Accelerating Systems Change  Making Possibility Real | SkollWF 2019

– Good morning. My name is Richard Fahey and
I’m with the Skoll Foundation. And I am excited and
privileged to introduce this morning’s panel on
accelerating systems change, making possibility real. This session brings together
proven systems change leaders within social entrepreneurship
and philanthropy. The panelists will
explore how systems change unearths the root causes of
critical societal challenges and gathers a wide range
of actors and collaborators to make a lasting impact. Now before we get to systems change, I need to talk about some behavior change. Please silence your mobile
phones, that’s first. Second, please wait for a
microphone before speaking when we get to the Q and A. We are filming this session
and can not hear your questions unless you speak into the microphone. The session is scheduled to end at 11:15 and after the session,
please take a few seconds to fill out these forms,
and there’s three questions. You can add a fourth one rating the quality of the introducer. Okay, session over. The delegate led sessions start at 11:45. If you’re going to attend one of those, we recommend that you pick up lunch and go to the session. You can eat there and there’s a little bit of time afterwards also. So with that, I’ll introduce
our esteemed moderator, Sally Osberg, who is
the founding president of the Skoll Foundation. And Sally and I worked
together for 14 years. I just have to say, I and
others have had countless riveting, challenging,
insightful conversations with Sally, we’re all in for a treat. Thank you. – Thank you. Thank you Richard. May I just ask all of you
to give Richard a round of applause, because Richard
acted as interim president. And it was truly an act
of service and love. But let’s just dive in. We’re here for accelerating
systems change, making possibility real. And let’s start by making systems real. How many of you took a flight to get here to the UK and Oxford? Most of you. How many of you actually looked
in that seat pocket in front of you and pulled out
the card to make sure you weren’t on a Boeing
737 MAX 8, how many of you? Okay, a few of you. You know they’re all grounded, but we wanna make sure, right? Well, there’s an example
of a system that you were encountering and of course
every day we all engage with and encounter myriad and multiple systems. But this one is an example
of a very complex system. You, of course, are a customer. You’re a customer of an airline. An airline is a customer
of a manufacturer, and the manufacturer has
designers and engineers and a whole host of folks. But we rely upon the checks
and safety regulators and everybody else who has
responsibility in that system for securing our safety,
for getting us here, for getting us here safely. And we know, of course, that
we now know if we didn’t already, we know there’s
some flaws in this system. So how many of you think
that this wake up call for the system is going to result in permanent enduring change? Okay, not very many. Well, that makes my point. Systems change is hard. And all the incentives keep the system in a status quo mode
and resistant to change. So each of these esteemed folks here is going to be able to
speak to those challenges, to that aspiration, to the
real on-the-ground challenges, and the importance of the work. And just allow me, before we
dive in, to talk a little bit about systems change as the
new buzzword in philanthropy or buzz phrase in philanthropy. But in fact, there’s
nothing new about systems and systems change and the
work of the heart enduring, you know, arc work of systems change. It’s long-term work. It doesn’t turn on a dime. And it’s the work that we are all doing. At the Skoll World Forum,
we begin with a premise and that premise is that
social entrepreneurs aspire to and create models
designed to change systems. We have an awful lot of
wonderful people in the world who engage in acts of social
purpose and social service and social activism,
but social entrepreneurs are after the big prize and that big prize is enduring systems change. We have a remarkable,
remarkable panel here of folks who actually know
what they’re talking about because they have been in those systems. They understand the context,
they understand the culture. They have been of those systems, so their legitimacy is
fantastic and unrivaled. Jun, Ma Jun, of course is the founder of the Institute for Public
and Environmental Affairs based in Beijing. Remarkable legacy of working
with the Chinese government and corporations to return China to blue skies and clear water. And how about that
beautiful blue sky we had coming, walking over here today? It was beautiful, wasn’t it? And it’s a rare thing when you
see that blue sky in China, but that’s the aspiration. Safeena Husain cut her teeth
as a development professional working in the field. She also has a really rich
background in economic history at LSE and she founded Educate
Girls, which based in Mumbai, to actually crack the code on the problem of girl’s education and
ultimately of the illiteracy challenge in India, which
is the greatest rate of illiteracy in the world. Marc Freedman, long time
friend, has been at the work of intergenerational wisdom
knowledge sharing engagement for almost his entire
career, including when he was a lot younger, so this is long term work. Founder of multiple,
multiple organizations, beginning with the Experience Corps and most recently Encore. He’s the originator of the
idea of an encore career, of the purpose prize. He’s founded a campaign
and he’s the author of five really wonderful books,
including this most recently published book, How To Live
Forever: The Enduring Power of Connecting the Generations. So we’re gonna talk with him
about this intergenerational work that is gonna unlock
our potential as a society. And finally we Olivia
Leland and her bonafides come from her work in her work as the person who
actually pulled together The Giving Pledge and made that work, brought more people in to
that fold of committing themselves to philanthropy. And she reminds me that she
also worked in government and so she has a very rich
career that prepared her to do this phenomenal work
she’s doing with collaborative change making through Co-Impact. So, I think you’ll agree we
have a great lineup here. A remarkable, remarkable set of people. And we’re gonna now put them on the spot. I will ask an opening question. We’ll engage in some follow
up questions and conversation. And then we will go
into questions from you and then finally we’ll wrap
up and get you on your way to the next exciting session. So, with that, let me begin with Safeena and I’d like to ask each of the panelists to reflect on the system
they are trying to change. We believe, in this forum,
that to change anything, you really have to understand it. And that understanding just doesn’t come like a light bulb moment,
it comes over time. But we all have to draw
the boundaries some where to change these systems. And so I’m gonna ask
Safeena to describe for us the status quo that she
encountered in India and she decided was unacceptable
and ripe for change. Safeena. – Thank you Sally. So if I, I’ll start really broadly. So India sort of ranks one of the worst in a lot of gender indicators. We have the highest number
of out-of-school girls, we have the highest
number of child brides, highest number of women
and girls trafficked. And obviously at the
heart of this is a social, economic, and mindset issues. So when I wanted to sort of change this, this is a huge problem and
it’s really broad based. What are you going to
go against? Patriarchy. You want to build equity. It’s highly complex and interconnected and really difficult. So the lens that we took
was very much saying girl’s education is one point from where you can
start that can create and you can accelerate impact. And girl’s education, we
sort of looked from that lens because it helps you
to solve nine of the 17 sustainable development goals. Climate scientists rated
number six out of 80 actions to reverse global warming. There’s just so many
things that you can do by educating girls and you
really build and accelerate towards equity at a societal level. But again, you know, it still leaves the problem really, really huge. India’s a country of a billion people. Where are you going to start? It has 650,000 villages. Where exactly do you go
