Over the next two weeks on the Nonprofit Build Up®, Nic is talking with DeAnna Hoskins, President and CEO of JustLeadership USA also known as JLUSA. DeAnna Hoskins has been at the helm of JLUSA since 2018. A nationally recognized leader and dynamic public speaker, she has been committed to the movement for racial and social justice, working alongside those most impacted by marginalization for over two decades. DeAnna leads from the perspective that collective leadership, advocacy for justice with reinvestment, and bold systems change are only possible when those who are most harmed are provided the tools and resources to demand change. You will not want to miss these episodes.
Listen to Part One here:
Listen to Part Two here:
About DeAnna Hoskins:
DeAnna Hoskins has been at the helm of JLUSA as the President and CEO of JustLeadershipUSA (JLUSA) since 2018. A nationally recognized leader and dynamic public speaker, Ms. Hoskins has been committed to the movement for racial and social justice, working alongside those most impacted by marginalization for over two decades. Ms. Hoskins leads from the perspective that collective leadership, advocacy for justice with reinvestment, and bold systems change are only possible when those who are most harmed are provided the tools and resources to demand change. Her own life experience has been this driving force, having been directly impacted by the system of incarceration and the war on drugs, and with her professional experience, from working on grassroots campaigns to state and federal government. She is inspired to make the world more just with communities across the country, and for her three children – two that have experienced the criminal justice system.
Ms. Hoskins has been a part of JLUSA’s national alumni network since 2016, as a Leading with Conviction Fellow. Prior to taking the helm at JLUSA, Ms. Hoskins was at the Department of Justice where she joined under the Obama Administration. There, she served as a Senior Policy Advisor (Corrections/Reentry) providing national leadership on criminal justice policy, training, and technical assistance and information on best and promising practices. She oversaw the Second Chance Act portfolio and managed cooperative agreements between federal agencies – the Department of Labor’s Clean Slate Clearinghouse, supporting formerly incarcerated people with expunging their records; the National Reentry Resource Center; the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences and Convictions; the National Institute of Corrections Children of Incarcerated Parents initiative; and more. She also served as the Deputy Director of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. DeAnna is also the 2021 recipient of the 400 Years of African American History Commission Award.
Throughout her career she has been committed to reducing stigma and harm in communities impacted by mass criminalization. Prior to joining the DOJ, Ms. Hoskins was the founding Director of Reentry for Ohio’s Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners where she worked to reduce recidivism by addressing individual and family needs; increased countywide public safety for under-resourced communities of color; reduced correctional spending; and coordinated social services to serve populations at risk that were impacted by decades of generational disinvestment and deprived of first chances. She has worked in local neighborhoods in Cincinnati and at the Indiana Department of Corrections on improving conditions and treatment of incarcerated people.
Ms. Hoskins is originally from Cincinnati, Ohio and holds a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati and a Bachelors of Social Work from the College of Mount St. Joseph. She is a Licensed Clinical Addictions Counselor, a certified Workforce Development Specialist trainer for formerly incarcerated people, a Peer Recovery Coach, and is trained as a Community Health Worker.
Read podcast transcription below:
-Upbeat Intro Music-
Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up podcast, and I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity, and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with nonprofits and philanthropies, and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.
Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone. It’s Katie, Build Up’s Manager of Global Operations. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, Nic is talking with DeAnna Hoskins, President and CEO of JustLeadershipUSA, also known as JLUSA. JLUSA’s vision is to be a national platform, a go-to resource for people directly impacted by systemic racism and oppression to use as they hone and grow leadership skills needed to affect policy reforms that dismantle systemic oppression and build thriving, sustainable, and healthy communities.
Katy Thompson: DeAnna Hoskins has been at the helm of JLUSA since 2018. A nationally recognized leader and dynamic public speaker, DeAnna has been committed to the movement for racial and social justice, working alongside those impacted by marginalization for over two decades. DeAnna leads from the perspective that collective leadership, advocacy for justice with reinvestment, and bold systems change are only possible when those who are most harmed are provided the tools and resources to demand change.
Katy Thompson: Her own life experience has been this driving force, having been directly impacted by the system of incarceration and the war on drugs and with her professional experience from working on grassroots campaigns to state and federal government. She is inspired to make the world more just with communities across the country and for her three children, two that have experienced the criminal justice system. We could go on forever about her accomplishments, leadership, and awards. But with that, here is Nic’s conversation with DeAnna Hoskins.
Nic Campbell: Hi, DeAnna. Welcome to the Nonprofit Build Up.
DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you, Nic. I’m excited to be here.
Nic Campbell: Me too. I think it’s going to be an amazing conversation. And to get us started, can you tell us about JustLeadership USA, your role there, and what is JLUSA’s immediate priority?
DeAnna Hoskins: Yes. So my position with JustLeadershipUSA as president CEO, JustLeadership was founded in 2014, at the absence of the voices of directly impacted people in the policy conversation around issues impacting them in their communities. So JustLeadership’s mission and focus is to decarcerate the US abut also utilizing those voices and investing in the leadership of formerly incarcerated directly impacted individuals from oppressed and marginalized communities, to educate them on policies that are creating a hindrance, but also to elevate their voice and empower them to utilize those voice in those spaces that they have actually been marginalized and kept out of.
Nic Campbell: When you say decarcerate the US, talk to me about what that looks like. What does your vision look like, and how do you go about doing that?
DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you. So we know that the majority of the over sentencing has come through mandatory minimum policies. We also know – Let’s not be blind to the fact that racial disparities even exist in some of those spaces, and a lot of those policies were created during the war on drugs for communities that were definitely impacted those excessive sentence.
DeAnna Hoskins: So empowering people to understand the policies that are leading up to the mass incarceration, underutilization of community alternatives and alternatives to incarceration and also bail reform of people should have their constitutional right to actually have bail set at their ability to pay, and we should not be criminalizing people who are poor or who live in poverty, which again we know, when we look at the number of individuals, we can’t get past the racial disparities that we see.
DeAnna Hoskins: So when we talk about decarceration, there’s a magnitude of things. But also, Nic, I think it’s important that if we had more investment in our community resources, that gives people access to services that become the foundation of some of the things. What I like to say is our racist policies and hindrance into things such as education, health care, mental health, substance abuse, becomes the filter down into the catch basin of the criminal justice system. So while you were talking about decarceration, our focus may not always be on the criminal justice system. It may be on those other systems that have policies and barriers that filter into the criminal justice system.
