The following is a conversation between Jeroo Billimoria, Co-founder of Catalyst 2030, and Denver Frederick, the Host of The Business of Giving.
Denver: Catalyst 2030 is a global movement of social entrepreneurs and social innovators from all sectors who share the common goal of creating innovative people-centric approaches to attain the Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, in 2030.
One of the co-founders of this initiative is Jeroo Billimoria who, among other things, founded Child Helpline International and Child and Youth Finance International. And she is with us now.
Welcome to The Business of Giving, Jeroo!
Jeroo: Thank you. Thank you for having me, Denver. Thank you.
Denver: So many of the world’s leading social entrepreneurs have come together to form Catalyst 2030. Tell us a little bit more about your mission and the goals of this initiative.
Jeroo: Catalyst 2030 – the mission is in the name. What we want to do is make sure the SDGs are actually achieved by 2030 because as things stand, based on the research done by one of our members, the Social Progress Index, the SDGs will only be achieved by 2084.
Denver: Oh my goodness!
Jeroo: Yes. And thanks to COVID, they expect a 10-year delay, so 2094. So I think social entrepreneurs are impatient by their very DNA. And therefore, all of us got together and said, “Let’s combine our efforts to make sure we achieve the SDGs by 2030.” That’s what we are trying to do.
Denver: You said all these social entrepreneurs got together. How did this happen? How did this begin, the genesis of this movement?
Jeroo: Most of the social entrepreneurs who started are from Ashoka, Schwab, Skoll or Echoing Green. So essentially, they are the leading social entrepreneurs in the field. And we have met at like when there’s the Skoll World Forum, or when Schwab holds something, or Ashoka has an event. So we’ve all sort of met over periods of time, so we sort of knew each other on one hand.
On another hand, it was just like, we are all on our own islands, and we need to do something together. So, we sort of got what we lovingly call “the big four” into a room and said, “OK, guys. Let’s try to work. You all try to work together, and we’ll all try to work together.”
So that’s the long answer on how all of us came together, and the movement evolved. And everyone has been so phenomenal in helping shape it that we actually at our awards especially recognized the big four. So, it has been really nice, but it all started with just a WhatsApp group.
Denver: Oh, my goodness. Really?
Jeroo: Yes, that’s all! It started with a WhatsApp group and nobody believing that it would take off.
Denver: So why the SDGs? And I’m just saying that in the context that you could bring these big four together and all these social entrepreneurs, in hindsight, it seems like a natural. But was it a natural in terms of saying: that’s what our focus is going to be?
Jeroo: I think that evolved in a very participatory manner and a lot of discussion and debate on whether we should look at one issue, whether we should look at multiple issues, whether we should just look at sector building. But it was really a long consensus-driven process where everyone had an opinion.
And then when we thought of it – all of us are in the business of social change. All of us want to create a positive impact. And the best thing is then, there are the SDGs. Many of us helped contribute to developing the goals of the SDGs. So we said, “Why not just take that as our goal post?” But believe me, Catalyst goes beyond just that. There are so many members doing other things also. This was just a goal post.
Denver: How many members, by the way?
Jeroo: Six hundred plus, and growing.
Denver: I can’t keep up! You know, this sounds kind of strange, but I was wondering if the lockdown actually might’ve helped this a little bit with everybody sort of in place, being able to Zoom as opposed to jetting across the globe. What do you think?
Jeroo: I think it definitely helped because we were already meeting on Zoom before the lockdown. So, we developed a strategy plan. The first version of it when we launched it at Davos, we developed it on Zoom. So we were already Zoom-friendly and virtual, so to speak.
But definitely what happened is because of the lockdown, a lot more people became a lot more tech savvy, so we could reach much more. And I think where the lockdown helped us, it made us more inclusive. So, I think that’s what has been really phenomenal about it.
Denver: I wonder if also COVID sort of helped because we’re always looking for a catalyst in Catalyst 2030, for like, “We need to do something.” And boy, this has really brought a lot of things home in terms of the systems of the world are truly broken. So, there’s a little bit of energy behind that. What’s your thinking?
Jeroo: I think actually COVID, I would not say it helped because almost all the social entrepreneurs were at the front lines. I would say Catalyst is there despite COVID and the commitment of the entrepreneurs to solve all the problems coming from COVID and not to let it….