to be able to accelerate and really make change possible? And so we went to the government
and we said, you know, give us your worst areas. Where do you think the
problem’s most acute? And they gave us a list of 26
critical gender gap districts of which nine were in Rajasthan, so we found ourselves in Rajasthan. And that’s when the
real work kind of began. We went door-to-door to
find every single girl that’s out of school,
creating an army of community volunteers with government
support to really bring each and every one of those
girls back into school. We’ve been using data and
technology and because it’s such a heavy duty approach, we go
to every single household. So thousands of villages. It’s like boots on the
ground, you cover it. And over time, we’ve realized,
it’s that further scoping of the problem, we’ve realized
that out of school girls tend to be concentrated
in certain geographies. And now with our smart phone
and our data and tech approach, we’ve actually come to this
point that 5% of villages in India have 40% of
the out of school girls. This is huge, because it means
that over the next five years if we really focus and
really take an evidence built model, a model that really shows results, we can actually solve 40% of the problem. And therefore you can close the gender and literacy gap forever. And I think that’s sort
of starting thinking about the system you want
to change and then sort of bringing all the actors
together and then kind of narrowing it down to a
point where you can really accelerate the impact that you wanna see. – And nobody gave you the
blueprint for that system. You had to get in there and figure out some of these things for yourself, in partnership with
government, but it didn’t begin with a hot house plan, it
began with an appreciation for the system and then you got to it and the learning unfolded along the way. Is that fair? – Yeah, so I think when we
started was very common sense. Education had played a big part in my life and even though I’d grown
in poverty and with a lot of violence and abuse
and all the rest of it, education had tipped everything to a very different point for me. So when I started, it was very
simple saying I want to find every girl that’s out of
school, I want to make sure she’s in school, staying, and learning. So it starts from that common sense piece, the change that you really
want to see at the individual level and then like you
said, everything kind of, you learn along the way. – You learn along the way
and you have to be alert because that feedback from
communities is critical. – Your vision of success
should be really clear. If I close my eyes, I
know what is a success, what does success look like. It’s an out of school girl
and she’s now in her school uniform and she’s in
classroom and learning. – That’s fantastic, yes. Another massive, massive, massive system, massive country, massive population, massive economic and
development progress since 1980. You know, highest rate
of poverty alleviation and development in the
world and in history, China. And so that China, that story
of course came at a cost. And this is a gentleman
who woke up one day and said this cost has been, is really too much and
has to be addressed. So Jun, tell us how you
started to scope that problem of the Chinese environment and pollution and decided to go at it. – Thank you Sally. Yeah, the last 40 years have
seen tremendous growth in China helping pull out hundreds
of millions of people out of poverty, but as
you said, it’s also a vast increase of pollution discharge
have also contaminated our air, water, and soil and coastal sea, expose hundreds of millions. – [Sally] Can everybody hear Jun? Can you hear him? Okay.
– Can you hear me? – He has a lot to say and
he’s quite soft spoken, so. – Okay, I try to speak louder. – Good, good. – And yeah, expose hundreds
of millions to health hazards. Over the past 20 years
during my path to study and try to address this
issue, I gradually realized that this has, it’s not
just the lack of technology or even money, you know. We have a system gap there in
our environmental management. Basically, the past 40 years,
we continued to copy laws and regulations on environment protection from the western countries, but the enforcement
has not quite followed. In the west, people go to the court. You know, NGOs go to the
court to drive enforcement, but our judicial system has
yet to function like that. So we lack the means. We can’t simply copy the
western model on that. And I happen to believe,
gradually I believe that it must be come from a extensive
public participation if we want to address
issues of such a magnitude and a lot of complexity,
because it’s not just our environmental agencies
wouldn’t want to enforce. Behind them it’s the local
government who’s job reveal, basically, job performance is
rated by the GDP growth rate, almost like solely for many years. No surprise, they put GDP growth rate ahead of the environmental protection. And so it’s very hard
for us to address that. I trust that we need
extensive participation, but people must be informed. That’s the prerequisite. So in the year 2006, three
of us decided to form, to build IPE and started creating a national database, pollution. We take advantage of the vast
development of IT technology so we can be ambitious to do
that, you know, three of us. But there’s a catch. In China, data can be
quite sensitive, you know. That’s another issue of our system. Back, you know, more than 10
years ago, it was even more sensitive, when you can believe that. Only 2008 when air quality data
started to be quite shared. Before that it’s almost like a secret. And so where can we find the data? Whatever, we started browsing
and compiling whatever data we can manage to put together. So the first year we got
2000 records of violations. 2000 violators. We managed to put them together. But that’s for a country
with millions of factories. That’s way too little,
and so we decided that to create an index with our partner in RDC called Pollution Information
Transparency Index. I used that assess the
performance of 120 major cities in China, not just to identify the gaps, but also help them to compare notes and to learn from best practice. And gradually, we see the
expansion of transparency along with rising recognition in China. In the first year, 2000 records
and 2016, we got 60,000. ’17, we got 160, and last year
it got doubled from there. So now, with that more
than a million records and it give us the chance to try to engage with many, many factories in China. – And this was a big bet
on transparency and data and information and informed citizens. But you had a wonderful
phrase about transparency that you shared with me
and I wondered if you could just say a little bit more about that. It was, well, let me
read a quote from you. You said “transparency
still seems as subordinate “to regulation, but it’s
of greater importance.” So radical, was it radical transparency? I can’t remember. It was something really profound. – Yeah, we did discuss about that issue. I mentioned about we copy
laws and regulations. It’s quite there, but
the enforcement, I trust, it’s even more important. But when you try to drive enforcement, you have to toolkits. But in China, I just give one example. The reason we push transparency
to a disruptive level in China is because we
lack the other toolkits. For example, 2013, we along
with a group of 25 other NGOs launched the Total Transparency Initiative calling for the online monitoring data, the automatic monitoring data
to be disclosed real time. Nothing like this happened
in the world ever, so we thought it gonna take many years. But at that moment, the
Chinese government also vowed to the public voice on the internet to address the air pollution
issue, the smog issue in China. So to our surprise, the required
this to happen from 2014. And we happen to build, I
trust that on 30 different platforms that easy to
have them, to access them. So we built a blue map
app, helping everyone to use their mobile
phone to access this data but also share that data. When we access this data, there’s one, there’s hundreds of polluting
factories every hour not in compliance and one
of them is a major state listed company and a steel
plant, steel manufacturer. When we engage with it,
