Host Ratna Omidvar explores with Liban Abokor, co-founder of Foundation for Black Communities, the nature of philanthropic wealth – who it belongs to – and how to hold the philanthropy sector accountable to the communities it serves.
Today’s episode of Reimagining Philanthropy features Liban Abokor, co-founder of Foundation for Black Communities. Host Ratna Omidvar begins the conversation by asking, “Should we think of philanthropy as public money or private money?” Abokor responds that it needs to be seen as public wealth. This first question sets the tone for a conversation about how moving the philanthropy sector forward so it can address inequity, injustice, and racism means creating mechanisms to hold it accountable to the communities it poses to serve.
Abokor emphasizes that to solve its problems, the sector must find ways to include the voices of those who have been left out. Greater representation with a “duty of care” approach, he says, can help to address some of the issues raised in the Unfunded report. He also suggests equity benchmarks and policy changes. And to see these changes actually happen, we must be impatient. No more incrementalism, he says: “We need to demand transformation at scale.”
Listen here or watch the video.
Links to projects mentioned:
- Learn more about the organization that Abokor co-founded, the Foundation for Black Communities.
- Read the Unfunded report, on how Canadian philanthropy has underfunded and ignored Black communities.
- Check out the Indigenous Peoples Resilience Fund’s work and meet their advisory council.
- Learn more about how the Canadian Broadcasting Act uses policy to ensure that content “meets the needs and interests of Canadians.”
- Take a look at how Youth LEAPS – where Abokor is executive director – helps Black, racialized, and at-risk youth reach their education and employment goals.
- Check out the case study that Omidvar mentions, Pathways to Education.
- Abokor’s 2021 op-ed in The Philanthropist Journal, “Against incrementalism: The charitable sector must do more, and faster, to eliminate inequity.”
Transcript
Ratna Omidvar:
Hello and welcome to Reimagining Philanthropy, a series that is being produced in collaboration with The Philanthropist Journal, which explores the issues and questions that the philanthropic sector needs to reflect and act on. I hope you’ve all read at least a couple of editions of Philanthropy. I read them every time they put out a new piece.
This podcast is about change, because the last few years have changed not only our lives, but how we think about philanthropy. And I think it is completely fair to say that philanthropy, at least how it is practised yesterday and today, is under threat. It’s perceived to be under threat; under threat because voices from the margins have called out philanthropy as a construct for the privileged, for the elite, and challenged the notion that philanthropists can change the world without first addressing issues of inequity, injustice, and racism. This is the crossroad we find ourselves at. So how do we sort this out? To help us find the way forward, I will be speaking to voices in the sector who will inform us, challenge us, possibly even irritate us, but that is okay. Because we’re not here to have the easy conversations but the really difficult ones.
So I’m your host, Senator Ratna Omidvar, and my job is to talk to our guest without getting in the way of a necessary and essential conversation. And our guest today is Liban Abokor. Liban is a non-profit executive and co-founder and board member at the Foundation for Black Communities, Canada’s first-ever philanthropic foundation dedicated to supporting Black-led, Black-serving, and Black-focused organizations, and co-author of the Unfunded report, which revealed how Canada’s philanthropic sector grossly underfunds and ignores Black communities. We’re going to be hearing a lot from Liban today, but my first question to him is should we think of philanthropy as public money or private money?
Liban Abokor:
Hello, Senator, great to be here with you. And shout-out to The Philanthropist Journal. It is an incredible one.
That’s a great question. I’m not going to split – I’m not going to spend any time convincing otherwise. I think it’s public wealth. I think we have an entirely misaligned understanding of philanthropy and charity in this country. There’s – it seems like there’s this notion that charity is a voluntary and non-obligatory act performed by private individuals at their own pace and leisure, and that we must somehow kowtow or bow to the sentiments of this assembly of enlightened benefactors who aren’t accountable to anybody. Why? Because they’re using their own private wealth. This is an entirely faulty assumption. In my viewpoint, in fact, it actually sheds light on the shortcomings of charity, in terms of its incapacity to provide just and equitable investment to the very communities, some of which you just highlighted: Black communities, Indigenous communities, and equal benefits to Canadians. Why? Because they think, and I shouldn’t say “they” – Canadian philanthropy assumes that private capital controlled by private folks, permits them to make discretionary choices, and that they don’t have to consider who’s not in the room or who’s not being supported, because, frankly, it’s their choice on who they help.
