Category: Event Takeaways

Across the impact field, efforts to advance economic mobility and inclusive growth are encountering friction with the language we use. Wealth is often understood narrowly as accumulation or privilege rather than as a practical foundation for stability, choice, and long-term opportunity. When the narrative is muddled or loaded, it becomes harder to build durable public support for policies and programs that expand economic power.

On April 23, NationSwell invited leaders from the philanthropy, business, and social sectors to a conversation on how the impact field can develop a clearer, more inclusive narrative and vocabulary around wealth. Together, participants discussed how words like ownership, assets, security, and opportunity are landing today, where they fall short, and how reframing can better support economic mobility and inclusive growth initiatives. Some of the most salient takeaways from the conversation appear below:

---

Key takeaways:

Shift narratives from individual financial behavior to structural drivers of wealth. While personal choices play a role, wealth outcomes are often shaped by structural factors, such as employer retirement benefits, housing markets, and federal policies, rather than individual choices. Personal stories often highlight how factors like low wages, lack of access to capital, student debt, and historical inequities (e.g., redlining, exclusion) shape financial outcomes over generations. It is important to move away from framing wealth as purely a result of personal decision-making and toward acknowledging systemic influences. 

Use more relatable language to describe wealth and financial well-being. The term “wealth” can feel abstract or associated with extreme affluence, making it hard for many people, especially young people, to relate to. Reframing wealth in terms of savings, financial stability, or the ability to handle everyday expenses makes the concept more accessible. For example, wealth in practical terms can be described as having savings that provide a buffer against unexpected events and enable future investments like education or housing. This framing reflects how many individuals and young people actually experience financial well-being.

Normalize investing as accessible to all income levels. Individuals and communities often have the capability to build wealth but lack access to financial, social, and knowledge capital. Research shared in the discussion showed that many individuals, including those with retirement accounts, do not see themselves as “investors” and instead associate investing with a narrow demographic. Shifting this perception, so that people view themselves as investors regardless of income, is critical to changing long-term financial behavior.

Move beyond financial literacy toward asset-building opportunities. Programs focused only on budgeting or financial literacy don’t meet the needs of all populations. More effective approaches include pairing guidance with tangible opportunities – such as matched savings programs, early investment accounts, homeownership support, and youth “earn and learn” initiatives – that enable actual wealth accumulation. Additionally, social capital, especially through mentorship, is a key mechanism for helping individuals navigate systems like financial aid, education, and homeownership. Building and scaling these relationships can support broader access to economic mobility.

Bridge place-based and national approaches to wealth-building strategies. It is important to combine locally tailored strategies – grounded in community history and context – with broader national resources and infrastructure. This balance can help scale solutions while maintaining relevance to specific communities.

Improve how insights and solutions are shared across philanthropy. Philanthropy does not  always effectively share knowledge about what works. Better distribution of actionable insights, especially in accessible formats, is a major opportunity for increasing impact in the community wealth-building field. 

AI is moving fast, but grantmakers are rightly cautious. Funders are under pressure to move money more efficiently, learn faster, and support grantees better, all without adding risk, burden, or opacity to an already complex system. The question is no longer whether AI will touch grantmaking, but where it can actually add value—and where it shouldn’t.

On April 16, NationSwell invited philanthropic and impact leaders to take part in a conversation on the practical use of AI in grantmaking. The conversation featured ideas about when AI can meaningfully improve decisions and workflows and how to adopt it in ways that strengthen, rather than undermine, equity, accountability, and relationships with grantees. Some of the most salient takeaways from the discussion appear below:

---

Key takeaways:

Assess where AI meaningfully adds value across the grantmaking process. Rather than applying AI indiscriminately, organizations should take a step back and evaluate workflows end-to-end to determine where these tools can be most effective. A thoughtful, system-level approach can promote AI application in ways that enhance, rather than complicate, existing processes.

Use AI to streamline manual and error-prone grantmaking workflows. Financial due diligence can be a highly manual, time-intensive, and error-prone process, often involving spreadsheet-based analysis or visual review of financial statements. AI tools like Grant Guardian were developed to improve accuracy and efficiency in this specific workflow. 

Reinvest time savings from AI into deeper grantee engagement. Small grantmaking teams often face hundreds of applications, creating capacity constraints. AI can be used to support summarization, rubric-based pre-review, and prioritization to help manage this volume. The reduction in processing time, from hours to minutes, can allow staff to spend more time having meaningful conversations with grantees and improving the quality of their work. 

Recognize and normalize AI use among applicants and grantees. There is growing recognition that applicants and grantees are using AI to improve efficiency, particularly in drafting and responding to applications. When used thoughtfully, this can help reduce administrative burden, though differentiation still relies on the substance of proposals and outcomes.

Consider supporting grantees’ capacity to adopt AI tools and infrastructure. As AI becomes more embedded in workflows, there is an opportunity for funders to think about how grantees can access and use these tools effectively. Supporting this capacity, particularly through flexible, operational funding, can help organizations integrate AI in ways that enhance their work, rather than treating it as a one-off programmatic expense.