there’s a list of companies, it’s not important to us, and as an NGO, we can not do very much like in the west or even probably in India. So we can’t do much. But our users, our app users,
continue to use our app to report that the neighborhood
continue to report that, attacking the official
account, Twitter account, or Weibo account, over and over again, until one moment there’s an
open response from the agency saying that we require that
company to change behavior. And after half a year, three
shut off their furnaces, have been shut down,
resulting in a reduction of not just 2600 tons
of sulfur every year, about 400 tons of particulates. That’s 400 trillion micrograms of PM2.5 or the fine particles, which
the most damaging component of our smog problem. – Bravo. So the phrase was disruptive transparency. And I think that was the bet you made and here you’re seeing
evidence that it is disrupting this incredible status quo. Olivia, let’s turn to you and
the funder perspective here. You came in with a thesis
that there had to be more collaboration in the
sector if we were ever going to have a go at these
systems and driving real change, but how do you get comfortable? You’ve made your first
round of grants now, how do you get comfortable that the system is actually well enough
understood and scoped by the people you’re preparing to fund? – Well, first I’ll say I’m
just so delighted to be here, with you Sally, and with this
great panel and all of you. I think, for me, the forum is
also very special personally because of the many
conversations that I’ve had here over the years,
which actually influenced the design of Co-Impact. And I was thinking, before
coming on this panel, that just down the hall
from here a few years back, I had a conversation with
one of the Skoll awardees who basically was bemoaning to me saying exactly to your point,
Sally, that there’s so much discussion of systems
change, it is a buzzword, we hear all about it, but why
is more funding not designed in such a way to support systems change. And so it was through those conversations that Co-Impact was born
because, really, our goal is to bring together
a community of funders that are focused on
supporting systems change. So what is it that we look for? It really is about everything
that’s already been discussed here, which is finding
efforts, to Safeena’s point, there’s a vision of success,
not necessarily a full plan to get there because systems
change is complex and messy. But a start of that and also
crucially there’s an idea or an approach that has been proven at already a significant scale. And there’s a coalition of
actors that have come together involving government, as well as others that are really involved in the system. And coming together to work
towards that vision of success. The other key piece here is
that, I know we have a lot of conversations about it, what do we mean by systems change? But you can’t take on the full system. And so what does that mean? Our focus is around education, health, and economic opportunity. Within that, each of the
initiatives that we’re supporting really picks something
that they’re focusing on. And so, we’ve been
describing that as the lever or the fulcrum in the system
that can have a huge impact. Whether that’s around learning outcomes, whether that’s around looking
for knowledge in health care, whether it’s around community health. Really sort of what is it that could then have a huge impact overall on the system. And that’s what we look
for in what we support. – And I hope as we engage
in discussion here, we’re gonna be able to talk
about some of the critiques of philanthropy because
you were actually trying to address some of those very critiques, but the volume has gone way up
on critiques of philanthropy and you’re having brought
together so many highly visible philanthropists and highly visible and reasonably successful organizations. I think you are already in
the hot seat, so to speak. So we’ll talk a little bit
more about that as we go on. Marc, Marc and I are the two
elders holding down this, holding down this session. But you’ve done this work for many years to bring about the healthier
intergenerational constructs communities relationships
that will bring about I think a healthier society. But if demography is
supposed to be destiny and many believe the
coming years will be full of animosity between the generations, how do you decide where
the boundaries are? You know, I’m a Baby Boomer,
card carrying Baby Boomer. One of that burden of 65 plus
million on the US economy, not even a drag coefficient, just a drag. So how do we turn this ship around, Marc? – I thought you were gonna tell me, Sally. It’s really interesting. One of the things that I
always come away from Skoll is kind of a better
understanding of my identity, you know, what it is
that I’m actually doing. I didn’t realize I was
a social entrepreneur until I came here and now
I didn’t realize that I was working on systems
change, but it really… It has actually been helpful. And you know, to your
point about the demography. We hear a lot about how much
longer people are living and about the number of
people who are growing older, one of the things that has
been less well appreciated is just the shift in
the make up of society. So in the United States this
year, it’s the first time ever in our country’s history
we have more people over 60 than under 18, so we’re pioneers. We’re leading this. And there’s been a lot of
consternation and hand wringing about it for good reason,
about what that could mean. But I am, I’ve been really
struck by this dissonance between the predictions of
what that demographic destiny is gonna mean and what human
evolution, human development tells us about the relationship
between older and younger people in particular that
the needs and the assets of the young and the old fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. So it turns out that there’s
a line that I’m fond of that the real fountain of youth
is the fountain with youth. That is what, connecting
with younger generations. It’s a big Harvard Adult
Development study that’s been going for 80 years and it’s
found that older people who connect with younger
people and form bonds with them are three times as likely to be happy as those who fail to do so. And George Vaillant, the
psychiatrist who led that study, says biology flows downhill. This is deep roots, so how
come this stuff doesn’t happen naturally in everyday life
to everybody’s benefit? And it’s taken me many decades to realize that it’s a systems problem. And it’s a shocking one in a way. America, the United States
began the 20th century as one of the most age-integrated
societies in the world and ended it as one of
the most age-segregated. So how is it that that happened? And it’s essentially a
new system was created. We reorganized society
along the lines of age. And we put young people
into education institutions, middle people into work places, and older people into
retirement communities and senior centers and nursing homes. And a lot of that was done for very admirable, justifiable
reasons, not just efficiency. Child labor laws led to
educational institutions. Social Security, the state
pension led to mass retirement and these other institutions,
but the end result is a society that’s not well prepared for these demographics. It’s kind of a grievous
wound in a lot of ways. Ageism, potential conflict,
kids versus canes. Loneliness, right, the two
loneliest groups in society we’re hearing so much
about, social isolation, is younger people and older people. And I think turning that
around really requires looking at the system that seems
like the oxygen in the air. It seems like it’s always
been this way, it’s natural. But in fact, it was created
in a short period of time by creative people who were
trying to do something usually for the better, but the collective result. So I think for us, one is
around mindset and culture. Rather than trying so hard to be young, we need to be there for
those who actually are. And I think we need to be
as creative around bringing people together in daily life
as we were around separating them out and that’s where
the social entrepreneurship and innovation comes into play. And so in a way, when you
realize, I think a lot of people don’t even realize that this
system of age segregation exists but once you do,
