By Jesse Max David under Uncategorized on July 2, 2024

Innovations in Philanthropy

Hey everyone, I'm Sarah Lange and I'm here to spark the philanthropy revolution. The word philanthropy means love of mankind. My show is all about the ways we can revolutionize our fundraising so we can raise more money and do more good.

Sarah: Hey everybody, it's Sarah Lange here with the Philanthropy Revolution. For those of you who are joining for the first time, I’m a professional fundraiser, I've been at it for 35 years and I've raised over a hundred million dollars and I'm really excited today to introduce my guest, Paul Noble-Campbell. He's an innovation strategist with Upstream Thinking in Austin, Texas and Upstream Thinking transforms organizations, communities, and societies through human-centered design. So he's going to talk all about that. We have a lot to learn from Paul. And essentially, Upstream Thinking has a commitment to empowering vulnerable populations, which is why he and I connected, because we both have these big overarching missions. Paul also teaches at the University of Texas and Baylor University. He's been in an exhibit in the Cooper Hewitt Museum. So I want to hear more about that. And he got an award from Fast Company. So today we're going to talk about innovations in philanthropy and barriers to innovation. So Paul, welcome.

Paul: Thank you so much. Hi, Sarah. Good to see you.

Sarah: Good to see you. Thanks for joining us. You're very welcome.

Paul: Good morning, everyone. I guess it's afternoon for some people, but hello.

Sarah: So Paul, tell us how you got into this world of human centered design.

Paul: Yeah, so personally, my background has been in design for a large number of years. And then, and also my colleagues at Upstream Thinking have come from sort of similar worlds, designers, researchers, strategists. And we sort of came together with the realization that there's a lot more meaningful areas that design can be applied rather than, for example, making next year's laptop look beautiful when it sits in landfill in about three years from now, or creating more apps that basically just decorate the desktop of our mobile phones because they're unused. So that was sort of the impetus and, you know, with We sort of had the similar thoughts about design as being a really powerful agent for change. And we just really wanted to amplify the impact design would have in the world and society. So we sort of set up that we came together with that mission and set about inserting ourselves in areas where we could create a lot more impact in society so that led to a sort of a lot of different types of work but it's been a lot of work in the healthcare space, both in globally and in global development but also closer to our home in Texas, also in education and then sort of what we call community development which is sort of just more general challenges in society. So that was sort of the impetus behind it. And we sort of set about being quite, sort of intentional about how we operate as well. So the name, the background behind the name upstream thinking was that we're big believers in the idea that to solve the big complex societal challenges that have been have to persisted for a large number of years, you need to take quite a different approach, right? Rather than affecting the system, the symptoms rather, is to really look for the causes and to address those causes. So at the root of so many of these big, big challenges that we've worked on and exist in the world, they're human challenges, right? There's human beings. at the center of them in terms of the people that are facing those challenges, but also the people around them that are, for example, in the healthcare system or other systems that are sort of in service of those people. And also with the word sort of upstream, we sort of delineate that between upstream and downstream. Downstream meaning executional teams that will sort of take an idea or a solution and execute on it. So they might be development teams, they might be advertising teams, they might be sort of more executionally based design teams. But what we saw over the years was that organizations really struggle with that sort of front end, right, of really defining the problem well, which when you do that, you're sort of three quarters of the way to coming up with a solution. And that's the part that is really difficult, especially when we're talking about very complex, multi-layered challenges. It's very fuzzy. And defining the problem is the piece that people really struggle with. So we focus on that area. We sort of set ourselves up to be solution agnostic, meaning we don't have a horse in the race, we don't have a whole room full of people designing and building apps, we don't have a room full of people writing marketing campaigns, we're strategists and focusing on defining what the problem is, what the ideal solution is, and then because we come from design backgrounds where we can really sort of define the solutions in a way that the executional teams can take and run and build the solutions in a really efficient way.

Sarah: Yeah, I'd love that you guys have a flexible data informed approach. So it's not like you have this proprietary system that you're trying to get everyone to funnel into it, so you actually listen and figure out what the problem is. And then based on that, then you formulate the solution.

Paul: Yeah, exactly. Those proprietary systems or approaches only benefit one party and that's the people that run them, right? So, you know, yeah, we take we take a approach of sort of just really getting in there and walking in the shoes of the people that we're that we're all wanting to help and really understanding their worlds, their contexts, their challenges, and bringing that to life in a way that the people around them that are wanting to help and design programs, build programs or programs can really understand them on a deeper level, empathize them on a different level. Also part of that is just holding up a mirror too, right? So we can show the flip side of that, like if we're helping them see the world through the people in the community that they're wanting to help, through their eyes, and how they see the world and the landscape of available services that are out there, and particularly the service of the organization or services of the organizations we're working with, just to see it through their eyes and to really understand sort of the challenges of, you know, how do they get there in the first place? And, you know, that's not, that's... logistical part, the transportation and all those things which we know sometimes can be really challenging, but even on a deeper level as well, there's often a lot of, you know, we're talking about sort of philanthropic services, there's often a lot of shame and embarrassment involved as well, which is a really big hurdle in a lot of cases, right? So, you know, that in a lot of ways first hurdle that we need to help people get through. So yeah, it's just sort of helping really sort of define the problem and then co-creation with the people in the community and various stakeholders to come up with the ideal solution or solutions. And because we're solution agnostic, that can be any manner of things. It could be a new program, improving an existing program, a new messaging strategy or campaign or advertising a new process or a new strategy or sometimes just a missing role, we've seen that a lot through our work particularly in healthcare where there's, we've done a lot of work in the HIV space in Sub-Saharan Africa, so we often see through that work and other work that there's missing roles. In that example, we saw that, unfortunately, for young women in high-risk areas, there's a big vacuum of trusted role models for them. So when we see that there's those sorts of gaps, then every barrier is an opportunity. If there's a missing role, that means, OK, aha. We can design programs and create roles to fill those roles that these young men have in their lives. So, you know, that just really goes to sort of sharpen our focus in terms of what needs to be done. But yeah, it was, you know, we take the design approach to our work as well. We see a gap in the market and we sort of built ourselves around that gap of, you know, we saw a lot of leaders sort of struggle with these really big complex problems that were ill defined, right? They're very, quite nebulous. And there weren't clear places or there weren't clear partners for them to go to help them. You know, they knew they needed innovation, they needed a different approach. But, you know, I think the challenge for those people is that, you know, like I was saying before, if you go to a traditional digital design company, for example, then. You know, just through their lands, they're going to see the solution and some kind of new app or digital experience, which may not be the case, right? Or if you go to a marketing or advertising company, everything's going to look like a need for a new campaign and you know, and so on and so on. Right? Like, that's the old thing. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?