That’s not what the charitable tax code says though, right? It says that in order for you to get charitable tax status, you have to produce public benefit. And when you understand that the charitable tax system, or the entire sector rather, is co-subsidized by every Canadian, including Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ, and others, you then begin to realize that there is a principal–client relationship and that the Canadians are the principals and the charities are the clients. And you have a responsibility – I would even go further and say a duty of care. And by “duty of care” I mean the responsibility and legal obligation of the charitable sector as a whole to avoid acts or omissions that could likely cause harm to Canadians. And, frankly, the philanthropic sector has not avoided causing harm to Black and Indigenous communities. And they’ve only been able to get away with that because they think it’s public wealth – sorry, they think it’s private wealth. When in reality it’s public wealth, subsidized by Canadians, through an incredibly generous and preferential tax treatment. That’s why I think it’s public wealth. That’s why I think foundations need to be considered in some regard as public utilities that have a responsibility and a duty of care to Canadians.
RO:
So, let me explore this idea a little further. You know, I’ve talked about this as well, but do you deny that philanthropy has generated public benefit in this country? I think of, you know, for example, the work that philanthropists have done in this country. Let me pick an example. The program that was in Regent Park to send – to make sure that children in underprivileged neighbourhoods succeeded in school – Pathways to Education! It was called that, and a lot of minority kids, Black kids, were participants in that program. That was a pretty enlightened way of providing public benefit of creating a floor for equity.
LA:
So I don’t think philanthropy should measure itself on its successes; I think it should measure itself on where the missed opportunities are. For every single Pathways to Education program, Senator, there are an endless number of other projects that were essential to communities, like the one I’m from, that did not receive support. In fact, the recent reports – including the one that you referenced earlier that I had the privilege of co-authoring, the Unfunded report, says – showed that only seven cents out of every $100 being given out by Canadian philanthropy went to Black communities. So that seven cents you described, maybe it funded the Pathways to Education program, but I’m concerned about the $99.93 that doesn’t come to Black and Indigenous groups. And the same thing, as I was about to mention because it occurs in Indigenous communities – so I think philanthropy should be applauded, but it should also be reprimanded and asked to account for all of the other missed opportunities that it has. And so it’s not an issue of has it done good? The question for me is has it done what it was supposed to? And I think that there’s – go ahead.
RO:
Do you, you know, there are those who say, and it’s a widely held opinion, is that these tax benefits provided to philanthropy actually create solutions that are nimble, that are flexible, that are not hampered by bureaucracy. Because if we didn’t have philanthropy, the tax dollars would be in the hands of the government, and we all know how government works. So philanthropy is sort of, you know, the risk-taker in society; it invests in problems and solutions that government is not able to do so. So if we didn’t have philanthropy, we’d have more tax dollars being spent by the government. Now the government is accountable because we vote people in and out every four years. We can’t do that with philanthropy. So how do we make philanthropy more accountable?
LA:
You said a lot there. Number one, I think we need to think about mechanisms for accountability. When you look at Canada’s broadcast and media sector, right? They have an entity that we all know as the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. I think it’s high time for Canadian philanthropy to have such a mechanism, one that holds Canadian philanthropy to account, not only on how it gives or the method of giving – which I think are such a low bar for what we really can achieve – but around what impact it can have and for whom.
So you know, when you think about the CRTC, it requires Canadian broadcasters to report on how much Indigenous content they have, how much dramas, how much comedy shows that they put out. In other words, it tells them to account – if you want the privilege of broadcasting in this country and having that licence, you have to at least demonstrate that you’re producing content that is – that reflects the Canadian culture or the community. Why is that not happening in philanthropy?
RO:
So this is a really interesting idea, a philanthropy commission. Have you thought enough about it to share with us whether this should be led by the industry itself? Or should it be mandated by government and led and resourced by government to do the kinds of things you’re suggesting, including possibly an annual report or something like that? Where is it best located?
LA:
It has to be mandated by government. I don’t think it can be left to the discretion of the philanthropic sector. Because if it’s something that you can opt into, it’s also something you can opt out of. And we cannot let – we can’t permit something like this to be something you can opt in and opt out of. To me, I think broadcast licences are equivalent to charitable designations. You get significant benefit by being a charitable organization in this country. For example, not just the ability to issue tax receipts, Senator, but you also get the opportunity to accumulate significant wealth and direct that wealth and then grow that wealth without paying capital gains tax on it, right? And again, that wealth being public wealth.