once you come to Skoll and you have your life explained to you, you then can kind of
look at how it happened. We created this culture, we
created these institutional arrangements, we rerouted
the river of life. How do we return it to its natural course? – Yeah, it’s an incredible
opportunity as well as this massive, massive, massive challenge. Olivia, let’s return to you and these critiques of philanthropy. Edgar Villanueva yesterday
talked about the colonization problem in philanthropy and that’s kind of the , if you will. How, and you’ve been on the hot seat. You’ve sat there with Anand Giridharadas and you’ve debated him, so
how are you responding to this and what do you think the
evidence is that philanthropy actually can be a healthy
catalyst for the kind of change that will actually make the
argument that it has a role to play in these larger social systems? – Well, so two things. First, I would say I
actually think that having this discussion around the
critique of philanthropy is a very good thing and
I think it’s good for us to be questioning how can philanthropy. And crucially, the second
piece, which is exactly what you said in your question, which was what is the role that philanthropy plays. Because I think the key
piece here is recognizing that philanthropy can’t be
the one driving change alone, ever, across history that
isn’t what we’ve seen. But really where we have
seen philanthropy playing a crucial role along with others. It’s really about coming together, whether it’s with government,
whether it’s really sort of putting the partners
that you’re supporting at the forefront of what
it is that you’re doing. And so I think what we need
to see more of is, and I think this is where collaboration
and philanthropy is so crucial because sometimes when we
talk about collaborative philanthropy, it’s talking
about funders coming together. But really, I think
collaborative philanthropy is about what role
philanthropy plays at one seat at the table along with others. And then recognizing that role. And crucially, it’s also about listening. And I think that’s where systems
change fits so clearly in with this which is in
order to actually be part of something which really
is driving systems change, you have to listen. And that’s important for
everybody in the system, but especially for
philanthropy to say what is it that we can do along with
others to be able to support that kind of change, which
we won’t be doing alone, but rather with others. – So, it’s early innings
for your work at Co-Impact. But are you already seeing
some signs of enlightenment among funders as they have
that one seat at the table with the social entrepreneurs
and with the members of communities and with
the other organizations who are with the governments
who are part of this? Are you seeing some evidence
that they are getting it? – I mean, I think absolutely. Many of the conversations
actually that I’ve had around what role should
philanthropy be playing and about this critique is
actually being with funders who are asking themselves these questions. I don’t think that’s true overall. I think there is a, but
there is a, for people, and actually the
philanthropists that are part of the Co-Impact community
of funders are all having that kind of question,
right, which is how is it that we can most
effectively support efforts at driving systems change. That being said, I think we need much more and I think that’s where
having these kinds of, I think the discussions in
themselves aren’t enough. So I actually think it needs to be about being able to show what is
it to come to the table, what does that look like, how do you actually partner with others, and then what does that
mean in terms of seeing much more effective
results as a result of it. Because I think that’s
what will then make it hook and get others to join in. – Yeah, the argument Paul Ylvisaker, who was one of the early presidents of Ford used to call philanthropy
society’s passing gear. And I think that idea
that I can be catalytic, that it should risk capital
that is more experimental and more tolerant of failure,
that it can play that role. And yet, one of the
critiques is for the major philanthropists is that
they go after the safe bets. – The one thing I would say
on the risk capital, please, is that I think sometimes
what, in philanthropy, people have taken risk capital
to mean is therefore only fund earlier stage pilot efforts. And so I think what’s exciting
is starting to see this role of philanthropy, also,
again as a seat at the table, and supporting efforts
that actually are proven, not at the systems level, but
that are and so what is it that you need to do in
terms of philanthropy to be playing that
bridge, obviously again, with government and other larger funders, to be able to support these
sorts of efforts as well. – Well, one of the
innovations in the field has been around financing this work. And the development impact
bond has been a piece of that conversation and a piece of
that experimental zeitgeist. Safeena, you actually
created the first development impact bond and I won’t
share the punchline of this experience, but
I will ask you to reflect on some of your insights post-experience on the role of these vehicles. – Thank you Sally for that one. So I want to start with
what was the intention of the development impact bond. So as Educate Girls
was scaling and we went from 50 schools to 500
schools to 5000 schools, the thing that worried me
most was that as you scale and you get to thousands
and you’re hitting millions, you’re working with millions of children, are you still having the
same level of impact? Is the value at the same
for the millionth girl you’re going to work with
versus 10 girls where you can actually see what’s changing? So the idea was that if you
had a payment by results contract, and if you could
tie money to pure results, would you be able to then
build an organization that had delivery to impact in its DNA. That’s the intention of
actually planning something and then the piece was
will this allow new money to then also come in. As social impact bonds had
done that philanthropic capital could have become risk capital and you could have been
paid back and you know, government money would
have purchased the outcomes and therefore it would have also become more performance oriented. So that was all of the intention
and because it had never been done in education,
social impact bonds, and they never been done
outside of the US, the UK, sort of first world countries. And most people were like
maybe it can’t be done in a place like India where
there isn’t good quality data and there isn’t, you
know, all of those pieces. So I think that’s just
the context of the bond. Got paid on two outcomes,
enrollment of out of school girls as verified by a third
party and education, learning outcomes for children
in government schools, regular government schools
and then with a supplementary learning program of Educate Girls. I’ll just talk very quickly about it, ’cause I’ll also then
get into the insights. The results over a three year period, the evaluator found that
we were able to enroll 92% of all out of school girls and
they were staying in school. And in terms of learning, and
the learning was delivered through our community volunteer, a 12th pass community
volunteer and our staff. And we found that the
learning results moved about 25% of target in year
one, 50% of target in year two, and 160% by the end of year three. So you saw exponential,
which meant like the average rural child that we worked
with gained about an additional year of schooling through that. So absolutely phenomenal results. What the bond really taught us and it is, we learned very rapidly. It decentralized, so the
funders were just gonna pay for the result but they
weren’t sitting and prescribing to us what we should do on the ground. Which I think is very,
very, very important. It allowed us to decentralize
further, so the problem solving got as close to
the ground as possible. The field staff didn’t
keep asking us what to do, they just integrated and course
corrected and move forward. Brilliant things, right. But, I think as now it’s been about a year and if we look back, I
think there are still issues with instruments like that. They are very sharp instruments. And who decides what
you’re going to pay for and what the outcomes