Sarah: Yeah, I was just gonna say that like the old hammer approach.

Paul: Yeah,

Sarah: I'm wondering if you could give us an example of how this work unfolds because like, I get it, but I have a background in program development and stuff. So I'm wondering if you could share with folks a concrete example of how this gets put to work.

Paul: Yeah, maybe I could just sort of give a few examples of some projects we've worked on. The main thing that happens really is there's typically at least one very big sort of reframe, when you take the human centered design approach and you're really walking in someone's shoes, there's typically at least one really big reframe that really changes how we all, meaning all the people in the system of helping these people and these communities change how they think about the people they're working with, change how they think about the problem and change how they think about what needs to be done. So let's say one, I've mentioned previously that there's been a number of projects in the HIV space that we've done and across sub-Saharan Africa, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. One of those, which I was involved in pretty heavily, was working with really the most at-risk population group, which is adolescent girls and young women sort of between 15 and 23 years old in various regions in South Africa, which is actually the highest risk regions in the continent. So sort of the way the, if you like the industry or the sector of HIV prevention had been looking at the challenge, you know, And it is a big industry, right? There's a lot of money that gets pumped into that, which is great. But we also see a lot of wastage, right? Because they're really looking at it as just, OK, the message isn't getting in, we're spending all this money to try and get people to change their behavior when it comes to HIV prevention. But the numbers aren't really shifting. So we just need more, right? More information. You know, it's like when someone's talking to someone that speaks a different language than them, they just talk louder and think that that's going to help, right? That's kind of what's been going on. But actually, it doesn't hugely help. And in some cases, it's made the situation worse because what's been happening sort of at a clinic level is these young women come in and you know, first of all, it's a very difficult topic for them to talk about, right? But they're, they're coming in and they're talking with these, you know, typically a nurse, often it's a nurse or sometimes a doctor, but you know, there's at least one generation gap there, right? One big, another big barrier.

Sarah: Right, it's like talking to your parents about sex.

Paul: Yeah, exactly. But worse, these nurses with good intentions, right? They're working in difficult environments. They're under-resourced, overworked, and just seeing enormous, enormous numbers of HIV infections still, unfortunately. And these young women are coming in, and they're talking about some things they're doing, and they get really frustrated with them and shout at them and lecture them and charge them, right?

Sarah: Which is always helpful.

Paul: Always helpful, right. Yeah, I mean, you know, we just need to think back to our teenage years and, you know, I think you get some glimpses into how that goes down, right?

Sarah: Yeah.

Paul: Obviously, what happens is these young women just eject. They eject from the health system, and they don't go back. And so it just makes it a whole lot worse, right? We miss all these opportunities, these touch points. They avoid the health system in general, not even just for their sexual health, but for other things as well. So we miss all of these opportunities, these potential touch points to intervene and help these young women. So through the course of our research, what we really started to hear and understand was that these young women are, you know, again we can think back to our own teenage years, right? They're trying to learn about relationships and navigate all the complexities of relationships just like any other teenagers, except that they happen to live in a region with the highest prevalence of HIV on the globe, right? So it's just a very dangerous environment for them to learn and experiment, right? And for a lot of them, they don't see HIV as relevant because there's sort of this avoidance that happens, right? Like, oh, it's not something I need to worry about, but you know, these other girls, yeah. But then what we really came to notice through a lot of engagements and sessions and really sort of interactive research activities we did with them was that as we really came to understand the fact that they're trying to navigate and learn about relationships and that a lot of that actual dangers that they find themselves in all sort of point back to them trying to navigate relationships and get better relationships and get better advocating for themselves and their preferences and their safety and all those things. So with that sort of big insight and reframe, we did a whole bunch of co-creation sessions with those young women. And we're able to frame up some very quite specific challenges and come up with ideas to help them learn about  relationships and to have the esteem and the confidence to advocate for themselves in relationships. There are things like some of the ideas were like role playing so they could amongst themselves in a sort of safe environment role play and practice what it's like to advocate for safe sexual practices and things like that. Anyway, there are a number of ideas that came out and we worked with local partners to, we chose some, we worked with local agencies on the ground in South Africa and helped design or co-created a pilot with them and we're also able to sort of advise them on what to measure because that was that's the other great thing about this type of research, right, is because we're able to see sort of the desired outcomes on a pathway to more healthy behaviors. And we're able to see some of the milestones that happen along the way to those outcomes, and then the factors that drive those changes. So that's changes in their attitudes and beliefs and then that translates to behaviors. So we're able to sort of Help define a lot more meaningful measures so, you know probably You know on other programs those measures are sort of very rudimentary right? They'll just look at things like sort of bums on seats, right? Like how many people happen to show up to a program? But we don't know, OK, they went to a program, but how effective are those programs? What did it change? Did it change their beliefs, their attitudes, their behaviors, who don't really know? Or in this case, the industry was getting ready for prophylactic pharmaceuticals. So they would just measure some of these programs that were giving out these pharmaceuticals. So they would just measure success on that, like how many young women did they give these pharmaceuticals to, but that doesn't paint a picture of how they're shaping the needle or not. Because what we found was one of the big milestones was there's the sort of an internal flip that needed to happen where the young women went from sort of a very externally focused search for sort of validation. And then they flipped to an internal form of validation. So before the flip, they're preserving relationships at all costs, no matter how dangerous they are or how little sort of self-advocacy they can have in those relationships to choosing relationships based on their alignment to their personal health.

Sarah: Every girl on the planet needs that. That’s what right?

Paul: Yeah, I mean, they do, especially the ones that are living in these really dangerous environments, right? But so, you know, guess what? If you hand out pharmaceuticals to someone and they haven't made that flip, then they're not going to take these pharmaceuticals regularly. They're not going to incorporate them into their habits. So they're not going to work. So yeah, you might think, oh great, a hundred young women took these pharmaceuticals home this week, but probably none of them have taken them because they haven't been prepared.