Nic Campbell: That, to me, resonates so much because we talk a lot about systemic change. When you’re talking about decarcerating the US, I think a lot of people might think, “Okay. Well, what does that look like in terms of prisons and decarceration?” But what you’re seeing is, actually, it starting way before then. It’s about the policies, the lack of investment in certain communities, and the resources that are allocated to those communities. So that resonates so much to me, and I appreciate the framing. You also talked about investing in leadership. So I want to hear a little bit more about how you are taking that vision that you just articulated and now saying, “Okay. As part of our mission, we are going to invest in the leadership of formerly incarcerated people.”
DeAnna Hoskins: One of the things that we have to be aware of is that in all other sectors, whether it’s mental health, education, substance abuse, the system has utilized people with lived experience to help drive policies and what the needs are but has been very reluctant when it comes to the criminal justice system of actually engaging those with lived experience as the experts in the field to actually strategize and look at how policies impact.
DeAnna Hoskins: A good example of that is the ‘94 Crime Bill. The ‘94 Crime Bill was a good policy on paper. It was the solution to a problem. Crack epidemic was that as high. Violence was coming out of that. So on paper, it looks like the perfect solution. But in implementation, nobody realized how it was going to devastate black communities, how it was going to over incarcerate people, how it was going to cause so much trauma, so many empty households, and families torn apart. That now, we’re trying to piecemeal it back together to say, “Hey, we made a mistake.” But that’s because who voice was at the table to talk about how that was going to play out in our communities.
DeAnna Hoskins: Another good example is when we talk about risk assessment tools, anything around criminal justice reform, investing in leadership, that missing voice. You don’t know how risk assessments are going to play out in communities because black communities are over policed. I always like to use the example my child could steal my car. Somebody phones the same police department but a higher economic community, their child steals their car. Both of us call the police. Both of our children are caught with the car. My colleague’s child, they parked her car. They take her child to the police station and call her to come get them.
DeAnna Hoskins: My car is impounded. My child goes to juvenile hall, has a court date. Both of them then commit an adult crime at the same age, same crime. This risk assessment tool is going to ask, how many interactions have you had with police? How many probation violations? How many missed court hearings did you have without taking into consideration? Simply because black communities are over policed and over surveillanced, my child’s interaction with the juvenile system at that time is going to count as a point against him when he gets to prison, which now puts him in another higher class of at risk when people look at him around returning to court.
DeAnna Hoskins: Actually, what is his benefit to the community to stay – his stabilization in the community? Did he complete high school? Or does he have a GED? All of those things go against them. But nobody was sitting at the table to say, “Hey, you guys are relying on these risk assessments,” which now 20 years later, even the scientists who created them are coming back saying, “These risk assessments have racial bias built into them, simply how things play out in the community.”
DeAnna Hoskins: That missing voice is actually led to the situation we’re in, whereas someone who was impacted by the system, who’s been a product being impacted by risk assessment tools, different things can utilize that voice of how things play out in our community. Typically, policy makers are not from our community. They’ve never lived in our community, and they actually don’t have the privilege of having been impacted by some things. So in criminal justice, that missing voice of formerly incarcerated, directly impacted has led to the misrepresentation of what policies can do and how they impact our community. So it’s very important to not only have that voice at the table. We’re starting to see the need for those voices to leave those conversations.
Nic Campbell: I see so many analogies to what you describe to what is happening quite frequently in the sector. So when you’re talking about policies that are being put together by decision makers who look nothing alike or not from the communities that will be impacted by the same policies, and there’s no one from the community that’s sitting in that room at that table and definitely not in that decision making space, right?
Nic Campbell: So when you’re talking about leaving that conversation so that, again, you can talk about what decisions get made, what policies come out of it, and how that impact will then sort of reverberate throughout that community, it all makes sense to me, and it makes me think about grantmaking and the sorts of decisions that are happening in rooms with folks that maybe they’re well-intentioned, but they are not from the communities that they’re serving, but they think they know what’s best.
Nic Campbell: No one from that community is in the room. Their voices are not being heard. They’re definitely not leading the conversation. So when I think about that analogy, and I know that you are doing good work at JustLeadership, I’d love to hear how you are thinking about that grantmaking space. Based on exactly what you described, how are you making sure that the voices of formerly incarcerated people are at that table, leading the conversation, part of the decision making? What are you seeing now, and how do we make that shift so that we can make sure that that’s happening in the grantmaking space as well?
DeAnna Hoskins: So it’s kind of twofolds. So there’s a fold of JustLeadership being intentional in our investment in people. Part of the saying of JustLeadership was built on the premises that are found or use this cliché of those closest to the problem are closest to the solution, but typically furthest from resource and power to do anything about it, right? How does JustLeadership in some of its privileged spaces that it sits, makes those introductions between our leaders and philanthropists.
DeAnna Hoskins:But also not only that, ensuring that people see formerly incarcerated and directly impacted people for the experts. They are we have people with PhDs. We have people who are attorneys. We have individuals who have been impacted by the system and actually call a philanthropy out. Yet you’re supporting and funding projects of where the employer should hire more, or other people should be placing us in leadership. But you have failed to do so yourself, right?
DeAnna Hoskins: I think there’s one philanthropist that’s making a very intentional role at putting directly impacted people in position of grantmaking. But we’re still not sitting on our foundation boards that actually vote on it, right? Also, ensuring that your program managers are culturally aware and culturally competent because, let’s be honest, as the President CEO who has to fundraise, I run into racial disparities and oppression, even in philanthropy. If I’m not willing to tap dance or allow people to talk to me in a certain way, I’ve been denied funding, and I’ve actually outright refused some funding from certain funders because you can’t talk to me a certain kind of way.
DeAnna Hoskins: Does that hinder my operations? Sure, it does. It forces me to have to think of fundraising in a different strategy. It forces me to sometimes really evaluate what I’m walking away from because it’s not just about me and the organization. I have a staff, a team of 25. That’s 25 families that are going to be impacted by my inability to raise the funds. So for me, it was becoming very aware of how to diversify my funding, that I’m not the majority reliant on foundations and philanthropy.