So many entrepreneurs have helped with COVID. Actually, I have to say pretty much all, in some way or the other. And most have been at the front lines, either with all the PPE distribution, knowledge, training. Now, in some countries, even vaccinations. You name it, they’ve been around for everything, the more long-term impact of livelihoods, which actually is probably worse than COVID itself for so many people. So, entrepreneurs are involved across the board.
But I’d say Catalyst is there despite COVID. Because everyone has been so busy with COVID, but despite that, they thought this was really, really important.
Denver: Fair enough. That’s a good assessment. So how does this group work together, and what have been some of your, let’s say, notable achievements over the last year or two?
Jeroo: Catalyst is what we call a distributed movement. So we have a small Secretariat, but members lead the whole movement. So we have, I think, now 18 working groups looking at different cost-cutting teams. We have, I think, eight evolving issue-based groups looking at issues which nobody else has touched on.
We have multiple collaborations which have taken place. We have task forces. And everyone sort of works together. So, therefore, we say our structure is the globe with dotted points across everywhere and working groups, and different nodes making it work together, with the Secretariat just being in the background to provide operational support.
We have a facilitation committee or an incubation board, which basically is the heads of all the working groups, our regional chapters. And most importantly, a lot of things are decided in our monthly General Assembly. So it’s like our marketplace. And if you have an idea and you say, “Hey, I want to do this,” you present it in three minutes, and anyone interested will join you. And if they haven’t attended the General Assembly, they’ll email you later and join. In addition, we continue our WhatsApp group traditions, and we also have a communications platform.
Denver: And you’ve issued a couple of really excellent reports. I’ve looked at them, “Embracing Complexity,” which you did in partnership with McKinsey, and our friend Matthew Bishop authored “Getting from Crisis to Systems Change,” and there were a number of recommendations in that, Jeroo.
But a couple of the key ones really had to do with world leaders committing to systems change, creating a place at the table for social entrepreneurs, and so importantly, having a point person there at the UN Secretariat, or wherever, that social entrepreneurs could go and work with. What kinds of progress have been made thus far on those recommendations?
Jeroo: Slow and steady. With the UN, we haven’t made much headway. I’m being honest. We had Amina Mohammed. She received it very favorably. They said they’d get back, but it’s been very difficult for them. And I think that’s also because COVID is there. So this is where, as I said, despite COVID.
So at the country level, we have country chapters, and several of the country chapters are already talking to governments to see how they can work together. So we also launched something called the New Allies report this January, which is on how the social entrepreneurs and the governments could work together. And then we had the Catalyst Awards on progressive countries.
So with all of them, we have started making headway and are in discussion with several countries. Hopefully, we’ll get somewhere by the end of the year. Fingers crossed.
Denver: I know you’re pushing. It is kind of extraordinary to think that there hasn’t been this connection between governments and world bodies and social entrepreneurs…because who’s going to be better positioned to help them with their work? But this kind of just goes to this division that we have, which is so artificial. And you’re really trying to break that down, and that doesn’t happen overnight. It takes long, steady progress, as you said.
Jeroo: I don’t know why it isn’t there. And I can tell you we are pushing for it. And if the governments really want the SDGs to be achieved, then they need to have the point person, and they need to work much more with social entrepreneurs, and have the energy that they have at the front lines to make things happen.
To me, if something’s broken, we need to change it. And systems change is about…working together to change the systems which do not work so that they work better and more positively for humankind, and that we have a stronger social system which looks after everybody and no one is left behind.
Denver: I’ve kind of blithely said, “Oh, systems change, systems change,” and things of that sort. There are probably some listeners out there who would like to hear your definition and how you view it…because you’re an expert at this– systems change.
Jeroo: Firstly, there are no experts. So I’ll start with that. And I definitely am not an expert, so there I go.
But to me, if something’s broken, we need to change it. And systems change is about you– and I always call it collaborative systems change because I don’t think any individual can do it again. So, to me, it is working together to change the systems which do not work so that they work better and more positively for humankind. And that we have a stronger social system which looks after everybody and no one is left behind.
A collaborative systems change leader would be one who works with all the people involved together, resolving the problem which is there. And by getting everyone involved in an equitable way, making sure that we can really find the right solution to the problem.
Denver: Jeroo, I have in my mind–I’m getting a little older here– the idea of what a traditional leader does and who that traditional leader is. What would be the difference between an effective systems change leader?
