Looking Forward

Classes like this one have me wanting to be out in the community as much as possible. And not just the University community, but out with the people whose reality not academic pursuits live in Eugene. This recent inner push to talk to people and volunteer as much as possible was in a way kicked into full gear as the presenter from Peace Players was rapping up his talk. He told us that it didn’t matter what we did locally, nationally, or internationally as long as we could “just do something.” For me this took a lot of weight off my shoulders. Lately I’ve been feeling the growing sense that I need to start building connections, get some impressive internships under my belt, and try to stand out in the PPPM department. But it’s come to my attention that keeping my eye on a dream job while planning what I’m doing today isn’t going to get me many places. Instead of continuing to look for the perfect internship, this summer I plan on simply volunteering and helping a few different organizations with any projects they need help with, whether it is directing Eugenians to needed services, helping coordinate events, or even loading food in and out of trucks at a local farmers market. I need and want the experience, but mostly, I want to start doing whatever I can for other people, even if it is something really small.

What I like about being in the PPPM department is that I rarely do research because an assignment is due. Throughout the term I’ve been spending a lot of time looking at nonprofit websites, third sector blogs, and talking to friends and family who work in the sector about their experiences and stance on things I’ve blogged about. I’m usually a pretty hard worker but in this class I’ve felt responsible for figuring out all of the issues I don’t already understand (which trust me was a lot). The exciting part is that once I sifted through texts about foundations, the education system, and environmentalism to name a few of the toughest spots for me, I was able to join the conversation and begin to form my own opinions about reform. It was most exciting to begin to see all of the potential that is already being acted on in social services. I’ve been taught that social services can only do so much because of systematic problems and structural disparities between people. And though its a valid point, this class has made me aware of all of the organizations who have thought of ways to “make it work” so to speak.

In previous blogs, I’ve asked questions like “How do we best serve people in the areas we care about?” After exploring culturally specific nonprofits and community development corporations for my final paper, I’ve formed a basic answer that works for me. With confidence, I’d say that it's not the large-scale government funding, far-reaching policies, and national nonprofits that can have the greatest impact. But instead it’s nonprofits who can give a group of people directed and individualized services based on an understanding of what's needed and better yet, what will be needed. The most inspiring nonprofits I’ve found (Hacienda CDC, Native American Youth and Family Center, Healing Roots, Q Center, World Pulse…) are ones that are not looking at people’s problems but at their unique strengths. To me, this is the path we should have always traveled because—people want to be engaged. It doesn’t matter how much people need a service, in order to know how to access it and have the motivation to get the most from it, organizations need to involve culture, motivational interviewing, and exciting opportunities as a part of outreach.

A couple days ago, I sat down for about an hour with a homeless man who I could tell didn’t want much more than a conversation. He was desperately trying to apply the lyrics of a 1971 hit, “knock three times on the ceiling if you want me, twice on the pipe if the answer is no…” to his situation. From what I could gather, he was confused about why even when he had metaphorically “knocked on the door” of shelters and services, no one had answered. Now, I’m not sure what doors he knocked on and how willing he was to accept their services and advice, but he did remind me why I want to keep finding new ways to solve timeless issues in order to prevent people from feeling that hopeless.

I’d like to end by thanking Sarah, Bob, and everyone in class for making this an exciting learning opportunity. I hope to see many of you in future policy classes and interspersed throughout the sector.

Thanks for reading,

Sarah

Trying to reach across hemispheres

There is no question that people care about issues happening outside of their local community and home country. However the most difficult part of international philanthropy and activism has always been trying to reach across hemispheres (metaphorically of course). It seems as though international outreach for many of us is limited to charitable donations to intriguing causes, but even philanthropy excludes those who may not have the financial capabilities to make a significant contributions even though they have the heart. This brings us to another point, what exactly do we care about? Do we even have a good understanding about the issues most worthy of investment worldwide and which non profits are doing the best job of helping to relieve those problems? Access to accurate information about international non profits and international news has always been available but not through mainstream newspapers and websites. However with the internet today there are so many ways to become active internationally besides just charitable giving from well, behind your computer. We just have to know where to look.

