Hello again, Tyrone --
Thanks for providing the additional info, (a) to learn about what you're doing and (b) so I can offer a better answer to your original post. I certainly don't consider myself a PR expert, but I have worked in communications my whole career. Here are my eight points of concern and suggestions:
1. Sharpen your message. The original blog post that I found from 2013, thus still available for anyone to see, should either be edited down to about 25% of what it is or completely deleted. It's too long, messy, and confusing. Even though this was improved in the later uses on IndieGoGo and GoFundMe, it still needs work. A good copyeditor would go a long way toward helping that. See #7 below for another hugely relevant point about your message.
2. Consider narrowing the scope of your venture. Personally, I love thinking big, but I've come to learn it can be a liability. One, it makes it hard for people to get their minds around your venture, and two, it raises natural skepticism: "Fixing poverty throughout the whole U.S.? Yeah, right." There will always be skeptics, especially the greater the change you're trying to make, but there is a sweet spot at the intersection of big-enough thinking and few-enough skeptics. So, while in your mind you may have national plans, perhaps you should make this a smaller-scale program to start. (Think globally; act locally.) The natural level, it would seem to me, is something statewide. Make your model succeed in Mississippi, for example, the poorest state in the U.S., and you'll have a solid argument and credentials for making it succeed elsewhere or nationally.
3. By narrowing to a state level, you have a greater chance at the publicity you're having trouble getting. My suspicion is that media people are seeing your vision as too big for your credentials. Jeff Bezos launched Amazon not as an online seller of everything... just books. Despite that, he faced skeptics. But at least he could demonstrate how his company could succeed before even uttering a public word about his bigger plan. So, again, think about narrowing your scope. Right now, your venture is too small and too undeveloped for national media, but its scope is too big for local and state media (except maybe those where you live, presenting you as a local social-entrepreneurship story). I think a smaller-scale venture as proof of concept would go a long way toward bridging this gap. Heck, even making your concept succeed in a large city would be a big accomplishment.
4. Get rid of the GoFundMe pitch. It's three years old, and someone has only put up $5. Sorry to be blunt, but that looks terrible and could be killing your media opportunities all by itself. It's a knife in the back of your and your venture's credibility.
5. All of what I'm saying is also killing your chances with investors and strategic partners. I'm a big fan of Shark Tank, and RARELY will those investors get behind anyone with big national plans who hasn't demonstrated solid success so far. So again, scaling down to something local or statewide to start would likely go a long way toward getting more attention... not necessarily more easily, but better results.
6. It's really hard to grasp how an investor can make money. Using assumed numbers here, if your program generates 5% cash back (like a lot of cash-back plans do), then what can the "profit" for the program itself possibly be... 1%, 2%? For easy math, let's say 1%, which on $1mm in gross purchases equals $10,000. In this scenario, if I owned 20% of your company, I could -- at best -- get $2,000 out of this. (That's assuming, wrongly of course, that $10,000 is a net amount.) You might get an investor to care about $2,000 if that's a per-month amount... but that means your program is processing $1mm per month! That's huge. That's 1,000 people/families who average $1,000 per month of discretionary spending (and which must qualify within your program). Even if you could hit that instantly, your investor could only earn $72,000 in three years, which means the most she/he would be willing to invest for that return is roughly $50,000. But again, you have to get up to $1mm per month for this scenario, which could easily take a year. So, now the $50k needs to come down much more. Continuing with that math, you basically end up with any likely investment being such a small amount of money as to be useless. The apparent result is that you shouldn't even think about investors until you have this thing much farther along. And it may never be investor friendly; the model may just not support that.
7. Tell prospective stories. Find five people or families who would benefit from your program. Crunch the numbers as to what it would do for them in terms of real dollars. Then, tell these stories on your website. (Be clear that they're theoretical, however.) Stories connect with people much better than straight factual information. Read Paul Smith's book Lead with a Story for the best education on this concept.
8. Give us a better answer to the "USSN is an MLM" concern. Great that you address this in your FAQ, but you don't actually dispel the perception in my opinion. You say it's not an MLM, but then you talk about an earnings matrix, getting others into the program, and earning $2,500 per month (i.e., more than just a cash-back percentage). All of that smells like an MLM, or worse, a Ponzi Scheme. There's no way, in my mind, that someone who lives on $2,000 a month could earn $2,500 off their purchases unless this is an MLM or Ponzi Scheme. If I'm wrong about that, you need to answer this much more clearly. Except for negative publicity, media outlets will not even think about covering an MLM.
So, as you can see, I completely agree with your last comment that you have another issue you need to overcome. This isn't a matter of bias against social enterprises (apart from the level to which that does exist). I love your big thinking on this, and I hope this has helped. If it's been too harsh, just know that it comes from wanting you to succeed. You have a noble mission, and I believe anything is possible -- as long as we see things as they are and continually question our own assumptions.