Jeroo: Again, depends on the systems change leader. But to me, a systems change leader, a collaborative systems change leader, would be one who works with all the people involved together, resolving the problem which is there. And by getting everyone involved in an equitable way, making sure that we can really find the right solution to the problem…because sometimes the perceived solution is not really the right solution.
So it’s really trying to figure that out, and then having the behavior changes, which are necessary to sustain it. Because very often, especially in politics, one president or prime minister or whoever comes, you’ll have a system change by A; they go away in four or eight years; then you have B. So, trying to find something that will work that stays within the DNA of the government, the community, whichever system you’re trying to change. And is that long-term so that the impact is felt by the people who need it?
Denver: That’s a really great point. And I like the long term. I’m here in America, and again, you get somebody like Trump who comes in and undoes everything Obama did, and then Biden undoes everything that Trump did, or whatever. And you say to yourself, “Yi, yi, yi. Can anybody sort of take a look at this from a generational perspective and get some kind of course over for 20 years to try to move it? But this yinging and yanging and back and forth doesn’t seem to take us anywhere.
Jeroo: Exactly. So, for me, true systems change would be: let the Obamas, the Trumps, or whoever come and go, but the change that is there should be sort of the bedrock change that stays.
Denver: Yes. A framework that things would operate within, as opposed to these going back and forth.
Does a systems change leader have to have a different kind of style in terms of “command and control” or whatever–?
Jeroo: I think if you are truly a systems change leader, you can’t have a hierarchical mindset. You need to be much more organic. You need to be much more facilitative. And the leadership style has to be “servant leadership.” But I basically think it has to be really organic and facilitative, and move away from the hero culture because if you’re a hero, you’ll be a zero with systems change.
Denver: You’ll be a zero.
Well, I would imagine that that has had to happen with Catalyst 2030, because you again have some very strong personalities, and there has to be this sense that everybody is equal in terms of getting that kind of fullest contribution, as opposed to somebody saying, “I’m the boss and you people do this.” That’s never going to work.
Jeroo: No, it won’t work. And honestly, in Catalyst, I think everyone is super facilitative. So maybe it’s a self-selection process which happens or whatever. But I have worked with most of our Catalyst members where there are some new ones I may not know, but all of them are super facilitative, super collaborative, and they see the need to work together and collaborate to see the change they want to see.
Collaboration fails when one person thinks: This is my idea, and now I’m going to get everybody around to my way of thinking. That’s not collaboration. That’s self-style manipulation in the name of collaboration.
Our role is to create the processes for the people to lead, not to try to lead, because the leaders who are passionate will take it forward.
Denver: Talk a little bit about collaboration because that is a benchmark and a hallmark. Collaboration, I think, in so many people’s minds is where good ideas go to die. And you do not believe in that at all. You’re basically saying significant progress cannot happen without collaboration. Talk a little bit about it and how effective collaboration that you’ve seen really can move the needle.
Jeroo: So there’s something which I talked about earlier when I was doing Child and Youth Finance International, and with a lot where I call this concept, that true collaboration will only happen if people see the Secretariat as an honest broker, or whoever is facilitating the process.
That means the self cannot be there, or your idea cannot be there. Collaboration fails when one person thinks: This is my idea, and now I’m going to get everybody around to my way of thinking. That’s not collaboration. That’s self-style manipulation in the name of collaboration. And then collaboration will die because then it’s about personalities; it’s about individuals, and then people don’t feel it.
So, for me, collaboration is really trying to listen and trying to take everyone along, and at the same time, not stopping in verbal diarrhea, but moving towards action and making the action take place. And the person, whoever he or she, I always tell the Secretariat team and we really believe it, our role is to create the processes for the people to lead, not to try to lead, because the leaders who are passionate will take it forward.
Denver: Let me ask you a little bit about funding. Because funders obviously need to be a critical partner in this if we’re going to have the resources to do what we want to do.
Denver: Do funders need to look at systems change initiatives differently than they have traditionally looked at, let’s say program or project initiatives, which they fund?
Jeroo: Yes. And that’s what “Embracing Complexity” talks about. But essentially, yes.
First of all, systems change is messy. It’s chaotic, and it is long-term. Let me start with all these things, because suppose you’re working with the government, or you’re working in a community. Something happens; you’re back to square one because someone whom you were working with left or got transferred or whatever.