And so the question for me is if you want private individuals, a board of XYZ group, directing this money, then that board needs to have something that holds them to account, some mechanism to measure whether or not they’re making the right judgments and disbursements on our capital. Right? That again, that public wealth for our public benefit. So it has to live within government. How it gets resourced, I haven’t the faintest idea.
RO:
That’s not as important as its structure and mandate. So let me then continue to explore this idea a little further. Do you believe that philanthropy itself is having these conversations about reconstructing itself, about regaining lost relevance, about transforming itself, or is it coming from the outside? I mean, change happens best when it happens from the inside and from the grassroots. You know, you’re involved in philanthropy, so what are you observing?
LA:
So, I should – I think it’s helpful to maybe describe myself a bit. I’m defiantly optimistic and impatient, in equal measure. So I’m one of those folks who believes there’s much to be applauded in Canadian philanthropy, and there’s much to be desired. So I don’t want to sound like one of those folks that says, “Hey, we’re not doing anything good.” I’m in philanthropy, I have the privilege of working in it. It’s been what sustains my career in a number of ways. So, and I’ve seen firsthand the benefit.
You gave the example of Pathways to Education. The first Pathways to Education was in Regent Park, a neighbourhood that I grew up in, a neighbourhood very close to me. So I’m not only a recipient and beneficiary of Canadian philanthropy, I’m also someone who wants to see it continue to sustain those kinds of benefits, in a more equal, durable, and equitable fashion. So I want to get that off my – I want to make that point clear.
The other thing is, what I currently see in Canadian philanthropy is this search for solutions without a common agreement on purpose. I think that’s the challenge. We’re so concerned about running away from our – some of our really bad legacy and the things we didn’t do – that we’re in a rush to create solutions. And there’s a Swahili saying: “Haraka, haraka haina baraka.” It says, “There’s no blessings in hurry, hurry.” Because in your hurry to do something, you’re leaving behind the very people that can help you get to that solution.
We cannot permit those that – and I don’t mean to “other” anyone – but if Canadian philanthropy by itself has created this problem, it will not solve this problem by itself. It needs the time and the opportunity to include folks like you, Senator, include folks like me and others who have been excluded. Because I think the only way we get to a solution is ensuring that we have a wider tent and that the voices who have been previously not involved are there. So that’s why I talk about common purpose. Unless we have a common purpose and common reference, how will we measure the solutions that we come up with? Only those who have money are gonna be the ones who get to determine the solution, and therein lies the problem.
RO:
So you talked about bringing people into the room that have been excluded. So let’s talk about who’s sitting around the governance table. You know that is something I’m keenly interested in. And research has shown that people who look like you and me are not present around the governance tables of foundations. Do you think foundations are now ready to change their governance? Because for large part, the board members are made up of family or friends or financial advisors or business partners. And given the demography of wealth in this country, it’s easy to imagine the demography of the board table. But do you think now, since we’ve been having these conversations over the last three years, foundations are getting with the – sorry, I’ve got a frog in my throat, but you know what I’m going to ask.
LA:
Do I think – I can’t speak to what’s in the hearts and minds of men and women or people, so I don’t know if they’re getting there. But I hear that there’s a sense and a desire. I hear that there’s a sense and desire to do this. And my concern isn’t about what the sentiment is today. My concern is how do we mandate that this occurs? How do we ensure that there’s greater representation and diversity of boards and staff? And this is why the philanthropy commission that I’m describing, and this adoption of a duty-of-care approach, right, are so necessary.
You know, I think about the foundations that are doing incredible work, like the Laidlaw Foundation and the Inspirit Foundation and some of those. And I can’t but draw a direct line from the work they’re doing, to support organizations like the Foundation for Black Communities, the Indigenous Peoples Resilience Fund, and the fact that they have an incredibly and remarkably diverse board. It’s not lost on me. It’s not lost on me that the first folks to respond to the Foundation for Black Communities’ call to support the growth of our endowment were Laidlaw and Inspirit. Again, they’re led by two executive directors that are people of colour, that their boards made up significant – have significant representation of people of colour. It’s not lost on me. It’s not a coincidence. So I wonder if it’s not a question of is there a desire but a question of whether or not we should make that a requirement?