Sarah: Yeah, I think that's the difference between doing the qualitative research and the quantitative because counting bumps on seats or the number of pills you've given out only tells you so much, and it really tells you nothing. So what you really want to find out is, OK, great, you had your butt in that seat, what did that do for you? Or we gave you these pills, did you take them? And did you take them as prescribed? Or did you take the entire course? So, I feel like we're just measuring the wrong things. Not to say that it's not important to count how many people you're providing service to, but at the end of the day, so what? I remember when I was in grad school, I took a semester on program development and our professor, that was his question all semester long, So what? He's like, you're not done until you answer that question.

Paul: Right, yeah. We need to know what shifts the needle and then there's a lot of leading indicators that you can look at that predict some of those changes so you can see someone's sort of progress through that. And I think sometimes it's not. And it's too much to expect that one single program will take someone all the way through all the milestones that they need to. So, you know, I think there's a big opportunity as well for looking at it more holistically and how does some of these programs plug together and you know, how do we connect them for people?

Sarah: Yeah, and I think the other challenge to kind of problem solving is that there's been so much fragmentation in the social service delivery space. So you know, you've got the people who are dealing with hunger alleviation over here, the people who are dealing with workforce stuff over here, they're not talking to each other, they're not cross referring. So people have to go to multiple agencies. And that's assuming and you brought this whole idea of shame is that, you know, by the time people turn to other people for help, they've already run through their own resources, so they've talked to their friends, they've talked to their family, perhaps they've talked to somebody who's in like a religious organization, like a pastor or rabbi or whatever. So they've exhausted all their personal resources. And if they could solve the problem on their own, they wouldn't be at your doorstep saying, hey, I need help. And so, you know, I'm horrified to hear that these nurses are yelling at these girls. I'm like, do you not understand that they're in a vulnerable position? They're asking for help. And now you're going to yell at them like, chase a client out the door, right? Leaving with their hair on fire. But I just think, you know, sometimes we get so focused on the numbers, you know, that we don't even realize that we're not engaging in needle moving behavior. We're just kind of stuck in the “handout band aids” mode.

Paul: Yeah, and really I think understanding the human being and their context and the people around them because there's a lot of opportunity, I think, when you look at the world that way of, you know, who can you influence around that person that might affect change? Right. One another project we worked on, again, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was in rural India, so the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is 250 million people. So almost the population of the US, just in one state. So you shift the needle on maternal and infant health. And one of the big reframes there, which was interesting, was. You know, most people in that sector knew how influential mother-in-laws are for decision making. They drive a lot of the decision making in the family sort of unit. But there are actually a lot of sort of false assumptions around that. People assume that was across the board. And we sort of broke down maternal and infant health into about sort of 12 different sub behaviors. So things like breastfeeding, umbilical cord care, I think there were 12 in number. And what we found is we sort of dove in and had really in-depth engagements with all three of the sort of the main characters in that story, I guess. So obviously the mother-in-law, the mother and the father of the child or child to be and obviously got very different stories, right? And what we found was that first of all, sort of family units are different, right? They don't all operate and don't have the same sort of decision-making dynamic, which is probably no surprise, but it does also vary based on sort of the domain area right so for example certain sort of feeding habits are driven like for example breastfeeding is really driven by the mother but the mother-in-law is a big influence so there's other things like you know boating in a facility which is a big decision for a lot of families and given that it's you know there's a lot of cost involved in going to a hospital to to birth a child rather than doing it at home. Those decisions were very much driven by the father. So we were quickly able to see that, no, you just can't assume that the mother-in-law is driving every one of these decisions. And to approach the family unit in the same way for each one of these decisions, you have to take a very different approach and strategy for each and every one of these different areas. And that was like a pretty sort of massive reframe for the sector, right? and To really have that sort of clarity about okay if we're talking about this topic, then we're going to be focusing on the father or this topic we can be focusing on the mother. So it turned a lot of that their approaches sort of on their head and really sort of opened up the floodgates for a lot of new thinking and a lot of new solutioning. But just a really important reframe, right? That's just really sort of challenging old assumptions. So I think at an essence, that's really what human-centered design is all about.

Sarah: Yeah, that's incredible because I think just likening it to the nonprofit sector here in the United States. You know, a lot of us when we're in the nonprofit sector, we just inherit these programs. And we don't always know who developed it, how did it get developed, was there any community input? And so we just have this model of service delivery and we just keep perpetuating it without ever really asking people or even asking ourselves, is this providing us with the intended outcome? Right? I think it's really important to, like take that moment to step back. And this is why I'm a huge proponent of strategic planning. Because in the strategic planning I do, I make them look at their program, their program design, the outcomes they're achieving, are those even the intended outcomes and do we need to tweak the program? I had one client who ended up dumping a program on the other side of strategic plan because. they had tweaked it like three different times and they still couldn't get the intended outcome. And I'm like, okay, so maybe you just need to dump this, rather than trying to like, you know, add new parts to an old, you know, furnace or whatever. Sometimes you just gotta tear it out and start over. So, and you know, so they took some time and they designed a different program, but they designed it from the ground up. And they  did it with the end in mind, right? So they reverse engineered, here's the outcome we want, let's work backwards, what does that mean? They actually involve the clients, which is something we don't always do. And I think it can make such a huge difference, and also it makes a huge difference for the clients because they're not experiencing us as a battering ram, right? Here's our program and you're gonna take it, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, it's all we're offering, so. Right. I think when it's more and this is kind of all up my alley because to me that's all philanthropy, right? So if somebody's coming to your organization, how do you give and receive love and all moments of the continuum of service? So like if they come in the door, are you shoving a clipboard at them? That's not really loving when somebody's in a vulnerable position and they're asking for help, right? Instead, you could have an intake volunteer right who sits down and gets to know them and How did you find us? How did you end up in this situation without judgment or blame? But just kind of also information gathering. I think it makes all the difference in the world.

