Between the Interviews - Making Sense of Nonprofit Nonsense

When talking about the Capitalism for Good project, I often get recommendations for nonprofit organizations, companies with give-back programs & associated foundations, and community-based companies focused on serving a specific underserved population. These are great! I’ll be highlighting some of these in future interviews with business leaders because I truly want to promote those that are focused on the greater good. These organizations aren’t the only ones that have the ability to do so though. 

In this episode, I focus on clearing up some misconceptions around these organizations, bring in government organizations to the conversation, and explain how the context, functionality, and details of how organizations operate are key to achieving higher rates of effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically focusing on the desire to use both donations and taxpayer dollars to “directly serve clients” and when this phrase all too often does the exact opposite watering down the ROI of that donation or taxpayer dollar. This is a lesson in overhead rates and indirect cost rates as well as how nonprofits can increase the ROI on clients served by looking beyond commonly thought of “direct costs.”

References:  NOT-OD-25-068: Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement; NIH = National Institutes of Health; CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; Indirect Cost Rates; IDC = Indirect Costs; ROI = Return on Investment; KY IEP Advocate’s All Things Special About Education podcast

What I'm reading: Revenge of the Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell because its (and The Tipping Point) examination of examples of when a tipping point was reached to make a change in our world, both positively and not-so-positively. 

I'm not telling you what to do, but here's where I'm putting my dollar: travel is a priority to budget my time and money because it fills my cup

Early and bonus shows as well as curated discussions and merch are available on Patreon.

Instagram | BioSite (with links to listen & more)

Transcript

Hey folks, this is the Between the Interview show, where I'll provide some context, background reflections, and recommendations associated with the Capitalism for Good philosophy. While the interviews are obviously focused on highlighting businesses and their leaders through talking about their experiences and philosophies, the Between the Interview shows will be mostly me connecting the dots, providing some additional insight, spotlighting the things that I'm listening to, reading, and watching in order to learn more, as well as some of the why behind where I am choosing to put my dollar. These Between the Interview shows will be sprinkled in Between the Interviews, and will be posted on the main feed, but will also be posted weekly on the Patreon in video form.

If that's your jam, head there, there's a link in the description. All right, so part of this Between the Interviews series is meant to set the foundation for the vision of the Capitalism for Good project, but it's also to give some context around the experiences that shape my approach to that vision. So as I have talked around about this project, I'm often given recommendations for non-profit organizations, companies with give back programs, and or some kind of like associated foundation, or a standalone for-profit company with a community focused or an underserved population focused mission.

And these are all really great. They're the ones that I think kind of naturally pop into people's brains when you start talking about like companies that are doing good and things that companies that are community focused types of organizations. And that's just it is really great. Some of those companies are the ones that I will choose to highlight around this project because I think that it's important. They are doing good work. I do want to promote them.

I do want to kind of talk about some of the philosophies and the themes and the decisions that are made by the leaders of those organizations. I do believe though that putting these organizations into a separate bucket is kind of like a version of othering, and it can further separate us rather than creating a truly inclusive community where we all may interact in ways that promote greater good. I think there's also a thought sometimes that those types of organizations, because they're other, they're in a different bucket, that they function differently, there are different types of employees that are there, and that they're just not really like what I'm going to call traditional businesses. If you're watching this on video, I'm putting traditional businesses in quote there. Instead of a, that's the job of the charities mentality, or a, that's XYZ companies job to, for example, address a food desert, or build an accessible hotel, or serve XYZ specific underserved population. That's their job to do. That's their bucket. We're in a quote, traditional business. That's not really our role to think about business in that way. That's just a different type of mentality, but it is one that I hear pretty often. Sometimes it's said explicitly. Sometimes it's just the undertone of what's actually being said there.

It's a shift toward incorporating some of those principles and practices of those types of organizations that I named, those non-profit charities, the give back programs, the ones with foundation arms, the ones that are, you know, community focused. That it's taking some of their practices and principles in the way that they function and incorporating that across all businesses. So instead of a, that's the job of charity's mentality or the mentality of that's XYZ company's job to, for example, address a food desert or build an accessible hotel or be known for hiring an XYZ specific population of people that kind of a mentality.

What I'm going for here is kind of a shift toward incorporating some of those principles and practices of those types of organizations that I've named here across all businesses, but also spotlight where those traditional companies, and in this context, building these kind of community or civility based cultures. What are those decisions that they're doing and how can we incorporate that elsewhere? And also, I think one of my underlying kind of goals here, and we'll really get into that, is that while it might seem, it might appear, it might be a common thought, in a common opinion, that those are different buckets of businesses that exist and function in, maybe just truly in practice, are totally different.