RO:
A mandatory requirement by government. By the way, Liban, you know that the government does not mandate diversity on corporate boards; they do mandate disclosure. So perhaps disclosure and, you know – I mean you know how this country is: it’s risk averse, it moves slowly. And even getting the mandate from the government on disclosure was a pretty high bar to climb, but we do have it now. But we don’t have it in the not-for-profit and charitable sector. So should it be mandated or representation, or should we start at, you know, the more comfortable place of mandating disclosure?
LA:
Senator, I’m choosing my words carefully. And purposely. I’m not here to make the comfortable suggestion. I’m here to set an incredibly high bar. And I also know that what I’m recommending may not come to fruition, but we have to mandate. Mandate is the only way that we can avoid personal discretion and regression to the mean later down the line. Yeah, I get corporate boards aren’t mandated to do this. But philanthropic boards that are directing and responsible for public wealth ought to have some sort of requirement, so that we have age, gender representation. It cannot be a bunch of old white men, over 50, who have MBAs or work at banks; that just can’t be it. That’s not representation of our community. And that certainly isn’t the way that I think we make the best decisions.
RO:
So I want to go back to your Unfunded report, which I was very interested in. And I want to ask you, you know, do you think the root cause of philanthropy ignoring Black communities is rooted in structural, systemic racism? Or is it simply individual foundations doing things a certain way – giving to universities, museums, hospitals, and just following that line of pretty conventional philanthropic impulse.
LA:
I think it’s part of both of those. Number one, when you look across the mandates of foundations, which are directed and decided upon by founders and boards, you find very few foundations across Canada that see Black communities as a constituency or a beneficiary of their work. So, if you can decide who’s in your – who’s one of your beneficiaries, you’re also deciding who’s not your beneficiary. Okay? So yeah, I do think that it’s in part systemic anti-Black racism. And what I mean by that isn’t because only one foundation has decided not to name Black people as a key beneficiary. I’m talking about the overwhelming number of Canadian foundations are ignoring Black communities as a key beneficiary, even though they’re all working on issues that directly intersect with the needs of Black communities: relief of poverty, promotion of education, right? You name it, it impacts Black communities and Indigenous communities, and they’re often the group that’s most disproportionately affected in a negative way by that issue. Yet we’re not naming them? We’re not investing in them? That exclusion, what else can it be rooted in except for ignoring, neglect, and disregard. And what is that driven by? I’d be hard pressed for anything, anyone, to convince me that that isn’t in some way benign anti-Black racism.
On the other part, I certainly think that the operational environment hasn’t permitted for this to become any easier either. And I want to commend you on the incredible work that you led with … Bill S-216, right? Did I get that? I always get the bill number wrong.
RO:
Yep. I get the numbers wrong, too, but—
LA:
—around direction and control and addressing that. Because we now – the Unfunded report pointed out the fact that nearly 70 to 75% of Black-led organizations are non-profits and charities therefore, often – then they become unqualified donees and not able to get the investments from Canada’s charities. And that’s long been an excuse used by charities to say that’s why we’re not investing in Black groups. And then I point out the fact that Chagnon Foundation, one of Canada’s largest philanthropic foundations, provides nearly 65 to 70% of their grants to non-qualified donees. In other words, foundations have figured out a way to work around these guidelines. So if there is a will, you always find a way. These foundations have never had the will or the desire, based on their track record, to invest in Indigenous and Black communities. And if you want to figure out why? Look at the makeup of their boards. If you want to figure out why? Look at the kind of regulation, the guidelines that they put in place – or that they point to as limitations. More important than that, if you want to know why? It’s because they’ve never named these two communities or rarely name these two communities as key beneficiaries of their work.
RO:
So you know that in the last budget, the disbursement quota was raised from 3.5% to 5%. So there will be more money. The argument has always been, well, it will be more money for same old, same old pattern of giving. Is this not an opportunity for the sector to exercise some creative disruption of its own? And what will it take to move it from comfort to discomfort? Because discomfort creates the kind of disruption that you are talking about, you know, do something differently because it’s not just because it’s, it’s, you know, something new, but something necessary that you’ve been ignoring.