should be for a tribal child very far away from you is of consequence and must be looked at very carefully. These are sharp tools,
they’re like ceramic knives. They’ll chop really fast but they’ll chop your fingers off if you’re not careful. And they’re children and there are real human beings on the other end. Also will it drive money and pull money towards things that
can be easily measured? And will philanthropy become
divorced from social justice and human rights and things
that are not so easily measured but are extremely critical for society? So I would say those are
the kind of key insights and things that we should reflect upon as these instruments evolve. Yeah, so, who’s deciding the outcome? And currently there’s no
new money still coming in to these, so they still have
to evolve to get to a point where there’s actual new
money that flows in here. But I think the issue of
outcomes and who’s deciding the outcomes and this also
goes back to philanthropy, is it that the more money you
have, you’re going to decide what the outcome is for
somebody really far away and how it should be measured? And I think that’s a key piece. And that’s where the role of
government really comes in. They’re accountable to their
community and how you do that. – And the role of citizens who actually legitimize
governments, so it’s, yeah. There’s a very big ecosystem in place. – If I could just say, I
think the things to take away from instruments like the bond and stuff is the things that we should
definitely not be doing. And that is your activity based financing. Don’t tie money to line items in a budget and just track that
because that’s not going to necessarily create accelerated impact. Philanthropic capital
needs to be empathetic. Apart from being measurable,
it needs to be full of empathy. It needs to be multi-year. It should be funding the vision of success and it should be flexible. Like give room for people to
be able to move things around. – And be careful with the wet stone. I do not like the image
of chopping fingers off with an impact bond, so anyway. Be careful what you sharpen. Before we go on to
questions, I want to ask Jun about, we’re talking about
context here and you know, the context for social
impact bonds is definitely a western financial system context. But let’s talk about China
and the idea of face. Because it was a really
bold move to think that data and transparency would
not shame and blame. So talk to us about how you
actually manage the culture that values face as much as China does. – I appreciate this question. Yes, Sally, face is a complex issue. It has many connotations,
cultural connotations. In China, it’s about respect, about self-dignity and all of this. So people don’t want to
lose face, don’t want others to feel that you’re gonna
make them lose face. So it’s quite a challenge. When we look into that,
it’s actually part of this, we talk about gap in
our management system. This is part of the reason for the, for people to try to avoid
open public criticism of even the polluting
polluters in some way to help them save face. But to us, how to find a
leveraging power to try to overcome that in a subtle way,
that’s our challenge. And I mentioned about that case, our app users continue to report. I think, looking into that,
we can say that it give the local agencies some sort of a power to try to overcome that face issue. It’s not just they got
interfered by the officials now to enforce, but
also it’s a face issue. They live in the same city, you know. They usually have quite, some
of them have good contact so they don’t want to go very harsh with the polluting factories. But with this repeated
reporting from the local people, it make it quite hard for
them not to take action because it’s Twitter, our
Weibo got hundreds of millions of users and when you
post something on that and reposted by someones
with lot of followers, it’s almost like open accusation. Those officials, if
they don’t take action, they’re gonna be feel as
failure, failing their duty, and now the central government
also go quite harsh on that. So it gives them a reason
to engage with the polluting factories saying that
look buddy, it’s not me who wanna give you a hard
time, it’s the people. The residents, A and B, they
just continue to report you and look, I have to do something. You better make a public disclosure, it’s not very difficult for you to explain what went wrong at least and how you plan to resolve your problem. So one after another,
this started happening. So far, some more than 1800 of major, the largest polluting factories have vowed to that and openly respond. And then, you know, on
the issue of we try to, when you look into this,
we can see another line. That is our green supply chain work. This name and shame, you
mention about this name and shame game, people say it’s
always just name and shame. But in China, you can only
shame those who has a name or who care about, who
has a name that they care. But most of the factories,
they are suppliers. They don’t have a major
brand, so they don’t quite in that way care, especially from an NGO. We don’t have our massive
power of communication. So they don’t care. But there are those who
care, like the first round, the oldest foreign
multinational brands we managed to put into our database,
they care about this issue because they made open
commitment when they have been found failing their duty. Then they have to take action. And then we also help them to extend that into their supply chain. So one after another they stared coming. So far, we have more than 7500 of them because they’re worried
about their contract, so they started coming to us. – That’s fantastic. Marc, let me ask you one more question before we go to audience questions. You’re unusual as a social entrepreneur, because you’re also a
thought leader, five books, and you rely on a number of studies. In fact, you did one just
this past year with Stanford. How do you think about that triangulation, doing the intellectual work
as well as the on-the-ground work and the way those two
are reinforcing or not? – Yeah, well I feel like a
lot of ways the intellectual work is a kind of excavation process to try to understand
why, what’s happening. But it is very much an
interactive process. One of the things that I did
as part of working on this book was to immerse myself in
research and talk to thought leaders but I hit the road
and went all over the world and talked to people and
it just kinda convinced me that there was a congruence. That what developmentalists
were telling us about human nature and how we’re set up and what the roots to meaning,
purpose, and happiness are and what people were
doing all over the world, oftentimes against the
odds really fit together. And it reminded I, on the
subject, there’s a new book that’s about to come out by David Brooks called the Second Mountain. It was excerpted in
the Times the other day and in the book, he has
this incredible image of this guy, I think in
California, who’s got a bamboo grove outside his house that he hates. So he, it was reminding me
of when Safeena was talking about tools, he goes out
and gets all these tools and he chops the hell out of it, right. Kills it then pours plant
poison on top of it. And then covers it over with concrete. And a year later, a
bamboo shoot is coming up through the thing and
it’s just the, you know, the human spirit has a way
of kind of coming back. And so what all these academics
and scholars are saying I’m actually seeing
people all over the world planting these bamboo shoots. So there’s a lot of chopping
in this conversation. – Well, that’s a wonderful
image for us to take into questions and I
invite you to ask yours. There are microphones coming around and the criterion is that
you be brilliant and brief. Just state your name, your
organization if that’s relevant, but ask a question, please. – [Joe] Joe Comfino at the Half Post. – Why don’t you stand up please. – [Joe] Joe Comfino at the Half Post. There’s the old saying
that 95% of people try to change the world and only
5% try to change themselves. So I wanna ask the panel given
that to understand systems externally we need to
understand systems internally, what are you doing about transforming, or what is the connection
between transforming your own life and what
your own system your living that then supports you
in the work outside? So what is the work you’re