So to set the foundation, let's get into some of the practices and principles of those nonprofits or those types of companies that we listed. So starting with me and my experience to again kind of give some context here, I've been at the non-profit game for at least 17 years, both as a volunteer and as an employee in a number of different roles for a really wide range of organizations. And my experience for working at the government also goes back about 20 years.

And that's ranging from local government-run parks departments to state departments to working with federal agencies as well. I call out the government here because the association of serving specific populations through certain programs, we're talking Social Security, we're talking Medicare, Medicaid, Office of Civil Rights, all of those types of things often parallel some of the companies that are serving this specific population or serving this specific role that we're talking about. Both of these can often be put in these other buckets, separate from traditional businesses.

It's what we're getting at here. I'm going to focus on charities, non-profit entities, and also some government agencies. Often they get lumped into that same thought process or mentality.

So in that time period in working with those two kind of buckets of groups, I've heard so many different misconceptions, misunderstandings about both nonprofits and the government. I found that there's often some underlying themes to those types of things. So today, I'm going to focus on the use and efficiency of donations and taxpayer dollars.

I have found in my experience that both of those are assumed and expected to function differently from, again, what I've been referring to as traditional businesses. And quite often, it's stemming from this justification that's tied to the use of donations and or the use of taxpayer dollars, specifically when we're talking about government-related organizations. A common way to evaluate the legitimacy of a charity, at least in my experience, the things that I've heard, is simply by looking at the overhead rate.

And a common associated talking point there, and often we'll say criticism, surrounds administrative salaries. The amount of times that I have heard the phrase, well, I want to make sure that my donation goes directly to the clients served, is astronomical. On the surface, and also if I'm trying to put my brain into the position of an outsider, that's a thoughtfully responsible statement. But in reality, in practice and function, that is a deeply flawed, and the result is often counterintuitive to the sentiment. So, I'm going to get into that. So, an example of that similar sentiment of, I want to make sure my donation, I want to make sure my taxpayer dollars go directly to the clients served, can be found in the Notice of the Director of the National Institute of Health, as of recording on February 10th, 2025. That position is being held by an acting director with a different appointee awaiting confirmation by the US Senate. I'm providing all those contexts because things are rapidly changing, and I just want to make sure that the specifics that I'm going to talk about are noted within this current context. So, this notice that I'm going to talk about here was published late in the day on Friday, February 7th, three days ago, and contains updated guidance for indirect cost rates associated with government grants for research purposes.

So, again, I'm going to provide some context. Some of you, this is super common knowledge. You know all this information. I'm going to dig into this for a hot second here for those that might not be as familiar. So, as of right now, February 10th, 2025, there are 27 different institutes and centers under the National Institute of Health. That includes National Cancer Institute, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. And again, a complete list of all of these institutes and centers are found at nih.gov under an Institutes at NIH tab. It's right there on the home page. There you can also access, at least as of right now, a tab called Grants and Funding. That'll give you a ton more information than I will go in here. We'll try to focus a little bit. But if you're looking for more information and you want to dig into that, I will not be linking directly to any of those sites or anything else that I am going to reference later when it comes to the government kind of communication right now. But it's only because there is such a rapidly changing environment when it comes to access of government websites right now that the last thing that I want to do is give you a specific link that within a day or a week or a year or whatever is no longer directly linked to what I'm talking about. However, I will kind of walk you through. So even if it's located at a different place, at a different web address or something like that, hopefully we'll still be able to navigate to those things because they're publicly available for everyone again at this current time.

So back to this notice. If you want to look it up, the notice number for it is NOT-OD-25-068. This notice specifically does a few different things. It caps the indirect cost rate awarded to federal grants for research purposes to 15 percent, regardless of the entity receiving the grant award, and regardless of the nature of the grant-funded effort. It cites, specifically, quote, the United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go to the direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead. Does that sound familiar? I want to make sure that my donation goes directly to the client served. Very similar sentiments here. The final sentence ends with stating that the NIH believes that it has the authority to retroactively apply this cap to the initial date of awards. So that's potentially going back many, many years. It does say it does not attend to do it right now, but it believes that it has the authority to do so. And then it cites the Code of Federal Regulations. Again, I'm not linking directly to those things because access has been changing so fast, but historically both the CFR, which is the Code of Federal Regulations, and these notices as well as policies, guidelines, grant funding notices, all of those two things, or all of those things, are historically publicly available, often found on those government websites.

