What if the nonprofit sector, with its enormous potential and influence, could be the key to repairing our fractured world? Welcome to a riveting discussion on 'The Nonprofit Fix,' where we, Pete York and Ken Berger, ponder this grand possibility. We scrutinize why the sector isn't more vibrant and explore how data-driven innovations, research, and a scientific approach can create an incredibly positive impact.
In this enlightening conversation, we take a deep look into the challenges the nonprofit sector faces and the dire need for greater accountability and data-driven operations. Get ready to be captivated by our discussion on the power of data science and technology in creating a real, long-lasting impact. We articulate how a more precise, less biased approach could be the game-changer for those in need and the sector as a whole.
We also shed light on the issues impairing the nonprofit sector, from the concentration of resources in a handful of charities to 'the Occupy Charity Problem' and unethical leadership. Join us as we inspect the role of nonprofit boards and the need for their evolution. We express our hope and optimism for the future of the sector, believing in its capacity to generate substantial and enduring influence through self-awareness, critical thinking, and storytelling. So, buckle up and join us on this journey towards creating a better world!
What if the nonprofit sector, with its enormous potential and influence, could be the key to repairing our fractured world? Welcome to a riveting discussion on 'The Nonprofit Fix,' where we, Pete York and Ken Berger, ponder this grand possibility. We scrutinize why the sector isn't more vibrant and explore how data-driven innovations, research, and a scientific approach can create an incredibly positive impact.
In this enlightening conversation, we take a deep look into the challenges the nonprofit sector faces and the dire need for greater accountability and data-driven operations. Get ready to be captivated by our discussion on the power of data science and technology in creating a real, long-lasting impact. We articulate how a more precise, less biased approach could be the game-changer for those in need and the sector as a whole.
We also shed light on the issues impairing the nonprofit sector, from the concentration of resources in a handful of charities to 'the Occupy Charity Problem' and unethical leadership. Join us as we inspect the role of nonprofit boards and the need for their evolution. We express our hope and optimism for the future of the sector, believing in its capacity to generate substantial and enduring influence through self-awareness, critical thinking, and storytelling. So, buckle up and join us on this journey towards creating a better world!
This is For.
Speaker 2:Goodness' Sake.
Speaker 1:A podcast about the nonprofit sector where we talk openly and honestly about the many challenges that face the sector where we will discuss current and future solutions to those challenges where we explore how the nonprofit sector can have much more positive impact in the world.
Speaker 2:A podcast where we believe that once we fix the nonprofit sector, we can much more dramatically help to fix our broken world. Welcome to the inaugural episode of For Goodness' Sake, a podcast exploring how the nonprofit sector could fix the broken world. My name is Peter York and I'm joined by my co-host, ken Berger.
Speaker 1:Hi everyone. Peter, why don't we begin by telling people just a little bit about who we are, and you go first?
Speaker 2:All right, sounds good. Ken, I started my career as a frontline social worker. I was working in patient psychiatry with kids, and I was a caseworker for the homeless. That's important because it roots the work that I now do and spent the next 27 years now doing and that 27 years is really as an impact evaluator. So I worked for philanthropy, government, nonprofit organizations, corporations that were investing in social impact, and I was an evaluator so I would evaluate their programs and investments. And then, over the past 10 years, I've spent really learning about and integrating the tools of data science. So I got hooked on this idea that if Netflix and Amazon can figure out what books and films I should watch next, make pretty accurate recommendations using machine learning and AI. I thought, you know, our sector could really use this, so that all the work that I had been doing in evaluation which was reaching decision makers, grant makers, others, but yet was not reaching the front lines where I was, and so from that standpoint, I really began to realize that we need to bring these tools of data science and AI into our work. And how can we bring this together with evaluation? It's not easy, but I've spent the past decade really kind of figuring a lot of that out and working with a lot of others in the field towards that end.
Speaker 2:I am currently a principal and vice president of analytics solutions at BCT Partners, an award-winning management consulting firm based in Newark, new Jersey.
Speaker 2:They've been around for over 20 years.
Speaker 2:Their mission has really been to harness the power of diversity, insights and innovation to transform lives, accelerate equity and create lasting change. I just want to emphasize BCT really is focused and the reason I joined the wonderful leaders here at BCT Partners and have been here now for over five years was really that mission and that focus on diversity, inclusion, equity, especially because I also did see that the world of AI, data, data, analytics is not concerning itself enough with those issues and if we're really going to make a difference in the world, we really have to do this in the right way. I lead our analytics work here and that work crosses over all lines of business. In addition to kind of our analytics solutions work, but we have other lines of business and I do a lot of work in the precision modeling, precision causal modeling kind of figure out what works for whom and developing solutions, and all in an effort to really help generate insights real time, sometimes on demand, insights and automated evaluation about the first people that lead to equity. Your turn, ken Wow.
Speaker 1:All right.
Speaker 1:Well, I started my career sort of in the opposite way, in that I began as a social science researcher but quickly moved into direct human service work, and so, for the most, for most of the past 40 something years, I've been helping to run nonprofits that serve the homeless, those with mental health challenges, the developmentally disabled and many other people in need.
Speaker 1:This included work in the fields of healthcare, human services and education, and then also, in the middle of all that, for a stint of seven years or so, I was the CEO of a place called Charity Navigator, which is purported to be the largest rating agency of nonprofits performance in the US and possibly in the world, for that matter. Currently, for about three years now, I have been proudly operating as the CEO and executive director of a place called Spectrum 360, and we're a nonprofit organization and our mission is to provide people with autism and those with related challenges programs and supports to realize their aspirations, lead thriving lives and fully engage with their families and guardians and in their communities. We currently serve over 400 children and adults with autism in Northern New Jersey through a special needs school and an adult day program. So that's what I do, that's my day job. Back to you, peter.
Speaker 2:Thanks, ken. Well, thank you. So now that you've had a chance to meet us, let me tell you a little bit about where we are endeavoring to go with respect to this podcast. So in this groundbreaking we perceive groundbreaking podcasts, we're going to dive deeply into the critical questions facing the nonprofit sector. We will be examining why the sector isn't larger, healthier. Some of the challenges.
Speaker 2:As for me personally, the reason that what really motivates me with respect to this podcast is envisioning a world where the nonprofit sector can grow to represent a much larger slice of the economic pie in our country, because I believe it offers a type of business model, economic model which is very different from government, very different from the private sector and therefore creating potentially an opportunity, if we can fix some of the challenges, to really be an important and maybe even equal, maybe third, as large as a third of what we think of as all of the private government and, when we add nonprofit drivers of well-being and our economy.
Speaker 2:So in this podcast, we're going to really start to look at what would it take to get to the nonprofit sector, to a place where it can be such an economic force and such a force for good, if you will and there's that, for goodness' sake, a force for good in the United States. We're going to tackle challenges that need to be addressed to reach this ambitious goal, and we're going to identify the innovations and you're going to hear a lot about data-driven innovations, research, doing this the scientific way, if you will and we're going to hear a lot about that that can really help to propel the sector forward. And we're going to even be examining very current and contemporary things that are here to stay, like the role of AI in advancing the cause. So, ken, I'm going to pass it to you for your introduction.
