← Nonprofit Lowdown
Nonprofit Lowdown
#332- The State of Nonprofit Staffing with Evan Wildstein and Michelle Flores Vryn
00:32:55
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
Ria Wong
Hey, you, It's Rhea Wong. If you're listening to Nonprofit Load On, I'm pretty sure that you'd love my weekly newsletter. Every Tuesday morning, you get updates on the newest podcast episodes. And then interspersed, we have fun special invitations for newsletter subscribers only and fundraising inspo because I know what it feels like to be in the trenches alone. On top of that, you get cute dog photos. Best of all, it is free. So what are you waiting for? Head over to riawong.com now to sign.
- [00:26]
Evan Wildstein
Up Foreign.
- [00:34]
Ria Wong
Welcome to Nonprofit Lowdown. I'm your host, Ria Wong. Hey, welcome to another edition of Nonprofit Lowdown. I am your host once again, Ria Wong. Today I have the distinct pleasure of welcoming my two friends, Michelle Flores Wren and Evan Wildstein. We are here today to talk about, I think it's a little bit of a sea change, a little bit of a crisis about the staffing that is happening at nonprofits. So I know both of you published this or have published this the last couple of years, and I think it's a really important thing to sound the alarm maybe, or to at least alert us to trends in the nonprofit world. So welcome to both of you, Michelle.
- [01:18]
Evan Wildstein
And Evan, thanks for having us.
- [01:21]
Michelle Flores Wren
It's Sally from Virginia.
- [01:22]
Ria Wong
Sally from Virginia? That's your drag name? It's cool. I'm into it. Okay, so let's talk about this. You both have published the social impact staff retention report, and you've done this for the last couple of years where you survey non profit staff around the country. Y'all, 2025 has been wild so far. So tell us a little bit about how 2025 has been, dare I use the word, unprecedented since you started doing this. Michelle, why don't we start with you?
- [01:54]
Michelle Flores Wren
Yeah.
- [01:55]
Evan Wildstein
So let me just make a clarification that the 2025 report is based on 2024 data because we have to have time to process the data. And as you mentioned, this is year two. So it's a survey that Evan and I both hope will be very longitudinal. And we're only in year two. And the more years we get, the more data we get, we'll be able to assess longer term trends. But in terms of this year. So data collected in 2024 that it's in the 2025 report, about 7 in 10 people who work in nonprofits said that they will be looking for a job or considering a new job this year. So 2025, and that is pretty on par with what we found in the previous year, which we had hoped it would be quite a bit lower. But I also feel like this is a very odd time that we're all experiencing right now with funding fluctuations. That's a very euphemistic way of putting it, with funding fluctuations. I don't think that it's shocking to hear this high number for this year, but one of the key things I think to note is Evan and I come at this from a little bit different perspective to really support practitioners in telling the story about what they need. So we were very intentional in asking them, why are you leaving? If you're not looking to leave, why not? And also, what other trends should leaders and CEOs be looking at? So I'll just cover the first top highlight here, which is why are people looking to leave? The number one reason actually stayed the same as the previous year, which was too much responsibility and not enough support. And I will say for people who've been reading these surveys for what, the past 15, 20 years of people saying, like, why is turnover so high? This is a common theme is there's unrealistic expectations in the workload. And that's what people told us here, too. So I almost feel like in some ways this is very much uncomplicating the narrative. We're not complicating it further, making it very clear that is the number one reason people are looking to leave. Too much responsibility, not enough support. But also coming in second was people felt like they didn't have clear pathways to growth. So they didn't know who, what moving up in that organization, whether it's by position or just skill, would look like for them. They weren't having conversations about that. So that was another reason people wanted to leave. And then the third top reason was just management or leaders that were not supporting them in the work. So I'll pause there. But I would say that in the audience listening to this, I feel like there's probably going to be like a lot of head nods. Yeah, this makes sense and resonates with my own experience.
- [04:42]
Ria Wong
Yeah, it's interesting because as I was reading the report, Michelle, I thought it was very interesting that the top three reasons were not tied to compensation. Obviously, compensation is a consideration, but the fact that it didn't crack the top three, I think bucks a lot of the assumptions that we might have about why people leave the sector. Just curious, what would you consider to be a more reasonable churn rate? Because obviously we can't expect that 0% of people will be looking for new jobs. Seven out of ten seems high, but what would be Considered natural churn in another industry.
