In each of these "missions," there is a real disconnect between intermediary and ultimate outcomes necessary to help us understand the "social impact" better from their "theory of change." For each group we could easily ask, "So what," or "What if?" If they reach their mission as they've defined it, how will the world be a different, better place? I've taken a stab at intuiting some outcomes based on the missions as excerpted from above.

FamilyFarmed - Re-establish consumer "connections with their food, community, and the land."

• Encourage healthier food purchasing habits
• Change consumer behavior (movement away from starchy, fatty, sugary snack foods...?)
• Enhance the local multiplier effect

Grassroots - Empower nonprofit organizations.

• Enable groups to grow their member base
• Enable groups to raise money online
• Develop technical capacity of NPOs
• Etc etc

Maps 2.0 - Enable nonprofit and humanitarian organizations to share best practices in geographic information systems (GIS) and digital mapping tools.

• More later

Taking IT Global - Inspire youth to create a better world.

• More later