A new study from BBB's Give.org found that 62 percent of donors who use giving platforms say a charity's presence on a well-known platform increases their trust in the organization. That is a remarkable finding. It means the platform itself has become part of the donor's decision-making process. The donation channel is no longer just a piece of technology. It has become a trust signal.

Many nonprofit leaders have viewed giving platforms primarily as transactional tools. Donors appear to see them differently. They associate established platforms with legitimacy, security, oversight, and accountability. In a crowded marketplace where thousands of organizations compete for attention, donors often use shortcuts to determine whom they can trust. A recognizable platform has become one of those shortcuts.

The study also revealed something that should concern every nonprofit executive. Nearly half of giving platform users assume that charities themselves create and manage the donation pages that appear on these platforms. In reality, that is not always the case. Many donors do not distinguish between the platform and the nonprofit. If information is outdated, inaccurate, or misleading, donors often hold the charity responsible regardless of who actually created the page.

That finding helps explain why transparency remains so important. More than half of donors said their trust is driven by clear information about charities and transparency regarding fees and the use of funds. Donors want to know where their money is going. They want to understand who is handling their gift. They want confidence that the organization represented on the screen is the same organization they believe they are supporting.

Another result deserves attention. A majority of donors prefer platforms that obtain a charity's permission before creating a profile or fundraising page. In other words, donors value consent. They want nonprofits to have a voice in how they are represented online. This is not simply a legal or operational issue. It is a trust issue. Donors appear to believe that organizations should have some control over their own identity and presence in the digital marketplace.

The lesson for nonprofit leaders is straightforward. A giving platform is not just a payment processor. It is part of your brand. It is part of your reputation. It is part of the donor experience. Organizations that carefully select trusted platforms, monitor how they are represented online, and prioritize transparency are doing more than improving technology. They are strengthening donor confidence.

In philanthropy, trust remains the most valuable currency. Increasingly, the platform carrying the gift is helping donors decide whether that trust has been earned.

I often convince myself that one more email, one more article, one more project review will somehow make things better. There is always another task waiting. The problem is that work expands to fill whatever space we give it. If left unchecked, it can quietly consume time that belongs to other parts of life.

I have never valued vacations enough. I have viewed them as interruptions rather than investments. Even when away, I have often remained tethered to my laptop and phone, checking messages, solving problems, and keeping one foot firmly planted in the office. Physically absent, mentally present.

This summer, I am trying to do something different.

My family and I are getting away together, and I am making a conscious effort to pull back from work. Not eliminate it completely. That may be unrealistic for me. But reduce it significantly. Spend more time with my wife. Be more present with my children. Have conversations that are not squeezed between meetings. Enjoy a meal without checking notifications. Sit outside without wondering what is waiting in my inbox.

I may even attempt something that feels surprisingly foreign: reading a real book for pleasure.

Not a business book. Not a leadership book. Not a philanthropy book. A book chosen simply because I want to read it. The fact that I cannot remember the last time I did that says something about how thoroughly work has occupied my attention.

Research consistently shows that time away from work is not merely enjoyable; it is healthy. Regular breaks and vacations can reduce stress, lower the risk of burnout, improve sleep quality, and support cardiovascular health. Mental recovery improves creativity, decision making, and focus. The brain benefits from periods of rest just as muscles benefit from recovery after exercise. Constant output without recovery eventually comes with a cost.

I know all of this intellectually. The challenge is putting it into practice.

So, this summer, I am going to try. I am going to try to be more present, more available to my family, and less connected to work. I am going to try to value rest as much as productivity. I am going to try to remember that life is larger than the next project or the next deadline.

It will not be easy. Old habits rarely surrender without a fight.

But I am going to try anyway.

Schools invested millions of dollars in laptops, tablets, smart boards, digital learning platforms, and online assignments. Parents were assured that more technology meant better learning. Communities celebrated one-to-one device programs. Technology became a symbol of innovation, progress, and educational excellence.

Now, in a twist that few could have predicted, educators, researchers, and policymakers are increasingly asking a different question: Have we gone too far?

This conversation is not theoretical in our house. We have a 13-year-old and a 9-year-old, and we see the challenge firsthand. Much of their school day involves screens. Assignments are completed digitally. Reading is often done online. Notes are taken electronically. Even activities that could easily be completed with paper and pencil frequently find their way onto a device.

At home, we have chosen a different path.

We limit screen time dramatically. Our children read books printed on actual paper. They complete schoolwork with pencils and paper whenever possible. Gaming time exists, but it is limited. We are not anti-technology. We simply believe that technology should serve learning, not replace it.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

For decades, educators and policymakers worked tirelessly to bring more technology into classrooms. The goal was understandable. Computers would prepare students for the future. Digital tools would increase engagement. Access to information would expand learning opportunities.

Today, some of the very same systems that once celebrated more screens are questioning whether screens have become an obstacle to learning.

Consider Sweden. After years of aggressively embracing digital learning, the Swedish government recently shifted course. Officials announced investments in printed textbooks and a renewed emphasis on traditional learning methods. Concerns about reading comprehension, attention spans, and foundational academic skills contributed to the decision. One of the world's most technologically advanced nations concluded that technology alone was not producing the educational outcomes many expected.

That same conversation is now unfolding across the United States. Several states are considering or implementing limits on classroom screen time, particularly for younger students. The focus is not on eliminating technology. It is on restoring balance.