Speaker 1:Okay, well, so as you've probably noticed from our brief bios there, peter and I bring different experience and perspectives regarding the nonprofit sector, and sometimes we also bring different views about it. So, when it comes to our visions for where the nonprofit sector should be in the future and whether or not it should represent, let's say, a larger portion of the economy, like Peter was talking about, in my case, the answer to that question is much more unclear and, as you'll hear in many of our upcoming episodes, I believe the nonprofit sector has a lot of significant challenges and is in need of a tremendous amount of fixing up before I could envision any expansion of its size. So I'm sort of on wait and see when it comes to that idea. I would need to see a lot of evidence before I could suggest even a marginal increase in its reach. However, I have tremendous respect for Peter's views and aspirations for the sector, and also I want to be clear that I have tremendous respect for all of the people who are involved in the sector and their dedication, their heart and always not always, but many, if not most, I should say most really wanting to do the right thing and to help as much as they can.
Speaker 1:So I anticipate you'll see that as we go through these podcasts I'm sort of, I guess, more on the problem identifier side and Peter is happily and I'm jealous of is on the problem solution side, although I'm with him all the way with a lot of tremendous ideas that I think he's going to bring to this podcast. So let's see if the podcast can help in the efforts to lead to positive change, to increase all of our confidence that it can prove that it's truly doing good, because once that happens, I think we can have a conversation about how big it should be as a percent of the economy and the impact it could have to tremendously change the world, and I do think the nonprofit sector already is having a very positive impact. But I think one thing that Peter and I completely agree on is it needs to do a lot more to have an impact in the ways that we're hoping for.
Speaker 2:Yeah, very much, very much so. So thank you. So, ken, we're going to kick this first episode off here in just a moment. I just want to say that, as we think about this podcast moving forward, we hope to bring engaging discussions, thought-provoking conversations, insightful interviews. We hope that these will inspire individuals and organizations in the nonprofit sector to think differently and embrace new approaches to drive positive social impact. With our combined experience and firsthand knowledge of the nonprofit landscape and sector, we are very convinced that the sector can be a powerful catalyst for creating a better world, as Ken was just noting. We both believe in that possibility and we are thrilled to embark on this journey with you. So join us as we set out on our first episode here to challenge conventional thinking, spark innovation and unlock the true potential of the nonprofit sector for the greater good. Welcome to, for Goodness' Sake.
Speaker 1:Exclamation mark.
Speaker 2:Let's go ahead and get started with our first show. Here, Ken, asking an important question, which is why are we doing this? So let me feel that question with you first why are we doing this, Ken?
Speaker 1:Well, I think you and I together have been working collectively in the nonprofit sector for more decades than I want to even think about and I think, speaking on my observation, I think I've seen a lack of real candor about the challenges and what I would even call the dysfunctionality and ineffectiveness of a lot of the work of nonprofits and those conversations.
Speaker 1:When I look around at other podcasts and when I look around at journal articles and textbooks on the subject, I think they're really missing the mark sometimes about some key things.
Speaker 1:I think Peter and I we did a preliminary search on the question of what other podcasts cover when it comes to nonprofits, and it's typically one of two things it's either about how to be a better fundraiser or how to better do the operational day-to-day management of the nonprofit sector or a particular nonprofit. But the real issue to me is there's a whole lot of other stuff that are challenges and almost baked into the way nonprofits operate that are really not being discussed, and so I think, more than anything else, we want to take a look at those problems and see what can be done about those problems. I mentioned earlier to you when we were off recording that, in my mind, one key audience for me are young professionals in college thinking about what their career choices would be, and when I see a typical course in nonprofits of which there are not that many to begin with terms of it really providing them with a rich depth of understanding of those challenges is generally lacking and I'm hoping that we can help to fill that gap.
Speaker 2:Thank you, that's yeah. Well, you and I have had many conversations and are very much in agreement on all that you've just said, and I think that would all share. Piggybacking on that and saying a big to what you just said, the reason, some things I would add from the vantage point of myself as a 25 plus year experienced evaluator of social impact in the sector. I do see that there are a lot of patterns in these 25 years of working with philanthropy, government, nonprofits, of a few things that I think on the surface appear to be things. We're working on impact accountability, being able to understand and learn what works, seeing the data drivenness, if you will reach those organizations that can make a difference, those that are making decisions. We talk about it and we have spent years doing this work, but I think there still really has yet to be the full realization or actualization of impact accountability. I think the data is still a lot of conversations and a lot of storytelling. We don't bring together the tools of data with storytelling. I think, as a result, the way our sort of the business of the nonprofit sector, the way it transacts, the way nonprofits ask for money, the fundraising, the grant processing, all of the work that the sector does to create that, let's call it.
Speaker 2:The market of the sector is still very story driven and those on the front lines where I take my history from my first nine years as a frontline social worker those on the front lines are not really getting the kinds of insights, information, knowledge and lessons that are really looking that different from when I started that work late 80s, early 90s when the only difference really may be that we have computers on our desks instead of files and folder systems, but what we're not doing is really effectively figuring out how to tap that.
Speaker 2:We have a lot of technology but we still are, in my opinion, not focused on impact, accountability, lessons learned and we're certainly not getting the insights down to the front lines.
Speaker 2:And I would say a big part of that having been a part of the past 25 years of working with some of the top government agencies and philanthropies in the sector and nonprofits is that there's plenty of work that's going on in those spaces, but it's really not filtering down, it's not getting spread, it's not democratized, and so I think that we need to advance on that, and I think the world of AI, machine learning and data science has the potential and I emphasize potential to take us to a whole new level, but it needs to be embraced carefully, thoughtfully.
Speaker 2:We have to address issues of bias, but I really think the time is now that we can actually make good on the promise we've been looking for, which is true impact accountability, true outcomes orientation, figure out what works for whom, and being able to do that at a scale that we just could never do before. And I think right now we've paid some good lip service and come up with every decade a new set of terms and language for what we do, but it really hasn't been actualized on the front lines.
Speaker 1:If I can just underline that point a little bit. So my background is predominantly over the 40 something years, with a little exception, but basically has been doing direct service, work in human services, educational field and just basically serving people with different needs that are typically underserved. But one of the things that I've observed out there is that even the conversation itself, even the terminology itself, is, more often than not, not even on the radar of most nonprofits. So if you use terms like impact accountability, for most of the nonprofit sector it's like Charlie Brown with the adults with the wow, wow, wow, wow. They don't, they don't, they don't have any. It's like they're just trying to survive. That's not. There's nothing else but that on their radar. And it's especially true when you get to the more typical nonprofits as opposed to I think, like you were talking about a smaller subset that are even talking about some of this stuff. And the way that that smaller subset is even talking about this stuff is a problem, but that's that's yeah, and therein lies the challenge.