DeAnna Hoskins: That I am tapping into corporate America, but that I am really building out a robust individual donor base because that is the most sustainable element, where people believe in your mission. You don’t have to tap dance. You don’t have to sing a song to them. It doesn’t matter who’s in their boardroom because it’s the individual making the decision. But philanthropy, we’re seeing some slight movement of hiring people, but yet seeing the mega bold move to put people in positions of power to be the decision makers.
Nic Campbell: What you’re saying is making me think about accountability, and I have a set of questions that I want to raise with you about how do we hold folks accountable. What does that look like? But before I get to those, you talked about cultural competence, and I want to hear how you are thinking about cultural competence in this space, in the work that we’re doing. What does it look like to have a culturally competent program officer, for example, or a program person within a grantmaker that is then engaging with an organization? What does it look like? What doesn’t it look like? I just love to hear that. I hear that term thrown out a lot, and I think just level setting and saying, “This is what it looks like, and this is how it doesn’t look,” would be really helpful.
DeAnna Hoskins: When you talk about it in a level of philanthropy, is the person knowing where they have an understanding, right? What’s impacting communities and who they need to utilize and not creating barriers for the individuals that are trying to impact that community. But when I talk about cultural competence, it’s a true understanding of, one, for self, where my limitations lie, or where I don’t have an understanding, but also respecting the fact that the individual has experienced that, and that my questioning, my drive, or my thoughts of where it should go, possibly, as a white woman, plays no role in this conversation around funding.
DeAnna Hoskins: How do I give space and respect to what communities are experiencing by actually understanding the strategy that is coming from this grantee that is asking me for this money, but also understanding where my [inaudible 00:15:53] abilities are, and I’m not going to inflict any more harm on this person? One, because we are formerly incarcerated, we still have the trauma of our past we’re trying to deal with. But then we walk into this space, where we’re challenged, especially as a black woman, where we’re challenged all the times and can’t nearly get away with showing up half in our work or being put through the wringer by certain funders, simply because of what their belief of what should happen, because of what possibly a black male had done later.
DeAnna Hoskins: Just understanding all of those dynamics and the power that they bring as a program manager, and what we’re starting to see is they’re leveraging that power like slave masters. You will tap dance to get this funding, and it’s like you have to make a conscious decision. Do I tap dance to get it to pay for these 25 families that are on my team? Or do I try to walk away and go seek out a new funding source, but also exposing it and taking the chances? I think, for me, it has been a ladder. I expose it, and I know I’m chancy, never getting funding. There are some other funders who are not going to appreciate me calling other funders out, are going to walk away from us. But when do we get through change, and when do we as black women really get true respect?
Nic Campbell: I love that so much. It makes me think about approaching this as a systemic issue and actually not seeing it as a one off, right? So when we talk about, yes, this is “bad behavior,” like it’s systemic. So what do you do? In that instance, you call it out. As you mentioned, you say that’s actually not okay, and it shouldn’t be on a grantee to have to say that or do that. It should be on other funders saying that’s not okay.
Nic Campbell: Because the way that we’re setting up this system of funding of support, of resource provision is this way. We want it to be equitable. We want it to be fair. We want it to be just, as opposed to seeing the behavior, not calling it out, and letting it stand. I think like when you talk about cultural competence, what resonates with me a lot is what I’m hearing you say is you can’t be culturally competent and be in a vacuum, right? You have to be engaged with a community that you’re working with and problem solving alongside of. You can think to yourself, “Well, I have the solution to this thing, and so you have to listen to me.” It’s like, “No, we’re working on this together, and I’m providing resources so that we can get to the same goal.”
Nic Campbell: The last piece is just being self-aware and stepping in and saying with a lot of humility, “I don’t know everything, and I’m here to learn as well.” So I think like just looking at it, like you said, just taking a step back and saying what does this system look like? How can I step into it in a good way?
DeAnna Hoskins: You said something very important too, Nic. How do I, as part of the ecosystem of philanthropy, call it out and have true conversation amongst my other funding colleagues of, we should not be showing up like this because we are actually entrenching more harm than our money can ever do good.
Nic Campbell: While we’re talking about that, how do you hold grantmakers accountable, and what does that look like? So we just talked. We have a web series that we do call Fast Build Fridays, and we raise that question. How do you hold a grantmaker accountable and why you should hold them accountable? So I’d love to hear your thoughts on accountability and grantmaking.
DeAnna Hoskins: I’ll just speak from my perspective. I think I have a reputation and a history of just being direct and to the point. After a few encounters with philanthropists that I called out, and I shared it with their colleagues who are like, “Oh, wait a minute. So you have this reputation,” which it kind of puts people off, but it also demands a level of respect. So funders approach you different, but I think we have to start calling it out without the fear of not getting funded and as organizational grantees supporting chatter.
DeAnna Hoskins: Let’s be honest. The money they’re given us is crumbs. Let’s just be honest. It’s not like people are giving – It’s a lot of money to us who have never had a lot of funding in our organizations. But to the families and the philanthropists, what they give out to us as directly impacted people, nonprofits, and grassroots is some bare minimum, right? Enough to write off that they gave it away, right? So that’s what I talked about, using that power almost as a slave master of this funding, because we have this so limited to the pool of philanthropy. We don’t know, and I’m just learning that there’s this whole world of philanthropy that has not been touched. When you’re about a single issue, what I realized we’re all swimming in the same pool with the same funders. So we’re in competition with each other.
DeAnna Hoskins: So if you say, “Hey, this philanthropist really disrespected me in their conversation, and I don’t want to take any funding,” it’s real hard to tell other people don’t take funding as well, so we can demonstrate and show because they haven’t received funding before. Then the philanthropy or the program manager definitely wants to double what they give other people, so they don’t join your cause, and it appears that you’re out there by yourself. But you have to remain vigilant. You have to remain in that space and demand it. But I think we, as black organizations led by directly impacted people, smaller nonprofits, have been so underfunded, underinvested in, and unknowledgeable about the real pool of funding that is out there and open to us.
DeAnna Hoskins: That comes with partnering with seasoned vets who understand the philanthropy world, who understands the corporate America world, how to build up individual donors. We were late to the game where Goodwill, Salvation Army’s ACOUs have been around for years. Guess what? They built that up. They built that individual membership base up because they understood the knowledge, and they had a team to actually focus on it. We’re just getting into that playground, and we’ve never been given that blueprint, and they damn sure ain’t going to share it with us.