There is a lesson here beyond education policy.

New does not automatically mean better. Innovation should always be measured against outcomes. If students read more deeply from paper, retain information more effectively through handwritten notes, and engage more meaningfully with teachers and classmates without a screen between them, we should have the courage to acknowledge that reality.

Technology remains a remarkable tool. But tools are most effective when used intentionally.

The future of education may not be about adding more screens to classrooms. It may be about rediscovering when to put them away.

Recently, I worked with a nonprofit organization with annual revenue exceeding $10 million and more than 100 employees. The board was filled with intelligent, committed, caring people. They wanted the organization to succeed. Yet much of their time was consumed by issues that should never have reached the board table.

Board members debated hiring decisions involving staff several layers below the CEO. They discussed specific program offerings and service delivery details. They questioned accounting processes, expense coding, software choices, and operational procedures. Meeting after meeting, talented volunteers spent valuable time discussing matters that belonged to management.

The problem was not their intentions. The problem was their focus.

As organizations grow, governance and management must become increasingly distinct. The board's role is to establish direction, ensure financial sustainability, oversee organizational performance, hire and evaluate the CEO, and protect the mission. Management's role is to execute

When a board spends its time discussing which staff member should be hired, how a program should be structured, or what accounting process should be followed, it has crossed from governance into management. The result is often frustration on both sides. Staff members feel second guessed. Executives become hesitant to make decisions. Board meetings become crowded with details that generate little strategic value.

More concerning is what gets neglected.

Every hour spent discussing accounting software is an hour not spent discussing long-term financial sustainability. Every debate about a staff vacancy is time not spent examining talent development across the organization. Every conversation about a specific program offering is a conversation not being had about changing community needs, emerging risks, competitive positioning, or future opportunities.

Organizations rarely fail because of a single hiring decision or a software platform. They struggle because they miss larger shifts in their environment. They fail to adapt. They postpone difficult strategic decisions. They lose sight of long-term priorities while concentrating on short-term details.

Board members often believe they are protecting the organization when they immerse themselves in operations. In reality, they may be creating risk. The organization's greatest vulnerabilities are usually found at the strategic level, not in the daily management decisions entrusted to staff.

A strong board asks different questions. Where is the organization headed? What risks threaten the mission? How will we remain financially healthy five years from now? What opportunities are emerging that we should pursue? Is leadership equipped to execute the strategy?

Those are governance questions. Those are board questions.

The future of an organization is rarely determined by who was hired into a mid-level position or how an expense was coded. It is determined by whether leadership and the board spent enough time looking over the horizon instead of staring at the dashboard.

Children often surprise us by doing things we assume are easier for them than they really are. We look at a school play and see excited kids in costumes. What we do not always appreciate is the vulnerability involved. A child walks onto a brightly lit stage, fully aware that every eye in the room is directed toward them. They know they must remember their lines, hit their marks, sing at the right time, and move with confidence. They understand there is a possibility of making a mistake in front of a crowd.

That reality struck me as I watched my daughter perform. The audience was filled with parents, grandparents, family members, and friends. It was a supportive crowd that wanted every child to succeed. Yet a friendly audience does not eliminate anxiety. Anyone who has ever spoken publicly, performed, or presented knows that nervousness is often present regardless of how welcoming the audience may be. There is still a moment when you have to walk into the spotlight and trust yourself.

I am not sure I could have done what she did at nine years old. And even though I speak to 100’s and 1000’s of people in a professional presentation, getting on stage today at 55 years old (in front of a positively biased crowd) would be more than daunting.  In truth, I am not sure many adults could do it comfortably today.  Public speaking routinely ranks among people's greatest fears. Add singing, dancing, memorization, costumes, and stage lights, and the challenge becomes even more significant. Yet there she was, confidently stepping into a role and embracing the experience.

What impressed me most was not the performance itself. It was the willingness to be seen. That may be one of the most difficult forms of courage we ever develop. Many people spend years avoiding situations where they might be judged, evaluated, or exposed to criticism. We gravitate toward what is familiar and comfortable. We often underestimate how much personal growth requires a willingness to risk embarrassment or failure.

Traits such as confidence, resilience, and internal fortitude are difficult to teach directly. We can encourage them, model them, and talk about them, but they are ultimately built through experience. Confidence rarely appears before the challenge. More often, it is the result of facing the challenge. A person discovers they can handle something difficult only after they have done it.

As I watched Town Person #5 deliver her lines, sing her songs, and play her part, I saw something larger than a school production. I saw a young person who I adore and love demonstrating a level of courage that many adults continue to struggle with. It was a reminder that bravery is not always found in dramatic acts. Sometimes it is found in a child who takes a deep breath, steps onto a stage, and trusts herself enough to begin.

As the father of a 13-year-old and a 9-year-old, I increasingly find myself having conversations about protecting themselves from people who do not have their best interests at heart. I want my children to grow up believing in people. I want them to be trusting, optimistic, and open to new relationships and experiences. At the same time, I have a responsibility to prepare them for reality.

Part of that reality is understanding that there are people in this world who will take everything they can if given the opportunity. They will deceive, manipulate, and steal. They will take advantage of trust. They will exploit kindness. They will look for vulnerabilities and use them for their own gain.

That is a difficult lesson to teach a child because it runs counter to the values most parents hope to instill. We spend years encouraging empathy, generosity, and compassion. Then, at some point, we have to explain that not everyone operates from those same values.

