Episode 2: Digital Maturity and Cybersecurity with Charles Boname

We sat down with Charles Boname, Director of IT at the Vancouver Foundation, to talk about the journey to digital maturity in a community foundation. 


We covered: 

  • The surprisingly common lack of digital maturity in foundations—and some of the root causes for these challenges. 
  • Lessons learned for effectively sequencing and managing technology change projects. 
  • The significant shifts in the technology landscape over the past 6 years, and what those shifts mean for cybersecurity. 

Learn more at vancouverfoundation.ca

Come see us at PEAK2021! We’re thrilled to be leading a session on May 6th at 3pm, Where Intention Meets Action: Operationalizing Trust Based Philanthropy. Or swing by the exhibitor hall to chat with one of our friendly team members.

Episode Two Transcript: 


Charles Boname:

The scarier stats are, since the pandemic happened, these [cyber] attacks are up about 600%. I think that's a pretty accurate quote. And they're getting more and more expensive [both to prevent and address], the bad guys are even more brazen, zero-day vulnerabilities mean that the traditional kind of antivirus stuff is pretty much dead.

James Law:

In philanthropy, the path from setting strategy to seeing success can be a little difficult. Here we dig into the experiences of grantmakers figuring out this journey for themselves to help us all better understand how to operationalize our mission and our vision. I'm James Law, director of innovation here at Grantbook and this is the More Good Podcast.

We sat down with Charles Boname, director of IT at the Vancouver Foundation to talk about the journey to digital maturity in a community foundation. We fly over surprisingly, the lack of digital maturity in many foundations, and talk about some of the root causes for these challenges. We then review the lessons learned for effectively sequencing and managing technology change projects, and really touch on the significant shifts in the technology landscape over the past six years, and what some of those changes have meant for cybersecurity. So, hi Charles, how are you?

Charles:

I'm great, James. Yeah, can't complain.

James:

Yeah, thank you again for your time today in doing this. One thing I think we sort of realized at Grantbook over time is just that these sort of conversations, these ones that tend to happen a little sidebar, there's just a lot of richness and wisdom in them. And so we were thinking about trying to capture some of this, so that those who have been in similar situations and who will be in similar situations, have a bit of community to listen to when they find the chance. So maybe to get us started Charles, do you mind telling us just a little bit about yourself? Who you are, your role, the org you work for, and anything else you'd want to share about who you are?

Charles:

Sure. Yeah. Thanks, James. My name is Charles Boname and I've been with the Vancouver Foundation for a little over six years now as the IT director for the organization. That role really is responsible for almost all things technology-related. So whether it's the infrastructure and a mixture of cloud-based and on-premise equipment, but also the cybersecurity elements have been increasingly a big part of my job. And of course, the applications that we serve up working with remote off on outsource partners to help us deliver best of breed solutions, and then generally helping to chart our strategic plans going forward. Making sure that IT has nestled in there with the senior leadership team to help us chart the course in that.

James:

And were you always in IT, Charles, even before you started at the foundation or?

Charles:

Yeah. So I've been in IT for just over 20 years, I guess. And well, prior to that, I was a musician, a professional musician. And before that, I was working in a recreation community, recreation primarily on the arts side but that's where I started my computer course I guess, or my journey. We were one of the first recreation commissions in the country to adopt a computerized registration system. And so that's where I sort of started and got the inkling that technology was a good route for me.

James:

I love it, from musician to technologist. I wonder if there's some similarities you found there.

Charles:

I think there is and there do tend to be a number of musicians that kind of fall into the technical pursuits based on math and things like that, that have a common basis in theory and logic and stuff, I think as well. And my side of things with the art side, I think has just been a nice blend too. I've always been fascinated by design and not just in computers or websites, but design and buildings and automobiles and that as well, so… 

James:

That's awesome. I love to hear these stories of those skills and experiences and interests tying through in many ways throughout us. So, maybe we can then go back a little bit when you first joined the foundation, then what was that like in your role? What did you see as maybe some of the gaps and maybe, or we're often brought into organizations to do certain things, and I wonder looking back, how did that resonate and what did the job end up really entailing?