Paul: Yeah, and not asking them to keep retelling their story is a huge one as well. We did a project, I think we've talked about this in the past as well. We did a project with the George Foundation in Texas. And we were looking at the sort of the whole process of rental assistance. And, you know, like, just talking about sort of holding the mirror up before the big sort of hold the mirror up thing there on that project was that, you know, we're asking these poor people that are, you know, very time poor, they're probably working three jobs, they've probably got a dependent, you know, maybe a father or mother or mother-in-law or father-in-law that they're looking after kids, in some cases maybe grandkids that are all in their house that they're looking after. They're pretty much living paycheck to paycheck, so they're, you know, one minor mishap away from not being able to make rent. And, you know, it could be, you know, something happening with their car or unexpected medical bill or something like that and they're in big trouble right and you know that they their first approach is to try and deal with it through sort of friends and family and then they get to a point where they realize, I've got to get help, so they've you know they've got to overcome that big hurdle I was talking about before of the guilt and the shame. So find, hopefully an agency, they probably have to physically go visit them and sit down in front of them and they have to tell their story. And they go through this whole long process of applying for services. And then they're asked for all sorts of, in some cases, quite obscure pieces of paperwork. And then they find out right at the end that there's some sort of clause and the eligibility or that what that particular provider can , you know, the types of people that particular provider can help or not help. And they find out right at the end of that long process after they're probably they may have got evicted during this process that they're not eligible. So they have to restart that whole process with someone else. And they're often given a page of an old page, an old printout of like, here's some other providers in our area. Some of them. don't exist anymore. Probably a number of them have run out of their funds for the month. So they call down through this list. They find someone else. They repeat the process again and again until they find someone that can help them. So one of the things we were doing was just holding up that mirror and then co-creating with people in the community, with the agency frontline people, a new system to sort of alleviate that, that wouldn't require people to revisit that trauma over and over again.

Sarah: Yeah, this is one of the things that I find so interesting, so I'll just use the city I live in as an example, right? So in Worcester, Massachusetts, there are 350 nonprofits, right, which is a lot. And nobody shares records. I mean, at least to my knowledge, there may be few are, that’s great. There's a summer program used to be called Youth Net. Now I think it's called Wheels to Water. But anyway, it's for middle school kids and it runs in the evening. And there's different social service agencies in each quadrant that host the kids for the night. So maybe, you know, in our quadrant, it would be, you know, the YW or the YM. And so the kids go there from like six to nine and they send school buses through the neighborhoods to pick these kids up and then drop them off. So, you know, we all know that middle school kids are at a very particular point in their development where they don't want to sit around and do what they term as little kid stuff. So it's more age appropriate middle school oriented activities. And it took a really long time to get all the different four quadrants. So our city's divided into four quadrants for the school system. And it took forever to convince all the participants in that program to enter their data on the kids into the singular system. And nobody wanted anybody else to see their data. And yet it's kind of a singular program. And I just think if we would share data and like, obviously you have to figure out the whole HIPAA thing in certain circumstances, but it would just make service delivery so much easier. Like say you spend 30 minutes talking to this person and filling out all the papers and blah, then they can't get services. Okay, well, that's a really inefficient model, not only for the person who ends up with those services, but for the person who's collecting all that data. So I just think if we can do electronic medical records so that if I go see a specialist over here, they don't have to take down my entire medical history again. Why can't we do that with social services?

Paul: Yeah, for sure. I think there's a huge opportunity for that. That was sort of something we were able to design into this new system we've been working on. We work with all the, quite a large number of agencies that were going to cooperate on this system. So there was also a back end system for them. So a portal that they could go into. And we worked with them to sort of really strip down what are the common pieces of information that you need? So we could design, architect a common intake form that would work for all of those agencies. So basically, the client would just fill it out once, and it would get uploaded into the system. And then the person could get pre-approved as well. We had enough questions in there and we stripped it down to a really small amount of questions, which was really nice. Then they could tell, you know, we couldn't promise them that, you know, yes, based on your questions, you're going to get this. But we could say, OK, based on what you've told us, there's a high likelihood that these three agencies can help you. And, you know, there was intelligence in it to sort of layer those services across a few different agencies because some of them can only pay one month arrears, or others can't pay late fees and things like that. But with an intelligent system, you can couple together a layered solution for people. But then the great thing was once it's in there, multiple agencies can go in there and get a sense for this person's history, and use  these services before. And also, you know, the other thing is if someone's struggling to pay rent, then guess what, they're probably also, they could do with some help, you know, putting food on the family, they could probably with some help paying medical bills, they could probably do with some help with childcare services, and so on and so on. Right. So that sort of created this platform for other people to say, Oh, I could help with this.

Sarah: Well, that's the thing is, you know, so many times agencies don't even do cross referrals, you know, so for example, I have a client that I've been working with for 10 years, they run a food pantry. It's pretty expansive. They do a client survey every year. And what they found is as their population is changing, they have to change the food they provide. Right. So there's. more and more people coming from different African countries that have different diet and then are also seeing different dietary requirements. So it's not just food preferences, but they're seeing an increase in people who need gluten-free food and sugar-free food because of diabetes. So they've had to kind of change up their pantry offerings, which is great. But they, with every single new person, they give them a referral list to things like, here's where you get fuel assistance, here's the federally funded medical centers in the city, and they just give them all the resources because they assume if you're coming to me for food, there's a lot of other things you're probably not able to meet in terms of your needs, and they've had it translated into the five most commonly spoken languages because again, you know, I'm sure this isn't the only city in the United States. We have an extraordinarily diverse population. You know, like the Worcester public schools, last time I checked, they were translating into 39 different languages. I don't know that I can even list 39 different languages. I don't know, translate. So it's just them kind of responding to what they're seeing and what they're hearing from their clients. But they're the only organization I know that actively makes sure that people get referrals. And again, I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs and the details of every single nonprofit in the city of Worcester, but I do feel like people operate in silos, right? And the system is so fragmented. And then you add transportation on top of that. And you could spend all day every day trying to get your basic needs met. You're exhausted by the time you're done. And it doesn't even mean that you're getting elevated out of poverty.

Paul: Right. Yeah, I think there's a huge opportunity for foundations to play here, to step in and take the role, or assume the role of a catalyzer, to catalyze and provide the resource of innovation. So funding and championing research that could be shared across multiple agencies so they all get the benefit of these insights and reframes of the situations and challenges that people are in. There's not really a way. It's very difficult for individual nonprofits to do that by themselves, right? Because they're essentially, there's a structural challenge that's created by just the status quo that's existed in philanthropy for a long time, whereby the foundations are incentivizing nonprofits to compete against each other for grants. So it's difficult for them to build in research. But that's where foundations can step in and fund research. And they get to multiply the impact of that research multiple times, right? Because it's not just being delivered to one entity. It's being delivered to all the people that are in the community trying to tackle a problem and to be able to see that problem holistically. The other thing is because the system's quite fragmented and services are quite fragmented, what is known about a challenge is also quite fragmented, right? So different non-profits sort of see the world or see the challenge sort of through the lens of the services that they provide and the people that come through their doors based on the services they provide, right? But it is a little bit of a sort of a, you know, it's one piece of a much larger jigsaw, right? And then for the foundations, their knowledge of a challenge by proxy is from what they learn from these different three or four different pieces of the jigsaw, right? But they're still not seeing the whole picture either. There are foundations that are doing this. And we've had involvement. We've seen the impact it can have when they sort of champion that research and then provide it to multiple agencies. It's huge, right? It really helps the whole.