- [05:17]
Evan Wildstein
Evan, this is your.
- [05:20]
Michelle Flores Wren
Yeah, hi, Sally from Virginia here. One of the things that got Michelle and I kick started on this journey, other than Michelle, a little bit more so than me. Michelle loves understanding data and doing good equitable things with it. I just like pestering people and nudging them with tough questions. One of the things that popped up for me when we dreamt up this project two years ago plus now is we looked at all industry potential departure rates and there were a couple reports in the first year of our survey that found across all industry averages, 65% of people were actively looking for new work. I think Michelle and I intrinsically knew that the social sector would have higher numbers. In the first year that was 74 point something percent. So almost 10 percentage points higher. That is the reality of what we saw this year. Again, we were a little bit closer, 67 point something percent. So we're rounding that to 7 in 10 people, which is still a great margin larger than the all industry averages, which are in the high 40s to low 50s. Now that's what people are saying across our report. Across other reports, I would say in any given organization, if you've got 5 in 10 or 7 in 10 people actively looking, the alarm goes off and says that's quite high. But I think what that should also tell managers, middle managers, up, down, all over, is that it's not 7 in 10 people will leave. Where it's 5 in 10 people will leave. There might be a propensity for those folks. And so you've got a lot of opportunity. I would say in any given year, out of a staff of 10, two or three transitioning is a healthy, achievably refillable number. Just having managed teams for the past 22 years, if all of them are heading out the door, you have to think of the cost, direct and indirect, of those people going. You have to think of the cost of backfilling a role, that finding something could take three to nine months. Getting the job description up, really deciding what you want to do. So there's a direct and indirect cost that goes into this. But it in my view it should be 2 or 3 people out of 10 or 20 or 30 out of 100 or extrapolate from that what you want. But what we've simply been seeing, I think the farther we go from COVID yet now in this second wave of socioeconomico political stuff that's coming up is, my gosh, Michelle, when we ask these questions again in fall 2025 for the 2026 survey, we're going to see dollop. No, a wallop. Sally from Virginia got her terms wrong. A wallop. Different response for folks. And the reasons presumably will be the same, but the industry itself just being pulled under as a rug from people and we're trying to figure out what that looks like.
- [07:57]
Ria Wong
Yeah, there's so many interesting questions I have here because on the one hand, I think, you know, we, we've seen a very high churn rate historically. On the other hand, I think in times of financial uncertainty, people tend to not want to change jobs. And then I think that there might be some impact from the public sector and those folks coming into the nonprofit sector with mission aligned work. Time will tell. I think that you're right that the trends will continue, but I also think there are some precipitating circumstances here. Let's go back to this question of too much responsibility, not enough support. Because I think as someone who's led small nonprofits in the past, there's this tension here of I, yes, I would love to give my staff more support. Yes, I would like to hire more people because we have everyone working two, three people's jobs. And yet on the other hand, if I, it's a bit of a catch 22. Like if I can't get the staffing I need to free myself up to do the fundraising to get in the funds. It becomes this harsh sort of cycle of destruction. So I'm curious, Michelle or Evan, if you have a sense of how do we break this cycle when it feels like we're on this starvation cycle?
- [09:14]
Evan Wildstein
Yeah, Evan and I were actually just talking about this recently in another podcast and we say this in the first report, I'll just make a plug real quick that if you haven't read the first report, all of this information is open source. You don't have to give us your email, like you can just download it. But in the report year one, we actually added a lot of tactical tips on improvement and two themes stuck out that answer your question directly. One is thinking about the concept of organizational slack and how that fits into your leadership's approach to their work. And then the second is this chopping block exercise. But I'll start with organizational slack. And so I think that for people in leadership positions or managing others, we do have to get better at understanding what is a realistic workload for people to carry. Oftentimes we inherit workloads of our predecessors. They were doing seven programs across three cities and tens of codes. We'll just continue to do this. But I think it's incumbent upon current leaders to really look at what are you currently committing to and is that realistic for staff to do this work with the resources and capacity that they have. So that's number one. And this does go into the concept of organizational slack, which is don't commit yourself to 100% of your capacity because you want the slack to care and tend to things that come up that you have not planned for. And of course, you know the pandemic and is definitely a great example of that. If you were already planned and committed a hundred percent in all of your resources, you had no room to even try to get through something that was completely unexpected. So you actually shouldn't plan for 100 of your resources. You should probably plan 80 to 85. So you always have organizational slack. And then Evan's really good at always pointing out this exercise of the chopping block exercise, which is really just like looking at programs and are they making the impact that you think that they should make? And it's okay to say, hey, maybe this program worked well five years ago ago or 15 years ago, but today, not so much. And I really want us to be able to evaluate our work in a very healthy way and to let go of things that no longer serve us. I think that's a great place to start.