Recently, I read an article about scammers creating fake Venmo accounts that closely resemble legitimate nonprofit organizations. Donors believe they are supporting a cause they care about. Instead, their gifts are diverted to criminals who have no connection to the organization. While the financial loss is concerning, what struck me most was the complete disregard for the people involved. These scammers are willing to exploit generosity itself. They see someone attempting to help others and view that act of kindness as an opportunity for personal profit.

There is something particularly troubling about that.

Those of us who work in philanthropy spend our careers building trust. Donors trust organizations to use their gifts wisely. Organizations trust donors to partner with them in meaningful ways. Communities trust institutions to fulfill their missions. Trust is the foundation upon which philanthropy operates.

Unfortunately, trust also creates opportunities for bad actors. The same people I warn my children about are willing to target nonprofit organizations, donors, volunteers, and staff. They do not care about the mission. They do not care about the people being served. They do not care about the consequences. They care only about what they can gain.

The lesson for nonprofits is the same lesson I teach my children. Protect yourself.

Protect yourself personally by remaining aware of risks and verifying information before acting. Protect yourself professionally by following sound practices and maintaining healthy skepticism. Protect your organization through strong policies, staff training, donor education, and effective oversight.

Most importantly, never assume it cannot happen to you.

Every victim of fraud once believed they were not a likely target. Every organization that experiences a scam thought it happened somewhere else. Complacency is often the vulnerability that criminals exploit most effectively.

I wish I did not have to teach my children that some people will take advantage of others. I wish nonprofit organizations did not have to dedicate time and resources to protecting themselves from fraud. Yet both realities exist.

The best response is neither fear nor cynicism. It is awareness. Trust remains essential in families, communities, and philanthropy. But trust should always be accompanied by vigilance. In today's world, protecting what matters requires both.

For years, many parents have quietly wondered what happened to honest feedback in education. Recently, Harvard faculty voted to limit grade inflation, acknowledging a problem that has been building for decades. When nearly everyone receives top marks, grades stop measuring achievement and start measuring participation.

As a parent, I have watched a version of this play out much earlier in the educational process.

More than once, I have looked through my children's homework and assignments only to find them returned with no corrections, no comments, and no indication of what was done well or poorly. Sometimes there is a check mark. Sometimes there is a smiley face. Occasionally there is simply a grade that seems disconnected from the actual work.

When I have asked teachers about it, I have heard explanations that sound familiar to many parents. “We want students to feel good about themselves.” “They were close.”  “We focus on effort.”  “We do not want them discouraged.”

I understand the intent. Every parent wants their child to feel confident. Every educator wants students engaged and motivated. Confidence matters.

Learning matters more.

The purpose of school is not to protect children from every disappointment. The purpose of school is to help them grow. Growth requires feedback. Feedback requires honesty.

If a math problem is wrong, it should be marked wrong. If a paper has errors, those errors should be identified. If a student earns a “B,” that grade should communicate that the work was good but not excellent. If the work earns a “C,” that should signal that improvement is needed.

An “A” should mean something.

When every effort receives the same praise and every assignment receives a top mark, students lose valuable information. They lose the opportunity to understand where they excel and where they need to improve. They lose the connection between effort and outcome. Most importantly, they lose the chance to develop resilience.

Some of the most important lessons in life come from falling short of a goal. A disappointing grade can teach preparation. A missed opportunity can teach discipline. Constructive criticism can teach humility. These experiences are not obstacles to growth. They are growth.

The real world provides feedback constantly. Employers provide evaluations. Customers make choices. Markets reward excellence. Organizations promote performance. Shielding children from honest assessment does not prepare them for that reality. It delays their encounter with it.

Children are more capable than we often give them credit for. They can handle correction. They can recover from disappointment. They can learn from mistakes. In fact, those abilities are among the most important outcomes education can produce.

The goal should never be making students feel bad about themselves. The goal should be helping them become better versions of themselves.

That requires encouragement. It also requires honesty.

An “A” should represent excellence. A “B” should represent solid work with room for improvement. A “C” should signal the need for greater effort or mastery. When grades carry meaning, students learn. When everyone receives an “A,” nobody really does.

As I read the email, I was reminded that this idea first gained traction years ago as wealth screening became more sophisticated and more widely adopted. What began as a useful research tool gradually evolved in some organizations into something much larger. Instead of informing strategy, capacity ratings began driving strategy. Somewhere along the way, some leaders started believing that if a donor had the capacity to make a six figure or seven figure gift, the organization should simply ask for it

The problem is that fundraising has never worked that way.

A donor's capacity and a donor's inclination are not the same thing. Neither are capacity and commitment. A wealth screening can provide useful information about financial resources, but it cannot tell us whether someone cares deeply about the mission, trusts the organization, feels connected to its leadership, or sees philanthropy to that institution as part of their identity. Those factors are often far more important than the numbers found in a screening report.

Imagine a donor who has given $50 annually for years. Their lifetime giving totals less than $1,000, but a wealth screening suggests they could make a gift of $250,000 or even $500,000. Some leaders now seem willing to jump directly from the donor's giving history to the capacity estimate and build a solicitation strategy around the larger number. That approach ignores everything we know about donor behavior. Most significant philanthropic relationships are built over time through engagement, trust, demonstrated impact, and increasingly meaningful investments. Donors rarely wake up one morning and decide to move from a modest annual gift to a transformational commitment simply because someone asked.