Sarah: Well, and I think that's a really key role that foundations can play, especially community foundations. So community foundations are kind of a conglomeration of funds. And not all communities have them. But the ones that do, I think that's a really critical role they could play in terms of gathering information and data and doing the research and actually even looking at, you know, who's on the cutting edge in those different areas. So food delivery, housing, domestic violence, healthcare, whatever it is, you know, who's offering some promising solutions. And then if they're actually moving the needle, then how do you replicate? So and then, you know, like I have to say that I think that Greater Worcester Community Foundation is pretty innovative. They used to actually have a community forum every month where a bunch of us from the nonprofit sector would go crowd into their conference room. And it was literally standing room only, people sitting on the window sills, lining the walls, because the CEO at that time really wanted to hear from us in terms of what we saw going on in our communities and what were the needs. And I have to say that over time, their application system has gotten easier. They're at the point where if you got money from them last year, you just talk to a program officer and talk about kind of where you're at, what's going on, what are the challenges you're facing, what's coming down the pike. And then they just write you a check. I'm like, hallelujah. Right. Jump through the same, like somebody who, you know, does a lot of grant writing, I can tell you, there's just so much overlap and waste. And you know what I want to say to the foundations is you're squandering your own resources. By having these unique, complex, special precious applications, you're actually squandering your own resources because somebody's got to fill that thing out. And maybe this foundation has a special precious board diversity form they need you to fill out. And I'm not saying that diversity isn't important. But why can't we just do that in the same document? Why do we have to now translate all that information into your special form, or your special budget format? I think if you can tell what revenue and expenses are and you're clear about the different sources of revenue, why can't you just read our budget? Or the fact that we have to mail in applications. There are things called iPads that you can buy from your trustees. Things like that, I just, I don't understand it. Like if you, you know, foundations are part of the change maker world and yet they're squandering their resources by not kind of having a uniform application. And to me, if we could do it for all the colleges, why can't we do it for foundations? You know? Yeah, like my son, he's a musician, he's a drummer. And so he was applying to sound recording technology programs because he wanted to be a music producer. And so I understand in those instances, yeah, he has to upload his demo tapes. And some of them wanted an interview video talking about his approach to music producing, blah, blah. I get all that. OK, but the rest of it is all the same. So I just feel like there's so much time and energy that can be recouped if we just share data and also went to a singular application like they do with colleges, like if all of the colleges in the United States can adopt a singular system, I think the foundations could probably do that as well.

Paul: Yeah, it'd be huge. It'd be huge. Yeah, I think there's a lot of things that foundations, I think change should really start with the foundations. There's a lot of things they can do to sort of kickstart it. You know, we talked about sort of championing research that could be shared across multiple agencies. I think the other thing is to sort of be the force for collaboration and to, to bring multiple entities together and to collaborate on some of these big challenges and to fund that, to incentivize that, because as I talked about before, there's quite a few structural barriers for that. But I think that the huge benefit there is that, as we were talking before about the fragmentation, and that leads to fragmented knowledge or understanding the challenge. So it's difficult, I think, for nonprofits and providers that have very much in it, right in the front line, they know the world, you know, they know the world that they're in, but it's difficult for them to sort of see the bigger picture of systemic change or systemic solutions that could really shift the needle on a pretty huge way. But If you bring multiple agencies together and help them to work together on a large community challenge, then you can start to see some of those bigger opportunities for change. For instance, the system I was talking about,  the rental assistance. Not any of those agencies probably would have seen that opportunity by themselves. But with the foundation behind you funding and championing those sorts of projects, you can help people to see those opportunities. And you can help them to actually build them as well, to get them to collaborate on a unified intake and to have a portal that they could all use for referring people. and those sorts of things. So there's massive opportunities there, I think, to incentivize collaboration and take more of a sort of holistic view of the sort of the ecosystem of like how, you know, I touched on this before, but what can we do to sort of connect all these services that are available in the community and take more of a sort of a full person view, we were saying before, right? Like someone's struggling to pay rent, then they could probably do with this or that. So how can we take more of a sort of holistic view of walking someone through those and not, you know, not just helping them through their initial crisis, but helping them on the pathway out of poverty, or, you know, through some kind of bigger change?

Sarah: Yeah. I'm also a huge fan of the idea of co-location. Because, you know, again, I'll just use the example of Worcester. All of the buses go from certain points and come into the central hub over by City Hall. And so if you want to get across the city, you have to take a bus downtown to City Hall and then get on another bus and go back out. So it's like spokes on a wheel. And how many times can you do that in one day to different social service agencies? And forget it if you've got kids in tow, or it's the winter in the Northeast, which can be brutal and snowy and icy. And so I just think if we could do this idea of co-location, especially in post-industrial cities where there's a lot of empty warehouse space that could easily be converted, you could share back office functions. So maybe you have a central waiting room with a receptionist or two receptions, whatever. So now you're saving on staff, but also like those costs. You know, everybody's got to run payroll. So there's certain things that we're just duplicating across the system that everybody's got to have somebody answer the phone. So everybody's got to have an HR person, whether they're an expert in human resources or not is a completely different question. Running payroll. So there's all these basic functions that with co-location could then be consolidated. And again, that would allow these nonprofits to spend more time and energy and funding on service delivery, right? And then they could share information and people don't have to take buses. So I just think there's so many places where co-location could make such a huge difference. And I was working with a client a few years ago and they were taking kind of a meta-level view of their service delivery out in Western Mass, which tends to be more rural. And they were like, oh, if you live here, you have to drive an hour and a half to get to this clinic here, right? Or you can drive an hour to get to this clinic here, but there's nothing really within 30 minutes. And so they started looking at a map saying, okay, if our goal is to not have anybody drive more than 30 minutes to one of our locations, what does that mean? And they actually ended up building four new, not from scratch or the ground up, but they actually created four new satellite offices so that nobody had to go more than 30 minutes. And I just really respected that because they're respecting their people's times and recognizing that driving an hour and a half to get help, and that's assuming you can afford a car, is kind of an unreasonable thing to ask somebody. Now you're spending three hours of your day just to go get one service. Right? And I just had so much respect for them that they even took that step back and looked at things from that perspective and that they acted on the information they found.