My favorite international non profit is the magazine and interactive website World Pulse. World Pulse is a 501 (c) 3 stationed in Portland whose mission is to "broadcast the unheard voices and innovative solutions of women worldwide." The World Pulse website has news articles and personal accounts from female activists around the world and constant updates between magazine publications. Pulsewire is World Pulse's interactive media site where women can share stories, request and offer resources, collaboratively come up with solutions, make connections, and sell their crafts through the website's Marketplace. The best part is that third world women who often live under oppressive regimes and rarely get to tell their stories are being given the opportunity to speak out and advocate for change. All they need to connect with the world is access to a local internet cafe and a computer. The opportunities that the internet offers are huge for activists and philanthropists from both ends of the spectrum. The internet also gives students and others with little time and few funds the ability to get involved and share opinions without having to take a plane to volunteer.

Sites to explore:

World Pulse:

http://worldpulse.com/

Pulse Wire:

http://worldpulse.com/pulsewire

http://www.girleffect.org/

Philanthropy:

http://www.waterforpeople.org/

http://www.globalgiving.org/

http://www.care.org/

http://www.kiva.org/

Find blogs by country:

http://globalvoicesonline.org/

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/blog

I'm sure there are hundreds more. Feel free to post any cool international news or philanthropy sites you want to spread the word about :)

- Sarah

My Confessions to Mother Earth:

Though every generation has new problems to confront and opportunities to take hold, it's obvious that ours is standing at a kind of turning point; we are not only more aware that policies and practices need to be reconsidered but have also reached a time when our livelihood depends on that change. In class we throw out words like “green housing,” “clean energy,” and the favorite, “sustainability.” They are the words on the tip of our generation’s tongues because we know we’ll be using them later as we enter green jobs or as the severities of global warming and effects of the world’s depleting acts increase. Yet I often ask myself just how much I really understand about the issue. Though I love nature, hiking, kayaking, wandering you name it, my feeling of personal connection and future involvement to the environmental movement is limited (even if I consider it an urgent issue). I'm starting to think that my feelings of detachment stem from the sense that to be a leader in this movement, I have to have a knack for science. But what I've finally realized is that environmentalism and sustainability are not just about serving the earth, but about serving people. The challenge is to make the issue not feel as inconceivably large as the earth and climate but make it a national, local, household, and virtual topic of practice and discussion.

As we learned in class there are 27,000 environmental nonprofits in the U.S that span from organizations protecting wildlife, to recycling, to health, to clean energy—only the start of a long list. The breadth and the numbers clearly point to where the world’s mindset is. More and more people are starting to understand the relevance and urgency of environmental issues. However this understanding is not as widespread as the numbers reveal. Of the 42.9 billion dollars given through foundations in 2009, only 6 percent went to environmental nonprofits. I haven’t found information on whether or not this percentage has increased with the numbers of nonprofits, but I have heard the voices of people outside of the university and academia. As much as they will argue for the validity of global warming and the importance of recycling, the majority of people (including myself) do little more than care. Many people are content to leave saving the earth up to those 27,000 nonprofits, rebuilding the economy on clean energy to the government, and figuring out the changing environment to scholars and scientists. Environmentalism is an issue that most believe they either do not have the education or financial assets to be an important part of. This is a major problem—something that makes the movement especially difficult to become universal and inclusive. But evidently there is hope; for this disconnect is why so many nonprofit organizations are stepping up to make the facts, the procedures, and the opportunities more clear and available to all people.

Nonprofits are acting as the bridge between science, technology and the people—especially those who cannot afford green products and housing but whose lives depend on it. The Home Depot Foundation supports multiple affordable green housing projects who are making simple adjustments to houses to make a big impact. Some ideas include building houses in clusters to prevent cutting down trees, making sure they are in walking distance of schools and grocery stores, and thinking about water and energy efficiency when building. We also see non-profits like Envirofit whose mission is to provide houses in third world countries with clean cookstoves as an alternative to burning biomass fuels that are hazardous to health. The longer it takes to switch to green, clean alternatives the longer people will suffer the consequences (usually without even being aware of it). In my global policy class we watched a video that interviewed families living and working near a coal mine in China. The river flowing through the mine and into agricultural villages was reddish-brown and described as having a putrid stench. The families who worked near the river and ate the crops cultivated in its waters were suffering from diseases and quickly dying. Meanwhile nothing was being done. Evidently its the rural communities who often cannot afford green alternatives that will be feeling the effects of our decisions long before anyone else.