And even one step further, this all ignores the fact that 85% of the wealth in the US, and at higher levels with some of the wealthiest people in the world, is not in cash or marketable securities.  It is in 401k’s, IRA, real estate, antique cars, wine collections, farmland, etc.  And to get to those conversations, a gift officer better develop trust.  Almost no one is going to dip into their assets to make a gift based on a single or two conversations—no matter how good the discussions were.

What concerns me most is that this philosophy reflects a misunderstanding of the gift officer's role. Professional fundraisers are not human versions of wealth screening software. Their value comes from understanding people. They listen. They learn. They connect donor interests with institutional priorities. They help donors move along a journey that is often measured in years rather than months. When organizations reduce fundraising to asking for the largest number attached to a donor record, they diminish the professional judgment of the very people they hired to build relationships.

The consequences extend beyond donor relationships. Gift officers know when they are being asked to do something that lacks strategic sense. They know when a solicitation amount is disconnected from a donor's history, engagement, and demonstrated interest. When leadership consistently ignores that judgment and imposes unrealistic expectations, frustration follows.

Eventually some of the most talented professionals decide to leave for organizations where relationship building is still valued.

What makes these directives particularly frustrating is that they often originate from leaders who are insulated from the consequences. In large organizations, senior advancement executives frequently oversee portfolios filled with the institution's most loyal donors and strongest relationships. They operate from a position of credibility built over decades. It is easy to issue broad directives about asking at capacity when someone else must sit across the table, make the ask, repair the relationship if it goes poorly, and continue managing the donor afterward.

Will this approach produce some large gifts? Of course it will. Almost any strategy will generate occasional success stories. The danger is that leadership often focuses on those victories while ignoring the far greater number of donors who become confused, uncomfortable, or disengaged.

At the same time, gift officers become increasingly frustrated by expectations that substitute algorithms for professional judgment.

Fundraising is ultimately about relationships, not capacity ratings. Organizations that forget that distinction may secure a few impressive gifts in the short term. The longer-term outcome is often much less attractive: strained donor relationships, declining trust in leadership, increased staff turnover, and a culture that values transactions more than genuine philanthropic partnership.

At first glance, that seems like a commentary on charts, dashboards, and annual reports. In reality, it is a commentary on nearly every aspect of modern fundraising.

Fundraisers operate in a world where attention has become one of the scarcest resources available. Donors are overwhelmed by emails, texts, social media posts, videos, advertisements, and endless notifications competing for their time. The challenge is no longer simply communicating impact. The challenge is earning enough attention to communicate impact.

Think about annual giving.

A donor opens an email. You have roughly three seconds for the subject line, opening sentence, image, or headline to answer a simple question: "Why should I care?" If that answer is not immediately apparent, the donor moves on.

The same principle applies to direct mail. Before a letter is read, it is scanned. The donor looks at the envelope, headline, images, and opening paragraph. A decision about relevance is made almost instantly.

Videos face the same challenge. Many organizations spend considerable resources creating excellent content only to lose viewers in the opening moments. The first few seconds determine whether the audience stays engaged long enough to understand the message.

Even major gift fundraising is not immune.

Consider a cultivation call with a prospective donor. The first few moments often establish whether the conversation will be transactional or meaningful. The prospect begins forming impressions immediately. Do you understand their interests? Are you bringing value? Is this conversation worth their time?

The first few seconds create momentum or resistance.

Some may interpret this reality as a reason to simplify messaging. I view it differently. The

objective is not simplification. The objective is clarity.

Donors still want substance. Major donors still want detailed outcomes. Foundations still expect evidence. Board members still require thoughtful analysis. None of that has changed.

What has changed is the path to getting there.

Organizations must communicate impact in layers. The first layer captures attention. The second builds understanding. The third provides evidence. Too often, nonprofits begin with layer three and never earn enough attention to reach it.

The organizations that will thrive in the coming decade will not necessarily be those with the most data. They will be those that connect data to meaning most effectively.

Fundraising has always been about helping donors understand the difference their investment makes. Today's environment simply requires us to do it faster.

Whether it is an email, a stewardship video, a direct mail appeal, a social media post, or the opening moments of a donor conversation, the same question exists:

Can you communicate relevance before attention disappears?  In many cases, the answer determines whether the conversation continues at all.

The reality is that the educational marketplace has changed dramatically.

For colleges and universities, the demographic trends have been discussed for years. There are fewer college age students than there were in previous generations, and the number continues to decline in many parts of the country. At the same time, higher education faces increasing skepticism from families who are questioning both cost and value. Students now have more alternatives than ever before. Some pursue trade programs. Others earn certifications. Some enter the workforce directly. Many are simply choosing different paths than the traditional four-year residential college experience.

Yet despite these changes, many institutions continue to operate as though nothing has happened.

The result is a growing number of colleges competing aggressively for a shrinking pool of students. Tuition discounting continues to increase. Marketing costs continue to increase. Administrative costs continue to increase. Institutions find themselves spending more money to recruit fewer students while simultaneously trying to maintain facilities, staffing levels, and programs that were built for enrollment numbers that may never return.

Independent private high schools face many of the same challenges. Demographic shifts affect them as well. Rising operating costs create pressure on tuition. Families have more educational options than ever before, including public schools, charter schools, online programs, specialized academies, and homeschooling. Competition for students has intensified while the cost of delivering a high-quality educational experience continues to rise.