So, it’s messy. It’s chaotic. It takes time. And funders need to understand that that’s what’s going to happen. And ideally, they have to come in the journey with it. I can say we started Catalyst with A; we are at C, and I’m sure we’ll end up at Q. But that’s part of the journey which is going to happen. And that’s the change which has to happen.
And unfortunately, funders want: If I’m giving 10 Euros, I want to see I can feed 10 kids or whatever. That does not happen with systems change. Actually, that is what will block and kill systems change. So, they have to learn to trust in the process of working with the right processes and letting that happen.
And also, no results can be achieved in a year. So, you have to give it three years, five years, seven years. You need the patience. And if you don’t have the patience, you won’t see the change. It does take time for a newborn baby to reach adulthood, right?
Jeroo: If you think that a child at the age of one is going to be able to do everything that you’re doing, or I’m doing, or an adult is doing, it’s not going to happen. It’s the same with change. So let them give us time, and let the change happen at the pace it has to happen.
Denver: And as I think you said a moment ago the same thing in terms of: We have to have a longer-term time horizon. This is a society where you want to give, and you want to see immediate feedback.
So, it seems that maybe some of these funders need to redefine what success is…because they want to go to their boards and they want to say, “Just as you said, I fed so-and-so, and we did this and we did that.” But they’re just those outputs, and they really don’t change the system at all.
Jeroo: Exactly. It’s not about teaching a man to fish. Systems change is about changing the whole fishing industry and the ecological climate which goes with it.
Denver: Have you seen situations where donors are there at the beginning, kind of co-creating these efforts as opposed to bringing them on? I just was wondering in terms of that whole spirit of collaboration, or whether they should be there at the start of these things and be a partner in terms of the systems change you’re looking to create.
Jeroo: Ideally, they should be. In reality, it’s more difficult. Unfortunately.
Denver: Talk a little bit about power dynamics. You know, everybody is thinking that we need to change the power dynamic that is so embedded in the systems we’re seeking to change. What are some of the ways that you’ve seen that have been successful in changing that power dynamic and leveling the field a bit more?
Jeroo: I don’t think we’ve come anywhere close to leveling the field. However, I do want to say that one of the things happened after the first year of Catalyst. When we first put it, it wasn’t so articulate.
So, we have had two versions of our “Theory of Change.” And in version one, we talked about it, but we didn’t articulate it. In version two, we said the bedrock of change for Catalyst is shifting the power dynamics, and we are going to undertake activities to see and evaluate how we are shifting the power dynamics.
So, we’ve started the process. Have we achieved a lot? No. But at least people are noticing that something is different. And we also chose as a movement not to do it through confrontation, but to do it through collaboration and conversation and co-creation. So that’s what we are trying to do.
Our award ceremony was our attempt not to shift the power, but at least spotlighting the people who are doing something good and working with them to influence others in a positive way.
My first lesson is: Design how your impact is going to be and scale for impact. My second is: Choose your core partner whom you have to work with, and then design for how you’re going to be looking and working with this. And the third, and I think I’ve said it a dozen times: Don’t do it alone. You’ll fail.
Denver: You mentioned a moment ago, Child and Youth Finance International, and of course, you’ve been instrumental in starting Child Helpline International. Talk a little bit about those efforts and how you scaled those efforts.
I know you believe that sometimes death by pilot is going to be the doom to us all. You really believe in getting some evidence and scaling then. Tell us a little bit about your experiences with those organizations and some lessons that we can take away from them.
Jeroo: OK. So Child Helpline International has its roots in CHILDLINE India and CYFI has its roots in Aflatoun. So, it’s a story.
So, CHILDLINE India of course started very much as a pilot. It started as a field action project of Tata Institute of Social Sciences, which was a university. But when we started it, it was always designed for scale. So the first lesson I have learned is: don’t design for this project, this community. Design for the impact and the large-scale impact that you have to see.
So, when we were sitting with the street kids– and I say this, the idea for this doesn’t come from me; it came from the street kids. Because street kids that are co-designing said, “But we walk all over India. We take the train and go where we want. So how can you have a helpline, which is only in one place?” So, I say this, but that’s the first lesson is – design for scale.