I will also as a footnote here say that in my time being in this world, this specific notice uses languages that is unlike any policy or notice that I have ever seen. Most are exceptionally dry, and this one has a very different tone and a very different vibe. That's not really a fact-based thing, but I do just want to note that, so if you're interested, it's not terribly long. I would recommend looking that up. You can also maybe look up some past notices, so you can make some comparisons. Maybe go back a year or two or ten or whatever you want, but just note that that's there and that's in the zeitgeist of what's going on.

It also cites nine different foundations with current indirect cost rates, which kind of commonly known in the field, we call it an IDC rate, that currently have IDC rates that are 15% or lower. And although, again, I won't go into that too much at this time, it's just outrageous that it is not so subtle attempt to pit organizations against one another. I'm not saying that any of those nine organizations are not doing quality work, or not have anything bad to say about them.

This is not evaluating any of the effectiveness of any of those agencies, nor any of them that are not named. There's also some higher ed institutes and other places named specifically in that notice as well. I'll also note that this notice in particular says that these costs are, quote, difficult for the NIH to oversee. Again, I'm going to get into the minutia of this for just a quick minute. For a lot of you, this is common knowledge. For a big group of you, it's also not common knowledge because you don't live in, like, work and breathe in this world all the time.

But let's just talk about applications for government funding. This is also very common for applications for private funding if you're talking about a charity going for a grant for a homeless youth shelter or a mental illness program or whatever set is building of an inclusive program or inclusive playground, but also programs. Yeah, that works too.

It's a common practice when you apply for a grant, you say, this is what I'm going to do. This is my timeline for when I'm going to do it. And here's my budget for what I'm asking for.

And then how I'm going to spend that money. If we talk specifically again about NIH grant funding, those often, if not exclusively, require detailed budgets. Sometimes, specifically, if you're getting a contract funded research effort from the NIH, there's requirements that can be as detailed as possible is numbering the number of boxes of gloves that you would use. And every single one of those boxes of gloves is a different line item. Separately, there's also a written narrative that is required that provides a justification for every single line item in that budget. Where in order to get awarded that grant that you're applying for, you have to justify how every single one of those line items will be used specifically for your research project.

Sometimes, they'll go as far as you may be required to provide actual screen shots that say, here is the website for that retailer. This is the current price of that box of gloves or whatever that is. Or if it's a large piece of equipment, you'll have to provide multiple quotes from different manufacturers to back up and justify the cost of that item that you're requesting funding for.

Further, if your application for that grant gets awarded, it is common practice, again, not just research, not just from a federal agency, but it's also common practice for those private foundations or any other entity from which a charity is requesting funding for. It's common that those awards are cost reimbursable. There are some instances where funding is given ahead of time. So you're written a check for $25,000 that says, hey, you said that you're gonna do this, go forth. Here's your $25,000 ahead of time. Or sometimes you've negotiated with whoever the funder is to provide a portion of that funding on a previously agreed upon schedule. It's all gonna be outlined within your award or your contract or your grant notice. Again, depending on what vehicle we're talking about. If it is in this case of the NIH, a researcher, the researchers institute, or if we're talking about a charity organization as well.

They'll kind of parallel, although the details or the things that they will be called, the nomenclature might differ a little bit. So, if we're going to go back to research funding, the most grants are awarded on a cost reimbursable basis. And so, that means that the agency receiving the award, the institute, whether it is a university, a nonprofit organization, a government organization, an industry partner, they are spending the money ahead of time.

But based upon the budget that was previously approved, providing that proof that that money has been spent and then invoicing the government for costs already incurred. And make that note because of the ending sentence of that notice that says that there's potential for this agency that says that they have authority to retroactively apply this. So even if you have a grant award or a grant contract, you've already spent the money, invoiced, been reimbursed payment.

According to this, they have the authority to go back and retroactively apply and ask for those funds back. Again, commonplace within all of this across charities, across grant funding when it comes to research institutes and these kinds of things. I have seen across the board and all of those different places, instances where either the funder will look and see and say, hey, I don't believe that this is in line with what we have agreed upon. I'm either not paying you back for that or during an audit that often happens on an annual basis on both the funding side and the fundee side. Yeah, as they're going through and they're double checking anything, if anything seems out of line, that will be corrected. That is normal practice for any of this umbrella that we're talking about here, both research and non-profit funds.