What surprises me is not that some institutions are struggling. What surprises me is how resistant many remain to exploring alternatives.

In the corporate world, strategic combinations occur regularly. Organizations combine resources, eliminate duplication, expand capabilities, and strengthen their market position. No one automatically assumes that a merger represents failure. Often it is viewed as smart leadership responding to changing conditions.

Education should be willing to think the same way.

Not every merger makes sense. Not every partnership creates value. Some institutions should absolutely remain independent. But leaders should at least be willing to evaluate possibilities before circumstances force decisions upon them. A thoughtful merger undertaken from a position of relative strength is very different from a desperate merger pursued after years of financial decline.

The greatest risk may not be considering merger opportunities. The greatest risk may be refusing to consider them.

Educational institutions exist to serve students. Their purpose is not to preserve a particular organizational chart or corporate structure. If combining resources with another institution strengthens academic offerings, improves financial stability, enhances the student experience, and better positions the organization for the future, leaders have an obligation to examine the opportunity seriously.

History and tradition matter. They always will.

But history and tradition alone will not solve demographic challenges, declining enrollment, rising costs, or changing consumer preferences. The institutions that thrive in the coming decades may very well be those willing to have conversations that many others continue to avoid.

Tenure exists for a reason. It protects academic freedom and allows faculty to pursue research and teaching without political or financial pressure shaping every decision. That principle has value and remains central to how higher education functions.

At the same time, public universities, especially those supported by state dollars, operate within economic constraints. Families expect affordability, and legislators expect accountability. When enrollment declines in certain programs or student demand shifts, institutions cannot ignore those signals for long without consequences.

This is where the conversation becomes difficult but necessary. If a program consistently draws very low student interest or no longer aligns with workforce demand or institutional mission, maintaining full staffing levels creates financial strain. Over time, that strain shows up in tuition increases, reduced student services, or delayed investment in areas that matter more to current students.

There has to be some mechanism for adjustment within the system. That includes, in limited and well justified cases, the ability to reduce faculty positions. This should not be a blunt instrument or a reaction to short term pressure, but part of a deliberate and transparent process tied to enrollment trends, program outcomes, and long-term strategy.

This is not a dismissal of tenure but a recognition that it cannot be entirely insulated from the broader system it operates within. When the financial model shifts, every part of the institution has to be examined with some level of discipline.

Execution is where institutions will either build or lose trust. Decisions need to be grounded in data such as sustained low enrollment, declining majors, or duplication of programs. Process matters just as much, including faculty governance, clear criteria, and consistent application.

There is also a human cost that cannot be ignored. These are careers and livelihoods, not just budget lines. The loss of positions affects communities, research continuity, and the student experience, which is why these decisions carry weight.

Avoiding the issue does not preserve the system. It places pressure elsewhere and often on students. Public universities exist to serve students and families, and if affordability and relevance are priorities, institutions need tools to adapt.

The balance is uncomfortable, but without it, sustainability becomes harder to maintain.

What I see now is the outcome of years that did not always feel significant at the time.

Expectations were set early. Clear rules were established. Discipline was consistent. Consequences were tied to behavior and not to mood. None of that felt profound in the moment. It felt repetitive. At times it felt exhausting.

Now it looks different.

He generally makes solid decisions. Not perfect decisions. Not even close. But there is a noticeable pattern of thinking before acting. There is an emerging ability to weigh risk and reward. That does not eliminate poor choices. It just reduces how often they happen and how severe they become. For a teenage boy, that is meaningful progress.

There are still moments that remind me exactly how young he is. Impulse shows up. Logic disappears. Confidence exceeds competence. That is part of the process. The difference now is that he can often recognize it after the fact. Sometimes even in the moment. That is a shift.

What I realize most now is how little I appreciated those early parenting decisions (completely informed by my father, the war hero, military officer, and West Point instructor) when we were making them. Holding a line on behavior when it would have been easier to let it go. Enforcing consequences when it would have been simpler to ignore it. Repeating expectations over and over when it felt like nothing was sticking.

It was sticking.

His mother and I did not try to be his friend. That was not the role. The role was to be his parent. That meant making decisions he did not always like. It meant short term friction for long term development. It meant creating structure even when flexibility would have been easier in the moment.   The environment was not soft. It was not designed to remove discomfort. It was designed to teach him how to handle it. At the same time, it was grounded in care and consistency. And in unconditional love.  He always knew where the lines were. He also knew why they were there.

Looking at him now, I see a teenager who is far from finished but moving in the right direction. He is capable of thinking through choices at a level I did not expect this early. That does not prevent mistakes. It just means those mistakes can become learning points instead of problems.

I am still not convinced I am ready for this stage. But I am more confident that he is equipped for it. That confidence does not come from hope. It comes from years of decisions that did not feel significant at the time and now realize they clearly were.

That shift matters. Too often, disaster philanthropy is reactive, fragmented, and heavily concentrated in the earliest days when attention is highest and needs are still being assessed. The Omaha approach recognized a different reality. Recovery is not an event, it is a long process that requires structure, patience, and coordination. The foundation helped convene stakeholders into a shared system that reduced duplication and addressed gaps that individuals and families often fall through after initial relief dollars are spent. That is disciplined leadership.

The article also describes the use of case management as a central feature, where trained professionals worked directly with impacted households to navigate insurance, federal aid, and rebuilding decisions. This is not glamorous work, but it is effective. It moves philanthropy closer to outcomes rather than activity.