Nic Campbell: Mic drop, right? I think that’s what happens at that point. I completely hear you, and I think that what’s interesting is that a lot of this has been perpetuated by grantmakers, right? So when we think about the inability to say I can’t raise my hand and call out behavior because I’ve actually been building my organization according to this grantmaker’s vision, and now I do have another 15, 20 people to support. Whereas before, maybe I wouldn’t have grown as quickly or have that same vision.
Nic Campbell: But now, I’m tethered to it, and they’re also my largest funder. So how can I raise my hand and say I need to call you out? I think it’s a difficult position to be in, and it’s actually created by the very system that we know as philanthropy. So just even like acknowledging that piece and then, like you said, taking that stand I think is really brave to do, right. But that’s really about accountability. So while we’re on the topic, though, DeAnna, what do you think that philanthropies, funders could be doing better or they should be doing less of, and what do you think that they’re doing well?
DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you. So I want to start with less of, and I think less of trying to drive our mission or our movement. They’re in the driver’s seat of what should occur to the point where you’re even seeing what I call new money philanthropy create the programs that grassroot organizations are doing it in house in order not to support certain organizations that are led by.
DeAnna Hoskins: I’ll give an example. We do a training. We invest in the leadership of formerly incarcerated. We’ve created a C-suite of curriculum as well. What we’re starting to see as funders are creating leadership training for formerly incarcerated, like within their house. People always say, “Well, what’s so special about JustLeadership?” We’re the only organization founded by and operated by formerly incarcerated people with lived experience.
DeAnna Hoskins: What we’re seeing in philanthropy is the traditional. We see this as the carrot of the day. We see this as the moment, and part of our charity is we want to lead this initiative. You guys shouldn’t have this bright idea. I tell people, it’s a compliment that they’re copying it because it shows we had a bright idea. But what happens is they come in, and they exploit the movement when they see organizations led by black people, organizations led by people from oppressed communities having movement, having a probability to be a premier organization around what they do.
DeAnna Hoskins: Instead of funding and supporting that organizations to grow its capacity, we’re going to replicate it and pull all our money into here. So that’s what they have to start doing less of, trying to control the movement, telling the movement what to do, and coopting the movement as well, which is what white people have done to black people over the years. What they have to do more of is getting okay with funding the movement and getting out away. Funding the movement and getting out the way. More of general operating support, I think, because a lot of funders also restrict their funding to certain activities.
DeAnna Hoskins: When you start talking about organizing an advocacy, campaigns change. You might fund me for two years, And six months into the campaign, there’s been a drastic change. We saw that with COVID, right? Because funds were restricted to campaigns, and you can no longer be in those activities, funders had to switch and approve those funds to go to general operating. Supporting general operating of smaller organizations allow for sustainability.
DeAnna Hoskins: I’m going to be honest, and I know I shouldn’t be sharing. But I think who really does this really well, who invest in sustainability of the organization, who allows for the organization to invest in future building, to invest in capacity building is the Ford Foundation. They’ve been very open about that, very transparent, and basically asking you as the grantee, how do you want to split the money. We want to give you this grant. What are some of your needs? So not telling us what to do with the funding but asking us so that it can be approved through their process of I need funds for future investment, right? I need funds to move towards sustainability and investment and capacity building, and then being very open to utilizing their funds around stabilizing the nonprofit because they believe in the mission, and they believe you should exist.
DeAnna Hoskins: So if they can help you stabilize, to actually grow, that is how they’re investing because they believe in a mission. I think that’s where philanthropy has to go. Stop believing in the activities and believe in the mission of the organization. That’s what you invest in of whatever the mission and the goal. I was reading yesterday. I’ve been doing trainings around board development. Just when you read the definition of why nonprofits are actually built, they’re built for a purpose. People create nonprofits for purpose, and the purpose is usually to change the trajectory of something that’s happening to a certain population or certain communities, right? So if you believe in my purpose and my mission, that’s what you should be funding, not saying what are the activities you’re doing within that because the activities are going to change, because my ultimate goal is to get in service on my mission.
DeAnna Hoskins: I think stop focusing on activities and focus on the mission and the drive of the organization, and provide the general support this needed to stabilize that so that they can grow and continue on that mission.
Nic Campbell: That makes a lot of sense. Like you said, fund and get out of the way and then just share an example of this is how it’s done. When you were talking about that process, it just, again, made me think about cultural competence. The exact same conversation we’re having around like having that cultural competence, stepping in, and saying, “You’re the expert here. I just want to make sure that we’re problem solving alongside each other, and we’re learning from each other.” So when you were describing it, I just thought like this is exactly the kind of environment that we want to find ourselves in as grantees.
Katy Thompson: That concludes part one of DeAnna and Nic’s conversation. Stay tuned for next week for part two.
-Upbeat Outro Music-
Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources, and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week, as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Keep building bravely.
-Upbeat Intro Music-
Nic Campbell: You’re listening to the Nonprofit Build Up Podcast. I’m your host, Nic Campbell. I want to support movements that can interrupt cycles of injustice and inequity and shift power towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. I’ve spent years working in and with non-profits and philanthropies and I know how important infrastructure is to outcomes. On this show, we’ll talk about how to build capacity to transform the way you and your organization work.
Katy Thompson: Hi, everyone. It’s Kat, Build Up’s manager of global operations. This week on the Nonprofit Build Up, Nic is continuing the conversation with DeAnna Hoskins, President and CEO of JustLeadershipUSA, also known as JLUSA. You can jump back to part one of our conversation to learn more about DeAnna’s expertise, passion, and major accomplishments and JLUSA’s work. But with that, let’s dive into the second part of Nic’s conversation with DeAnna.
Nic Campbell: Then we want to find ourselves in as grantees. I really liked when you were saying, stop focusing on activities and start focusing on the mission, like you’re investing in this organization. You use that word invest. I think it’s really important, because that’s what it is like. Are you investing in this organization’s vision and mission? Because if so, you show up a very different way.
DeAnna Hoskins: Different way.
Nic Campbell: Right. It’s about this partnership that you have, this relationship that you’re building. That’s when you’re investing. When you’re funding something, you show up that way. What is the deliverable? Did you get it done? No. Then you better get it done.
DeAnna Hoskins: How many people did you serve?
Nic Campbell: Exactly.