So let's go back to indirect cost rates and just kind of talk specifically about that. So the indirect cost, the IDC rates when it comes to the NIH's notice that we talked about in that example is similar in thought, theory, practice, implementation to the charities overhead costs. These costs, no matter what we call it, depending on what lens we're looking at it, these costs are typically associated with administrative and support staff salaries and benefits, including benefits for all employees, even those that are thought of as those direct providers of the service or researcher, again, depending on whatever field we're talking about. Equipment upkeep and maintenance and depreciation. Those kind of utility costs, like costs to keep the lights on in the roof overhead of what's going on. In research specifically, it could include costs associated with human and animal subject safety. Support service costs could include things like recruiting for the scientists that will actually be conducting the experiments and working in the labs and interfacing with patients. Again, like I said, benefits for all of those employees. Financial and accounting staff to manage the invoicing, financial forecasting, payroll, to make sure that those scientists or those providers of direct services, if we're looking at it from a charity perspective, to make sure all of those folks are getting paid. It could also include the procurement experts that are well-versed in federal spending guidelines that include all of these thresholds for when a set number of competitive bids or quotes are needed prior to actually purchasing that item. Even if it was agreed upon and approved within that grant award. Again, both sides, not just research, but also when we're talking about private foundations.

These things can vary depending on who your funder is. Again, federal government versus a private foundation. And oftentimes, they are outlined, or not often, they are outlined specifically in detail in whatever that vehicle for your funding is. So your award, your contract, your notice of approval, whatever that is, it'll look different depending on what we're really talking about. But in general, these overhead or IDC costs are gonna be these types of things. I bring that up that there's a lot of variability, because also included in that is, if we're again, we're gonna talk grant research, grant administration experts, people who their entire career is knowing the ins and outs of these things. They've worked in that field before, and ensuring that those awards and those contracts are being abided by. I used to tell myself when I was working with researchers, my job is to make sure that you don't get in trouble. My job is to make sure that you continue to have a job. And charities, it might also include fundraising staff. Those professionals that have a specific skill set, for example, connecting large donors with tax incentives to be able to encourage a mutually beneficial situation there where your donor gets a tax break or a write-off or depending on what a tax credit in certain situations to encourage them to donate. They also often have a specific skill set that's almost like a matchmaker. Like you build all these relationships with donors, companies, whoever that is that's potentially going to donate to the community. Again, a great thing. I never want to downplay any of those types of actions. But matching those potential donors with the programs that are in line with their interests. So much of fundraising is also a common misconception. Again, I've worked in fundraising both as a volunteer and as an employee in all different capacities. Fundraising is just all about continuously asking people for money. Hey, will you give me $5? Hey, will you give us $1,000? Hey, will you do this? A lot of party planning. Those things are an actual you know, like all these things that we're talking about, there is an actual element of truth to that. That is a portion of the job. However, beyond that, I would always describe fundraisers truly as matchmakers. You find people, you find those interests, you find ways to be like, oh, I think this is a match.

Let's talk about how we can both get something out of it. And sometimes that something is just a warm and fuzzy feeling that you did something good for the community. That's also great, but that's a part of being a fundraiser is like getting to know those people and also knowing the programs that you're working for and finding good matches there.

Again, I go down that rabbit hole to tell you that like, those are all things that are considered those overhead or IDC costs, again, depending on what we're talking about here. And that detailed context is important because while the intention may be well-meaning, in these activities, regardless of whether or not they're getting funded, they are needed to function. And without these costs covered, those that are directly participating in the funding activity, again, we're talking researchers and scientists or doctors, if we're talking about grant research funding, your providers, if you're talking about charity, you know, the people running your homeless youth shelter, the people interacting with clients on a daily basis, whatever that is, people building your inclusive playground and designing it, and all of those things. Those are direct costs. Without your support services, all of those behind the scenes things that I just mentioned, that means that your direct folks will have to do those things. They still have to happen. People still have to get paid. Payroll has to be run. You still have to write and turn in reports on a certain deadline. You still have to make sure that you're filling out of all of the appropriate regulatory paperwork. You still have to make sure that your employees are getting benefits. That money has to come from somewhere, and those activities have to still happen.

And if you take those direct providers, and they're the ones that now have to do that, you are actually taking them away from doing that direct activity. So while again, on the surface, this I want to make sure that my taxpayer dollars is being spent directly to clients, I want to make sure my donation is being spent directly on clients. It's so well-meaning and it's so well-intentioned, but in practice, what often, almost always happens is you're taking away and you're providing less, and I would argue significantly less, quality and time actually providing services to your clients or conducting your research or whatever that activity is that's in the mission of the program, the grant-funded research award, whatever that is.