Charles:

Yeah, great question. I came from the legal side of IT or my previous job was in the legal vertical. I was working for Legal Aid at the beginning of my IT career or the Legal Services Society here in Vancouver. And then that pushed me into legal research and public legal education and that as well. So I was running a network across the province of BC for about 35 different locations. So for various courthouses in the province, and what I was quite surprised about was coming from what was ostensibly a fairly tightly funded organization and going to a billion dollar organization, like a large community foundation, like ourselves was sort of a lack of maturity. I don't mean to say that in a disparaging way to Vancouver Foundation, but the fact that there wasn't really a CRM, we were doing a lot of stuff off the corner of our desks and trying to run operations and managing grants through Excel, primarily a combination of Excel and Outlook things that were familiar and easy for staff, but had a whole ton of workarounds.

And the margin of error was significant. I think, in terms of trying to copy data between systems and making sure we weren't emailing donors 20 times for the same issue and stuff like that. So it was the lack of maturity, I think is probably what I would say that struck me as a bit of a surprise. Some of the decisions that were made on the technical front were, I think given the information at the time were probably the best we could do, but there were definitely better ways to do things. And certainly, we talked about this as well, James, just in that maturity kind of model that you were referencing in your paper that getting those foundational elements in place so that you can actually build and deliver a good service, I think. There are different ways... I've got an ambulance coming by right now, too. So... Yeah, just making sure we're doing things in a logically sequential kind of fashion, I think was important too, and I think we've come leaps and bounds from where we were five or six years ago. And not because of me mainly because we've engaged in great partners, Grantbook being one of them, certainly our partners' foundation power and Salesforce foundation partners. And of course Resolved on the SmartSimple side for our GMS, a big team effort internally and externally.

James:

And I'm a little curious because you mentioned, and we've talked about this before, like you said, Charles, you go in and, and there was sort of maybe a surprising lack of maturity or things are just a bit more fragmented despite being a billion dollars big. And I think you're also right in saying that none of it's disparaging because in our travels and when we work, we work with people in the sector everyone's coming to the table with good values and they want to do the right thing always. So it never is on purpose, but from your perspective despite all of us wanting to do good things, why do you think that sometimes we still let these things falter or fall a little bit? Where do you see some of those gaps may be coming from, having worked in the space for a while? Yeah.

Charles:

Great question. I think it's probably a combination of the governance structures we have in the foundation as well, certainly for our foundation we're stewards of this endowment—it's not our money necessarily. So I think we're always conscious of that and trying to make sure we're making very prudent decisions and making sure we have the structure to do that. But I think the other part of it is it's so much of this relies on the availability and capacity of our internal staff to do these projects, which can be fairly large undertakings, and to participate meaningfully in them so that the change management aspects of these projects are successful. So I say there's that, and then I think just generally all organizations suffer from trying to build out a system, whether it's akin to changing the engine on an airplane, that's fairly straightforward, but when the airplane is in flight, it's a very different story. So there's no time for us to just stop granting for six or seven months while we build a new GMS and implement it in that we have to continue to be available to organizations that are largely dependent on us for financial means, especially these days with the COVID.

James:

Yeah, it feels like often, this whole building the airplane while you're flying it, building the car while you're driving it, these come up a lot, these sort of analogies are saying that folks feel that way. It often comes up a lot when we talk about philanthropy and technology, you bring up a really good point about change management and sometimes needing to do things a little thin and kind of almost flying by the seat of your pants at some points in this process a lot of folks that we work with, and I think a lot of individuals in our space still struggle with a little bit of this needing to change or keep up constantly, not always having the budget and then trying to pursue those new and awesome things that in some cases keep us relevant. In another cases are just values-driven. Maybe when you think about your journey with Vancouver Foundation, or even before that, what have you learned about trying to keep these projects on track or trying to prevent failure or learn from failure? What has that experience been like for you? Yeah.

Charles:

I think so much of it is in the requirements phase and making sure we've really identified our needs. We've established what success looks like, even if it's just articulated in a... We always use a mini project plan template or a project charter that gets signed off from the senior stakeholder. And so we have buy-in always before we even green-light a project. So I think that's been important. What I think... Talking about Grantbook as well, using an outsourced individual or rather a body to come in and help challenge us on those requirements or help have us ask hard questions of ourselves, is this really the right way to do something? This is certainly how we're doing it today, but is that best in terms of making this more digital or more efficient, is there a better way to do it, and are we all comfortable with altering that if it means that we can do things more efficiently?