DeAnna Hoskins: There’s this one practice that I’m starting to see and I’ve been really sharing with organization leaders who are family organizations where – I don’t even want to call them philanthropy, billionaires are wanting to invest, dropping a million dollars, which is nothing to this billionaire. It’s a B. He’s dropping an M, right? But I’m going to invest this $1 million a year for the next five years in your organization. Well, you’re a grassroots. You barely been able to operate off of $100,000. Here’s this person committing a million for the next five, but there’s one caveat. I’m going to put somebody for my organization on your board. I’ve been sharing, I was like, capitalist wash their money. People who want to make a profit wash their money. That is not a donation. That is how do I benefit from this contribution into this organization that I can build off of. An example is a housing program where it happened.
DeAnna Hoskins: Now, what we’re seeing is that billionaire is now convinced them, you should expand across the country. Matter of fact, when you expand across the country. I know about houses that you got to live in, and you’ll just pay my company rent. He got his million dollars back and more, he ain’t gave you nothing. He just got his million, because it’s a real estate investment for him now. That was the plan to see what is the strategy, what is the concept, how can I capitalize and multiply also this million-dollar investment that I’m calling it, but I’m going to watch my money, because I need to see where the opportunity lies for me not the opportunity for the organization. I’m watching them build brand new constructive housing, calling them safe housing, but the landlord is the billionaire’s company that the organization has to pay rent to.
Nic Campbell: Yeah. It’s bringing up for me, and I see it a lot just inappropriate tool. People create tools and saying, “But we’re giving it in the sort of space of philanthropy, but we’re trying a different approach.” So you’ll hear different things. “This is an innovative approach. This is a different approach.” It’s not the status quo. Whatever it is, but acknowledging like this is a completely different tool. Then, just not also acknowledging, it’s also the wrong tool, or it may be the wrong tool to actually get at where we’re going. I think just flagging it is just so – it’s critical.
DeAnna Hoskins: Yeah, because I always say, with the donation, would I have preferred the million dollars or would I have preferred you say, “I would like to ask somebody on your board to help look at your concept, so that we can help you grow, and we’ll build the houses and donate them to you.” Now, that’s the real investment in our mission and belief in our system. Not, “I’m going to build the houses so that I can benefit as the developer and the owner of that property to multiply my portfolio.”
Nic Campbell: Right. Because I think you can be innovative in this space, and we’re not saying that you can. You can bring in a different tool, and I definitely encourage that because I think the way that we’re working, it can be concerning and it’s clunky. We’re not saying you shouldn’t be innovative. It’s about, again, stepping in with that cultural competence, the ability to listen, understand where you’re stepping into, what you’re actually trying to do, and having that dialogue and saying, “This is what we’re trying to get to where you trying to go, seeing great matches, and then finding a way to implement that tool.” DeAnna, if we look at it the other way, talked a lot about grant makers and funders, and what they should be doing more of less of. What about grantees? What about nonprofit organizations that are recipients of the funding? What should they be doing less of and what should they be doing more of?
DeAnna Hoskins: I think as grantees, we should be doing more education to ourselves of how this process works. We should be doing more research around prior movements. I always say, if you don’t know your history, you’re subject to repeat the history. One of the things that we’re seeing in the movement around formerly incarcerated, the movement around liberation is, if you make too much noise – I always say, if somebody’s making noise, and they go quiet, just look at, did they get large donations. Typically, in the past movements, but understanding that the donations come with something. How do we stand in that era that we’re still going to keep our voice? You’re not buying my voice; you’re not buying my silence.
DeAnna Hoskins: Same things are still going on like Black Lives Matter, but I’m like, nothing has changed, but I haven’t heard from you all. Nothing has changed, but I haven’t heard from you in this moment. I do believe they are doing some work. I believe they’re strategizing. But also, we as a country haven’t heard from you. You got everybody excited, and now, you kind of went radio silence on us. But how do we keep that momentum of – when we raise it, we get raised to a conscious level, we get investments. How do we keep going? I say, “Oh, I’m well financed right now” or different things. How do we keep that momentum going? Stand vigilant, and stand true, and staying authentic to why we were even created, and why we did it. We have to stand in that and being bold about it.
DeAnna Hoskins: What I would love to see grantees do is understand the process of growing, and not just get comfortable with whatever they get. That if you truly believe in your mission of your organization, and it’s going to impact people. How do we continue to grow? The worst thing I hate is when grassroots organizations come up doing really good work, connecting with the community, changing people’s lives in the community. Then all of a sudden, they disappear, or they get swallowed up by the big nonprofits who see, “Oh, this work is going really well. We want to take it over or we want to exploit it. Then funders stop funding the grassroots because they don’t have the capacity to serve more and the larger nonprofits do. Then what traditionally happens, the larger nonprofit doesn’t have the real touch to proximity in the community that the grassroots have.
DeAnna Hoskins: Allowing funders are allowing our organizations to be controlled by the dollar. I know we need them to operate, but it can’t be controlled. We have to be able to get the courage to say, “We’re not going to do that” or “We’re not going to take that.” You don’t get to treat us this way. You don’t get to co-opt us. Sticking together. What I wish they would do more of is collaboration. Everyone, there’s enough funds out here for everyone. There are enough people to serve, enough communities to address. But we have to be collaborative and not in competition. I actually think funders keep us in competition with unlimited funds, but that’s also being limited to the pool of funding that’s funding your topic. Understanding collaboration allows for knowledge sharing of where other funds are. I always like to use the analogy. It’s a shame to go to an amusement park and only ride the roller coaster, because that’s all you know. You miss the true enjoyment of the whole amusement park and that’s how the funding world is.
DeAnna Hoskins: We get on one roller coaster, everybody’s in line to get on that roller coaster. We’re in competition to get on the roller coaster, when there’s a myriad of other funding. But because we’ve limited ourselves to say, I’m criminal justice reform and not understanding that criminal justice is a symptom of the racial disparities. So no, I’m not focused on criminal justice reform. I’m focused on racial disparities and eradicating racism within a system that are filtering into the criminal justice system. I just opened up my pool of funding to much more of the amusement park than everybody else who stand on the roller coaster.
Nic Campbell: Yeah, I really liked it, you’re focusing in on collaboration. Because I would say from where I sit, that’s needed a lot more. I do agree that it’s hard sometimes to collaborate in a system that is not set up to be collaborative, even though we say that it is. I understand the challenges, but I agree, I think that collaboration would – it would magnify so much impact within communities that actually really need it.