Speaker 2:And, Ken, one of the things that I think is going to be important in our conversations over the the next hopefully many, many episodes is going to be the fact that I myself, even if you spend 25 years as a consultant, both in nonprofit consulting firms and for-profit consulting firms, you quickly see how you've been acculturated to this language and you know it's going to be really important that we can consistently challenge each other and those we engage with on this podcast with respect to the language issue, Because I actually think it's a hugely important point. I really believe 80% of the sector knows nothing about the way we're framing things in the kind of I'm good with that In the kind of elite circles, if you will, and I think there's only 1% that had of any power to do anything about the language we're creating. And yet this is the culture that then gets filtered through, and if you want to play the game and be in the game I shouldn't say play the game, I should say be in the game you really are called upon to know the 1% or 20% language frameworks and tools and the way we talk about this stuff, and so it's important that that does democratize. But it's also important that the 80% and 99% respectively are able to actually influence that and bring their own power into the conversation around some of this stuff. So I think this is a big part of why we're doing this.
Speaker 2:I think we see some of the challenges and it is a cultural, it's a sector cultural challenge, I think and we want to address it. There's a lot of good work that is going on out there. It's just it's way smaller than we acknowledge, just because it feels sometimes from an influential space. But what's really happening on the front lines is very different. I just think back to the you know, drop in center that I served as a caseworker for the homeless in the late 80s, early 90s and I really don't know that if I went back to that organization and they still do exist and they're doing great work I don't know that all of the places and spaces and language that I've existed in and my work with philanthropy, government etc. It is getting there and some of this work and nor is it being informed by their work in ways that we can now and I think we can with sort of where a lot of the technology, tools, data, where things are really going.
Speaker 1:You know. I think that brings up another point in terms of the two of us and doing this podcast. We typically agree I think we said something like 80% of the time we tend to agree on things, and there's 20% of the time where there are some differences. But I think there's one fundamental place where I think we're 100% aligned and it sort of goes like this, which is that, like you said earlier just a moment ago, that there's all this good work going on out there. We intuitively agree on that, but at the same time, we also agree on the fact that the vast majority of nonprofits can't prove it. They can't prove objectively the impact of their work, and that is one of the most profound issues that I think we're going to grapple with in this podcast, because to truly change the world for the better, the nonprofit sector's got to change itself for the better, to get to a place where they can prove in an objective, evidence-based way that they're having meaningful and lasting change for people and institutions.
Speaker 1:So far, so you know, like when I was, when I was spending my 20 years working with the homeless, I remember at a certain point my benchmark for success was there was this severely mentally ill person that came in without a coat and the next day he left after he had three hots and a cot, but he left with a warm coat and it was like all right. Well, that's at least something to know, that you know he carried on, you know gave him something. But you know, beyond that, in terms of real intervention and real long-term impact, it's all.
Speaker 2:A lot of it is just very murky, yeah, and I think part of the challenge, too, is what you're addressing is something that's important, that we're going to be calling out all the time. Which is what I'm absolutely positive of is that and I know it from being on the front lines myself to evaluating social programs on the ground when you actually talk to the folks doing the work on the ground, there are large numbers of truly transformative anecdotal stories. We know I know when I was a case worker the impact that I could have. The issue is to your point. You know how much of that can we elevate and scale, and the way we do that in our sector and the way we talk about it now too, I think needs to be transformed. Part of it is really also appreciating, and this is where I believe in the work that I've spent the last decade of my career doing, which is really helping to understand how the tools of data science and the Netflix recommender that can somehow let you know that you're going to like the next movie they recommend to you because of patterns of historical people like you, you start to begin to see a very different orientation because we can move from the stories, the anecdotes, to what was just really where we've lived. We've lived in all those anecdotes, but now, with technology, data science and other tools, we can amass those anecdotes but also appreciate and understand more about context, more about what it takes for different types of people in different circumstances to be able to achieve their next milestone, if you will. And so that's the opportunity, and I think that's the other reason why in answer to the question, why am I doing this?
Speaker 2:Me personally is because I really do believe that we have now come to a place where the problems of anecdote and the problems of rolled up averages where both of those are not giving us what we need we now have the tools of data science and other things that can be more precise, like precision medicine, that can actually help everybody in a less biased way, because there's bias of averages, just like there's bias of anecdotes. One anecdote doesn't make a generalizable truth. Well, the same is actually true for averages as well, rolled up averages and I believe that the reason one of the parts of what I care about deeply is wow, we can start to bring these tools of data science and social science. When you mention evidence-based and provable and objective, you start to realize well, there's a lot to that right, and even our traditional methods of averages and comparisons of averages of those who got something and those that didn't. It is a very different world now where we can use data science to do that, but we have to do it with transparency and bias reduction front and center, because we all know the problems of correlation is not causation.
Speaker 2:But if I raise this up to the broader question again, why are we doing this? It's because we are at an interesting time and place. You and I have been talking about this for years and trying desperately to do what we need to do. I don't know if you'd agree, but I think it's interesting where we are in the space of innovation technology, data science, ai, machine learning, that we are actually, I think, at the right time to take things to a new level. So in some ways, the world of anecdote and population averages can actually have another option. But it wouldn't have happened a decade ago because the tools were still quite not there. At least that's my more technical opinion, having spent the past decade bringing these tools in. But you and I have talked about the problems and the challenges of what we just addressed, but I think what we want to talk about on this show are the solutions, and we really do believe they're here.
Speaker 1:Well, no, I mean, I think we need to do both. I think we don't want to just talk about the solutions. We need to, I think, put it in the context of the many, many problems. And I think the second part of what I think we're going to cover today was to talk about why do we think that the nonprofit sector needs fixing? And I think you've highlighted the one place that I think you've already moved towards the solution, but I really think we need to talk a little bit more about the problems that face the crystal flip.
Speaker 1:But just let me finish my thought, which is that I think, in terms of the question as to whether we're at a tipping point or a turning point here, when it comes to the technical issues, I defer to you completely and I believe you that we're in a much better place today than we were 10 years ago. However, when it comes to the day-to-day realities and all of the other obstacles in the way, as is often the case, when the tools might be sitting there right in front of you, the awareness, the capacity, the willingness, the understanding to take advantage of those tools is something very different, and I think those are some of the other problems and obstacles we want to talk about as to why this tipping point may not happen as quickly as it could because of all of those obstacles.
Speaker 2:So what I want to share with everybody who listens and I don't know how big our audience will be what I want to share, just stepping back for a moment, is I would just want to observe one of the reasons that Ken and I have been such close friends and colleagues and collaborators on all of this and where I think we've always we thought this was an opportunity for this podcast. The why we're doing this is, in part, what we just shared very different perspectives, our orientations as to, and we advance a lot of the work together. You've always made me better in the sense of grounding. Sometimes I get very into the innovation solution orientation and can minimize the problems and challenges for getting there. You also do see, because that's how we connect.
Speaker 2:We both see the opportunity, but you also come from a very different perspective and I think it's important to say this, you having been also on the front lines.
Speaker 2:But your career is much more as a CEO and leader, as an executive leader and a leader of nonprofit organizations A very different space than I have been in terms of consulting.