Paul: Yeah, that's fantastic.

Sarah: That's just amazing.

Paul: Yeah, I think that the providers or the nonprofits can, there's a lot of things sort of they can do and even start on a micro scale of trying things like you're talking about. But I think the key thing is reporting back to the funders, to the foundations, to the donors, and encouraging them to change, pulling them toward that change. But the key piece, I think, is to be able to track the success that even some of those small changes are making. And share stories, share data, and report back that success. And that should hopefully open up the pockets a little bit and make more resources available to try some more of those little micro experiments. And to really make the case for, we feel like there's a lot more things like that that we could be doing. We've tried sort of the things that are clearly obvious on the surface, but we need to sort of have more engagement with the community to understand some more of those things. So, you know, maybe you unlock some funds for some of the research activities we've been talking about and, you know, involving the community and the design of some of those programs and services. And then I think it can be a little bit of a positive spiral of impact, right? So the more you do those things and track their impact and the better you are at telling those stories, the better you are at looking for more funds, the better you are at adding to your services or improving your services. And you can measure the success of those additions and you can really grow the pie, I think, of resources that you have available in that way. So you're not sort of locked into the funds that you had last year and the previous year to that. I think if you can, if nonprofits can tell better stories and, you know, because at the end of the day, foundations, donors, they're people too, right? And if you think of their needs and their motivations, right, which is they want to see bang for their buck and they want to know If they're providing resources, funds, donations, whatever it is, that it's making an impact and they want to feel good about that impact, right? So I think there's definitely a connection between telling better stories and creating more impact.

Sarah: Yeah, I totally agree. One of the things that I really enjoyed about when I was working in the field of community development was that our approach as a CDC was very unique. So we did not believe in service delivery. We believed that we were a catalyst for community change. And so one of my jobs was to go out into the community and meet with different groups and do door knocking and get to know residents and connect with different institutions like the local schools, the churches, the business owners. And so I spent a lot of my time out on the street, knocking on doors, getting to know people. But the cool thing was that we used a technique called participatory role appraisal. So we partnered with Clark University and they have a whole department of community development. So they were our partners in this. We just went asked and every single week we would ask a different question, like where are your favorite spots in the neighborhood? Where are the hotspots in the neighborhood? What do you see as strengths of this community? What do you see as some of the challenges facing? And we would be all over the neighborhood. We'd be in front of liquor stores. We'd be in front of the bank. We'd be in front of the church when it was letting out for mass. Just asking as many people as we could. The local barber had, he would hang it up on his wall so that anybody that was coming in to get a haircut could fill it out. And so we had all these maps all over the community and we would replace them every single Monday. And so we kind of had this question the week and we were amassing tons of data. I mean, like this is, you know, really before SurveyMonkey or all that stuff. So we literally had newsprint layers and layers of rows of newsprint hanging in the conference room. And we were just collecting data and tabulating it. And then we had this huge planning meeting and we built it as a planning meeting. And we had like 175 people on a hot night in July come together from the community who all wanted to hear like what we had found. And so they kind of prioritized five different items. And so we had these task forces go off and work on these issues and they were all community-based. I mean, yes, they were staffed, but we just facilitated the meetings and took notes and all that stuff. But the number of changes that took place in that neighborhood were unbelievable. They were shutting down drug houses. They built a playground. They included the senior citizens who lived across the street in the creation of that playground so that they had benches and tables under the chair, under the trees. But it was unbelievable that these people were just, all we did was empower them to take over their community. And that neighborhood went from being a little on the scary side. you're gonna get shot by a drug dealer. I'm like, nah, they're not smart enough to find me. But it just was like night and day when you give people the tools and the resources, the encouragement, the empowerment to kind of take over where they live. And even things like, you know, so we were working with a bunch of kids in middle school who had outgrown, kind of the local K through five programming. But there was literally nothing for them to do. And so they'd get out of school and they'd just wander around the neighborhood in groups. So adults are like, oh, we have a gang problem. And I think, what are you talking about? They're 12. And the kids are just like, well, we have nothing to do, there's nowhere to go. And so we created a program for them that, again, I taught them how to run their meetings, came up with rules. And these kids, they were the ones who built the playground with the city. They went to the city with all the data they collected. Again, we taught them PRA and they went out and canvassed the neighborhood and asked people what they wanted. We had a park planning day where people could move different objects around where they thought they should be. And it was just amazing to watch all the change that was just catalyzed by this planning experience and by engaging the community. And that to me is like, shows the potential of. I mean, we didn't even do anything that was magical, right? We just trained them in facilitation, set up the ground rules, taught them how to run meetings, taught them how to write agendas. So they took it from there. I mean, all they needed was for us to set them up for success. And they, it was just amazing. So I think there's so much that's possible having a low income drug wriggled neighborhood where people were like, yeah. this neighborhood is, they kind of written it off.

Paul: Yeah. Oh, it's always amazing to see what can happen when you just provide people a platform and give them the opportunity to share their thoughts and their ideas and just to engage them and involve them in the process. You will never have any challenges getting the participation you want. Never, I can guarantee you. People love it. They get excited. And the amazing thing is, if you keep them involved, there's obviously finding out what they want. But as you start to develop ideas, just doing really rapid tests, these little micro experiments, put them out in the world and just see how people react. And they don't need to be fully developed or complex things. It can be just even. as simple as sharing an idea or sharing, you know, we will often do all sorts of things, storyboards or diagrams or all sorts of things, just, you know, paper experiments, basically, right, to put them in front of people and, and get their thoughts on it. And there's always so much you learn, like it goes to a whole different level. I think there's a lot you learn when you sit down with someone and talk about what they need, but it's sometimes hard for people to make those sorts of jumps. But if you take that and then come back with some kind of stimulus, it's a lot easier at that point for them to build on things and take an idea and run with it. There's often ideas that come out of that they wouldn't have thought of, but once they see it and understand that, they can take it and run. So you can very quickly get to a whole different sort of solution space than you would have ever got to before if you didn't sort of open up that door.