So I think that's an important aspect of it as well. And that's really difficult for a lot of organizations with a lot of human capital, intellectual capital in the organization, vested in how we've always done things, blah, blah, blah, and stuff like that. So being open to challenge oneself, I think is really important. I would add as well, James, I think that the fear that I've had, which I think we're largely overcoming in Vancouver Foundation is, it's not that this is viewed as an IT project, even if it has a large technical component to it. We've tried to position a lot of our projects as business projects and not necessarily something that's just technology related, but one that really helps advance the business, and as such, we're able to get more participation from the business on these projects so that the end result is hopefully more accurate. And as I said, a moment ago, it helps on the change management side. People have a part in designing and building that new system. So they're more likely to use it. And yeah.

James:

Yeah. Maybe we can focus on that for a little bit because this seems to be a challenge that's quite pervasive across some of the organizations I know I've spoken with, which is this framing that IT projects are always just technology projects and lots of folks have now pushed hard to position them as larger business projects to get sort of not only more buy-in, but to give the project the level of, I think, care, it actually needs for it to be pretty, if not transformative, at least really transitional for an organization. You know, some folks have relied on, to your point, external parties consultants, bringing a profit from the outside in, but what have you maybe learned about trying to reposition some of these projects? A lot of folks have this challenge, so curious what your advice would be on some of them.

Charles:

We recently re-architected our donor portal and we moved it from an internally based .net system to a Salesforce communities-based solution. And that was very much one of those ones where, okay, it's, green-lighted, we've got the dollars to go forward. We've described what we want. We've walked the vendor through the existing system to show pain points, et cetera, pretty well articulated what we thought would be a much better system. And then that business unit pretty much said, "Okay, over to you to tell us when it's done." Kind of in that. And we did have a resource from that donor services group that now works in reports to me in IT. And that was hugely helpful. So I was able to basically kind of second somebody to do this project. But what I think worked really well for us was, that individual had worked in donor services and in finance, so had really strong ties to the business.

So that BA kind of role, but also she was able to surgically insert people from the business at key points in our projects. So being able to be strategic that way and just really mindful of people's time. But here's where we really need a critical decision. And we need a decision made here, and this is where the options are presented and the individual comes in or individuals, we run it past and then we're able to kind of at least have some input from the unit that's critical to the outcome. And so, yes, I think involving the business at various points, as well as looking at our case in this particular project, holding small focus groups, we did at least three, maybe two, for sure, three, with various donor portal stakeholders from outside the organization that were willing to give us their time to say, here's what things look like right now.

But I think one of the biggest challenges of course, as well is having context in this project. We already had a donor portal. People were familiar with what we needed it to do and what information we wanted to surface in that. But in other projects, like our Grants Management System project, we never really had a GMS before. So this was really difficult for that particular department to really get their heads around and say, well, why are you asking us? I don't even know what it is and what one looks like. And so it was really just ground up here are our business processes. And then building as we went and getting feedback again, as we went.

James:

It's really interesting that you bring that up, about the Grants Management System, in particular, it's something that we often find, which is that some folks haven't actually really interfaced... interfaced, excuse me, with a Grants Management System in their whole career. Maybe there was GIFTS, and somebody did some stuff for them in there, but this idea that they would be in a technology system day-to-day, clicking on buttons, completing actions, it's actually quite novel for people to understand.

Charles:

Yes. And I think that's especially so in nonprofit, I mean, We had the resources to build a pretty complex and fairly expensive system and that, but there are a lot of people that come from through the nonprofit space that worked for the Vancouver Foundation that never had those types of systems. They were doing that off the corner of their desk, through Excel tracking things and filtering data that kind of thing.

James:

Yeah. And so maybe one thing we can think about is putting in a Grants Management System, that's something you've had to do thinking about re-platforming your donor portal. Those, to me, all sort of signal changes, shifts in the sector that inevitably have had to happen. And so maybe we can start a little bit with thinking about back to six years ago. How have you sort of seen the space shift maybe like have there been significant changes in community foundations? Foundations and technology? What have you observed?

Charles:

Yeah, well, I think the biggest, most obvious shift I think is the maturity of the cloud landscape, those tools that are available to us and largely at a somewhat discounted price, it's been much more affordable and approachable for smaller foundations and nonprofits to engage with those players. And, yeah, so I would say the ability to shift a lot of that on-premise expertise and both in terms of retaining internal competence to manage those systems that has partially been outsourced. You still need that internal expertise, of course, but the... In terms of hosting those applications and all of that the nuts and bolts of running and securing that type of an apparatus that has largely been, you can outsource that or these hosted in a cloud where you don't have to assume those costs and the 5 nines uptime guarantee and all that kind of stuff, but reasonable a cloud player on AWS or whatever can deliver those solutions for you.