Speaker 2:But what that brings is also a really good reality check, and so I will be the first to admit that, and this is one of the challenges with sometimes being in the kind of consulting space where your clients are some of the folks that are in the 1%, right, because what ends up happening is we do get in that space, we get excited about the innovations and the solutions and the opportunities to change things, right, so we're all on the same page there even, but what happens is we lose touch with the ground, we lose touch with the reality of what it's really like, and I think that that's where, and so I just want to highlight you and I, and I think that what we're going to be sort of taking our listeners on a ride here is exactly what we've been benefiting from each other and we thought, you know what.
Speaker 2:We're having these very interesting discussions and we agree 80%, and where we don't, it tends to be on the route on kind of the scale of the problem and the perspective of the vantage points, and I'm because I've spent 25 years in the consulting space. I do have a very different perspective and a different set of stories that I've been tuned to than you have, and I think that I just want to highlight that's what we hope an undercurrent of value from our podcast will be is just exactly that. We don't want to squelch it. You and I have always been able to honestly confront each other's problem versus solution orientations and leanings, to the point where it's cool because we find usually there's a middle ground we can get to where and this is the heart of what we're doing we do get to a a solution that, as you always say, takes always a lot more time, resources and energy than you think it's going to take, pete.
Speaker 1:Right. So so, yes, so, yes, yes, yes. So let me just interject a quick little story, if I might, which which has to do with you and I. So you know, I just quickly. I spent about 30 years doing this direct service work, a lot of it with the homeless, people with HIV and AIDS and people with chronic mental health issues, and anyway.
Speaker 1:So after that period of time, for reasons that I don't need to get into here, I was selected to become the CEO of Charity Navigator, which, as you may know, is the, I guess, the largest rating agency of US charities in the United States at this point. Perhaps, maybe not always, but for the moment. And and it was during that time that I was exposed to the thought leaders of the sector and had never been exposed to them before because I was doing the direct service work, and the thing that really struck me more than many other things was they were very smart, very talented, very insightful, but their, their observations were not grounded in the sector and, as a result, a lot of what they said sounded good but in reality it wasn't going to get anywhere because much traction, because of it, and the other part of that was that, you know, when it came to getting results, objective measures of outcome, the kind of tools and approaches they were taking were just so divorced from the reality of most nonprofits which we can get into another podcast. But it was at that point that there was one and only one person that I encountered during those seven some odd years of spending time with thought leaders and others in the sector, that there was one person that I felt had got a enough grounding in in the reality of the sector and an enough of an ability to find tools that were scalable for the, for the rest of the sector, the 99% and that person was and is Peter York.
Speaker 1:And that's always been one of the things that struck me about you, which is you have, even though you may have just said you know you need to be grounded. You tend to be, in my experience, far more grounded in the realities and a better understanding, and you've done the work with nonprofits direct service nonprofits that are not just in the 1% In a way that I don't I'm not aware of anybody else has been able to achieve, and that unique ability and perspective is invaluable to me and, I think, to the sector as a whole. So I'm really excited to also have an opportunity to get the help you to share your, your kernels of wisdom with the future leaders and current leaders of the sector, if they listen to us.
Speaker 2:No, I appreciate that, ken very much, humbly appreciated I think that along those lines I would just say it was just a, I think, what you're referencing and it's always. I've always felt, never 100% on the inside of the consulting world and I think it's because, to me, I never forgot, because it was the passion and direction I was going. I was going to become a social worker for the rest of my life, front lines, through and through. I loved the work that I did. When I was a case worker for the homeless I could tell you detailed stories. I never forgot people's life stories and never I was humbled by what little I could do. But I never forgot it. And I've always come back to.
Speaker 2:A question on every project I've undertaken for some of the largest philanthropies, nonprofits and government agencies is what difference does this make to the frontline? So what, like? Where is this going? Because if it doesn't reach the frontline, the front lines, we're never going to be there.
Speaker 2:My grounding has always been and it's not just a grounding in like. I didn't run these organizations. I was a case worker, I was a clinician and inpatient psychiatric service providers for kids and families. I worked substance abuse directly and so from that standpoint, you know, it's such a. That's what grounds me. And the thing is, where I can get ungrounded and it's easy to get ungrounded is to get into a space where your clients are the leaders, decision makers and people that hold those purse strings, those resources, those dollars and make some very big decisions, all with good heart and intent. But at the same time, when you start to get in there, I could feel myself forgetting at times my grounding, but never long enough, because I was always a little and I still am a little rebellious, and it's just in my nature to be a little rebellious. And that rebel is always the social worker rebel, it's the case manager rebel. That goes please, please, please, like. Stop your talking, you know, stop your theorizing, stop your new construct language and all the stuff that.
Speaker 2:Look, people on the front lines are smart enough to understand it's, it's, it's. Sometimes there's a there's a really demeaning attitude towards a lot of folks on the front line. They won't get it, they won't get it. I remember I worked with a consultant who said you can't deliver data. The front lines, they just won't understand it. They won't be able to interpret it. There's literally coming from somebody you know who was a colleague of mine who ended up in philanthropy and I'm like that's so insulting. Okay, it's not that they don't get it, they think it's bullshit. It's just doesn't really like I can't use it no what I mean is is.
Speaker 2:Is that if? Well, I know where you're going to go. But what I mean is when I think about the colleagues. I was joining on them and on them to try to help people, as a kid's freaking out on a Friday night because his parents aren't coming there and I'm having to figure out what to do with an out of control child. It's just, it's not that. It's it's not that everybody gets it, but everybody needs to appreciate that and to me I can't help it.
Speaker 2:I still think one of the biggest reasons that this podcast is so important to me is because I truly still don't believe that what we're doing yet is not just reaching the front lines, but is reaching the beneficiaries the, the, the families and stuff in ways they don't have to be knowledgeable about it. But there's just not. We're still relying on the databases of people's experience in positions where the average tenure is a year and a half at best. So I don't know, I just that was a long window, way of saying to your point. That's where my grounding comes in. However, when you and I talk, I become abundantly clear and abundantly aware of my bias. My consulting 25 years working with the you know the top of the field, folks, that bias of, and how that creeps in to a lot of what we're doing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, right, right. Well, you know, I think I understand and I think part of the reaction of frontline staff is is this, is this is a bunch of bullshit, but I also, I also, more than anything else, though I feel, for most, most of us, the day the day is just so filled with dealing with the challenges of the people that are being served and helping and trying to help, and in an environment of scarce resources, that that to overlay you know this sort of stuff with the data analytics and all that sort of jazz is it's like here's just yet another layer of crap that overlays all the other stuff. And prove to me that it's going to make my ability to serve people better. Prove it to me, because I'm just used to basically more and more requirements to have to feed the paper monster, feed the, feed the funders, which, again, I think we should segue.
Speaker 2:This is the good segue moment and I agree, and, by the way, what you just said, let's segue to why the sector needs fixing and, and along those lines, I love where you're coming from and I just want to let everybody listening know that that the key and where you and I have come to is this idea that you are correct that a lot of the problems is that if it's just another chore being imposed by those paying the bills, the proxy buyers of our sector, the donors, philanthropists and everybody else we and funders we know what the consequences are.