Nonprofits have already done an extraordinary job of trying to reverse these effects and spread awareness about easy solutions. Our generation faces the great challenge and exciting opportunity to continue what they have started—to make environmentalism into a movement where people do not just care, but know, discuss, prevent, and act.

Finding my niche in the third sector

A running theme in my past entries has been the question— how do we best serve people in the areas we care about? Is it through large or small non-profits or like in art, is it also through for-profits? Is it local or national? public or private? with government funding or without? or is it a combination?

Though every exploration (health, education, art...) brought new arguments to weigh out and left me with just as many proposed solutions, one underlying feeling has been growing with every entry. I am continuously excited about community development and non-profits that take a positive approach to solve some of the nations most negatively discussed and seemingly hopeless problems. Instead of coming in with standardized services to "help" a community, many non-profits are inspiring neighborhoods to find their unique cultural assets to build strong communities of leaders and not dependent clients. Non-profits create what are called "culturally specific" programs so that people will feel that they are walking into an environment that will understand and value their individual experiences as well as their strengths.

For my final paper in this class I've decided to explore the question: How are non-profits using culturally specific and strength-based approaches for community development? I'll be exploring the work of various non-profit advocacy organizations and CDCs including:

- Hacienda CDC (focused on Latino neighborhood development in the Portland area)

- Bradley Angle's "Healing Roots" Center (Oregon's only culturally specific domestic violence program for African Americans)

- NAYA (Native American Youth and Family Center)

- NARA (Native American Rehabilitation Association)

- Q Center (Portland's LGBTQ Community Center)

Seeing the potential and necessity of art

On beautiful days like this, I find myself wanting to be outside at any cost, even if it means climbing up to my roof with an extension cord to type this post. Naturally, this quest for sun is not unique to me. My neighbors currently sit on the roof parallel with their guitars and voices projected out into the day, giving me the inspiration to keep on working. I've always found that it’s the free art and constant exposure to creative expression that makes the daily grind worth going through. But despite all the arts fans, there's still much contention in America about putting time and energy into activities whose impact we can't calculate in numbers or dollars. When for-profit organizations produce a product, they see the immediate result of financial gains and although surveys, stats, and scores do not tell a complete story, we can use them to locate the effects of education, counseling, healthcare, and sustainability. Art on the other hand, tends to get lost in the debate of funding because it is broad and hard to measure. Many pose the question of whether what we call extra curricular, cultural, pass time and emotional should be given the same government attention as services that determine, health, literacy and financial stability.

In my opinion, Americans often forget what they need. It makes sense that to be successful we need math, science, and English instruction; we need healthcare for emergencies; and we need to find a business niche to make a living; basically… we need the basics. But what about what we need to be happy? What works to both aid the forming of bonds and the forming of self? What can keep us connected to our heritage and able to track the growth or decline of a culture? To me these immeasurable aspects of being are just as vital to our individual, local, and international livelihood as the "basics" mentioned above.

I am beginning to see the benefits of art starting in both the non-profit and for-profit sectors. Working artists can do just as much for the economy as they can get out of it. During the Great Depression, 40,000 artists were put to work under the Works Progress Administration (Federal I). Because of it, they not only provided inspiration and created some of the most treasured art and music of our time, but just by working, could pull their families out of poverty and have money to help revitalize the economy. As you probably guessed, I am thinking about the opportunities that for-profit art has in today's world. Some of the most inspiring projects to me are ones like World Pulse Magazine’s “Marketplace” or Women’s World Banking that encourage third world women to turn the crafts they have always made into small businesses. Similarly, the art that has no cost is also changing the face of communities and since the start has worked hand in hand to further the missions of the non-profits. Non-profits like Precita Eyes in San Francisco’s Mission District are recruiting at risk youth and graffiti artists to further their mission of promoting cultural pride and innovation in the city through free art. As a result of these projects, artists continually give back to non-profits by warming up the blank walls of their work places with inspirational paintings that make all the difference in welcoming in community.