That's probably been the biggest change, but I would say, conversely, the challenges on the cybersecurity side have really been pretty enormous and are changing so rapidly, regardless of whether it's cloud or internal, you can outsource your solution, you can't necessarily outsource the responsibility for it. You still are ultimately on the hook for that. And I think both in terms of security and privacy, these are big ones, big topics for foundations to have to wrestle with these days. And then I would say as well, one of the benefits of the community foundation space, I think the foundation space, in general, is the sharing that goes along with this network of foundations that are going through very similar journeys. And the ability to learn from one another, I think is huge to help us just through mechanisms like this one, to share are the wisdom of the crowd with the crowd and being open about that, to say, here's where we maybe could have made a better decision, or here's where we'd like to go, have you done this blah, blah, blah. So...

James:

Yeah. And maybe on those points, it's worth maybe spending just a bit of time on security here. Cause talking about networks and foundations working with each other, the most recent tech survey, so it's November 2020 right now, if this is dated, but I think it was anywhere between 21 to 24% of foundations had reported significant technical, sorry, security breaches in the past couple of years and maybe Charles, if you don't mind, could you share a little bit about for those who may not even know, like what does security really mean and a foundation and what have you had to sort of explore and put in place and educate your team on to make sure that that is still top of the list, even if it's not a beautiful donor portal, for example, which can drive more energy.

Charles:

Yeah, exactly. Well, we're seeing a fairly significant portion of our budget going to cybersecurity defences, and this whole idea of the old model of hard perimeter soft inside and that it really needs to be pretty much hard all the way through. And as we know, the most of these breaches the most common attack factor, of course, is through emails through phishing so that's targeting your end users. So cybersecurity awareness training, the education of our staff on that is something we're working on all the time. Despite the fact that there has been 22 to 24% increase in breaches for foundations, we've also seen an increase in that same study or those same surveys increase in cyber insurance has picked up quite significantly since 2018 and cybersecurity awareness training as well.

And just the tool sets are also maturing fairly quickly out there as well. And people adopting very advanced AI-based solutions in some cases. And that too has certainly helped us a lot in protecting the environment. But again, it's a bit of a moving target. I think the scarier stats are since the pandemic happened, is these attacks are up about 600%. I think that's a pretty accurate quote and they're getting more and more expensive there. The bad guys are even more brazen—zero-day vulnerabilities mean that the traditional kind of antivirus stuff is pretty much dead. You can not rely on virus definition files that come out three days after there's been a major exploit announced not to protect you. So for Vancouver Foundation, we are using a very layered approach right now with firewall security... we don't have to go into the details on these tools, but belt and suspenders, kind of approach where if one fails, the other one will hopefully keep your pants up and that, and threat locker.

There are many tools that are doing essentially zero trust activity on fiber. So it's basically not AI saying here's normal activity. Here's what we allow to happen and raise a flag. It's like, we don't even allow this to detonate if it's something that is abnormal. Notepad shouldn't be allowing a PowerShell command script to run. It just shouldn't. And so that's the approach we're taking right now. And I think that's fairly new, very current kind of approach out there right now, but absolutely necessary. It's just too dangerous otherwise.

James:

And it definitely... A lot of options and different sort of terminology, I suppose, associated with it, for those who maybe haven't been that deep in it, is this something that one can explore online? Are there... Should people be taking classes or resources, just curious how other folks can sort of beef up their skills on this a little bit.

Charles:

Yeah, certainly I think, I'm constantly reading in this area because for us and for most foundations, reputational risk is not the forefront for us, but in terms of the skills and not... This is where I think an outsource partner is absolutely necessary. I mean, it's just moving too rapidly. So we have our infrastructure group for me, we retained a cybersecurity specialist here in Vancouver that has provided security that has been very, very helpful for us as well. It's just the specialization, I think that's happening in IT in general. It's such that you cannot be a generalist and be expected to really secure the network a hundred percent. You need to have some SMEs in there that really understand this stuff. And will keep your organization kind of at least ahead of the game, or if not ahead of the game at pace with some of the trends that are happening in the cybersecurity world. So yeah.

James:

I think that's such an important point to focus on there, just that you can't rely on one or two people to be generalists for your organization going forward and that. As things hyper develop really, and things pick up speed, you just, it's unreasonable to expect any one person to keep up with everything. And however, an organization does that either through outside insight or SMEs, there's a little bit of empathy there. I think that we're asking for, for our IT folks that there's quite a bit to keep in mind.