As a five generation Nebraskan and Omahan, I felt a sense of pride reading this. There is a practical mindset in Nebraska that values getting things done, often without a need for recognition, and this model reflects that orientation. It is thoughtful, coordinated, and grounded in what people actually need over time.

What stands out even more is that this approach did not require new resources as much as it required new thinking. Pooling funds, aligning decision making, and focusing on navigation rather than fragmentation are choices. They are available to many communities if leadership is willing to challenge default behaviors.

This is where the broader lesson sits. Nonprofit organizations and philanthropic institutions need to become more creative in how they structure solutions. Creativity in this context is not about branding or messaging. It is about design, how systems are built, how decisions are made, and how resources move to where they are needed most.

The Omaha example shows that when organizations step into a coordinating role, rather than a narrowly defined program role, the results can improve. It also shows that community foundations can serve as infrastructure, not just intermediaries, and that distinction matters for the future of the sector.

The article gives full credit to a local response, but the implications extend well beyond Nebraska. Communities everywhere face complex challenges that do not fit neatly into single organizational missions or funding streams. Those challenges require integration, discipline, and a willingness to rethink how work gets done. This is a strong example of what that can look like in practice, and it is one that deserves attention.

The recent report involving Brendan Sorsby, covered by most sports media sites/networks, is not an anomaly. It is a case study. According to that reporting, Sorsby is entering a gambling addiction program. That single sentence captures the outcome of a system that has normalized constant access, frictionless transactions, and persistent behavioral reinforcement.  And at this point, it is unknown if this reaches criminal negligence regarding game fixing.

Data aligns with what many suspected. Multiple studies indicate that roughly 60 percent to 75 percent of college aged males engage in sports betting in some form. That range is wide, but the direction is clear. Participation is not niche. It is mainstream behavior embedded in campus life. When that level of participation meets an environment where wagering is available on demand through a phone, the barrier between impulse and action is effectively removed.

State level legalization has accelerated this shift. The policy argument has focused on regulation and tax revenue. The practical effect has been distribution. Gambling is no longer a destination activity. It is delivered directly into dorm rooms, apartments, and locker rooms. The industry has optimized for immediacy, frequency, and retention.

From a behavioral economics standpoint, it mirrors the delivery model of other high frequency reward systems.  Physiologically, prop betting intensifies the risk by creating rapid reward cycles, where wagering on individual plays can trigger dopamine responses every 30 to 60 seconds, reinforcing behavior at a much higher frequency than traditional game outcome bets.

It is also important to acknowledge that student-athletes operate within a different risk profile. They are closer to the product. They are more likely to have insider exposure. They are subject to performance pressure. And they are often younger than the environments they are asked to navigate. When access is constant and cultural acceptance is high, body/brain science tells us of people seeking the release of endorphins, the probability of boundary failure increases.

However, focusing only on athletes misses the broader issue. This is not confined to locker rooms. It is a societal pattern that is scaling across campuses and into early adulthood. The same conditions that affect athletes apply to their peers, with fewer institutional controls and less scrutiny. States face a conflicting incentive structure. The revenue from legalized sports betting is significant and growing. That creates reluctance to impose restrictions that might reduce volume. As a result, policy responses tend to lag behind behavioral impact.

This will not be the last story of its kind. The underlying variables have not changed. Access remains immediate. Participation remains high. Oversight remains uneven. Until those variables shift, similar outcomes should be expected.

But the conversation feels incomplete.

It tends to treat outcomes as something that happens to graduates, rather than something shaped by the choices they make along the way. That distinction matters.

When I was in college, I was not just taking classes. I was working. Internships, part time jobs, anything that connects learning to actual work. It was not optional in my household. My father was direct about it. He also had strong views about what I should study. He pushed for a degree that was usable. For me, that meant business, not English. His logic was simple. A degree should translate into the workforce.

That perspective shaped how I approached everything that followed.

When I went on to law school and later completed my MBA, I already knew I did not want to practice law. So, I made a decision. I spent my time interning in the field I actually wanted to pursue. While I was earning advanced degrees, I was also building relevant experience. Not perfectly. Not strategically in the way people might frame it today. But intentionally.

That is a piece often missing in the underemployment conversation.

We talk about alignment between degrees and jobs. That is important. But alignment also comes from behavior during those years, not just the degree itself. Internships, work experience, exposure to real environments. Those decisions compound over time.

There is another part of this discussion that rarely gets attention. Expectations. When I graduated from college, and again after law school and my MBA, I did not step into a comfortable life. I lived like a pauper. Ramen noodles were a staple. I drove an old car. There was no real social life to speak of. That was the tradeoff.

When I finished my graduate work, I was also getting married. My wife was in graduate school and worked as a resident advisor, so we lived in university housing. I was working my first real job, full-time.  Our housing choice was not by choice, but because it was what we could afford. We had no money. None. That experience shaped how I viewed early career outcomes.

Today, some of the frustration around underemployment is tied to a mismatch between expectations and reality. There is an assumption that a degree, even an advanced one, should immediately translate into a well-paying, fulfilling role. That has never been guaranteed.  Maybe even should be the goal.

The first job is often a bridge, not a destination.

This does not dismiss the structural issues raised in the article. There are real concerns about how higher education aligns with workforce demand. There are questions about the value proposition of certain degrees. Those are legitimate.

But focusing only on the system removes agency from the individual.