Something I took away from this week's reading of Nonprofit Nation is the fact that non-profit and for-profit organizations often produce very different types of art—non-profits can venture into high culture while for-profits usually stick to the profitable low-culture art. This got me thinking about how the economic gap between the upper and lower class is also a social and cultural gap. The readily available free or inexpensive art often is categorized as low culture (low not equating with bad) and includes comic books, graffiti, magazines, pop art, and mass media. This is in contrast to the high culture of scholarly plays, ballet, symphony, opera, and art museums. While low culture can be just as innovative and inspiring as high culture, it too often perpetuates the ideas of mass media into its faithful consumers (stereotypes, drug culture, crude humor, an obsession with appearance...). What we see here is a nation whose people are not only not working and going to school together but also are not sharing the same interests and cultural values—a problem that dictates what services we are willing to support for one another. It seems that the non-profit sector has the ability to bridge this gap by bringing low culture like pop art and murals into communal centers for everyone to see and simultaneously offering high culture theater and art at reasonable prices. This does not mean that I am advocating for one homogenous culture, but instead one where people can easily get in touch with cultures unlike there own and begin to form a dialogue and understanding with others. In essence, non-profits could give people the chance to enjoy all forms of art and culture and not have their exposure limited by location and/or social status. However in order for arts organizations to switch into the non-profit world, people must begin to see the importance of funding the arts.

Now that you've heard my perspective...What potential do you see in art? Are non-profits the best vehicle for spreading art or can you think of a better alternative? I would love to discuss this further.

Best,

Sarah

What is the Right Answer to Education?

“I want my children to understand the world, but not just because the world is fascinating and the human mind is curious. I want them to understand it so that they will be positioned to make it a better place,” said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner.

To make the world a better place, Gardner believes that children’s individual talents and learning styles must be recognized and expanded on at an early age. His multiple intelligence theory introduces the concept that each child enters school with one of seven types of intelligence that is more developed than the rest. From the start, we notice the children with high energy who excel in sports and movement but cannot seem to contain their exuberance in class (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence). We see those with a gift for instruments and performance (musical intelligence), children with an understanding for design and form (spatial intelligence), ones with strong social skills (interpersonal intelligence), and children who are more deep and introspective (intrapersonal intelligence). And yet of these seven forms, only two are largely encouraged in the average public education setting— linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence (in essence, the ones that can directly influence standardized test scores).

Like Gardner, proponents of charter schools come from the belief that there needs to be more schools and teachers who are willing to give all types of students outlets and opportunities to excel— teachers who see diversity as a sign of potential and not a sign of deviance. As a longtime student of the public education system, I find myself applauding a solution that highlights instead of regulates differences, one that creates instead of cuts music, art, and physical education programs. While I read about Gardner’s intelligence theories, examples of classmates from the past continued to surface in my memory. There was always the kid in the back who created abstract doodles instead of notes or the children who only appeared contented when it was time to pick up an instrument, take out the blocks, give friends advice at recess, or run across the blacktop. These were also the students who I remember struggling, acting out, and getting punished for the only activities that truly engaged them. So often, the programs that would help children progress in their area of interest and eventually in all the others are seen as supplementary to their education—they are adequate at bringing fulfillment but are not essential to development. But are linguists, mathematicians, and scientists all the country needs to create a vibrant and innovative culture? How many people instead end up finding a future in architecture, art, social work, and athletics? Think about the increased job opportunities, effective leaders, and heightened morality that could come from sociology, business, art, and public policy being integrated into secondary schools.

Although charters are trying to do just this, when I first stumbled upon their development, I found myself not knowing who to agree with—the people who said “public education isn’t working;” “it’s time to create an individualized form of instruction” or those who argued that “we need to fix what we already have.” It is true that our current public education system leads to 50% of minority students dropping out, teenagers rebelling or ending up in jail, and students reaching college without basic skills or career aspirations. Public ed is evidently inadequate and unequal, but it is also what over 90% of Americans rely on as a source of free and local education, as well as something people have fought to establish over the course of history. Like private schools, charters are can offer more innovated services, but because of their non-profit, public status, can provide these programs for free. The downside is that the funds going into charters are being redirected away from the public schools that serve the majority of children in the district. Charter schools also present the danger of giving say-so and regulatory freedom to individual institutions. It opens the question firstly of how to make sure employees at charters are skilled and trained to work in education and secondly, how we feel about the differences between each charter from area of specialization to level of competency. Will the advent of charters create a population of diverse expertise or one that continues to leave some students disadvantaged because of where they chose to go to school? In my last post, I asked whether we can better serve communities through large, government-funded organizations or grassroots, unfunded efforts. Though the type of funding differs, the outcome is the same: directed, unregulated services can more adequately target and benefit groups whereas large, public institutions can create widespread, clear-cut changes in policy.