The second lesson is related to money. As you’re designing for scale, for CHILDLINE, we already knew that to actually have a national service would cost more than what any donor in India… local donor would have. So, we would need to have a huge amount of money to be able to run a service like that. And then, where could the money come from? The best source would be the government. So, partnering right from the beginning after the initial pilot with the government.
For some, it may not be the government. It can be whoever it is, but knowing who your principal collaborator will be. And in India, for CHILDLINE India, we chose the government, mainly because we wanted to influence the child protection system and all the other systems like the police, the healthcare, et cetera, which influence and affect the child.
So, my first lesson is: Design how your impact is going to be and scale for impact. My second is: Choose your core partner whom you have to work with, and then design for how you’re going to be looking and working with this. And the third, and I think I’ve said it a dozen times: Don’t do it alone. You’ll fail.
But I think this I’m giving CHILDLINE’s example. We took the same example to Child Helpline International. The only difference is we chose to do it with countries. But we knew that to get the countries, we had to work with the committee on the rights of the child. And UNICEF. So, we partnered with them.
So, it goes on. For Aflatoun, we did the same thing. We partnered with central banks and Ministries of Education. And then with CYFI, we also said we know where our role is. So, my last principle is: Know when to get out. And with CYFI, we said we had reached our role. We’ve reached where we thought we could reach, and then there would be diminishing marginal returns. So, we handed over to OECD, to AFI, to ITC because our role was over and shut down.
So, these are my main principles and lessons. I can give long stories, but I think these are the four main things which I will share.
Denver: Those are great lessons. And I guess another one of those lessons is in terms of sun setting and shutting down, you thought about that at the very beginning.
Jeroo: Pretty much.
Denver: So, the nature of your partnerships were not like throwing this on them in year six or something. They kind of understood that this partnership, they were going to be asked to maybe pick it up, and then you turn over the assets and the knowledge and everything. But it all starts at the very outset. That’s really good.
Jeroo: Yes, exactly. And then my last tip is if you’re a social entrepreneur, also know when you have to exit and plan your succession at your starting. But that’s more a personal thing.
Denver: Well, I want to go to a personal thing, too, because it also seems like you’re really good at starting things and getting organizations off the ground. I’m sure you’re good at other things as well, but you’re really doing what you love. And that probably is a good principle if I may suggest.
Jeroo: Of course! Totally. I love what I do. And yes, I can manage, but I again say you have to look at what gives you energy, and it’s the beginnings – creating the strategy, the structure, making the system, setting up all the systems in place. That’s what gives me energy. And after that, you need to… I can do it, but maybe someone else can do it. So why not hand it over? And they can do it better. Different personalities, different life cycles, different needs.
Denver: I’ve always loved energy as a barometer, too, because energy comes from the body. And when you think about something, you can rationalize doing something you really don’t want to do because it’s the right thing to do… or you think you should be doing it, but your body doesn’t lie. And when your body gives you energy, it’s sort of saying, “This is what I like to do.”
So, let me get it back to Catalyst 2030, how are you going about, or will you continue to go about measuring success and progress between now and 2030?
Jeroo: So, to be honest, when we started, we did not put that in right in the beginning because we didn’t know which direction we were going, where we were going. However, after we had had around six months… So we had the “Theory of Change.” The day we started, we had the “Theory of Change” and a strategy plan, which had been consultative, and we had got McKinsey to help us and all of that.
After six months, we realized now that the network is really growing, we need to change. So, we got together a Theory of Change group, which put down the Theory of Change. It took us almost six months to get a second in-depth “Theory of Change.” And when that settled, we said, “Now, we start building an evaluation framework.”
So, we got evaluation experts, and many of them you may know. We got the Blue Marble Evaluation. We got John from Collective Change Lab. We got Glenn. Glenn from SustainaMetrix, Glenn Page, Gurpreet, other experts, lots of them, but John and Glenn were heading that. Alnoor, who got in the whole organizational theory part of it, and several academics.
Anyway, what they have done is they have created an evaluation framework, but we really want to look at it as a learning framework. So, we have looked at what will be the learning questions, which we have and how we, as a network, will keep building on those learning questions to take it forward.
So that’s what we have started. And actually, end of June will be the time our first one-year grant is over. Despite our donors didn’t ask for it, but we wanted to have a one-year review to see: With money, what have we achieved? The first year we operated without any money.
Denver: So, sometimes money isn’t the answer to everything.