- [11:42]
Ria Wong
Yeah, Sally slash Evan, I'd love for you to speak to that because actually I was reading the report and I thought that there was a bit of a contradiction here because on the one hand we're talking about all these folks that are leaving the sector, and on the other hand, some of why they're leaving is that there's leadership at the top who've been there 20, 30 years and are resistant to innovation. So how do we understand this seeming contradiction?
- [12:10]
Michelle Flores Wren
It's contradictory for those of us who think in terms of pure logic, because we know that the thing we ought to do and then those of us who have been in shops who are working under people who are dinosauric in their experience, that's another thing. And one of the things I have found over these two plus decades that this sector does remarkably poorly is we. I don't know if Michelle, one of you two had said this either on, on an episode or something before, about this notion of killing the darlings, and I find that we're just remarkably bad, and I'm part of this too, at letting go of things that don't functionally serve the work we do. I'll give you a real time example of chopping Block stuff. So, Maria, we talked a couple weeks ago, and you know that I'm head of advancement for an independent school, and I took that program over from someone who ran a really solid annual fund program. So a couple months a year, weekly, there are these big pushes out to the parents of the students here to make a commitment to the annual fund, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. One of the things I realized is that the way we were setting up those transactions is that each gift, whether it was a check that was sent to us from a person or a community fund, an online donation, a stock transfer, whatever it was, and there are hundreds of them every annual fund cycle. All of those had to be entered manually into our CRM because of how the system was set up. I did a little bit of a time audit this past fall to see how long that took me. It was anywhere from three to six hours per week. Per week. I usually did it on Thursdays and Fridays so I and my team could send updates to the parents who are helping us lead this charge. And I think, what could I have done with those three to six hours? So we are moving to a new CRM. In that new CRM, we are setting it up in such a way that all of this automatically gets added to a donor's record. If there's not a donor, it's created. We're all looking at each other like we've got six heads. Because you think, why wouldn't you have done that? But there are people who get great enjoyment out of tactical things like gift entry. I'm not terribly good at micro level details. So every name I have to spell, every gift amount. Oops, I meant 2500, but I wrote 25,000. That skews our numbers. So that for me is a really practical. I'm doing this transition in the moment. And that's something that's on the chopping block. That's asking, did this work serve the organization at one point? Maybe it doesn't serve my time. As I'm thinking about how to build some semblance of a major gift program and grow our stewardship. I'd much rather spend those six hours on the phone just gabbing with parents about the Montessori experience that they have at the school other than $10 pledge, then six months later, have to remind Ria better $10 pledge, et cetera. So there is this cataclysmic gap, I think, sometimes between like, well, we've all been on the receiving end if we do it, because that's how We've done it and we like to joke at how we want to slap back against that, but it's really hard when the person before you for decades was doing a particular thing a particular way.
- [15:03]
Ria Wong
Yeah, that listed a really interesting next point because we are in the middle of an AI revolution. And AI as it exists is only, what, a year and a half old, maybe two years old, and it's already dramatically changed the way that we work. And so I'm curious how you think AI might play into increasing the capacity of people and their ability to do the work that really matters versus what I would call the, I call it stupid work. Stupid work like hand inputting things that frankly can be done by AI. So what's your prediction? If you had a crystal ball as to will AI make it more tenable for people to stick around? Michelle, let's start with you.