Charles:

Absolutely. I think certainly the tool sets can help us to a certain degree, but again, that's why we want to see tools that aren't necessarily increasing our head count, but are still protecting us. So to the extent we can rely on AI, some of these machine learning kind of tools that scan the network, learn the network, understand what regular traffic is, that can really help in terms of having the tools do most of that work for you. But in many cases, you still, you still need a human to intervene at various points to understand whether something's a false positive, that type of thing. So we're trying to balance that, but yeah, IT like many other areas, whether it's medicine or law and not, you have varying degrees of expertise in certain areas. And at some point you do need to call in an expert on conveyance law or tax law and things like you can't just expect a family lawyer to kind of understand all aspects of every portion of the law.

James:

Hm. Definitely. And as the foundations become more digital and it becomes so pervasive in all areas of the business, it then really behooves all of us to think about, okay how can we keep some of these skill sets ready to go? I think. Because you can't just, again, focus on it just as IT, because you never know when some of these aspects are going to pop up in other areas. Yeah. I think that is really wise advice. Maybe one thing we can then talk about is what maybe excites you a little bit about what's coming down the line. You need to talk about maybe AI and security, but I'm all just, I'm also curious for you in this space. What excites you about the future? What are some possibilities that maybe you've seen emerging that you want to lean into a little bit?

Charles:

Well, I would say certainly we haven't talked much about the pandemic and COVID in that, but I think the way we've shifted pretty quickly on a number of organizations, I think where IT does not necessarily save the day, but they've allowed that fairly seamless transition into remote work. I think that's proven in so many ways that that telecommuting model, which for many organizations was pretty tightly governed and maybe two days a week, sorry, two days a month by that type of thing. I think we've proven that this can happen, that people can actually work fairly effectively from home and for a number of organizations operating of big metropolitan areas that rely on staff to come in from the suburbs, but the lost productivity of environmental kind of considerations stuff for having to try and make that great commute work-life balance family kind of considerations and stuff like that.

I think this proves there's a whole new way to work. I'm quite excited about that. Not only because of the reasons I've just mentioned, but I think as well as the opportunity for attracting talent from across the country or even beyond the borders. And that is really quite powerful and no longer should someone have to live in a very expensive real estate market like Vancouver when they could be working in a suburb and then maybe coming in once a month or something for an in-person meeting and that kind of thing, but can largely be working in an affordable market where a spouse is maybe working as a teacher or something in a community that just the possibilities are really quite cool. I think in that regard, that huge concentration of people in urban areas, I think, and satelliting up to suburbs and stuff that can blow that apart. It's kind of cool.

James:

And how has COVID been for you maybe, and then the foundation, like how has that experience been, the transition? Sounds like it's gone fairly smoothly, but curious what else you've seen and learned throughout this process?

Charles:

I think the... Yeah, just being able to kind of work very quickly in March to transition everybody to the remote office from home. I think we did that very, very well. And a lot of that is, we weren't lucky. We planned a lot of this out. We have a business continuity plan and we developed about three years ago, but we are a Citrix shop here. We use a VPN technology called Citrix, which is a sort of virtual private infrastructure for people to kind of connect into a remote session from their home desktop. So essentially we've been able to create or duplicate their desktop at work at home as if it was in the office. And so that's been great. I think the challenge has been for people who are working two or three days a month and doing that to extend that to seven or eight months and beyond to who knows when that's a very different proposition.

So Vancouver Foundation to our credit I think has really been helpful with staff to ensure that they've had a couple of monitors at home to try to make that a little bit better, but then there are always constraints. So I work in an apartment, we have two children who are in school and thankfully they're actually at school right now, which has made my home life and work from home life pretty easy, but there are a lot of families that don't necessarily have the luxury of that. And so there's a lot of considerations while we're in the pandemic anyway, that have to be factored in. And whether it's some people that are... Their offices at the kitchen table, they shift things off after breakfast and start to work and clear things off for dinner time when families come back home. So it's not a perfect world, but in terms of carrying out our operations, continuing business, as usual, we've largely delivered on that. I think we'll likely see at Vancouver Foundation, a hybrid of work from home and on premise as we go forward, perhaps in the new year when it's a little more safe to come back to work. But yeah.

James:

Do you anticipate any new challenges that you may have to face as a result of that or are things feeling pretty good?