LA:
Senator, if we want to course correct for our lack of – underinvestment in these Black, Indigenous, and other equity-deserving communities, you now have 1.5% extra in disbursement to play with. And so I’ll make this clear for our listeners. If you’re a foundation, establish an equity benchmark for giving. A minimum quota that you’re going to give to Brown, Black, and other communities across – Indigenous communities – across Canada, and use that 1.5% for the next 10 years. Because that’s what it’s gonna take. You can’t just give for the next two or three years. If we’re going to course correct for the historical inequity, we’re going to have to invest and in some cases, some would suggest over-invest. So again, an equity benchmark adopted across the philanthropic sector, every foundation saying they’re going to dedicate at least 1% of their disbursement, or up to 1%, to Black, Indigenous, and other equity-deserving groups.
RO:
That’s pretty interesting. So obviously, the next question has to be around accountability again, for new dollars and more research. Is the Foundation for Black Communities planning to follow in the next two or three years the increase in disbursement quota and whether in fact it goes to unfunded communities? Or is that now left up to somebody else?
LA:
We absolutely will be following very closely, and continue to follow very closely, the giving patterns of Canadian foundations. But that isn’t something else – that’s something that we should only do. I’m hoping the federal government is also going to be looking at disaggregated data. The T3010 reports tell us who we give to, right? We should all be looking at this. And so yeah, yeah, we’ll be following it. But more importantly than that, it shouldn’t be about whether or not there’s us playing detective; each foundation should want to do this for themselves.
RO:
And they should be self-reporting. If they report out to their membership association, let’s say PFC, then aggregate data can be collected.
LA:
Couldn’t agree more. Exactly.
RO:
That would be cool. So you know, we’ve accomplished a lot, I have to say, in terms of charities and philanthropy. Especially in this year’s budget, which will be approved, fingers crossed, this week; it means the direction and control idea will be replaced by a new way of doing business which will allow philanthropists to engage with non-qualified donees as long as it’s, you know, in keeping with their charitable purpose. So windows have been opened, doors have been opened, the increase in the disbursement quota, but we obviously must watch how this rolls out very carefully. So in light of this last little bit of our conversation, should you and I be hopeful?
LA:
Of course, of course. Hopeful that we’ll do things differently. But I think that hope has to be accompanied by pragmatism and practicality. I gotta be clear on this: I do not believe the same old will yield anything but the same old. Foundations will not move forward, in that they won’t achieve anything different if they’re made up – they look the same way and operate the same way.
So yes, to your point earlier, here are some incredible successes. More money is going to be dispersed. It’s going to be easier to give money away because we’ve been able to amend and alleviate some of the constraints of direction and control. But we still have to address – as our conversation earlier, the topic earlier in our discussion – who is making those decisions matters. The “who” we’re committed to as our beneficiaries matters. And then finally, the accountability mechanism to ensure that we’re doing the things we’re supposed to also matters. And unless we address those gaps, I don’t see – I don’t see that our hope will be – it’ll be unrequited hope. How about that?
RO:
Let’s – I want to ask you a final question. I’m going to quote you, Liban. You said in a lecture that “we must adopt an appropriate sense of urgency, reject incrementalism, and demand transformation at scale.” Can you unpack that a little for us?
LA:
I’ll start with impatience.
RO:
Good or bad, should we be impatient?
LA:
We have to be impatient. The cost of patience is wholly avoidable human suffering. We have $100 billion that we can utilize to do good, and we have to find ways to do good where good needs to be done. Canadian philanthropists, or the philanthropic sector, can no longer act like they are firefighters when they are in fact fuelling the fire. So we have to be impatient. Things are getting worse. We had a global pandemic, we have an economic – global economic wind changes that many suggest will be very negative for folks, for everyone. And so we have to be. We can’t think about “Hey, let’s wait and see.” We’ve got to think about putting our dams up so that we don’t get crushed by the wave.
When I think about the other part around systematic and wholesale change, it’s necessary. We can’t tinker at the edges anymore. We need to make sure that we’re completely priming Canadian philanthropy to do what it can, unlock all of its potential, remove its constraints. We did that with some of the policy work – that wasn’t imagined possible. Let’s be honest, right? There were many folks – you said you chatted with them, who said to you, “Are you crazy? You want to make it easier to give money away and not have us control it?” They resisted that idea. They thought that was radical. All because you said, “Can we get money to places where it needs to be easier?” So that’s the kind of impatience that I’m talking about. And, you know, I – for the listener, I’d love for you to just, you know, to say that very last part of my quote again, because I want to – I want to make sure it is fresh in the mind of folks as I respond to it.