DeAnna Hoskins: I think it goes back to that old saying, there’s power in numbers. If you built the power through the collaboration, and understanding that we’re really not in competition. I always try to tell people collaborating, brightens the pot. It may seem like we’re in competition for the funding, but in a collaborative mode, we have access to more, and we can demand more. Because right now, even the policy changes, the fundings we’re asking for are crumbs. It’s just so bare minimum. It is so bare minimum, Nic. That I sit back some days, and I’m like – I used to work at the post office years ago, and I’m like, “You know, processing mail was not that bad.” When I think about my great, great, great grandkids probably are still going to be fighting this fight, because we’re asking for crumbs. One, because we don’t know our history, so everybody’s recreating the wheel. It’s like, “Dude, we’re so past that.” How do we take what has already been done by our forefathers, the people’s shoulders we stand on, when people – we talk about standing on the shoulders of other advocates, they did some work. How do we take the work they’ve done and build upon it, instead of trying to always start from scratch. We’re always building a new wheel and I’m like, there was some pieces of that wheel we could have brought it with us that would have had us way ahead of the game.
Nic Campbell: I’m going to ask a big follow-up question, DeAnna. Because when you started to explain that point, it made me think about how, “Huh? Okay.” Let’s say I am a leader of a grassroots organization. I’m sitting. I’m part of a group of other nonprofit leaders. We just talked about collaboration, we just talked about – look, we’re getting just small amounts of money compared to the kind of change that we want to have and want to make sure that we’re supporting. What do we do next? What does that next step look like? If we are we’re operating the way we are, we just describe that. But we know where we want to go, we know the kind of change you want to see within the sector as well. What do we do next?
DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you for that, because this is a conversation that I’m having with some real communities right now and it’s around the entry employment. The conversation is, organizations are doing great work around this. We get minimum dollars, and that’s because a lot of the organizations, the smaller ones don’t know how to advocate for the Federal allocations that are coming into their state of how it should be dispersed in their communities. But the larger nonprofits know, that’s why they’re getting all the money, and they know how to advocate. Bringing that collaborative effort together, one, gives us the opportunity to be educated and build power, that we now become a force that actually can advocate on our state level of how those federal dollars are coming into our state and how they’re allocated amongst our community, and how the larger nonprofits that’s been swallowing it up don’t really have access and proximity to the people you’re trying to serve. But as a collaborative, we do, right? How does the collaborative put in that grant application? But also, when you build those collaboratives, you build power. You now become a voice in that community that can talk to your elected officials that are speaking for your community, you’re advocating for the people most marginalized, to actually bring them to the forefront to speak again, which is why it goes back to the original question. Have the people who are directly impacted to be a part of that conversation of how money comes into our communities.
DeAnna Hoskins: You now have become a force up against that one nonprofit who’s this – and typically, is one to two nonprofits in every jurisdiction that has money. Monopolize the funding, federal funding that comes into the state, it is so much money that comes into states from federal government around workforce, labor force, workforce, investment boards, job trainings, housing. People haven’t even tapped into the DLT, but the huge nonprofits that do reentry employment, they know DLT. If they’re building infrastructure, new roads, new sewer in your area, those are federal DLT dollars. Actually, your section three in your area with hood states that any federal dollars that come into your jurisdiction has to have a 35% workforce from the most marginalized communities. But because we don’t know that or we haven’t built the collaborative to even hold the county government accountable, and how these contracts come out, our people are missing the boat on opportunities of economic mobility.
Nic Campbell: That’s really powerful, because it makes me think of this sort of cooperative model that could exist within the nonprofit sector. Formalizing that collaboration, and being really clear about – these are the organizations that we are formally collaborating with. When you think about the ecosystem, it’s like, you know all the different players, but how do we actually collaborate together? What does that look like, and just being – stepping forward with a more cooperative type of bend. That’s what it makes me think about.
DeAnna Hoskins: I’ve been thinking, it’s funny because I use analogies for everything. I had created this concept of checkers, backgammon, and chess. Checkers is the real quick game. Is the real – you move your pieces really quick. Backgammon, you have to line everything up. The chess is a strategy move. You move on strategy, you do it. If you’re thinking about building collaborations and coalitions, what is the checkers game that gets everybody into the room, and that’s the education about the funding, that’s the education about opportunities that lie within their jurisdiction. Using the funding opportunity and education as the character to get them in a room. Now, once they’re in the room, and you’re talking about this funding, you’re moving to backgammon to, how do we align to advocate at our state level that this funding needs to come in, but we advocate and align as a collective that we show power.
DeAnna Hoskins: Then within that, are there federal legislation rules around the authorization definitions that need to change so that our communities are more inclusive, and intentionally defined as recipients of this funding. I’ll use an example, dislocated worker. Jurisdictions classify dislocated worker the way they want to. My argument, every person in prison is actually working at the prison. You work, most people, especially if you served a long amount of time, you might work in a brake shop, you may work on the yard, you may work in the kitchen, you may work in [inaudible 00:17:10]. When you get discharged from prison, you no longer have that income coming in. You have to find new income. You are really a dislocated worker, that could utilize the training and opportunities through the Workforce Investment Act funds that come into your state. But strategically, those localities do not define that or define those individuals as qualifying.
DeAnna Hoskins: You have to have been laid off from your job in the public sector some type of way. Department of Corrections are public sectors. They released me, I was laid off. I need to be able to have access. Same thing with housing. Obama administration defined the definition of homelessness as leaving an overcrowded facility, jail, and prison all day. Jurisdictions have the discretion. They say, “No. That just means shelters. That doesn’t mean prison, which means a person doesn’t qualify for those houses subsidies.” Who’s more in need of those houses’ subsidies for sustainability and self-sufficiency than a person being recently released from incarceration?
Nic Campbell: Yeah. That kind of information sharing, knowledge sharing that unless you were in this kind of collaborative structure likely wouldn’t have access to it because you’re in your own vacuum doing your own thing. Just a reminder to have those conversations, and be deliberate about it. Because you’re all working towards this common goal. Lots of folks in that ecosystem know lots more than you do. Back to this point, right? This space is being culturally competent, understanding that you’re not, don’t go in there thinking you’re the smartest person in the room, because the possibilities that come back from that.