doing that flows round, that you change yourself,
you change the world, you change yourself, you change the world? – Got it, got it. So who would like to take that on? The Sphinx. – I’m happy to take that one. I mentioned this earlier in terms of how I originally came up with
the idea for Co-Impact. I think one of the things around
systems and systems change is actually this really,
the piece of listening. And that means actually
what does that mean in terms of how that changes your own perspectives and the bubble that you may be living in. And how do you go and
talk to people that aren’t maybe inside of that bubble so
that you can then figure out how you can work with them
and partner with them. And how that actually
influences what you do. So personally, I had been, as Sally mentioned, I
was the founding director of the Giving Pledge, I was
sort of more connected in with philanthropy so I felt
like the bubble I was in was really more philanthropy. And actually, thanks to support
from the Skoll Foundation as well as Pershing
Square, I actually went and spent a year just
finding people that weren’t in that bubble, so basically
people that I hadn’t been talking to who might
challenge sort of the perspective. So I started with a premise
of sort of what it could be but then wanted to go
and sort of get outside and try to talk to people who might challenge those perspectives. And I think it’s easy then
once you sort of start to get going to then say okay,
now we’ve figured it out. And so, one of the things that
I think is sort of personally always really helpful is
actually to go and find, especially the people who
might disagree with you. And so this is again back
to the sort of critique of philanthropy and it’s
like philanthropists are pushing at you. And so I was, I think
that’s the piece for me that is that extra, which is saying okay, not in, I mean, it’s
amazing to be in rooms where you’re sort of all
have a similar vision, but it’s also really
helpful to go into the rooms where people might just
completely disagree. And I find that’s always,
helps to push the work forward. – Safeena, do you want to say something? – Yeah. I thought I’d like
start with maybe my home and how I’ve left the knives
and the cooking to my husband and I sort of building
equity within the family. But I think your question
just sort of reminded me that when I was building, when
we were building the model, and we worked through community volunteers called Team Balika, I was insistent that they all have to be young women. And again and again, young
men were come up and saying I want to do this. And I think it was so
much my own perspective and my own kind of biases around this that for the longest time
I thought I was failing, that I wasn’t getting enough women and I was getting more men
and it took me a long time, it was sort of this, you
know, once we were sitting down with the team and
then it really hit me, saying this is just so
much more successful if young men are standing
up in the village and saying every single
girl in the village needs to go to school. And I had these like complete blinkers on and it took a long time for me to actually just kind of come out. So I think that sort
of on a personal level is sort of changing that kind
of change the complete outlook for us as an organization, too. – Anyone else before we move on? – Well, I’ll go back to what
you said at the beginning, Sally, about us being the elders here. I started doing this work, I
was in my 20s and now I’m 60. And all along the way, under
the wing of kind of one older person after another,
and I realize that I was much better at receiving than giving. You know, that I was
pontificating about this stuff. I was soaking up all of the support and I wasn’t actually doing anything. And that’s been an important
kind of realization for me and I’ve kind of been
making that transition and it’s deeply satisfying,
but I realized I was kind of out of whack with everything
that I was learning and saying. – That’s revelatory. So, okay, yes? – Building on the question
about development bonds and collaborative
philanthropy and all that, as people start trying to
bring in the corporate sector and impact investors and all those, what do you worry about
and what do you think, I’m assuming you have worries about that, what do you think can be
done to address your worries? – That’s a great question, thank you. Impact investing, another
off-shoot of this field and obviously at a point
that’s asking for a good deal of introspection with the scandal around the Rise Fund and its leadership. So who would like to take this on? Impact investing, what
do we have to worry about and what are we doing about it? – I can tell you my worries. My worry is very much as to like I said, who’s deciding what that result is. And because most of the
time what will happen is what you will lose out on
is inclusion and justice. There’s equity, inclusion, justice, those are the pieces
when you get into very, and I can give you an example. In the DIB, you are paid
on an out-of-school girl coming back into school and
then that out-of-school girl is seven to 14 and all the rest of it. So if she’s six years and 11 months, there’s no incentive to enroll her. So if you pay only on learning outcomes, and if you’re paying on per
percentage point improvement of learning outcomes,
then there’s a real risk of children whose learning is not moving to be pulled out of school. But that child may be
malnourished, may be stunted, may be having other issues. So that’s what I mean by
we will lose on inclusion and equity if we’re not careful with going down that path. So I think that’s the only big
piece that really worries me. And like I said, is a lot
of the funding going to move away from social justice
causes and human rights issues and other big civil society problems versus towards things that
can be measured easily? – Anyone else? Okay, well it is a big
conversation that’s underway. – Hi, my name’s Rick Spence. I’m here covering the
conference for Corporate Knights Magazine in Canada and I’m curious. The panelists are all
making some good progress in reforming some tough
systems, but I’m wondering, what’s the most incorrigible
part that you’re still working to try and crack and how do
you think that’s gonna go? – So, resistance in the system, where is that showing up and what are you doing about it? Jun, do you wanna think about that? – Yeah, definitely. There’s still all this
challenges that we’re facing. All these years, we’ve been
trying to, 2007 when we got quite some data available,
we launched a Green Choice Initiative calling for major brands to green their supply chain. But also calling for
consumers to pay attention to what happened in their,
the consequences of different choices they make in their purchasing. So all these years we’ve been
able to making some progress with the, on the to-be
side, we have several dozen major multi-national and local brands. Almost like regularly compare
their list to our list and their list of suppliers, our list of violators and identify
the problem and motivate 1000 of them to change behavior. But on the consumer behavior change part, we have all this records
there showing quite clearly every day in, day out, all your purchases from all the IT products, the
gadgets, to the textile brands they could have a real impact. The impact may not be near
your neighborhood anymore but it’s somewhere. At this moment, China is the stop. We’re definitely the
workshop of the world. But it’s again, you know,
we started seeing migration of this global supply
chain to South East Asia, South Asia, even Africa. How do we prevent another round of this migration of pollution? I think there’s now a real
opportunity when China started, used to be a black, people
say blind spot of data, but now there’s so much
of that data available. Every day, we’re having
more than a million pieces of this corporate data into our system. So there’s a possibility to
track down wherever they go. We can track them down. There’s now an emerging
opportunity on that and how do we tap into that? We still haven’t quite figured out a way. As a Chinese NGO, we lack
the ability to engage more regionally, let alone say globally. So I’m so happy to have
the chance to give back to the Skoll community and
try to see whether there are possibilities to work