Students make choices. I made choices.  What to study.  How work would reduce loan dependency. Whether to work while in school. Whether to pursue internships. How to build experience alongside education. How to live after graduation. Each of those decisions influences outcomes in ways that are often underestimated---or even discussed before/during the educational experience.

There is also a discipline in starting from the bottom. Living lean. Taking roles that build skills rather than status. Delaying comfort. That phase is not always pleasant, but it can be formative.

Underemployment, as a concept, is useful for diagnosing a problem. But it can also obscure the more nuanced reality that early careers are rarely linear, and rarely ideal.

The goal is not just to get the right job. It is to build a trajectory.  That starts long before graduation, and it often requires a willingness to accept that the early years may look nothing like success.

In rooms full of people, it is easy to default to averages. Leaders scan for trends, majorities, and segments, and strategy becomes oriented around “the group.” Over time, the one person becomes abstract. A donor turns into a data point, a student into a score, and a patient into a case.

The risk is not philosophical. It is operational.

Research on personalized learning provides a useful signal. When systems are designed to respond to individual needs, measurable outcomes improve. A large study of more than 11,000 students found those in personalized learning environments showed stronger gains in math and reading than peers in traditional models. Other analyses indicate students in personalized settings can perform up to 30 percent better on assessments while also showing higher engagement and retention. Engagement itself correlates with achievement, with higher engagement environments producing more students at or above proficiency.

The pattern is consistent across domains. When attention narrows to the individual, outcomes improve.

This dynamic extends beyond education. Individuals bring different starting points, motivations, and constraints into any system. Models built for the “average” systematically miss those differences. Over time, that gap compounds. In education, it widens inequality. In philanthropy, it weakens relationships. In organizations, it suppresses performance.

Focusing on “the one” is not a rejection of scale. It is a refinement of how scale is achieved.

High performing systems embed personalization into their operating model rather than treating it as an exception.

• In education, that means adapting pace and content to the learner.

• In fundraising, it means aligning engagement with a donor’s interests, timing, and decision process.   

• In leadership, it requires seeing the individual behind the role and responding accordingly.

There is also discipline required. Seeing the one depends on proximity and attention. It requires quantitative data, but also observation, listening, and iteration. It can feel slower in the moment, yet it reduces misalignment and inefficiency over time.

There is a secondary effect that is often underestimated. When individuals feel seen, behavior shifts. Engagement increases, commitment deepens, and relationships move from transactional to relational. That is where disproportionate impact begins to form.

Large systems will always optimize for the many. That is necessary. But outcomes are determined in the margins where individuals either connect or disengage. The practical challenge is designing systems that do not lose the one while serving the many.

That was the lesson of Richard Nixon and Watergate. The original break-in was serious. The larger collapse came from the effort to deny, hide, delay, deflect, and protect those in power. Once leaders choose preservation over truth, the institution becomes part of the harm.

That appears to be the deeper issue in a Nebraska women’s basketball matter, started some three (3) years ago. A former assistant coach reportedly admitted, just recently in a deposition, to a sexual relationship with a former player after earlier denials. The lawsuit alleges the institution failed to protect the player and mishandled what followed.

The power dynamic was wrong from the beginning. A coach holds influence over playing time, status, team belonging, future opportunity, and emotional security. A player is not operating from an equal position. Even when conduct is framed as a relationship, the imbalance cannot be ignored. Authority changes the meaning of consent, pressure, silence, and fear.

The institutional failure, if the allegations are proven, is even larger. The people with power (university leaders, the Athletics Director, Head Coach, administrators) appear to have protected the system, the brand, the department, and each other. The player, a starter, when initial discovered, unofficially was suspended. The assistant coach kept coaching. The player became the expendable person. The adults with authority managed risk. The athlete carried consequences.

That is where organizations lose moral standing.

Universities, athletic departments, nonprofits, companies, and boards all face the same test. When misconduct surfaces, leaders can protect the vulnerable person or protect the hierarchy. They can seek truth or manage optics. They can ask who was harmed or ask how to contain the story.

The cover up kills because it compounds the original wound. It tells victims they were never the priority. It tells staff that loyalty matters more than honesty. It tells the public that the mission statement was negotiable.

Watergate remains relevant because it revealed a pattern still common in institutions. Power first. Truth later. The lesson is not only political. It is organizational. When leaders hide behind process, titles, legal language, or silence, they may win a day. They lose the future.

My expectation is that this will never be fully tested in a courtroom. These matters rarely are. The power brokers tend to settle. Agreements are reached. Statements are issued. The system resets. The formal/actual truth is never revealed, even if it is a public entity. Whether anything was learned is less clear.

The better response is still available. Name the power imbalance. Protect the person with less power. Separate institutional loyalty from ethical duty. Investigate without favoritism. Do not punish the person who was vulnerable while preserving the people who controlled the environment.

The first wrong act can create a crisis.

The cover up can and does negatively define the institution.

I wrote about this in January 2025 in a post titled “Millions of Webpages to Be Edited in Less Than 365 Days.” The core issue then is the same one now. The scope of the mandate was massive, while the timeline and infrastructure to support it were limited. Institutions were being asked to review, remediate, and in many cases rebuild entire digital ecosystems. That includes websites, PDFs, video libraries, course materials, and third-party platforms.

