NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD PRIORITIZE SUSTAINABILITY
My belief is that the nonprofit sector does not sufficiently prioritize sustainability. I define sustainability as the capacity to endure until the mission is complete. Given this definition, some organizations should naturally close their doors once they have achieved their objective while others will forever struggle to reach theirs. Neither of these scenarios are bad, but when an organization is doing good work but does not have the capacity to continue that work to completion, it is not sustainable. And this lack of consistency and persistence most hurts those that the agency was intended to assist.

Sustainability can come about in many ways but, due to my entrepreneurial inclinations, I prefer to see nonprofit organizations pursue a high level of earned income where possible (as a side note: while not every agency has the opportunity to accomplish this, grants still must not be relied on for sustainability). A key principle of this belief is that the earned income should not come principally from the agency's constituents as that would largely defeat the purpose. Instead, savvy organizations will identify opportunities to leverage their assets -- human and otherwise -- in a manner that will provide income while furthering the mission.

In the case of Ivanhoe House, the key constituents are the community youth. Once Ivanhoe House is replicated and functioning in multiple locations throughout Kansas City's east side, rent revenue from the college students will be sufficient to offset nearly every expense of the program in addition to maintaining the residential facility where the college students live. Mission-focused, earned income-driven sustainability.

OUR YOUTH NEED OUR EXAMPLES MORE THAN OUR SERMONS
There are many progams that attempt to impart to youth the wisdom of the ages. While I do not oppose these methods, I believe that often our youth already possess this wisdom and merely require the example of caring adults to empower them to make the choice to live it themselves. Further, by consistently lecturing our youth, we perpetuate the ageist notion that they are not as wise as we are simply because they lack the experience we have. This message is psychologically dangerous and, as we have seen, invites open rebellion.

The approach I advocate through Ivanhoe House plants college students directly into our communities. Further, the Ivanhoe House concept stipulates that the college students will engage community students that live within several blocks of the Ivanhoe House residence. Ivanhoe House is not a tutoring program; that is merely an icebreaker. It's an ideal icebreaker because it addresses an important community need, sets a tone for the relationship between the college student and community student that is grounded in knowledge attainment and creates a reason for regular interaction. But it is nevertheless an icebreaker. The true value of Ivanhoe House is that it brings successful college students into the community and, through simply being there and being good students and being good neighbors and interacting meaningfully, preachlessly gives community students permission to do the same if they desire to.

CONCLUSION
The needs of youth on Kansas City's east side are not unique. They are needs that exist in every community. For various reasons, our needs are simply being met with decreasing frequency compared to more affluent, non-minority communities. Any thoughtful person living in this community might have looked at our needs and put together this idea; in that regard, I'm simply a fortunate messenger in a community of intellectuals rather than a lone originator of fresh ideas. And as a community of brilliant people we collectively see, or are beginning to see, two things: the agencies sent here to assist us are often ill prepared to do so and the "solutions" that have been offered to our youth have solved little.