Sarah: Yeah, I mean, we had a staff of 10 people and there were 9,000 people in our neighborhood. There's no way we were ever be able to manage all of that, right? But because we got them involved and we were harnessing their energy, that's where all the change came in because. What are 10 people going to do? I mean, we had lots of other things we were working on too, but getting this community planning and kind of reclamation process going, it kind of took on a life of its own. And we noticed even littering, because the middle school kids, this is one of the things I meant to say when I was talking about them, they used to do weekend cleanups. So they would get local businesses to sponsor them, which means you give us gloves and garbage bags and pizza and soda, and that's sponsoring the cleanup. And sometimes the business owners would come out and clean up with the kids, and sometimes they wouldn't. But we always took a picture of how much trash we collected. We did it for two hours. The kids just went off and collected trash and came back. And we always took a picture of the trash we had collected. And we did this every weekend for, I think it was like eight or 10 weeks. It was crazy. They just kept wanting to clean up, clean up, clean up. But what we noticed was there was actually less litter in general because the kids were now policing the streets. So if they were walking home from middle school and some kids threw something down, hey, I just did a cleanup here this weekend, pick this up. Right. So they were changing the culture where like instead of littering, they were getting after their peers not to litter. And they made a sign for this empty lot. The neighborhood is we just cleaned this up, please don't trash mother earth. And they put it up, they painted it. It was like, and they put it up and dumping in that particular, it didn't stop completely, but it was way less because it was clear that somebody cared about that lot instead of just being a dump ground. So yeah, I just think there's a lot we can do. And like you said, just micro projects sometimes can make a huge difference. So what are some of the barriers you see in terms of innovation?

Paul: We've sort of touched on a few of them. But I think the fragmentation is sort of a big one and how the ecosystem of philanthropy sort of works to reinforce that, right? Like how nonprofits are sort of incentivized to basically compete against each other. They've got to sort of design, trying to do air quotes. I'm not sure if it's on the camera. Design a program in the process of writing a grant, right, which is ridiculous. You don't get to do any of the things we've been talking about today, right? And typically, you don't even get to build those things into your sort of proposal because chances are no one you're competing against is doing that because there's not sort of much of a precedent for doing that, unfortunately. But I think it just takes sort of a few success stories for people to start seeing a few success stories on both sides, for the foundations to see what happens if they can fund those sorts of activities, how that amplifies the impact that various nonprofits and providers can create. So I think that's a pretty big one. I think we've been talking about the micro experiments that can be done on the nonprofit side creating or capturing the right sort of data so they can tell stories and report back to the nonprofits and trying to shift their behavior if they're not working with the foundation that sees the benefit in that yet. Although we're definitely seeing the tide turning. We've been definitely working with a number of foundations that see their role as a catalyzer, as being the catalyzer of change. And you know. seeing the resources that they provide into the ecosystem, not just being funds and dollars, but that they can amplify their impact by taking on that role as the catalyzer of innovation, and they get to amplify everything. So that's one. I think another would be just sort of missing capacity. And this is probably, again, I think probably foundations, but maybe more so for nonprofits is not surprisingly, right? They're built to execute on programs and don't really have the people or the capability to design programs in the way we've been talking about, right? To engage with the communities and to co-create with communities. So we're obviously big advocates of a human-centered design approach. It's sort of what we've been talking about today. We've seen a lot of huge impact through doing that. So we think nonprofits can make a huge impact by sort of taking that on. But I think my advice there to people in the nonprofit world would be to not try and go it alone, but to partner with someone, at least to get started. Sort of a crawl, walk, run type model, right? I think it's important. Any type of change is difficult, right? So even within an organization. So I think it's important if someone's to try human-centered design, and hopefully they will, is to have some success stories to start off with, and to be able to socialize those, probably within the organization mostly, but outside as well. And to be able to show people the impact that taking a bit of a different approach can make, and getting buy-in for that slightly different approach. And then that just sort of greases the wheels for doing more and doing it more and doing it more often. We've had good success actually of sort of partnering with nonprofits. And I think you'd mentioned earlier, we do human centered design training, but we're big advocates and actually people learning through doing. So we've had good success where we've sort of curated. We've worked with an organization to help them attack a sort of a real world challenge that they're working on, rather than sort of some abstract problem, and to help just curate some methodologies for them and sort of coach them on how they work, how to use them. And then sort of a coach model, I suppose, where we curate those sets of tools for people. And then they're empowered to run off and to try those methodologies and to employ them, reply them on a real-world problem. And then we're there to coach them on how to use them and what to do next and how they might want to tweak their approach a little bit.

Sarah: Yeah. I think part of the challenge that I see is nonprofits have a set of programs or a program that they're being paid by foundations to deliver. So they're being here's money for program X. Well, now we want to add Y component there, but they may or may not get more money. And I think that's where the evidence you talk about is really important. So I'll just give you one example. So one of my clients, we did a strategic planning process. And as part of that, we actually surveyed their clients. So we had surveys available in the waiting room in three different languages. We left envelopes for them to put them in and deliver to the receptionist. And I would go buy one so we can grab them. And they were available for some time. We had them available online, but we sent them to the board, the volunteers, and the clients. and also the staff, and we asked them all the same questions. And one of the questions we asked them, well, there was two, what are you most frustrated by? And then where do you feel like this organization is not meeting its potential? So those are like two key questions that we added to the survey process that kind of forced people to think about those gaps. And then through the strategic planning process, we presented the evidence, right? So we just gather all this information from different people, different stakeholders. And so for this organization, they started to look at, like, where do you feel like we're not meeting our potential? And that's where they wanted to start working, right? So they picked two projects that were really important to them in terms of really fulfilling their mission or getting closer to fulfilling their mission. And within two years, both of those projects had come to fruition and were fully funded. So it may take a little time, but you can actually gather all the information you need to tell the funder, look, we did all this research and there's clearly a need and we're gonna end. So those programs have been up and running for a while now and they're both wildly successful because they were rooted in the community and it wasn't a problem to get the funding because we already had gathered the evidence, and then we just kept presenting more and more evidence. Like, this came out of community need, this is how we designed it, here's how it's running, here's the impact it's having, and it was significant. So I think sometimes you can just tweak things and gather evidence. And even if, you know, like there were certain members of the board who were like, oh, that's never gonna happen, blah, everybody else at the retreat was like, Well, let's give it a try. So even the people who were most doubtful and skeptical and reluctant in the room ended up kind of being taken up with the swept away with everybody else who was. And so they finally saw that, yes, these programs were going to work. And then they were OK with it.I think even just little tweaks here and there, and then you just collect the evidence. And then you do the next tweak and collect the evidence to do the next tweak and collect the evidence and…

Paul: Yeah, It's compelling. I think that  it's hard to turn down and I think the good thing is that there's a lot of hunger for new approaches. There's a definite growing recognition of the need to engage communities more than settling today. I think from the non-profit side even just talking about some activities that you'd like to do, or some research you'd like to do, or some new type of measurement if you see some opportunities to improve your evaluation. I think donors are gonna really like that because they're gonna see potential for a greater impact, which is, coming back to what I was saying before, it's what really motivates people, I think, is just they wanna see bang for their box.