Charles:

Yeah, I think so much of this as... Well. Maybe there were fears of trust related kind of... Will people work? Are they slacking off at home? I don't think we have... We've got such a great organization that way. I think there's a lot of built-in trust and professional kind of accountability for the organization. We're not huge at about 50 staff and not so... And we've used the tool sets, Teams and Zoom to stay in touch with each other team meetings. And our E-team, our executive team has been really good on the real talk side of things to make sure people feel connected and aren't burnt out too much. I think that's been one factor for us as people are working some pretty significant hours and trying to make sure we have some downtime knowing that the needs are great out there. We still need to protect ourselves a bit too. So we don't become casualties of this pandemic in a different way. And that so, being aware of overwork and having some balance is really important, so that's definitely been a challenge outside of the technology. I think so

James:

It always comes down to people a little bit. Doesn't it? Even in these times. 

Charles:

In terms of our overall roadmap in that too. I know that's been a question that I've been asked a lot lately is whether or not our roadmap has altered significantly. And I think we are still pretty accurate with it. We've become a little more tactical in terms of doing things that we should have done maybe earlier, but whether it's E-signatures and digital signatures work, and certainly our ACA electronic fund transfers work, that's been a very, very big transformation for us, but it was on the plan, but just we had to move it faster. And so refocusing at reprioritizing, a number of digital transformation activities has been what we've been about for sure, the last eight months.

James:

You know, the acceleration is not uncommon, but I think what you've really been able to demonstrate so far, Charles there's... I think there's a lot that you and your team members have done before COVID to get this all up so that you can accelerate when you need to accelerate. And I think that's really important that you've discussed for us, with us today.

Charles:

Yeah. Absolutely. I think having the confidence of those who control the purse strings, I think is vital as well. We've done enough good work over the last five or six years that both our internal IT steering committee and our finance and audit committee of the board, they have a lot of confidence that we're doing things just as well as we possibly can anyways.

James:

Well, that's a... It sounds like a good success story.

Charles:

Hmm. Yeah.

James:

As we think about sort of the draw here or drawing towards an end point, rather you've told us so much, but there's always more things to do. So I always like to ask. COVID aside, if you could wave a magic wand and make one thing better in your day-to-day, what would you want to fix? What's still sort of nips away at you a little bit?

Charles:

I guess there's always something. I mean, if I could just wave a magic wand and nullify the effects of cybersecurity and the constant attacks that are coming at us, that would be wonderful. I know that's just not possible and that's just a fact of life these days. But I think for our business systems, having better integration across systems would be something that would be really great to be able to shift things. So that there's really nice ties between our Grants Management System, our finance system, and Salesforce on the donor side for CRM and marketing automation. But I think that's work in progress, but that whole concept of an insight driven organization, a data-driven organization, being able to have that information at our fingertips because the data is collected in a way that we can report meaningfully off of it, I think is... Would be great.

And to a certain degree that's just been a little tougher for us on the grants management side, whereas almost everything else we have on donor services and finances moving much closer to the Salesforce kind of ecosystem in a way. I'm still working on that and we're still very pleased with Smart Simple: the applicant experience, the committee review committee experience has been just top-notch as well. So we'll crack that nut, but that would be wonderful to try and have that fully integrated kind of world where we can report and predict and all that would be great.

James:

Well, I think it'd be really awesome to check in a year or so, something like that, just to see where the foundation's gotten and where you see the technology has gone, because it's always a little bit of push and pull in that aspect. Yeah. Well, thank you so much for your time today, Charles, there was a wealth of insight on things broad and specific when from experience to security. And I think is really helpful for both us at Grantbook to hear about, but also I think for anyone else working in the space. So thank you so much for your time and your honesty today.

Charles:

No problem. Thank you, James. That's great.

James:

The More Good podcast is produced by Sara Saddington. Grantbook is a strategic technology consulting firm for grant makers around the world. Don't forget to subscribe to the More Good podcast wherever you get your audio and learn more about our work at grantbook.org.


Sara Saddington's headshot

Sara Saddington

Content Lead

Content Lead

Sara Saddington is a content marketer with experience crafting compelling messaging for B2B companies at the intersection of technology and service delivery. As a lifelong reader, writer, and editor, Sara brings an innate understanding of narrative structure, a passion for data-driven story-telling, and an eye for clarity and consistency. Sara is excited to support the Grantbook team in their mission to help foundations around the globe plan, design, implement and optimize their digital strategies so they can activate more good in the world.