RO:
So you said, “We must adopt an appropriate sense of urgency.” And you’ve said, “We need to be impatient because impatience is what will move the needle.” “We need to reject incrementalism.” And “We need to demand transformation at scale.”
LA:
Demand transformation at scale. Here’s the transformation at scale: a useful, relevant, and impactful accountability mechanism has to be introduced to Canadian philanthropy. I’m the sort of the person that says, “Let’s trust that we can do better.” But I’m also someone that believes that we have to figure out ways to ensure that we’re not – that doing better isn’t something that we can opt out of later, like I said earlier. We need a philanthropy commission. People have talked about a home in philanthropy. I agree, but what I’m talking about specifically is something that, a mechanism, that will ensure that we’re not plotting how much we give or how we give, but that we’re always assured and thinking about who we’re giving to and how that giving is having an impact.
RO:
So thank you so much, Liban, for spending time with us. This has been a most interesting conversation. I’m quickly making notes of three pretty big ideas. One is the philanthropy commission to demand accountability. The second is equity benchmarks to understand and appreciate how new money is flowing to those most in need. And the third is one I align myself with, I’m not sure how easy it is to, as a legislator, to do, which is mandated governance equity. So this has been a wonderful conversation, and hopefully, the listeners will appreciate the complexity of what we tried to do in a mere 40 minutes. Thank you so much, Liban.
LA:
No problem. Senator, can I share a thought? I don’t believe in good or evil. I don’t think the philanthropic sector is made up of bad people doing bad things. Right? I think the – I haven’t met a single bad person in philanthropy in my time. Everyone is a caring, compassionate, eager person, right? I’m actually overwhelmed by the kindness of the sector, and more importantly than that, the desire to do good. But I always share the story that I’m about to end with, because the desire to do good can also have negative implications. And it’s about being aware of what you think you’re doing versus what needs to be done.
So I share this one story with you. It goes back to Kenya. So there’s a group of students that are doing a research project, and they’re doing some field research and so they fly to Kenya and they land in Nairobi. They drive a couple of hours out and they go to this small village, and the community there embraces them. They house them, they feed them, they teach them, and they’re there for about a couple of weeks. And right around the time that they’re leaving, the group of students go, “Hey, look, we want to demonstrate our gratitude in some way. We want to thank these folks that have been so generous and kind to us. What should we do?” So one of the students goes, “Hey, I observed that the women in this community wake up every single day and travel five kilometres to go fetch water. And that’s a really dangerous, like, exercise. We should build a well. That’ll reduce them having to leave, and, you know, they’ll have access to water all the time.” So the students scrounge up the little bit of money that they have, and they’re students – they don’t have a lot of it. They get an engineer, they build a well, the community thanks them, they take off.
Time passes, students graduate. They have a great idea and go, “We should visit the community that we were at in Kenya as a graduation celebration.” Land back in Kenya, get to the community. The first thing they see in this village is the well filled with garbage. They’re astonished. Dinnertime rolls around, and one of the students whispers to one of the elders and goes, “Hey, I don’t want to be, um … I don’t want to be rude, but, like, what happened to the well? You know, we spent a lot of, like, resources on that. And we didn’t have a lot of money. So what gives?” The elder looks this way and then this way, and in a moment of discomfort stands up and goes, “Thank you for that question. Well, we appreciate what you did for us by building a well. We wish you would have asked us what we actually needed. Because had you asked us, we would have told you that walking wasn’t the problem. There was wisdom in why we did this. The women use that hour, hour and a half, of walk to transmit knowledge to the young girls, right, in their community. And it also provided an opportunity for the fathers, who are typically in the field for most of the day, to spend time with the young children. There was community wisdom in this practice of fetching water. But you didn’t know that. So had we used the well, our entire way of organizing as a community would have been upended.” That’s the problem with thinking you have the solution because you have the money.
RO:
It’s always wonderful to end with a story and that is a powerful narrative. Thank you so much, Liban. I’m sure philanthropy will hear much more from you in the coming – in the next little while. Goodbye, everybody.