Sarah: Yeah, I mean, and, and to me, it's not always return on investments or turn on impact, right? So especially today's donors, if you look at boomers, boomers are the architects of social change, right? And so they're the ones that brought us civil rights and women's rights and we're protesting against Vietnam. They've already had a huge impact, but they want to continue to have a huge impact. And so that's why you're seeing a rise of donor advised funds, but also we're in the middle of the transfer of $69 trillion in wealth, right? And the people who are inheriting that money have a very different perspective and they're kind of tired of being asked to do the least they can do. So that's why they're having these donor advised funds because they want to have an impact. So Maybe they're giving to fewer organizations, but they're giving it a much higher level. And so the moment is now. Like, boomers are architects of social change. There's $69 trillion being transferred. It's the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the US. So like, if you're going to do this, do it now. Don't wait.

Paul: Exactly, yeah.

Sarah: Because people are looking for opportunities. And again, they want to be engaged, especially post-COVID. People want to re engage. They want to be part of their communities. I mean, we have a couple of mutual aid programs here that started during COVID that are continuing because people got that engagement, they want that engagement, they want to help their fellow man. Again, philanthropy, right? Love of mankind. Yeah, so I love the idea of human-centered design and I think the work that you're doing is really important.

Paul: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I think that one thing that's encouraging as well is we're starting to see a shift away from, I guess, a traditional mindset of everything being measured by the percentage of your funds that are in programs, right? But without any connection to the impact and shift in a needle and things like that. So I think there's a change in mindset that's coming. It's not, it's, you know, what's that great quote, the future is already here, but it's not equally distributed or something. You know, I think that mindset is coming. It's not equally distributed yet, but just that shift away from, you know, it's all about measuring the percentage of funds. and but more about how we really shifting the needle. You know, foundations seeing their roles differently is not just sort of donating money to a disease type that they're interested in but actually, you know, sort of championing a deeper understanding and more community engagement and really sort of more focus or better definition I suppose on What are the important outcomes in funding projects that are working toward that and showing evidence that they're shifting the needle as well. So sort of a shift from sort of just doshing out money to being that catalyzer. So long way that way…

Sarah: Yeah, I'm excited to see that happen, because it's long overdue. I mean, we've been kind of at this, Johnson declared war on poverty in 1967, and we haven't moved the needle yet. So we might as well try something different.

Paul: Right.

Sarah: It's been decades of time and trillions of dollars, and we're not really shifting the needle. And I am by no means blaming nonprofits, having worked in the sector, I know that I went in all gung-ho and immediately ran into a brick wall called limitations, right? And I feel like I was pretty lucky because when I was working at our CDC, my whole job was to go out into the community and get people riled up about stuff, right? And so as you might imagine, that's not a very popular position to fund. Oh, a troublemaker? Great. We don't want to fund you. So there were some foundations who were funding community organizing and stuff, but our organization had a commitment because we were taking developers fees for all the housing we were putting back on the market. So it was like tons of abandoned housing. So we would renovate it and put it out as first time home buyer opportunities. But we took all the developer fees and paid me with them because then we were kind of almost independent from the foundation. And there were certain times when we would have to go call the city out on certain things. And we had the freedom to do that because we were paying for my position to, you know, out of our developer fees, but that's not every nonprofit has the luxury of that. And even then I would, you know, run into brick walls all over the place. Of course, back then I was young and, you know, a little crazy and I'd. run ahead long into them with my head. You know, now I'm like, Oh, there's a brick wall there.

Paul: Sometimes you gotta do that.

Sarah: Yeah.

Paul: Yeah, I think, you know, it's easy to sort of see, taking different approaches and innovative approaches is risky. But I think the reality is that not changing and sticking with the status quo is the real risk. Because, as you say, there's a lot of issues out there that have not gone away. They've got worse. The amount of funds and resources that is invested into them has got bigger, and yet they're getting worse. So to me, that's just really clear evidence that we need to do something different.

Sarah: Yeah. And I know there's a lot of cities, including Austin, that have seen a surge in homelessness because there's a lack of affordable housing in your city. There's a lack of affordable housing in my city. Even homeowners in Worcester are burdened with more than 50%, more than 50% of homeowners are burdened with their housing payments. But, yeah, I just feel like the atmosphere is right for change. So let's do it.

Paul: Let's do it.

Sarah: Yeah. Well, thanks for joining me today. It's been great.

Paul: You're very welcome.

Sarah: Learning all about human centered design and innovation and…

Paul: My pleasure.

Sarah: Yeah, great. All right, so folks, there is a series of videos. Jesse is going to dump the link in the chat. Do you want to tell people a little bit more about the video series that they're going to be looking at?

Paul: Yeah, sure. They're pretty brief. They're about 90 seconds each trying to make them bite sized. But they're basically just introducing the barriers that we've seen to innovation through our work within the philanthropic world, and some tips and things that can be done to overcome them, both from a nonprofit and a foundation point of view.

Sarah: Great.

Paul: Yeah, they're pretty brief. But I think the link goes. I think they're residing on our website. But if you go into the main part of the website. You can poke around and find some case studies. And they go into a bit more detail about how we've done those sorts of things and real world challenges.

Sarah: Awesome. So the link is in the chat. Watch those videos. Continue to learn and grow about innovation. And we will catch you again in two weeks with our next episode of the philanthropy revolution. Bye, everybody.

Paul: Bye.

Thanks for tuning in. I'll be back in two weeks with another episode. Got topics you want me to cover? Organizations you want me to showcase? Let me know. Also, I'm here to help you revolutionize philanthropy at your nonprofit. If you want to talk about what that looks like, drop me an email.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}


Have a specific question for me or my team? Send us a message and we'll get back to you as quickly as possible - usually within 24 to 48 hours (not including weekends).