzzy idealists and pure altruism, charitable sentiments, and fine rhetoric won’t engage us the way opportunities to make a real difference will.

Thanks for posting and keep up the great writing!

What do others think?

Cool social change news and opportunities from around the web:

From CSRWire.com: International mining company Rio Tinto Alcan has opened applications for the fifth year of its $1million prize for sustainability. One of a growing number of groups to use prizes to induce “crowd-sourced” solutions to global problems, “the Rio Tinto Alcan Prize is open to all not-for-profit, non-governmental, and civil society organizations based anywhere in the world that are working to advance the goals of economic, environmental, and social sustainability.” Previous winners include Barefoot College, Aga Khan Planning and Building Services Pakistan, and others. Entries are due by Midnight, September 12th.

Also from CSRWire.com: OpenSRI.com has just launched as the “first collaborative web platform for socially responsible investments.” It also includes collaborative discussion around corporate social responsibility standards.

Finally, the Acumen Fund is looking for proposals to overhaul NextBillion.net, a site dedicated to Bottom of the Pyramid approaches to global development. If you’re a developer, check this out.

Question of the week: Should nonprofit salaries for middle and upper management mirror those in the for-profit sector?

The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s “Give and Take” blog picked up today on a debate about compensation in the nonprofit sector. The Charlotte Observer recently reported that the president of United Way for the Central Carolinas received a $1.2 million salary and compensation package for the 2007 Fiscal year, including $822,000 in retirement benefits.

While the benefits package included recompense for seven years since 2000 in which the president’s retirement package was not at the appropriate level, the high package has stirred questions of what salary levels are appropriate for nonprofit executives.

The debate has been playing out on the Chronicle’s Philanthropy Today, and one of the comments that gets me is this one:

“With examples like this of outlandish and frivolous use of donor funds, it’s no wonder why some people have lost confidence in the ethical oversight and distribution of philanthropic giving in our culture.”

I don’t believe that nonprofit salaries for executives or middle management have to be (or probably even can be) at exact parity with their for profit equivalents. I do think that the social mission, sense of purpose and additional potential quality of life benefits (not to mention the smaller amount of available capital) will always lead to generally smaller financial remuneration.

That said, the danger in this discussion seems to me not to be debates about specific instances of abuse. The problem is the pernicious mindset that it’s a “frivolous” use of donor funds to recruit and retain the most talented, passionate people available, and invest in continuously improving their abilities to do their jobs.

The mindset that a good nonprofit is any nonprofit that spend less than 10% of their donations on overhead seems well intentioned but completely wrong-headed to me. The point is impact. The point is whether or not you achieve your mission. Dollars, as Jim Collins points out in his “Good to Great: Social Sector monograph” are inputs not outputs for most nonprofits, and therefore a dangerous way to rate the quality of an organization.

I don’t think the nonprofit sector needs salaries at exact parity with the for-profit sector, and I do think the public should be wary of potential abuses and excesses, but I think that we need to more robustly develop and support talent for the nonprofit sector and pay increases have to be a part of that equation.

What do you think?