Speaker 2:So, to that point, and I think where you and I have spent years talking is how do we know, how do we not make it a chore but actually make it a benefit, actually make it useful? So part of the issue is that if the 1% or the 5% or the top 20% are designing these things, they're designing them always through a lens of another chore. They're not thinking through the front lines perspective, and I think one of the things that we talk about, and some of the things that I know that I care about in the work that we're doing, is the design. Leadership needs to come from the ground, and so that's. I'll segue there and say one of the fixes is the solutions we're creating are being designed from people that don't know what it's like to do the work, but you don't have to react to that. Let's go to the question of what needs to be fixed.
Speaker 1:So all right. So I think we've already touched on what I think is the overarching biggest problem challenge, and I just want to say it in a different way. But to sum up, so we have the largest nonprofit sector in the history of the world here in the United States. So, arguably, the generosity, the giving, the caring is enormous, unprecedented in one sense, depending on how you look at it. I mean, there are other arguments for other countries when it comes to government support, but we won't go there. Anyway, the point is it is the largest in the history of the world and yet the vast majority I would say perhaps 95% or more cannot objectively provide evidence of the outcomes of their work. To me, that is problem number one. There are a whole lot of obstacles to getting there and other problems that just make the day to day functioning an issue, but that sort of overlays the whole thing. And so I'm going to mention a few of the other problems that get in the way, and I think again we've sort of touched on this, but I just want to summarize. One of them is what I call the challenge of mission. So you know, traditionally in the for-profit sector the purpose is to make a profit, and in the nonprofit sector, the purpose is to fulfill a mission. However, because of the various disincentives and problems of the sector, I find more often than not, instead of the mission motive, we have the growth motive, which is how do you, as a leader of a nonprofit, get rewarded? You get rewarded typically as the organization gets bigger. It gets bigger, you get awards, you get a bigger salary, and so the incentives in the sector are typically just bigness, and so, however, you have to get big. So if the incentives to get bigger are to, you know, kowtow to funders, even if it doesn't necessarily resonate directly with your mission, if the incentives are as you were alluding to earlier, he or she who is the best storyteller wins, as opposed to he or she who has the best impact wins. If that's the way the game is played, then the growth motive and these problematic incentives get in the way.
Speaker 1:Another problem which I've caught you know I did a podcast on this with TinySpark called the Occupy Charity Problem, and that problem speaks to the fact that there's a tremendous concentration of resources in a very small, small percent of charities. You know the analogy of the Occupy Wall Street movement, regardless of your political perspective. In summary, they were mad because approximately 43% of all the wealth in the country is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the populace. If you imagine it was double that, if it was 86% in the 1%, how much of a problem that would be in this country, regardless of your political perspective. But that is the nonprofit sector 86% or more of the resources going to 1% of the charities.
Speaker 1:Another problem, which I lived at Charity Navigator and I think is a bigger problem than many people realize, are unethical leadership, unethical CEOs, unethical boards that distort the purpose for their own gain. Related to that, you have the problem of Founder's Syndrome this has been talked about many times where somebody starts an organization and doesn't know when to let go. That's a whole other story. Then you have these rating agencies like Charity Navigator, where they don't really necessarily get to the heart of what should be rated. That causes disincentives.
Speaker 1:Then there's Beholden agencies that are beholden to their funders, which I alluded to earlier. Beholden to governmental entities, beholden to foundational entities, beholden to wealthy donors. That's just a short list of just some of the problems that get in the way, part of the reason why, when we created the name of this podcast, we're doing this for the sake of goodness, for goodness. But we put an exclamation mark because, for goodness sake, we've got to start dealing with these problems more honestly and fixing these problems so that we can really do the work in the way that people want to Most of the people in the sector. Their hearts are in the right place, but the tools and the systems need to be fixed.
Speaker 2:What you just said could and very likely will be in higher episodes that we are going to be unpacking. I'll share the flip side of something not the flip side, but a different but similar perspective in relation to the problems that you've just presented. I will get into the problem mindset, in spite of the fact that I do think there are solutions. I do think that your point in summary, there's a big problem and I think it's a market transaction problem. What I mean by that is that if you were to take any non-profit service and put it into a private sector model where consumers are paying for the services, all of their data and all of their work, and the innovation and the accountability has to be, the beneficiary is the source of that. There's a problem I've written about this in the past around proxy buyer syndrome, which is that for so much of what we do in the non-profit sector organizations, the reason growth and, I would argue, output, output, output measurement is there is because we have proxy buyers. We don't have consumers that are actually paying for, and this is one of those areas I want us to explore on this. Can we change the market transaction with better information, data, etc. Can we make the beneficiary, not ignored, neglected at best, maybe given a satisfaction survey. Can we actually make them, the whole the sector, accountable for its quality of services and impact? Can we make it there? And the problem is that right now we have proxy buyers, we have donors, funders and everybody else buying on behalf. The whole subsidy model and I'm not saying it's not needed from a financial standpoint, but there are ways we can start to raise the bar on the issue of accountability. That says you know what, you may fund it, but you don't get to set the bar of success. We need the beneficiaries and not just satisfaction or net promoter scores. Right, we're talking about actually being able to drive.
Speaker 2:So I'll give you a great example. A private sector owned a for profit aquarium versus a non-profit aquarium. It's amazing. I saw one flip and that was the Camden Aquarium and I saw it flip from a non-profit to a for profit and it was amazing what happened on the floors of all those exhibits and everything else. And yes, some may say it made it a little more consumer-ish, etc. But the point being is that it had to tune itself and adapt to the membership, to the people that pay the tickets at the front door, in a way that I think doesn't drive enough.
Speaker 2:Now, in the arts and culture space, and non-profit, because fees are generated through memberships and purchase of tickets. It's a little bit more accountable in those kinds of models. But at the end of the day, what could we do? And I don't accept that you can't do it. I really don't, because it's just if we're paying for it, if funders are paying for it, government meaning the public is paying for it, we can demand that the beneficiaries get to tell us whether they got the results, because, by the way, it would also do.
Speaker 2:The second problem in our sector, which is delusions of impact grandeur If you visit an aquarium or you go to a summer camp, the idea that it's going to transform their capabilities of being able to do science for the entire year of their next academic year is ridiculous. It was a one-year camp. In the for-profit world, the consumer is going to hold you accountable for the direct result they're looking for or experience they were looking for. So part of the challenge we also have is that our theories of change are just grandiose. Ask yourself the question.
Speaker 2:I remember having an experience of a funder saying to me so did our principal leadership development program, advance test scores, and I'm like you didn't even work with the kids. Your program doesn't touch the kids, the principal's. Just ask yourself the question how often does the principal influence the teacher in their classroom? The amount of time it would take? It's a question that we can study, we can evaluate, but I can tell you the answer now. Save your money.