DeAnna Hoskins: I think it’s very important to just – we throw this word around in community together. I’d be like, we are not in the community, because we don’t even know what’s growing in the community. We don’t even know what’s all accessible in the community. Being in a community is totally different than being in collaboration with each other.
Nic Campbell: Yeah. I think that just when we think about – somebody might say, “Well, what comes next? What could I do? We’ve said it, right? If you’re listening to this, the next thing you should think about is, who do I work closely with, what organizations are in our space or our area that we’re working, and who’s working alongside the same communities that we’re working alongside. It may not be in the same area, but again, shared goals. Taking that approach and saying, “Let’s have a conversation. What does collaboration look like? What does this cooperative model look like?” I think is a really good start for folks.
DeAnna Hoskins: It’s just having that collaboration to build the power. But then like you said, Nic, the various sectors, those become subcommittees all for the collaboration. There’s a Housing Committee, there’s a Substance Abuse Committee. There’s a direct service provider. Everybody has a subcommittee. Even when funding opportunities come, the collaboration say, “Who is the best person that actually go after this funding? Is it the Housing Committee because it’s around housing?” Then, “Who’s the most stable organization that can actually be the main grantor, but everybody else in the committee is a sub grantor on a grant?” Now, the money has been expanded, because the huge nonprofit who has the capabilities of a federal grant, and the mechanism can make you a sub grantee to access funds you never had access to.
Nic Campbell: In that same structure, you are building on your strengths, your safe gardening for your challenge areas within your organization. Because now, there’s a group of organizations working together.
DeAnna Hoskins: You’re growing in your knowledge base of how to expand or sustain your organization.
Nic Campbell: You’re learning. We’re talking about that kind of structure and that kind of collaboration. It makes me think about infrastructure. How do you think about infrastructure at JustLeadership when we’re talking about this kind of cooperative structure as well? When I say infrastructure, I mean, the boards, governance. How are we building out that structure? How are we looking at receiving grant award? What does that entire process look like? If you’re making grants, then how are you making sure that that grant making is reflective of your organizational values? Just how you are set up in terms of your team as well? Do they understand their roles and responsibilities? I’d love to hear how you all are thinking about infrastructure, that kind of emphasis that you put on it, if at all? What would be required when we’re talking about this collaborative approach with nonprofits?
DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you for that. I want to start with the board because I think people think, “Okay. This is the board that I started. It’s the founding board.” But I think boards have to be adjusted based on the growth of the organization and the stage where the organization is. I just literally created a document around how I think about a board of, how do you reset a board, how do you renew a board and then how do you reinvigorate a board? Coming into the organization, I came on the foot, the foundation of a founder, which was a founding board. A founding board has very different purposes than an actual operational board. Typically, your founding board is really helping you get the prestige and acknowledgement you need, introducing you to people, helping you get some funding, secure funding. It’s less about governance at that time.
DeAnna Hoskins: Well then, you move into this growth spurt. You got the funding, you got these protocols, you now – you’re hiring staff. You went from this one person with a vision, now you have staff, you got benefits, you got HR roles. How do I keep accountable of the actual funding that I’m getting? What are the finances of the organization? So it’s time to revisit the board structure, because, does that founding board have the expertise that I need for this growth spurt? Do I need to change my bylaws to expand my board? Because at the time, I just thought I needed three members to get me incorporated, right? Do I need to expand my board? When I expand my board, am I being deliberate around diversity, equity, and inclusion of who’s on my board, who’s represented, what sectors are represented, what expertise is needed on my board to help me?
DeAnna Hoskins: But then, that also goes down into the capacity of my organization and my team. What you’ll see, what I’ve seen in my experience is all I can share. The team I needed that when it was a founding organization, and the founder or the president is out doing all the speaking, doing all the fundraising. I’ve now grown. I need a development chief development officer. Now, we’re bringing in this funding, I need the CFO to handle that. Who’s my third-party financial management? Who’s handling HR to make sure I’m in compliance. Now, I’m relying on not only the expertise in-house, but some contracting with experts outside who do this as well, but it’s being cognizant of my growth spurt and being deliberate. I’m no longer able to function on a QuickBooks spreadsheet. We have grown. But understanding, and knowing when I’ve reached that capacity, but also, “Is my board accountable for their responsibility of fiscal health and governance of this organization?” Making sure I’m being deliberate around board development, so some of my board members who may not be really versed in that actually have access to the board development to understand it, but also putting some seasoned people on my board who understands it as well so that it actually can mature and you’re having a fully functioning board.
DeAnna Hoskins: I think people look at one part of their organization and not realizing you have to look at it, especially as the president CEO, you have to look at it as a collective coal. If I my organization is going, “Is my board growing in their ability? Because as the president CEO, I can’t do it all. I rely on my chair, my finance committee from my board to sit in on those meetings with staff and the third-party fiscal management in times when I can’t. I check in with my board, I check in with my financial chair, but that they have a clear understanding.” You can’t be all things to all people, so how do you empower? Make sure you have the staff that understands it, but also that you have the board members who are sitting on those subcommittees understand it. So that when it comes to the board meeting, it’s not DeAnna moving the organization. Your board is reporting out, your staff is reporting out, because everybody is committed and invigorated around the mission of this organization, so everyone has taken on the ownership of that organization to ensure this mission moves forward.
Nic Campbell: I really like how you’re thinking about governance, but also how you’re talking about it, right? Because I think people say, “Well, look. We’ve got great passionate folks on the board, they’re really smart or they’re really steeped in an area and my board is good.” But what you’re really highlighting is your board can and should change based on the stage of development that your organization is in. We say this all the time, and to just hear you articulate that as a leader of an organization that’s like, “This is how I’m looking at governance.” To me, it’s just really refreshing. Because when you start to think about your governance structure as something that is really critical to your organization’s development, you can’t then say, “Well, it can never be changed.” This is how it is and that there’s no way. Particularly when you’re saying, “We want to be brave, we want to be innovative, we want to do things that may not have been done previously.” How do you do that when you just said, “This one part of my organization is never ever going to be changed.” I really just liked how you framed it.
DeAnna Hoskins: I think there’s – I’ll add to that too, and I shared this earlier with someone. It also comes down to the leader self-evaluating, have they stayed past their expiration date, right? That’s just being honest. Because you hear the term sometimes, when people step down and say, “It’s time for new thoughts, and new blood, because I’m drained.” If I can no longer bring innovation, I no longer can be moved around new ideas. My expiration date may have just exhausted with this organization. As a professional, I need to step out of the way because if I don’t, I’m now going to hinder this organization, and I’m going to stunt this growth and this impact. If I believe in the mission of the organization to help liberate people, it’s okay for me to say, “You know what, my time has come. It’s really okay” and being okay with that.