- [15:45]
Evan Wildstein
I will admit that I'm incredibly biased in this question because my dear friend Mina Das and I have research on AI adoption in the nonprofit sector by practitioners. And we also recently created a workshop to help nonprofits think about their approach to adopting AI in a way that supports their operations. So we're very much not coming at this from a techno optimist perspective, but more of thinking about AI is a way to reach your operational goals. And so we have to really center your operational goals and the community you serve in your nonprofit. And I'll just, I'll go off on a bit of tangent here because Mina and I really thought that a lot of the conversations around AI adoption in the nonprofit sector were coming from technology companies who ultimately have something to sell you. There's at the end of this conversation, it's and sign up for this. And she and I have nothing to sell you. Like, our research is open source, as is this research project. And I want, I feel like AI and thinking through how it can help with work that's in the pile of this should always be kept human. And like we need more humans to work in this stuff versus things that are rote and probably shouldn't be taking up as much time, as much of your time as it currently is. Like, I think we need to do that pile sorting of our work first. First. But then always keep our community centered goals at the center and ask how can we become more efficient and sorting through these piles of like deeply human work? And our nonprofit work is deeply human. And so I, like I said, I have a bias towards having space to have these conversations because I fear that sometimes when we listen to solutions coming from tech Companies, we're just on the route to adopting their product. But I really think this is our time to think about how to become more efficient in our work. So I have like a deeper, like a little Trojan horse goal coming in here of actually, this is a perfect chance for us to think about how to shift things around so we're more efficient.
- [18:02]
Ria Wong
Yeah, that's such a good point. The thing that I would say too is as you're talking, both Evan and Michelle, you're talking about planning for 80% capacity, planning for what's natural turn, planning for operational efficiency. That all sounds really good. I have to tell you, as a leader, is this a fair statement? I never had, I never made time to do that really careful planning because it just felt like everything was on fire all the time. I hear you, I hear folks out here nodding, and I think there's the reality of running a nonprofit on a shoestring. So I'm just curious how you might suggest that leaders carve out the time to do that essential planning. Evan, let's start with you because I feel like you're good at organizing yourself.
- [18:51]
Michelle Flores Wren
I am often. And I'm about to hire for two new roles on my team. One brand new, one backfill. And I'm thinking one of the things that I have had modeled for me right now, it's excellent. But in many past jobs, I've not really had models for me, what it could look like, what it could look like not to be back against the wall, frenetic and frantic all the time, no space for anything. I have. I grew up in a family where we understood the value of leisure, as it were. And I don't mean leisure in a pedantic way. Leisure like time that you are not actively devoting to your work or cleaning your car or something functional. One of the things that I desperately try and do for my teams and I'm successful sometimes, and sometimes others, I'm in like senior management role here. But I'm not the head of school, I'm not the CEO, and I've got a big team underneath me. I'm gone by 5, 5, 15. A big part of that is that I have my wife and I have a son who goes to this school and I gotta take him home because he has to go home at a certain point every day. I very rarely do nighttime stuff that is not delayed send till the next day. So I am actively not trying to stress out my people, donors in orbit with me, people below me. And these are all practical things that I feel like we got off the soapbox of calling these things out for a few years. Everything is on fire. So it's just if I get to the email at 10pm, you don't have to respond to it now, just respond to it when you can. How many 22 year olds are going to have their boss say that and be like, does it, does he really mean it? If he meant it, why would he send the email? So I a little bit of a rabble rouser, but I always make it a point when I'm considering a new role to sit with a manager. And there's all the research in the world that says if you leave flex time, the work that you're producing will be better, your brain is more creative. There's just all that cognitive research out there that the three of us on this call and the little AI robot too, makes sense. We know this. One of the things we might do, Michelle, in releasing all this is link to some of that research to show, like, if you've got a laundry list of things you need to bring to your boss to say that can help inspire chopping block conversations. But managers of any sort, you really, this is the moment. Like your people are going to be looking on you in times of crisis. And if you're leaving the office after all, your people, if you're sending those evening emails, if you're on 24 7, if you're asking people if they could be available on a work trip, on a vacation that would quote, unquote, a work trip, then that stuff has to be modeled. And if not, we have this generation now, Z, those young folk that are actively keeping big, bold boundaries up and they don't know how to speak to the folks who are older than the boomers because we've got those four or five working generations together and that's a problem too. But these are the folks who grew up with those boundaries built in and we need to actually pay attention to that because not either one of them or any one of them are going to be leaning into. Look, I had a podcast interview recently on our show where we talked to a guy who said like he was getting ready to set someone up with mentorship and coaching and signing up for all the trade organizations. And they told him, I don't know if I want to be here in two or three years, don't bother. And so we have to flex our thinking on what work needs to happen now and we desperately need to be better about modeling that ourselves.