with like-minded awardees. Thank you. – Wonderful. Thank you for the question. Other questions. Yes? – Hi, I’m Barbara Van Dahlen. I’m the President and
Founder of Give an Hour. I’m a psychologist and my focus is on emotional health and well-being. And this question, I started
thinking about it for Marc but I think it applies to
others on the panel as well and it’s about the media. When we think about the
work you’re trying to do, the intergenerational work
and in our country in the US and many countries, the
media is focused on the value of youth and not the value
of people like us, our age. And so, but I think it
applies also to other systems challenges when the media
is working against us and what are your thoughts? What do you see as progress
in terms of getting the media to see the
value and the importance of doing this work to
change these systems? – Yeah, you know, if you’ll allow me, that
was a great question and I think Marc, it would
be a good question for you to address, but I’ll
share with you an exchange that I had with Jeff Skoll, the founder of the Skoll Foundation. A few weeks ago as there was
an article in the New York Times about a resort and
a fellow who is creating a resort for older folks in Mexico. Older folks all over, but the
resort I think was in Mexico, so they could examine their
life and their life’s choices and what they were gonna do
with this phase of their life. And Jeff was really taken
with this because he and I have been very close to an
organization called the Elders over the years and think a lot
of those remarkable people. So here’s what he said. In the aging developed
world, older folks could and should be a great resource, but are more often seen to be a burden rather than a treasure. And that’s the challenge
and media, I think, has a big role to play in
helping to turn this around. So Marc, why don’t you speak to this. – Sure. That’s great, that quote. So this is about Chip
Conley, who started something called the Modern Elder
Academy, and he has a new book out called Wisdom at Work
and he’s got this really interesting personal story. He started a hotel chain in California, the Joie de Vivre hotel
chain, retired in his 50s, was kind of gonna go off into seclusion and then the founders
of Airbnb sought him out and asked him to come
in and be their mentor. Which he did, but then
discovered along the way that he was every bit as much
an intern as he was a sage. He was learning as well. So he came up with this
idea of being a modern elder and when you think about
it, it’s the Robert De Niro role in The Intern, right. He’s mentoring Anne Hathaway
and learning this new, so in some ways the media’s
kind of contributing to I think, I’ve been
really struck on my issue of how much more this alternate story line that runs against this system
is starting to gain ground. But one of my favorite
illustrations, this is very US focused but Netflix has a series
called the Kominsky Method with Michael Douglas and Alan Arkin. And there’s a scene in
it where Michael Douglas who’s this Lee
Strasberg-like acting coach, he’s diagnosed with prostate cancer, he’s really down on his luck. He’s wandering through
this park and then he hears the sound of children out in a distance and he kind of wanders
over to this playground and he’s seeing all these kids playing and his spirits are really lifting. And then in the background,
you see all these mothers kind of coming together and
then a police officer shows up and he’s gonna get arrested for enjoying. And it just kind of reminded
how deeply ingrained the system is that we’re working against. – One of Jeff’s theories
after reading this piece in the Times was that the
term elder is showing up more and more and it’s
not always showing up with a negative connotation. And that bodes well for us, Marc, I think. Something’s cracking here,
but we have to drive that. Obviously we have to help
drive that narrative. So great question. Think we have time for maybe
one more, one more question. Is there someone with a microphone? Heather. – Hi, I’m Heather Grady with
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers and thank so
much for this discussion. I think a real strong tension
in this area that we deal with is that when we’re talking
about systems change, we’re looking at a system that’s bounded. You’ve talked about things
like making sure people have the right experience,
the right entry point, sometimes a proven model. But I think some of the
fundamental things we’re tackling have never had a solution yet and no one, so more philanthropic capital
has to go into solutions and impact that we have
not even envisioned yet. So we’re asking people to have
a vision and a clear model but we need solutions
that aren’t there yet. I’m just wondering if you
can talk about that tension of what you see in the philanthropy sector where people are willing to
fund the coalition building and the discovery and some
of the critical analysis that happens to be done that
really is longer term work. – Yeah, and that longer term, let’s put in a pin in that because
systems change, as I said, does not happen in the blink of an eye. It does happen over time,
you have to look at the arc, there will be setbacks
and lurches forward. But it’s a continuous arc
and I don’t think we get to declare victory and say done, solved, perfect, we move on, so that’s
a really important point. But Olivia, maybe this is for you. – Sure. I mean, I think, first, I think that overall, we need philanthropy to do a
number of different things. I think when it comes to systems
change, I absolutely agree on the piece that there
needs to be funding and crucially support, which
means also beyond the funding on the coalition building,
which means being able to take that sort of longer term view. And also, again, bringing funders together so they’re aligned behind
this so people aren’t pulling in different directions towards whatever that long term vision is. And also recognizing that it’s never, when it’s about systems
change, it’s not about just one organization, it
is about this coalition. At the same time, I think
while there needs to be more funding, absolutely,
for sort of finding to your language, the solutions
or really sort of looking for earlier stage, I
think there is a huge gap when it comes to things that are proven. They will look different when
they get to the systems level. But for some reason, and
this was a conversation I’ve had, I think, with many
here in the Skoll community. Philanthropic funding tends to step away when there is something which
actually really is reaching into the hundreds of thousands or sometimes into the millions. And yet, what does it take to really get to that sort of system-wide impact? There still is a role of philanthropy. Again, crucially, in
collaboration with others and there needs to be
other capital coming in. But I think that that sort
of stage of being able to support things where there
is an idea and approach, again, it’s going to look
different when it gets there but it has been something that is proven and the coalition is
starting to come together and taking that longer term view is a really, really important
role for philanthropy. And we’re starting to see more of that, but I think we need to
see much more of it. – And Safeena, do you
want to say something about your funders? You don’t want to say anything
about your funders, okay. Okay. I think we’re at the point,
maybe, where we’re ready to wrap up and I would like to ask each of the panelists to reflect on their personal journey. And acknowledge that this is hard work, it’s not for the faint of
heart, it’s not for anybody who isn’t up to the challenge. But inevitably, there will come moments when you’re ready to quit
because the work is too hard, it’s too frustrating, the
challenges are enormous, the critiques come fast and furiously, especially if you’re making headway. So was there a moment
when you actually thought this is too hard, I’m ready to quit? And if you did, what brought you back? So. Jun, may I ask you? – Tough question. Yeah, I would like to say
I never had that moment. You know, one thing for us,
I know all the other worries are addressing very
sometimes super big issues and we happen to pick some
of the issues which are probably not quite easy to resolve. People say this is about the air, the water, and