Further, without the leverage, for example, of one financial manager overseeing multiple or all projects or programs within an organization simultaneously, we're creating duplicative work by taking those individuals with less experience, in this case, financial experience, and the specifics of financial management, that activity will likely take longer, cost more money to cover the additional time, and further reducing the impact of the donation in the taxpayer dollar. Oftentimes, especially right now, if we're talking about the NIH, this is done under the guise of the efficiency of your dollars. So the point that I'm trying to take home is these actions that are being taken often are counterintuitive and are well done under this tagline of government efficiencies or making sure your dollar is serving your client most, it's actually doing the exact opposite, but at a more substantial rate.

So similarly, let's look at salary cost. While the idea of making sure that your donations and your taxpayer dollars don't go to these exorbitant salaries, that is responsible. It will not argue anyone on that. On the service, 100% is responsible to make sure that you are not wasting your money. You're not just lining the pockets of people, specifically if you are being led to believe that clients are being served, the good is being done, again, whatever the mission of the organization that we're talking about is here. But the context in a deeper look is important.

So again, we'll talk salaries of places, or salaries of people that are working in these agencies, these different organizations. I would argue that if you truly want your donation or your taxpayer dollar to do the most good, the organization must have competitive salaries and benefits to attract qualified staff to serve out the mission. Without that, you typically have higher turnover, so you're further costing more money, so you can recruit, fill, train. There's going to be lost time. You're probably going to have to do some duplicative work to fill in the gap there. You've got less qualified staff.

Again, there are some people out there that maybe don't need a salary. Maybe that's not, that does exist. So there are going to be outliers to all of this, but as a whole, if you have lower salaries and lower benefits, you're often attracting less qualified staff, reducing effectiveness of services and the quality, provide quality of research if we're talking about this NIH example, less outreach to your actual client served, and all around less effectiveness and less efficiency.

So again, on the surface saying, I want to make sure that my dollar is not going to exorbitant salaries. Yeah, 100% totally exist. Yet, we have to be thoughtful about really digging a little bit further into the context of this to make sure that in order to provide a quality of service and really like following through on the mission there, you need to make sure that you've got those quality staff and you're maintaining them again so that they can more effectively do their job, serving more of clients, making sure that whatever your mission is, whatever your stated purpose is, that you're actually doing that.

So again, well, on the surface, nonprofits and government entities may seem to exist in these completely separate buckets as traditional businesses. In order for them to truly and effectively carry out their respective purposes, they must operate much more similarly to these quote, traditional businesses than commonly thought. But again, context matters.

This is complicated. There are so many different layers to all of this. So in the first Capitalism for Good interview, Sheena Masterson, one of her many businesses that she has, is a nonprofit organization called Kentucky IEP Advocate, and that currently in the state operates, at almost 0% overhead rate.

That's because the operation is relatively small, right now, in this current moment, February 10th, 2025. But should she eventually have a building to meet clients in, or pay for an administrative staff to help her manage communications? Even if we're talking about a relatively small amount, even if we're talking about $15,000 to $20,000 annually to cover the cost of a building, and any of those kind of utility cost, plus a very minimal administrative support staff person to help her. In a current small operation such as hers, that would take that 0% overhead rate that she's currently operating around, and that would shoot that up to potentially 50 plus percent or more. But because of the nature of the services that she is providing and the things that she's doing within her mission and purpose, a 50% increase in the overhead rate for that organization could potentially and would likely potentially, based upon her structure, allow her to serve an increase, and I'm talking like 100, 200 plus or more clients. So 50% overhead rate, an increase of 50% to her overhead rate, those things are kind of on par with one another right now, would exponentially increase the amount of clients that she is serving. So your ROI on that donation would change significantly. Just looking at budget in dollars and cents, that overhead rate looks and appears to be significant. However, what she's doing is just like leaps and bounds is different. This example, what she would be doing by just like delegating her expertise to someone helping manage communication and also covering for a place for her to meet clients would allow her to do so many increased group advocacy sessions. That's a big part of that like expansion on the ROI. Or developing free resources. That's one of the things she's doing. Free resources that are available to everyone globally. Things that are free access to resources that she has created on her website. Advice that she's given, podcast going into like teaching people how to walk through the system. That's a one time thing that can be shared with everyone that's completing her mission. So, just the, I bring all of that because like it's important.

Context is important. While in one situation, it's potentially harmful, in this situation, it's potentially huge. And just looking at an overhead rate is not telling you your whole story.