- [22:03]
Ria Wong
Oh, that's such a good point. I feel so called out. I was like, no, y'all don't send emails at 11:00. I will, but don't feel obligated to do the same thing.
- [22:13]
Evan Wildstein
I also have one additional thought to tack on to Evans. There's I had this question on my wall and I've talked about this a couple times, my LinkedIn post, and it says, how am I complicit in creating the conditions that I say I don't want?
- [22:30]
Ria Wong
Good.
- [22:31]
Evan Wildstein
And that's a hard, like holding up the mirror in front of you. And I think it's really easy for all of us. We're talking about non profit work, but this could apply to any life topic. It's really easy for us to fall into. Like, that's just a system that I have, or that's just what's been passed down to me. But I think we do have to always interrogate our own personal power in these situations, which another sidebar is something I really love about community centric fundraising. As a Texas chapter organizer and founder, I think that we need to see people, like people in CCF who are pushing us to think differently. And Rhea, your question of, yeah, it's really hard, but like, we're trying to do all these things and like, realistically this seems almost impossible. But it all starts with internal work first. Like, we have to really interrogate our own values and belief systems and how we show up. And there are people out there who have changed things dramatically. And I think like, the CCF movement is a great example of that. If someone would have said that you could call out donors on crappy fundraising practices 10 years ago, they would have said that's impossible and nobody would listen to it. And like, who would even want to do that? But people who are brave enough to say, I don't want to uphold the system because it's not good for me or others, they're the ones who really change something. And I think we all have that capacity. But it does require like, that internal reflection of, like, how are we complicit in creating the conditions we say we don't want?
- [24:08]
Ria Wong
Yeah, that's beautifully stated. So as we round the corner here, I am going to speak on behalf of eds, who I know are listening and thinking, oh my God, will I have to replace 70% of my staff this year? So what are the opportunities that we have as leaders to inspire staff retention, to make sure people are happy, satisfied and challenged in their jobs? If we could just bullet point some of the considerations. Michelle, let's start with you.
- [24:42]
Evan Wildstein
Yeah, so the number one low hanging fruit here is for sure flexibility. People said the number one thing that would make them stay is having a flexible role. That could be, maybe it's hybrid, maybe it's remote, maybe I don't know. You can. Flexibility comes in a lot of forms. But the more as nonprofit employers, we can provide flexibility in the way that people show up to work that is deeply wanted and appreciated and people will stay for that. And I do think that that's something we as non profits can do. We can definitely give people leniency in certain areas. So I think that's the biggest takeaway. And a lot of this goes back to just shifts from the pandemic. Right. Like I always say that before the pandemic people had to fit their life around work. And now people are fitting work into their lives. And like we are full people with family members and elder care and hobbies and we're doing all of these things like our whole life is not this non profit job and that's a really healthy thing. So I think that's why flexibility becomes something people are deeply craving and I think we can give them that.
- [25:57]
Ria Wong
What else might we think about as leaders to make sure that we hold on to the people we want to hold on to?
- [26:03]
Michelle Flores Wren
Yeah, I would say you're using the phrase leaders and that's one of the instances I would allow you to do that because management is different than leadership. But true leaders are simply folks, whether they have staff under them or around them, who influence. You know, as Peter north would say, a leader is an individual who influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. I stand on that soapbox a lot. But in the surveys two years in a row, folks have told us the reasons that they're not looking for new work. And this, you could think, Michelle, that this series of questions is in there because I was gung ho about trying to figure out why people are leaving. And Michelle said it's not going to be everyone who's leaving. We might want to as famous Texan saying we might could ask people why they're happy to stay. And so top of the line both years like double digit percentage points higher than anything else was allowing them that flexibility. Other things this year, which was a new addition for us, that they had strong alignment with the mission. You generally always want that good, encouraging work environment, decent compensation. Now for anyone who's a decision maker, I. E. You've got people who are under you or you're a board decision maker and you're talking with the Executive Director. I would encourage everyone today. If you've got that responsibility in your portfolio, do a job description audit of everyone who's underneath you. Most nonprofits have probably not come back to those descriptions in a long time. Or if they have, it's employee X leaves and hey HR specialist, can you get the 2017 version of the employee X job description? Put the new logo on it and just throw it up online. That's the three step process that keeps us continuing to refill and backfill rows. Take that