the soil, the coastal sea and when will that come to an end, you know, really solve the problem. So one way to continue
carry on is to be hopeful and to be hopeful, one
way, the way is to forget the bad experience and
only, I talk so much about the progress and
because that’s one way to cheer yourself up. But we all, you know, obviously
have some moment like that, especially in those early days of our work and at that moment, there’s
still very sharp conflict between the so called development and environmental protection. So not just we have all
this very, sometimes very angry factory owners coming
to us, but also they, I’m not most worried
about them but I worry they’re not coming to us,
they come to their contact, their buddies within the
agencies and they give us sometimes a real hard
time in those moments. And there are time that
we’re not sure whether we can continue to operate tomorrow. And there are time even
whether I can go home tomorrow, those are the, you know, go home. It’s already a question. So at that moment, you even after that, there are
changing situation in China. The government paid far more attention on the environmental protection. The top leadership prioritized
the environmental protection. We give all this credit
for all this efforts made. Having said that, even to
the last days of my mom, I think I continue to
get her worry about me. As a grown up son, quite a traditional, in some ways quite traditional Chinese, I grow up in China, educated in China. To be not familial is quite,
give you quite a sense of duty to subject your parents to
concern even when you grow up. It’s not very good. But what keep me going is that, you know, at the end of the day and
all throughout my journey, I have all this moment of
so many of local people give me their stories, their sufferings, sometimes even on their death bed. They give me so much trust. But for me as an individual,
have not much money, no power, no administrative power at all, and I just continue to feel
the only way to help them is to cross the message to more people, to those who, you know,
not to allow their voice to be drowned in this super
complex global economy. I found that even till now it’s true. Every 100 records of violation
we put into our database, we got one factory coming
to us, respond to us. So at the beginning,
2000, but now we have near over 900,000, nearly a million, and we got nearly 10,000 of them coming to us. – And that’s happened one
at a time, that’s fantastic. Safeena. – So for me, it happened last year. One of the girls, Nikki,
she and my daughters grew up together and Nikki comes
from a very poor house. She’s finally in the 10th grade. She would come to our
house on her little scooter and we thought like oh my God, Nikki. She was in my view like where
I want to see all of my work. And Nikki committed suicide last year. She killed herself because she didn’t get good marks in her 10th grade. And it was, for me, I
felt like a hypocrite. I felt like all of my talking about scale and numbers when the
child right below my eyes I couldn’t help. And I think that, to me, I came very, very, very close to giving up. And then, my daughter said
to me, my daughter said mama, maybe it’s my fault
because I was friends with her and she never told
me that she was gonna do this. And like listening to
my daughter, I think, really made me realize that
the work has to continue. And it’s difficult and it’s not easy. And it’s messy. And even when you think
everything is going to become really successful, things change. – I think we all see where
that passion for including the clients and ensuring
that these new vehicles don’t ever, ever pull us
away from whose interest is really at stake here. Thank you Safeena. Marc. – This is, you know, at
a very different level. When I started doing this
work, you know, I kept saying oh, you know, by 2020, all of
these big changes in society will have happened, they’re not
just demographic predictions and there’d be this great
rallying around this issue. And now the changes have happened
and that hasn’t happened. There’s no public policy,
there’s nobody who’s talking about this in those kinds of circles. Philanthropy, when we first
started, we were basically a creation of Atlantic Philanthropies, they were up in arms because
only 2% of philanthropy was going into these issues. And we had to do something about it. Now it’s 1% and so I find as
the work becomes more important the investment is shrinking. And that the salvation
really has just been that there’s so much more going
on at the grassroots level. This is kind of for, and by young people. So I’ll just like tell this one story ’cause it’s a sort of related. I just spent, two weeks ago
I went to the Mercy Center in Burlingame, California to see a project called Nuns and Nones
and the nuns, N-U-N-S, and N-O-N-E-S, and the
N-O-N-E-S are millennials who answer these surveys and
say that they’re spiritually inclined but they have
no religious affiliation. They check none. And nuns are these sisters
who’ve devoted their lives in many cases to fighting
poverty and to working on refugee issues and they’ve
been seeking each other out and there are now 17
meet-ups around the country of nuns and nones and it
just started this residency in Burlingame at the Mercy
Center where millennials, including a guy named Adam
Horowitz who just wrote a paper called What’s a Young
Jewish Boy Doing in a Convent. And the sisters are there,
their orders are shrinking and dying out but want
the essence of the work to live on, not necessarily
the form and these millennials are carrying on the work. I just feel like, again,
it’s the bamboo popping up through the sidewalk that keeps me going. – And so we have to pay
attention to see those shoots. Olivia. – I love the bamboo coming
up through the sidewalk. I’m gonna think about that. So, we’ve talked about this
but I think it’s very much not the norm yet to be
focusing on systems change and to be focusing on
collaboration and philanthropy. I was thinking I had a
conversation right at the time so I’d sort of been
having, it’s been a year, I talked to hundreds of
people around the world. So I had the germ of
an idea for coming back and I went and talked to a
philanthropist whom I knew well and I said, you know, here it is. I was so excited, I went
to explain it to him, and he said Olivia you’re crazy. Not gonna work. No one’s ever going to do this. Philanthropy is deeply
personal, no one wants to come together and pool funds and
do things that are actually supporting where you can’t
see where the impact is. So we had an hour long
conversation, which admittedly didn’t go much further than that. But I kept sort of going
at a different angle but what if, this and this and this. And actually, interestingly,
I just saw him again a few weeks ago and he said I was wrong. And I think for all of
us, it’s those moments when you’re, like, not
about proving people wrong but rather that it is that
you get sort of a push when it is something that
is, that’s not the norm. And I guess, for me,
since obviously our lens, we’re both sort of in between
and bringing together funders and then supporting efforts. What keeps me going is two things. One which is, as Sally you
mentioned, we actually, what’s so exciting is we
actually get to support these amazing initiatives
and that’s sort of obvious but that’s really what
keeps us going along with getting to work with
funders who see this and see that that’s really what the
direction we need to be going. And then, in those moments,
because like all of us, I’d love to say there
aren’t those moments, but we all have them. And obviously, as far as
actually going and talking to my family and getting them to push, but also, I have the great fortune to work with an amazing team and
I think that’s really what gets you, that’s what
gets me up in the morning is that the chance to work on these issues with an incredible group of people. That’s what does it. – It’s a privilege. And it’s been a privilege to
be here with you this morning. Please join me in applauding this wonderful group of panelist. Thank you so much and I’ll just leave you with that wonderful Gandhi insight. First, they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they fight you. And then you win. So let’s go on and do some
fighting and winning here. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

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