Going back again to the NIH example, if we're going to talk about the difference between overhead rates, like in a charity like Shannon's Kentucky IEP Advocate, if we're going to talk about government agencies, specifically those that are associated with research practices, that IDC rate is actually a set rate by a cognizant agency. That's a third party agency. It's a rate that is negotiated with the federal government typically on an annual basis.

So that's already set. Again, not really the type of detail that we get into when we're talking about like public education. Like we're really getting into like the nitty-gritty of how these organizations work.

So ultimately, I understand that the tagline of directing your donations or your taxpayer dollar to direct services and the desire for an efficient use of those dollars. But let's talk about the functionality of those dollars and not just the propaganda based upon these hyperbolic taglines. It is much more complex than just there's a high rate and therefore it's a waste of dollars.

Another footnote to this entire NIH situation is that guidance has the potential to hit institutes like higher ed and hospitals, significantly higher rate than some other organizations. And that impact also has the potential to spread well beyond research activities of those institutions. Again, this is complex in the context of the purpose and the structure and the function of each of these organizations on an individual basis is important because at the same time that those institutes might be just, if we're going to be frank, like just destroyed by this, there are others that won't feel it at all. They won't see an impact at all. But again, it depends on the nature and the purpose and the functionality of each of these different organizations from all different ways that you look at it. 

So I could go on and on about that all of these things forever. So just hit me up if you want to dig into this deeper on an individual basis or you want me to kind of dig into this more at a different time. But just to wrap this up, context, functionality and the details matter. If you're talking about truly making sure the stated purpose is met, specifically when it comes to utilizing taxpayer dollars and donations for these types of organizations.

Further, while it seems like they're in totally different buckets when we're talking about like who exists where and what they do, nonprofit organizations, community-focused organizations, for-profit community-based organizations, government organizations. It might seem like those are all in totally separate buckets from this quote unquote traditional business model. In fact, they're not that different.

And there's probably some things that each of those can learn from one another if we kind of mush it all together and break down some of these barriers and silos from within them. So, okay, moving on to what I'm reading and watching and learning right now. I just finished Malcom Gladwell's Revenge of the Tipping Point. I read this book in three days. I started it on Friday and finished it on Sunday while I was traveling to visit some friends. And it just, I don't know about you all, but I can very often get discouraged, overwhelmed, frustrated by the state of our world, what's going on, especially things that might seem out of my control. Even with Capitalism for Good, I wonder often, will this resonate with other people? It's something that I passionately truly believe that needs to be talked about and has some potential to get some momentum, to truly make some change, and ultimately make a difference in our world and our future. And there are times that I really question, like, am I doing any of this? Am I just talking into a microphone, into a blank space, and no one's paying attention to any of this? Am I just writing all of this down and, like, one of my end goals is to put the lessons learned in the themes from all of these business leaders into a book form, so folks like me that are avid readers could potentially read versus those that are avid podcast listeners, or video watchers, or blog readers, or what that is, like, just ultimately would love to put that into a different package for more and more people to just have available to them, should that be something that they're interested in. And there's so many times that I'm like, it doesn't mean anything at all. But the examples that he has in not just Revenge of the Tipping Point, but also his first kind of like, I guess I'll call it like a prelude to it, called Tipping Point, gives me hope that there is potential for positive change that can start with just like one singular action, maybe something that might be like a seemingly small or insignificant action, can in fact like grow and be a tipping point for some kind of positive change. 

So that also brings me to my, I'm not telling you what to do, but here's where I am putting my dollar. Travel. Travel to visit friends and family, travel to cities, travel to nature, travel for work, travel to see new places, travel to go see my favorite places. I, as a person and as a human, love to just geographically change my location. It just really fills my cup. It is also important to me to spend quality time with my friends and my family. Throughout my life, I have moved around a number of times. I've moved closer and further away from friends and family. I've met people and developed relationships with them, and all of these different places that I've lived. There are places that I geographically really feel at home and really love, and they're different from where my people live. And so for me, it's really important to travel to them, spend quality time, fill up my cup that way. It's also really important to me for me, it's changing geographic locations, being around different types of people, different cultures, different environment. And that really helps to shift my perspective and to open up my mind a little bit more than I would imagine that I would be if I were to just stay in one place, stay in my one circle, and those kinds of things. And that is something that is, again, really important to me and also provides a lot of value. I use the term again, fills up my cup a lot. So, there is that, all right? That is enough.

Let's go leave this place better than we found it.