Speaker 2:The answer is no. We cannot causally prove that that's going to happen and I would hypothesize logic and reason would say there's no way. It is so many factors that are going to affect the kids' scores on their tests. The principal plays a role and you got the wrong level of outcome. We should be evaluating the principal through the lens of those they lead and finding out if they're doing what they need to do for the school at a different level. So that's the second thing, and I know I just want to address these. Those two are fundamentally things that we have got to start challenging the assumptions of, and at a high level. Let's just call it our market exchange right and the proxy buyer syndrome, the impact delusions of grandeur problem you were talking about the Occupy charity. I just think that those are things that we're going to. That's what we want to do on this podcast is really unpack these things. So I won't go more because I can get on a rant, but that's kind of where we're going.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think we can also talk about. I think we can also talk about the flip side, where there are some in the sector that are now pointing towards for profits as the panacea, the solution, when in fact there are fundamental differences and there are times when if you use the for profit model, you're more likely to run aground and you can be sometimes incentivizing the wrong things. But again that's for another day. The other thing I just wanted to add on your comment about the delusions if I had a nickel for every nonprofit that I've been, forget about outcomes. If I had a nickel for every nonprofit I've been to, where the culture assumes that we're the greatest nonprofit that there is, we're better than everybody else at what we're doing. That sort of an attitude, sort of us against the world and we're the best, is a very typical dynamic and I think part of it is just to try to motivate for fundraising for everything else. To have that specialness and that uniqueness is almost sort of a baked in requirement, even if it is somewhat delusional. Now that I've talked about profits and nonprofits, one last area of problem I'd like to mention before we bring this problem discussion part of the podcast to a close and that is one subject that I think is a very sensitive subject for many of us in the sector, which is nonprofit boards, and I think there are a lot of challenges there. There was a consultant that I spoke to recently who I thought captured part of the problem very succinctly when he said that the typical nonprofit board let's say they spend 24, 48 hours a year on the work of the organization, whereas the leadership staff spend 2,400 to 4,800 hours a year. So the leadership of the organization, the nonprofit board, which ultimately sits at top all the staff, volunteer, unpaid board spends 1% as much time as the staff who are running the place day to day and they have to make the key decisions and they're supposed to leave. That structure, by its nature, lends itself to problems, to dysfunctionality, and in the 40-something years I've been doing this work, the number of times I've seen a board that can find that sweet spot, that Goldilocks spot in the middle, is rare.
Speaker 1:And I think that a lot of people are afraid to have these conversations because these are your bosses.
Speaker 1:And when I read the literature, when I listen to trainings on working with nonprofit boards, there are times that I literally want to choke the speaker, because it's like you're missing so much of the landscape of the problems and creating this idealistic 50,000-foot view of the way things should be, could be, and you're not being honest about how hard it is and how much time it takes to get to the right place.
Speaker 1:So I think that that's something that we really are going to need to cover, and hopefully with as much transparency and honesty as possible, I will say. I think it's also important for us to have a disclaimer here, which is that we're not speaking about any organization in particular. This is not, by the way, for my board members. I'm not speaking about my organization in particular, but I'm talking just generally about the nature of the problem and how it's a really hard, hard problem, and I think we really need to start looking at solutions in that area and being creative in that area as well as others. So I'll pause there before we talk anything further about the solutions. That's my last problem for today.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and it's a good one, and I think it's one that in the show we're going to definitely tackle.
Speaker 2:I think what I'd love to do is just ask you one question about that, and that is what's your perception?
Speaker 2:Let me frame it this way Having done a lot of work evaluating different types of investments that funders make and organizations make in themselves called capacity building, which is just one of the areas of quote nonprofit capacity building significant investment areas has been board development, and one of the things that I learned through the research and evaluation work that I did evaluating those types of investments was just how functional I'm using air quotes here boards are on average and would love to hear your thoughts, because I know you've had your own experiences as a leader of organization with respect to the board functionality.
Speaker 2:But one of the things I've observed is boards really step up in certain times If there's a merger, a restructuring, a major infrastructure change, significant financial swing one way or another. Executive leadership turnover or the need for executive leadership turnover, tax time, the annual tax time, finance kind of stuff, a once a year fundraising kind of role, but a lot of what you're describing too. We also saw, which is a lot of nonprofit boards are not doing tons in between those crises or annual moments, if you will. What's your perception, if you think about the sector as a whole, how effective the boards are, or did I just describe something that is not stereotypical?
Speaker 1:Well, that's a lot there, Peter.
Speaker 2:And we'll go into this in a later podcast. But the reason I'm bringing it up is only because, if we're shaping the problem, my assumption is that boards are not. They may be intrusive at times or they may be in there at times when they don't have much anybody. That's really putting the work in on the ground. At the same time, I do think there are a lot of nonprofits that really aren't being heavy handed within the leadership and governance and the running of the organization.
Speaker 1:Again, I don't want to go too far in depth in this, but just briefly. I think there's a lot of boards that are functioning as rubber stamp boards, that are asleep at the switch unless a crisis happens, and then they wake up and it's like what happened here. Oh my God, I've got personal liability and exposure. I could be embarrassed by this. I no longer trust the leadership. I trusted them. What happened? How could this be? But they typically are rubber stamp.
Speaker 1:And then, at the other extreme, you have boards where they micromanage and they get into the weeds of things which, by the way, may be appropriate for a small organization that doesn't have a lot of staff and it's a baby, you know small.
Speaker 1:But as an organization evolves and gets bigger, a board's role needs to be more and more in strategy and big picture thinking as opposed to getting into that stuff.
Speaker 1:So it really depends on the size, the scale of the board.
Speaker 1:But the other thing I'll say about all of this that I think is most missing in a lot of the literature is the wild card in all of this board stuff has to do with the personalities of the people who are on the board. If you have someone who by their nature is a control freak, for example, you're going to have problems no matter where you are on that spectrum, because if they're going to be a weed wacker by their nature, they're going to be a weed wacker no matter what and you can try to train and talk to them. But if that's their basic personality type, it is what it is, whereas on the other hand, if you've got somebody who just sees it as a social club and just wants to hang out, you know it could be at the other extreme. So personalities and the importance of screening for board members to make sure that they have the right attitude and understanding, and then continuing to train them over time is really important. But again, I don't want to go too far down this road.
Speaker 2:No, no, we don't want to go too far, and this is a good opportunity to segue to our final part of the episode. And again, this episode is really just laying the groundwork for kind of what's ahead. I will say in the same vein that we're about to go into part of it too is the board is another example of how data and different types of information are not playing enough of a role. You know, funders are listening oftentimes and donors are listening to anecdotes and outputs when they do get data or quantifiable data as outputs and anecdotes, stories and numbers of served. This also goes for the board in very similar way to. I mean, they're playing the financial numbers game. That's where their numbers are coming from oftentimes in these meetings, once in a while they'll hear output numbers. They do get stories, they pick up on stories when they do have opportunities to volunteer for activities and events, but for the most part, the data is not really there either, and so it's a good segue to say you know, and part of it, as we look at this, let's segue to the conversation.
Speaker 2:We want to have the final part of this episode, which is the part that we're going to continuously try to move towards, which is we want to identify some problems, sort of set the stage, identify some problems and then move in the direction of solutions. We're going to try to do that within episodes, but we know also it may have to straddle a couple episodes, but we've got a part of our both your and my orientation, and you know, for goodness sake, explanation point. But trying to fix things is the solution part. So let's segue to that and start chatting a little bit about how our podcast is going to start to and where we're going to focus with. That's different than some of the stuff that we cited before in terms of podcasts with respect to solutions.