Nic Campbell: That takes self-awareness. DeAnna, we talked about that earlier. That takes –
DeAnna Hoskins: I’m telling to quit their jobs, right?
Nic Campbell: How do you know? I mean, you pointed out, when you’re not being innovative, how can you be that self-aware where you’re saying, “Oh! Well, I’m clearly not innovating anymore. I should step out.” What are some indicators that folks would use to say it’s time?
DeAnna Hoskins: I think this is one of the things that we talked about with just leadership. Our leadership training is very different than any other training. Most leadership trainings, focus on principles of leadership, or leadership characteristic styles, right? Our training really focuses on the principles of the internal awareness of how you show up. I think for me, and I only could use myself. It’s the self-evaluation when ideas or the job no longer excites me, or I don’t have these thoughts that truly – not only inside me, but when I share them with my team. If I’m no longer bringing ideas to my team, or if I’m not embracing my team’s ideas, right? Because part of leadership is creating a culture where everyone feels valued and heard. Everyone from my operations director has ideas around how operations should work or how programs – when I started to find myself closing off those ideas of possibility, or I don’t bring any, it’s really time for me to move out the way. I’ve over exhausted and I’m more of a hindrance to the organization. I don’t take jobs I don’t believe in. I just don’t accept assignments I don’t believe in.
DeAnna Hoskins: When I no longer feel I have anything to give, and maybe that’s just part of the work I’ve done on myself. I just don’t believe a stamp pass my expiration date nowhere, right? All right. Okay. I’m good. You may not feel good, but I’m going to go ahead and transition. Because what’s to come will be greater, but if I stay here, I’m going to make myself miserable, and I’m going to make everyone else around me miserable.
Nic Campbell: Yeah. I think it’s such an important point. We talk about leadership, and I think that’s part of leadership, right? Being able to say, I need to create space for other things to happen, for innovation to come into play, for us to really move at a more accelerated pace towards our goal, and to be self-aware enough to say, “I’m not that person. I’m not the person that can or should be doing that.” I think that’s actually part of leadership. Thank you so much for raising it. DeAnna, I could literally talk to you for hours, as you know, but I just want to say that this conversation has been just really refreshing. It reminds me why we need to have leaders in spaces where they are afraid to speak truth to power, and they are bravely leading organizations. This conversation is just really a reminder of that. I want to thank you for sharing everything you have.
DeAnna Hoskins: Oh, thank you.
Nic Campbell: I want to ask you a question that I asked all of our guest to help us continue to build knowledge through books and people you should learn from or about to close this out. What book do you think we should read next or what artist do you think we should be paying attention to?
DeAnna Hoskins: There’s two. I think everyone should read 1619. The reason I say that is because anything that’s controversial shows you there’s a reason people don’t want us to have access to and they don’t want to keep it out of our schools. It’s still the systemic oppression. But what I value at the 1619 is the historical aspect of understanding how almost a lot of things that we have just inherited as generational habits, how it may have originated for us. I don’t think we ever had access to that. But also, the fact that it’s part of our history as black African Americans, black people, is part of our history that we were never been taught, and that people are still fighting from us to understand it. I think if we know the fight of our ancestors, if we know the history, the perseverance, the resilience, we can step more boldly into a space. It’s not only about the book educating us. I think the book gives an empowerment. This fight has already been fought for me, why am I willing to cater or fall down and not just standing my truth, my authenticity.
DeAnna Hoskins: It shows me what has truly been put into people’s or our culture’s DNA of what we survived. There’s a picture – you can tell I like to do stories, but there’s a picture and I never thought about it. But you see these pictures of slave ships, and people bumped up in chain three, four deeps. Somebody sent it to me and said, “To think your ancestors survived this, somewhere down your lineage survived this trip of living a thesis under this, being deported from their country. And today, you want to give up in your trials and your struggles. But someone in your lineage survived that. They already survived the most terrifying trump traumatic part. How dare us give up today, because we got to sit and call philanthropy out. How dare us give up simply because we want to call out the wrongs that are going on when we have a history of people in our ancestral line that has survived the most traumatic experience a human can go through?
DeAnna Hoskins: That’s how I kind of speak today. I’ll always be like, “Well, you already took my freedom. You’ve taken the freedom of some of my children. Yeah, we did some actions that needed to be accountable. You’ve inflicted trauma into that incarceration on my son. What can you take from me at this point? How dare I not speak about the inhumanity and the conditions of confinement that we as a people are experiencing when we’re held accountable? How incarceration is a replication of that journey that our ancestors took is just all of the racial disparities and the collateral consequences. It’s just a new way to still say what you can’t have or what you can’t do in my country. We’ve used your criminal record, but there again, in the book, there again, understanding the criminal justice system was built off the abolishment of slavery as a way to still exploit free labor. It’s only a continuation and how dare us not fighting when our people fought against slavery. I know, we’re still in the middle of this fight, so we can’t give up.
Nic Campbell: Well, I’m going to put all about 1619 in the show notes so that people can experience exactly what you’re describing, because it just sounds incredibly powerful. I’m sure that people are going to want to devour it more. Thank you so much for sharing that. Seriously, DeAnna, this conversation has been so powerful. I think, again, we talked about cultural competence and just really breaking down what that means. I think throughout the conversation, talking about self-awareness, the power that it provides when you are self-aware, and you step into conversations to learn, and that then leads to collaboration. Then, thinking about investment and how that shows up in communities, but also in organizations when we’re talking about the nonprofit sector. At the end of the day, being brave enough to tell your story. So I want to thank you again so much for your time. I think everything that you’ve shared will allow leaders to build their own organizations bravely.
DeAnna Hoskins: Thank you. Thank you for the invite. It’s been a great conversation. I appreciate it.
-Upbeat Outro Music-
Nic Campbell: Thank you for listening to this episode of Nonprofit Build Up. To access the show notes, additional resources, and information on how you can work with us, please visit our website at buildupadvisory.com. We invite you to listen again next week as we share another episode about scaling impact by building infrastructure and capacity in the non-profit sector. Keep building bravely.