That being said, what first convinced you that the nonprofit sector needed a fundamentally new way to look at resilience? And how does your model differ from simply building up a, a day fund?

So at first, I would look at organizations, and they were almost proud that they were operating on such tiny budgets, that they were stretching themselves and stretching a dollar until it broke.

And then I realized that's really not a healthy way to operate, and we need to train our donors and our supporters to understand that we need, need the equipment, we need the resources, we need, okay, the day fund, but the endowments and, uh, the reserves in order to keep us sustainable, in order to protect our institution so that we're not faced with a crisis like firing staff, uh, when there's a downturn or a sudden cut in, uh, a donor.

So that was my main thinking.

Um, obviously, I was very disturbed by the cuts in federal funding for the arts in particular, uh, and I saw a number of organizations that were struggling to make up those lost funds.

And unfortunately, in many cases, they had already done the projects, and they were looking for reimbursement.

So the projects, the work was already done, and they just weren't getting the funding.

Now, when boards actually sit down and take this stress test or this question, what are the most common blind spots they discover about their revenue mix? For a mid-size nonprofit that feels heavily dependent on one source, what are the most realistic steps or, like, first to diversify?