Speaker 1:So I'll let you lead off Just love. Yeah, I mentioned at the outset that a lot of the existing podcasts talk about solutions to problems of fundraising and solutions to problems of certain problems of operational management. But we've now outlined in this podcast a variety of things that may not fit into either of those categories and we want to get solutions to these other things on the table that often are not looked at, and the solutions, I think, will typically fall into a couple of categories. One category is here are things that actually exist now. Here are tools that we're aware of and ways to approach that currently exist that are maybe people don't know as much about or they're in their startup phase. Early adopter phase is one of the phrases that sometimes is used and need to be more broadcast and spread about.
Speaker 1:The second category of solutions is we're not aware that there are any currently and we want to brainstorm about ways that we could come to solutions in those areas that are problematic. There's some of that with nonprofit boards, for example, where we may have to be creative and think outside the box in terms of how things are typically done. And then third category scary category for me is these just may be problems that are the nature of the structure of things, that to some degree, may just be the way it is and may not, in the immediate future, have a readily apparent solution, either inside or outside the box, and that's a scary thought, but it's possible. But the one thing I'll say in terms of solutions and I think this also circles back to the beginning of the podcast is I think I speak for both of us and you can speak on this far more eloquently than I can but I think that one of the places where we think there's a solution that could really help with a lot of these challenges is when it comes to data analytics and getting to a point of having objective measures that show we're really having an impact and an outcome that is, and we're a learning organization that continues to improve the way that we serve people and communities. I think that that can do a lot of good.
Speaker 1:The analogy I used for conversation we had offline is it's like because I'm a sci-fi fan it's like the problems are on this spaceship and it's like you open a hatch and with the data analytics, it's like some of these problems just get sucked right out out of the spaceship once you open the hatch because they can be such game changers, and so that, I think, is going to be something that runs through a lot of our conversations when we get to the solutions. It's not all of it by any means, but I think it's a big part of the story that we are hopeful is one of the examples of things that gets out of just the early adopter stage and really begins to rock and roll so that the sector, for goodness sake, really gets to accomplish its mission more effectively, so that we can fix a broken world with a more powerful and effective sector.
Speaker 2:That's great. That's great. I, in this regard, we are on the same page. That's why we came together to do this and, along those lines, I think where I'm gonna jump off of is the data driven piece. The remarkable thing is, I agree, and you and I've had a number of years of discussion of just how, if we move towards a more data driven analytics outcomes, but not just outcomes for outcomes sake, but outcomes that are realistic, that provide a window to be able to provide measures, accountability and metrics of success that we know are going to be guides for those on the front lines, those that are doing the work of serving and those that are being served, and benefit them and empower them.
Speaker 2:The thing that I'm positive of is the tools, the technology and the methods are there. I've been fortunate to have blended those tools of machine learning and data science with the tools of evaluation, and all in an effort for years now to try to solve the problem of when are we finally going to get these kind of insights and data that is, that is possible and being used all over the private sector and a part of all of our lives. When are we going to get those, those data, those insights into the hands of those that are actually doing the work on the front lines. When is it going to empower the beneficiaries, as I keep calling them there may be some in our audience who don't like that term, but those that are being served or those that are engaging in the programs. When is it going to get there and when is that going to be the driver of success for the market exchange that is possible? Right now it still is anecdote, relational and size over simplifying. But when it comes down to it, whoever is the biggest has got the best stories and can tell those stories in an authoritative way, because they have the relationships to the funders, donors and others, the networks, their networks, to be able to tell those stories and to be able to broadcast. And those are usually stories of, if it's quantitative, as stories of outputs, but it's mostly anecdotal. When is that going to start to decentralize, if you will, and get down to the place where we can make some changes?
Speaker 2:I believe that the tools, the technology and the methods are all here. They're here today and they're advancing so much more rapidly and cost effectively. So how can we get to a place? And really the opportunity I see in this podcast is to really push the envelope on some of this and get into this data driven. But when I say data, it's also important to note it's not ignoring the stories. It's how to put the stories and the numbers and the facts together and do so in a way that is credible, truthful. When I say truthful I mean scientific, but I also mean truthful to those that are actually doing the work and experiencing in their lives the kind of change that's really happening. So I really do see this as an opportunity to push the envelope a little bit on what I do not see right now from a lot of the thought leadership in the field, which is more deliberate and intentional, bringing together the possibilities of what's already there to start to make this, bring these data and insights down to the ground.
Speaker 2:I believe that's where this is really going and, if I really get excited about it, one of the things that motivates me and I know Ken and I have talked about this you know I too am, and first and foremost, kind of a citizen of the United States I also hear and see and witness and experience. I do a lot of reading probably more audible books now today than other types but and I understand the problems that are being presented in our world, in the United States, with respect to the way we are governed, our government. There's problems there in the private sector. Who holds the power? It's a shareholder world. There's a really unfair distribution of wealth. It's getting worse. All these things are happening. So we take the private sector and the government sector.
Speaker 2:I guess there's a question I ask and this is a question that I I kind of believe in an answer to if the nonprofit sector could really fix some of the problems and challenges that we have, embrace some of the decentralized and the decentralization of power, by bringing data and insights down to the front lines and letting you know people figure out what's working locally, contextually, where they are. If we can do this, I personally believe what I have, a question, which is how could the third sector, the nonprofit sector, which right now is to the general public yes, we all know about it, but it's not playing the force that government and the private sector are, or at least not perceptively, and when it comes to things like GDP and other economic impacts, it's still small, it's a. It's a small, very small relationally in relation to those other sectors what is possible with respect to if we could fix, adapt, innovate. What if it was a third of the economic might? It's a third leg to the stool.
Speaker 2:You know how could this maybe even be a very impactful sector, and I think there's there there's a lot of stuff going on out there that we want to talk about that could be helping to solve that and and make that feasible.
Speaker 2:I think we need that balancing force. I really do think we are a a stool right now with need in need of three legs, but we have two, and one that's here just once in a while to run in and and hold the stool up as best as it can, and I think the sector could actually get to a whole another level. And I really do think these elements of of being able to address some of the, the power issues, the inequities, and getting things down to the ground at being more scientific and data driven with the tools and technologies that we have, could really make a difference. So that's what what I hope we can unpack as we try to solve the, solve the problems, and not that we're here pretending we, we can or have the power in the story too, but we can at least provoke a conversation that we're not seeing. That's, that's out there I want to.
Speaker 1:I want to pose, if I could peter, a different analogy than a three-legged stool, and you're gonna have to. Anybody elicits this. You're gonna have to get used to my science fiction obsession, but I think I would be more comfortable using an analogy of a rocket ship. In terms of the size of that, that, the rocket ship that is our country, all the sectors are of our country, will have a lot more boost and get a lot further, a lot faster, into good places. Once that happens, and how big, how big that rocket booster is, how much fuel we're gonna put in there and how much of the engine is, is a part of that, that's the nonprofit sector.