Forms of private education give Americans the chance to act as a consumer with their education instead of a recipient, but there is also the danger that others will ultimately start looking at their education as a commodity. As the education system changes I’ve noticed decisions being made on behalf of business and not our education. In 2009, the University of California regents decided to raise tuition by 32 percent for all UC students to close a supposed budget gap, when in reality, they were having a record year in research grants and profits. This means that the regents (who are mostly conservative former CEOs) were thinking about making surplus, not making quality education affordable. It seems like schools could be falling into the same trap with funding that other organizations have been confined to—letting those with money dictate what is taught, what is researched, and what money goes towards (teachers and texts or unnecessary infrastructure).

Because of economic downturn and new initiatives like Obama’s “Race to the Top,” about 5,200 teachers have received pink slips in Los Angeles, as well as 900 in San Francisco. Detroit has initiated $10,000 dollar pay cuts and the closing of 40 schools while Kansas City is in the process of closing 61 schools and firing ineffective staff. I am concerned that as states are encouraged to shift their focus to charters, public education will continue to suffer.

My solution? We continue to look for new systems of education that can more than just adequately serve every kind of student, but at the same time continue to reform and improve the public education that we already have. Instead of thinking that we can abandon one system for another, we should continue to try to create the best of both worlds.

....So many risks but so many solutions!

Until next time,

Sarah

The Forming of Activists

What motivates someone to work in community groups or nonprofit organizations? Is it because they grew up surrounded by activism? Are they determined to advocate and make programs for those facing similar obstacles? Or are they just looking for a sense of community and support? The reasons for becoming active in nonprofits are about as diverse as the organizations themselves.

But what struck me about this week’s readings is just how many people get involved because of the humanitarian emphasis in their religions. It's evident that churches are adamant about promoting charity work; for doing selfless philanthropic acts is said to not just to help others but to aid your own development as a religious person. However the fact that Americans contribute more of their time and money to religious organizations than any other group in the third sector, was new to me. Though religious associations have a hugely positive impact on America, what interests me is why so many people are becoming active through religious groups instead of other nonprofits—and also, what affect religion has on their decisions. I feel like this large volunteer base stems from the religious services themselves. If roughly “seventy percent [of Americans] claim membership in a religious congregation,” the majority of citizens are regularly benefiting from having a source of community and the inspiration to become active. They connect philanthropy with a greater religious purpose and therefore are more compelled to promote it. According to O’Neill, Americans support religious non-profits more than secular ones because they trust religious institutions, having been involved and familiar with their mission for years. However, because so much of humanitarian work is being done by religiously affiliated groups, it is dictated by beliefs that do not apply to everyone those groups aim to help. As a result, religion begins to dictate the agenda of organizations involved with children’s education, women’s and human rights, mental health, and homelessness, indirectly affecting the policies surrounding them.

As much as I may be opposed to the Protestant stance on certain social issues, I am impressed by the ability of religious associations to create so many active individuals who want to get behind their cause. Recently, I was introduced to a conversation that has been sparking debate at blog sites and lunch tables of many third sector workers. It is the idea that the nonprofits who remain financially dependent on the government and/or foundations have a harder time accomplishing their goals and holding onto that independent spirit that activism used to thrive on. This idea is highlighted in the book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, in which 21 nonprofit activists discuss how having to report back to the government and attract foundations has created a shift in how nonprofits must think of themselves. While they once focused on engaging citizens and making connections to start a movement, they are now having to think more like businesses, advertising their work in a way that will appeal to money-holding foundations and government—all of whom have their own agendas (statistics they want produced, quotas they want fulfilled). This quest for funds creates a competitive environment amongst organizations advocating for similar causes. When we were talking about the qualifications to become a 501(c) 3 (or any recognized nonprofit) in class, I assumed that it was these government funded organizations that could have the most success in reaching their goals. However, ideas brought up by activists who want to distance themselves from this type of funding have made me reconsider. In the end, it comes down to who can make the most progress and what progress means to that individual organization. Does it mean working hard to create a movement of activists and engaged citizens to slowly change the lives of individuals? Or does it mean gaining the financial support to become a nationally recognized nonprofit that can hopefully create widespread change sooner than later?