At the time, I noted that the challenge was not philosophical. Most institutions agree with the intent. Accessibility is not controversial. The difficulty sits in execution. The volume of content alone creates a structural problem. Large universities can have millions of pages and files. Many are decentralized, owned by different departments, stored across systems, and updated inconsistently.

Even with strong leadership, the operational lift is significant. It requires technical audits, content rewrites, new governance models, staff training, and ongoing monitoring. It also requires funding. Many institutions were attempting to address this without dedicated budget increases or

sufficient staffing. That creates a gap between expectation and reality.

The delay acknowledges that gap.

There is a broader pattern worth noting. When compliance expectations are set at a level that very few organizations can realistically meet, enforcement becomes difficult. If most institutions are out of compliance, the mandate loses practical force. At that point, regulators often adjust timelines or expectations rather than pursue widespread penalties. This is not a statement about intent. It is a reflection of how large systems behave under pressure.

That dynamic appears to be at play here.

The extension does not eliminate the requirement. It resets the clock. Institutions still need to move toward compliance. The underlying work remains. If anything, the delay should be used to build a more durable approach. One that prioritizes high traffic content, establishes clear ownership, and integrates accessibility into ongoing workflows rather than treating it as a one-time project.

There is also a strategic question for leadership. Compliance should not be framed only as a regulatory burden. Done well, accessible digital content improves usability for all users. It strengthens communication, reduces friction, and aligns with broader mission goals, especially in education and healthcare.

The risk is that institutions interpret the delay as permission to pause. That would repeat the same cycle that led to the initial deadline pressure.  The more productive response is different. Use the additional time to build systems that can sustain compliance over time.

The mandate did not change. The timeline did.

For most of my career, I have made the case that fundraising strategies overly centered on cash miss the larger reality. Roughly 85 percent of wealth in the United States is held in non-liquid forms. Real estate, retirement accounts, closely held businesses, and insurance policies dominate the balance sheet of most families. Cash is a small slice.

When organizations focus only on annual gifts, they are competing for that smaller slice. When they build serious planned giving programs, they access the other 85 percent.

That is the context in which St. Jude’s accomplishment should be viewed. They did not just raise money. They aligned their strategy with how wealth actually exists.

Their approach reflects several principles that show up consistently in high performing programs. Planned giving is treated as a core growth strategy, not a side conversation. Bequests are positioned as the entry point, which lowers complexity and increases participation. Conversations are driven by donor intent rather than technical structures.

This matters because most donors are not thinking first about tax optimization. They are thinking about impact, legacy, and what their life represents over time. The most effective programs understand that second and third gifts are not about what the donor can do for the organization. They are about what the organization can help the donor accomplish.

There is also a timing issue that cannot be ignored. Over the next two decades, more than $80 trillion is expected to transfer between generations. Even conservative estimates suggest that between 11 and 14 percent of that will go to nonprofits. The organizations that build disciplined planned giving programs today will be the ones positioned to benefit from that shift.

St. Jude’s results are a scaled example of what happens when this work is done consistently. They normalized the idea of including the organization in an estate plan. They invested in long term relationships. They made the conversation accessible. None of that is complicated, but it does require commitment and clarity.

There is a practical takeaway here. If most of the wealth is in assets, then the primary question for any organization is whether it has a strategy to engage those assets. Planned giving is not a technical specialty reserved for a small group of donors. It is the most direct path to aligning donor capacity with donor intent.

The organizations that recognize this will not just raise more. They will build more durable and more meaningful partnerships with the people they serve.

I am not going to take a side here. Not because the issue lacks importance, but because I do not know what I do not know. Complex labor disputes are shaped by details that rarely make their way into public summaries. Compensation structures, long-term liabilities, enrollment projections, and internal negotiations all matter. Anyone who suggests this is simple is either uninformed or advocating.

What stands out to me is something else entirely. What is missing from most of the conversation is the student.

More than fifty thousand students were affected in this case. That is not a footnote. That is the central impact. Classes interrupted or canceled. Academic timelines disrupted. Financial aid delayed. Transfer plans complicated. For some, graduation timelines pushed out. For others, uncertainty about whether the term will even count.

Time matters for students in a way it does not for institutions or employees. A delayed quarter or semester is not just an inconvenience. It can mean additional tuition, lost wages, childcare complications, or visa issues for international students. It can mean momentum lost for students already balancing work, family, and school. Many community college students are navigating fragile pathways. Disruption carries real cost.

Learning itself is also affected in ways that are harder to quantify. Continuity matters. When instruction stops and restarts, comprehension suffers. Engagement declines. The rhythm of learning breaks. These are not abstract concerns. They influence completion rates and long-term outcomes.

What is striking is how rarely this perspective is centered. Public narratives tend to frame these disputes as a contest between labor and management. That framing is understandable, but it is incomplete. Students are not observers. They are the primary stakeholders. Yet their experience is often reduced to a line or two near the end of an article.

This pattern extends beyond this situation. In public district labor disputes across education, the same dynamic appears. Adults negotiate. Adults advocate. Adults take positions. Students absorb the consequences.

That does not mean strikes are unjustified or that institutions should simply concede. It does mean the conversation should expand. If student impact were treated as a primary consideration rather than a secondary effect, how might decisions change. How might timelines shift. How might communication improve.

There is a discipline required here. To hold space for complexity without rushing to judgment. To acknowledge competing realities. And to keep attention to those who have the least power in the situation.

In moments like this, the question is not only who is right. It is also who is carrying the cost.