job description out re look at it. See. I would also encourage don't the job description is not a work plan. There shouldn't be 40 bullet points on a job description. Have those seven to nine key areas that you expect that person to come into. Because what you want as a real leader is someone to come in and do it the way that is meant to be done, not necessarily the way, especially nonprofits. Great widget maker gets put in charge of the widget makers. And so every widget maker you hire, it's how I made the widgets is this way. Your job description as a doer probably looked very different than the new person that's in that role. And include the phrase other duties as assigned. But I want you to mean something different by it. There's great research out of Tate Shanafeld who did this review of healthcare workers where he found that those overburdened, really burnt out high stress healthcare workers if they were able to weave one of the five days a week that they were working 20% of their time into doing work that was justifiably meaningful for them and that serves the clients, the patients and those we serve in our missions. Those people stave off burnout like it's their job. Those kinds of environments. When we look at our for profit friends, Google 3M, that's how we came up with Gmail. That's how Google Translate came up. Because managers said to employees, I need you to free up some time other duties as assigned. A great HR person told me that an employee has to lean into that as much as your other duty assigned today is holding the door open for these kids today. Ask your employees what kind of things they would love to, in a dream world take on. That's the other duty that they get to assign themselves. So just flip that script a little bit. But please, when you listen to this episode, go back to the job descriptions on your team, yourself included, and look and make sure that still serves the folks who are being reached by our mission. And if not, get into those bullet points. Scrap it up. No bad HR person is going to tell you we can't do that. You don't need to run that by the board. Just fix it. Make it current. It's 2025.
- [29:37]
Ria Wong
Yeah, that's such a good one. Actually, as we're talking, I'm reflecting on my time as an ed. I'm like, oh, that's the mistake I made because I think my greatest strength is the ability to innovate and do new things. And I think that is also my greatest weakness in the sense that I think it didn't provide enough clarity for the team about what we're doing tomorrow because I was like, ooh, new shiny, let's do that instead. And when they were saying to me like, what's in my job description? What they were really saying is I need clarity about what I do day to day. And I didn't hear that the same way. I just like, why do you care about this administrative stuff? It's just words on a paper. But what they were really asking is where are the boundaries? So I understand what I did wrong now, like, just roll with it, guys. Figuring out as we go, which works when you're a three person team, doesn't work so well when you're a 20 person team. All right, friends, thank you for this humbling conversation. Now I have to go and meditate on this. Where can folks find out more information about this report and how might help them to have conversations with their managers or for leaders to have conversations with their teams?
- [30:45]
Michelle Flores Wren
By golly, that's a great question. We're housing it on a website called the nonprofiteers.com and if you just do the nonprofiteers.com up top, you'll see SISR, which we lovingly call CSER, but it's a social impact staff retention project report. The 2025 infographic is up there. Now Michelle and I are putting final touches on the full report, which Rhea has seen a draft of. And it's got some cool stuff in there. It's stories we've heard from managers, funders and others. Some ideas on how you can actually lean into practicable things to improve on these things that we found in the sector. We don't just want to leave you with depressing data, although good data is never untimely.
- [31:25]
Ria Wong
So wonderful. So we'll make sure to link to that in the show notes. And would it be okay too if I put both of your LinkedIn profiles? If folks want to get in touch, please do. Wonderful. Thank you so much to both of you for doing this every year for the last two years and how, who knows how long you'll be doing it in the future. But hopefully we'll see some changes in the sector because the truth is we do need people to stick around because every single person who leaves, there's an associated cost with it. And I think as leaders, we don't fully recognize the cost, not just of the salary, but of the time it'll take to replace them, of the time it'll take to retrain, and of the opportunity cost of needing to get a new person in the door. So it's like retaining donors. It's less expensive to get a repeat donor than it is to get a new donor. Same with staff. So thank you so much to both of you.
- [32:14]
Evan Wildstein
Thank you for having us. Great conversation.
- [32:17]
Michelle Flores Wren
Bye.
- [32:19]
Ria Wong
Hey fundraisers. Looking to nail those big fundraising asks? Check out my big ask gift program at riawong.com bag. Say goodbye to uncertainty and hello to confidence with my program. Get expert strategies and personalized support to secure those game changing donations. Don't let fear hold you back. Join me and take your fundraising to new heights. We're enrolling now@riawong.com bag. That's riawong.com bag. So if you like big asks and you cannot lie, I'll see you in the program.