How can we create a combination of the two?

I have a feeling this will be an ongoing discussion.

Thanks for reading!

- Sarah

Take a look at this article to hear more about the ideas brought up by The Revolution Will Not Be Funded:

http://www.utne.com/Politics/Revolution-Will-not-be-Funded-Nonprofit-Industrial-Complex.aspx

And here for an organization in Portland that has decided to proceed without government funding:

http://www.pearmentor.org/home.html

Introductions

"A Look at the Other 10 %". Ten percent of what you may ask? The non-profit or third sector to the more clear-cut business and household sectors makes up for 10% of our nation’s economy. Now, ten seems like an insignificant number at first mention compared to the 90% that for-profit businesses offer the U.S. However if we broaden our field of study to the international market, we discover that this 10% creates more profit for the United States than most countries can gain from all of their sectors combined. This statistic from Michael O’Neill’s NonProfit Nation jumped out at me for multiple reasons:

1. Because I often forget how developed the U.S is compared to other nations;

2. Because it demonstrates the significance and breadth of the sector;

—And—

3. Because it measures a not-for-profit sector in financial terms that do not begin to describe its greater social impact.

In this blog for my Intro to Non-Profit Administration class, I will be taking a further look into the important work of the 10% that is all too often undervalued and misrepresented in our society (as well as the many churches, community groups, and small non-profits that it does not include). I will be reacting to readings from O’Neill’s NonProfit Nation among others, posting helpful findings, and hopefully, uncovering the complexities of the third sector so that we call all better understand it’s role in our lives and how we can best use it to initiate change.

Now, that I have introduced my site, I will tell you a little about myself. My name is Sarah Norman and besides being a first-time blogger, I am also a poet, dancer, musician, nature enthusiast, community volunteer, and full-time learner. I find inspiration in the personal stories of the people around me and am continuously amazed at the wisdom I can find outside of the classroom—often from people I would not expect to have such rich past experiences. I love learning about people, which was perhaps the main influence in my declaring a Sociology major when entering the University of Oregon. Now at the end of my Sophomore year, I still have a passion for the more academic disciplines of the social sciences but feel I have found my future in the more practical, skill based arenas the university has to offer. Which brings me to the PPPM department (Planning, Public Policy, Management). It is here that I’m starting to see my desire to bring real social change to people and communities unfold. Though the ins and outs of policy and administration are often unfamiliar to me and take time to wrap my head around, it is a challenge I am more than willing to take on if it means I can eventually better serve others.

It's the second week of my Non Profit Administration class and the professor has already emphasized many times that people go into business with their minds and the non-profit world relying on their hearts. Each time he says it, I come up with more people and organizations where this holds true. I think that the pure benevolence of non-profit workers is inspirational and I see so much potential in each idea. But I have heard too many stories of great non-profit ideas that never get off the ground and human service providers who inadequately serve those they set out to help. The world of social services has good intentions but still many flaws that need people with business and policy sense and fresh ideas to work out (paired with good hearts and an understanding for people of course). Though this work is usually now referred to as the third sector or not-for-profit, we seem to still associate it with its past titles: “voluntary,” “moral, intellectual” or “charities” (O’Neill 8). I think that most Americans (including myself) are unaware of just how many non-profit organizations there are in the U.S, realize their importance, or understand what it takes to run one.

I came across a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville in this week’s reading that changed the way I look at our relationship with non-profits. He said that “The more government takes the place of associations, the more will individuals lose the idea of forming associations and need government to come to their help.” I used to have the sense that non-profits take care of the people and causes that the government has neglected and that governments need to focus more on creating and supporting social welfare programs. As true as this is, Tocqueville reminded me that community organizations that call for volunteers and activism are vital to developing our democracy. Not only that, but religious groups, special interest clubs, and non-profits are the institutions that give people a voice, a supportive family, a creative or emotional outlet, and often a job. Without a sense of purpose and a source of inspiration, I don’t think people would have the motivation or resources to get to where they want to be.

Stick with me as I work to figure out the great world of non-profits. Comments are welcome! And hopefully I will be able to offer an informative and fresh perspective on this important sector J

Till next time,

Sarah