Denver: You don’t necessarily need the resources. You can get an awful lot done without it.
Jeroo: So, we actually have a review process in place with a lot of difficult questions, for which we need answers because we don’t have the answers. We created our own evaluation questions and not asking our own difficult answers. No donor has asked us for it. So, we are very lucky.
Denver: There you go. And as you say, the evaluation is not the end. But a lot of people look at it… it’s almost like a beginning. What do we learn from this? And where do we go? And that’s a very healthy way to do it.
Are you and your 600 colleagues convinced that you can reach this goal by 2030? And if you are, what makes you convinced that you can pull this off?
Jeroo: How do I put this? I think yes, social entrepreneurs are optimists. So, the writing on the wall is that we won’t reach it. But what we are saying is we are going to do a damn good try to make sure we reach it.
Now, the problem is we think if we are in the driver’s seat, we can reach it. The policymakers still need to get there. I hope it doesn’t take us nine years to convince the policymakers, and we can do that within the next year. And then we will reach it. So that’s what we have to hope for.
Denver: And it does seem to be that you have to have that tension between patience, because you say it takes a long time, and urgency at the same time. And sometimes people think that they are about patience or urgency. And you’re sort of saying patience and urgency is the thing to bring it together.
Now, this is going to seem like a strange question, but are there lessons from successful systems change efforts that can be applied to help a leader or a team of a standalone NGO to be more effective at what they’re doing?
Jeroo: Yes, if the person wants to take the lessons. I always say that…you know the saying, the old saying – you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. And I really firmly believe, and I think this is important that I say this, every person has a role. We have five fingers, and all of them play a very important role in our life.
So, if a person wants to do systems change, definitely they can be taken. But if the person is really happy just doing what they’re doing and they are being effective, then that’s also as important. And I think we have to learn to recognize that. Some of the best work is done by community-based organizations–and we’ve seen it in COVID, who’ve just been there providing, say, food or the trucks. And I think that’s important work if they’re not looking at changing government policy. Because you need that end of the continuum as much as you need the people like me who are constantly going on about policy change, and systems change, and all the things that have to happen.
So, my answer, and this is probably not the answer you’re looking for, but it is: Every single person is very important and every single person should do what feels right to them, gives them energy, and most important is what’s best for their community. That’s where I come from.
Denver: I don’t disagree with that answer at all. It is the mosaic that really gets everything done. And if we were all… somebody said to me once that looking at systems change or anything else, you have to look at the whole social sector as a desk drawer. And in a desk drawer, none of us need 12 scissors. You know, you need a scissor and you need a stapler and you need some paper clips and some Scotch tape. So, as you say, like fingers, we all have a role to play, and everybody contributes to everybody else if everybody is playing their role effectively.
Let me close with this, Jeroo, do you believe that this model, and that would be this model born out of Catalyst 2030, will help inform the way the global community tackles our most challenging social problems going forward?
Jeroo: I definitely hope so. And if I have heard our members, several of them, not several but a few have said they are already following the principles at the community level in their initiatives and seeing how they can look at it. So, I think the change is already happening slowly and steadily. And I hope it keeps growing. And learning from each other, that’s to me, most important, the constant wheel of learning and cycle of learning.
Denver: It’s a journey. It’s never over. We never reach the destination. We just keep on taking one step in front of another every single day.
Tell us about the Catalyst 2030 website, some of the information visitors will find on it, and maybe how people can get involved if they’re so inclined.
Jeroo: I would love it if people wanted to get involved. Anyone from Ashoka, Skoll, Schwab, Echoing Green – welcome anytime – or any of the major networks. All others, all you have to do is go to the website. There’s the membership page and apply to be a member. If you know another member, ask them if they will reference you because, ultimately, we are a close-knit community of changemakers.
So, I would say go to the website. It’s a great website done by one of our entrepreneurs, Laser Communications, who came forward and said, “We will do the communications.”
Denver: There you go! Fantastic. Well, this is fantastic stuff, too, Jeroo. Thanks so much for being here today. It was such a pleasure to have you on the program.
Jeroo: Thank you very much. Really, the pleasure was all mine, and thanks for all the amazing research that you have done. Fantastic. Thank you.
Listen to more The Business of Giving episodes for free here. Subscribe to our podcast channel on Spotify to get notified of new episodes. You can also follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and on Facebook.