Speaker 1:I don't. I don't know what the right fit or the right answer is. All I know is this if in my lifetime we can see a significant portion of that the sector, truly proving its impact and improving itself, then I'll be, I will rest in peace as and so for. For the next, you know, passing the baton to the next group of podcasters and the next group of people running the sector. I will leave the question of just how big it'll get. Now, of course, I say that realizing that things like chat, gpt within a matter of weeks went from nothing to to light, to to light speed. But at least where I sit now, when it comes to nonprofit sector, I think we've got a long way to go before I can put my head around your, your, your vision. But I respect, I very much respect your vision, peter, and and perhaps that's that's the way. All I know is we got a long road ahead of us.
Speaker 2:Yes, that's true, but but, but I want to, I want to push a little bit on something which is, in my, in my view, the stool, or we could call it a three rocket rocket ship. You know, you know how a rocket ship has two on the wings and one in the tail. All right, my point is this is is governments and the private sector aren't exactly on fire? And meaning, meaning the way you're presenting it, and I don't know if this is what your intent is the nonprofit sector yes, there's a lot to fix. We do have to remember how much it produces. It is, in my opinion, it's been, it's been constrained. I don't mean individual nonprofits, I know large nonprofits and you know we, we talk a lot about that and I get it, but when it comes right down to it, it still is a small leg.
Speaker 2:My point is it's not like the other two legs of the stool, or the other two, two engines of the of the rocket ship, it's not like they necessarily, um, uh, you know, are, are producing, are getting us where we want to go. Let's put it that way, to use your rocket analogy. And so my point is is that to me? Uh, yes, the sector needs fixing, but I could say the same, and people smarter than me on the private sector, it's smarter than me on the government sector, uh, could make. I, I bet, and I know doing enough work in government could make a lot of case for, for none of these engines are firing on all cylinders, however, um, and a rocket ship doesn't have cylinders, probably, but anyway, it's it's uh, but nonetheless, I do think and I hope that, as we think about the podcast and as we think about moving forward, to me, um, what I love about the nonprofit sector is something you said earlier on in this podcast, which is it's where it's hard is. It's it's hard is not in making profit. It's it's hard is not in in distribution, redistribution or making sure that, um, you know laws and and and, in the same way, where it's hard is is and most of the sector is really in service and trying to to help people, and the point is that you know, I get excited by the idea of a sector that is economically different, um, and is distinguishably different.
Speaker 2:And what could we do? Like I've asked this question, like we? We know social media has been playing a role in so much of our lives, including our civic and government lives, um, and its influence and everything else. What would happen if there was a nonprofit facebook? You know it's these kind of questions that we could start to think about. That you begin to wonder, um, if and what the potential for all of our social impact could be if we didn't look at the nonprofit as a band-aid for the problems caused by government in the private sector. Um, I know that's an overstatement, but but you see where I'm going. So to me, I just want to know what would happen if we actually made it a third leg of the stool. What if we made it a third, a third engine on the rocket ship? Um, because it does it in its, uh, original design, which needs to be fixed, but in its design it really does bring something unique, and I think that that's where we want to explore it yeah and I, yeah, I, all I can.
Speaker 1:All I want to say at this point is fixing the governmental sector or the problems the governmental sector, or fixing the for-profit sector. I will defer and leave that to others. I think we've got enough on our plate here and uh, yes, of course, every sector has its challenges and problems. All I'm trying to say is what I know about the sector that I'm in is I am not at this point, uh, seeing an expansion of that sector to do more or have a bigger scope in the economy, like you were talking about. It's not in my, it's not on my radar at this point, because I think we have a lot to do to prove our worth in the way that I think we need to before we start talking about, um, you know, being a leg or or anything else like that. We, we've just got a long road. I think we've got a long way to go before we get to that, so I'm just not ready to go there. It has all.
Speaker 1:And also, the other thing is it has all kinds of ramifications politically and and so forth, and I also hope that, by the way, that this podcast will will be able to reach people of all political perspectives, of all viewpoints, people who don't think that, uh, that the economy is is problematic in the ways that you, you, you, presented, although I agree with a lot of what you said. But I, I think, we really want to communicate as much as possible from a perspective of trying to reach everybody and, uh, and being open to that, that's over there, the politics of it and and so forth, with we really, I think and I know that you're aligned with me on this we really want to be as objective, science-based, you know, factual based, in in our discussions here, um, as opposed to otherwise. So so, but you know, I, you know, I'll leave it there, yeah we're on the same page, ken, we're on the same page.
Speaker 2:I think that we're going to, I think, as you can hear, and I think our audience is going to hear, but I think it makes for good. Hopefully, you know, a quality work between us and this pot on this podcast is that, um, you know, we're going to have different, nuanced goals and understandings, even though we do we do align on 80 percent. Um, I think that, uh, we're going to explore a lot of these topics and I and I'm excited about it, um, I think that that's really where a lot of our, our listeners are going to also be, and, um, I actually appreciate that we're not going to agree on everything and and that we're going to. You know what it is. I think we agree on a lot of things, ken, but I think what what people are going to hear is um, I definitely come a little bit with rose-colored glasses.
Speaker 2:Uh, there's a, there's a definite like it can do it, we can do it, we can do it. And and, uh, I think you come a little bit more with the half empty uh glass, but our glasses nonetheless. Oh, my, it's true, yes, oh my gosh, I'm a secret optimist. I don't want to close on that. You can get the final word let's, let's wrap this episode up.
Speaker 1:Um and uh, we are really and I'll just say and then pass it to you for final words, but I, I'm excited about this because I think that, um, hopefully, what we've laid out makes enough sense that people are interested in continuing the discussion with us, and I am excited for our conversations, and I do believe that we're going to be inviting others into these conversations as we start to bring up different topics, and of which we have many on our agenda that are exciting, um, in the way that we framed it on this call, but Ken, so so, yeah, I, you know, uh, it's funny because as much self-awareness as I have or don't have, at the end of the day, I I am an optimist, I am a person that's very hopeful and I think you know, when we came to the the very name of this podcast, um, we both believe that, um, the purpose and and the, the calling of so many and most of the people in the sector is the same and it's for for the sake of doing good, for goodness sake, and um, and we both hope and believe that we can play a part in helping, uh, all of those efforts to have even more good come from the amazing work that so many people do in the sector and that we get more and more from, just as you said, storytelling to really putting, you know, meat on the bone, you know real impact out there, and so that's our dream, that's our hope, and we both hold hands in in in the best sense.
Speaker 1:So, for me, I want the, I want the glass to be overflowing with that and that's that's, at the end of the day, where I'm coming from. My, my time sounding like the bummer is, uh, it's just trying to continually, uh, try to think critically about the challenges to getting there more than anything else, and so I think that's where I hope we're going to get to, and I and I believe that we will over over time, if anybody will listen to us well, and we can say it this, and why?
Speaker 2:for goodness sake, there you go. That's how we can end. So, for goodness sake, all right, ken, this has been great. All right, um, and we'll, we'll meet everybody on the next episode.