Develop and deploy AI systems with responsible AI principles. Specific principles should guide all AI adoption work in grantmaking, including safety and transparency, community-centered design, bias mitigation, human-in-the-loop validation, enterprise-grade security, and sustainability considerations. Start AI adoption through structured experimentation with clear guardrails, and consider empowering early adopters to test tools within defined parameters (e.g., “stoplight” approaches to acceptable use). These frameworks can also support clearer communication and transparency about how AI is being used.

Consider AI disclosure as contextual and relational: Whether and how to disclose AI use in grantmaking processes depends on organizational policies and levels of AI involvement. While practices may vary between organizations, especially as technology grows and with wider experimentation, keep a relational and trust-based mindset.

Maintain human oversight as a core requirement in AI-assisted workflows. AI is never a substitute for human judgment, and validation and verification by users must be built into the process. Being explicit about this, both internally and externally, can help reinforce trust, particularly in a field like philanthropy that is deeply relationship-driven and values human expertise.

Design for customization of AI tools to reflect different evaluation contexts. Grantmaking organizations assess financial health and programmatic fit differently, and AI tools can be configured with varying metrics, thresholds, and profiles to match those needs. This flexibility can also support more context-sensitive and equitable evaluation approaches; for example, assessing early-stage organizations differently than more established ones. 

As AI and automation accelerate change across the labor market, predictive analytics offer powerful tools to anticipate which jobs, skills, and communities face the greatest risk – and where new opportunities are emerging.

On April 14, NationSwell convened a group of cross-sector leaders for a conversation on how data-driven insights can inform equitable training pathways, smarter investments, and workforce systems that are more responsive, inclusive, and resilient – ensuring workers are prepared for what’s next. Some of the most salient takeaways from the discussion appear below:

---

Key takeaways

Build workforce systems around capabilities, not credentials. A skills-first labor market only works if the underlying data infrastructure can recognize how people actually build skills through work, not just through degrees. When systems continue to privilege credential proxies over demonstrated capability, they miss large pools of qualified talent and reinforce inequities that workforce initiatives are meant to solve.

Pair predictive tools with better upstream data. Forecasting tools are only as strong as the signals they rely on. If workforce data continues to over-index on traditional credentials or lagging indicators, even sophisticated models will reproduce old blind spots; the real opportunity is to feed these systems richer, skills-based, real-world signals that surface emerging pathways earlier.

Invest in verified outcomes data, not just self-reported program metrics. Too much workforce decision-making still depends on incomplete or anecdotal outcome data. Expanding access to administrative wage data and other verified sources can help providers understand which programs are actually driving employment and earnings gains, and make more strategic decisions about what to scale, refine, or retire.

Use labor market data to map mobility, not just demand. It is not enough to know which jobs are growing. More useful systems help workers and practitioners understand how people can move from one role to the next based on shared skills, adjacent occupations, and realistic transition pathways, especially in a labor market where workers will increasingly need to pivot across sectors over time.

Treat durable human skills as core infrastructure. As AI and automation continue to reshape tasks, foundational capabilities like problem-solving, judgment, adaptability, collaboration, and communication are becoming more valuable. Technical requirements will keep evolving, but these underlying skills are what allow workers to remain resilient and mobile across changing tools, roles, and industries.

Redesign learning environments for experiential learning, not just memorization. Traditional teaching methodologies are increasingly challenged in a labor market where workers are expected to interpret information, make decisions, and adapt in real time. Experiential learning where people must apply knowledge, navigate ambiguity, and solve real problems better prepares learners for a world in which execution is increasingly automated and judgment is the differentiator.

Center the learner’s lived experience when designing workforce pathways. Workforce systems often default to employer demand signals and institutional priorities, but durable pathways require equal attention to how individuals actually make decisions. People choose careers based on identity, values, belonging, perceived risk, and developmental stage so the strongest systems help learners navigate options rather than simply presenting them.

Avoid replacing one rigid pathway with another. As enthusiasm grows around alternatives to four-year degrees, there is a risk of steering lower-income learners into workforce tracks while more privileged peers retain access to broader optionality. The goal is not to substitute “college for some, training for others,” but to build multiple high-quality pathways that preserve dignity, mobility, and long-term choice across backgrounds.Reframe middle-skill and nontraditional career paths as real engines of mobility. Many high-demand roles outside the traditional college track now offer strong wages, lower debt burden, and meaningful advancement potential, yet outdated perceptions still diminish their value. Shifting both rhetoric and practice to put career and college readiness on more equal footing is essential if workforce systems are going to reflect today’s economic realities.

The standard playbook for corporate impact reports and public communications has been unsettled by shifting political pressures, cultural attitudes, attention scarcity, and the introduction of AI. Yet companies still need to explain what they stand for, show progress, and build credibility with employees, investors, and the public. The organizations currently excelling in this space share a set of key attributes: a deep understanding of their audiences; auditable data; insight-driven storytelling; and the ability to adapt.

During an April 7 virtual Leader Roundtable on The New Playbook for Impact Comms and Public Reporting, leaders from the NationSwell community challenged us to rethink how data and narrative interact to showcase how the data shapes the story. We’ve collected some of the most salient insights from the conversation below, should you wish to revisit them:

Key Takeaways:

Design your communications strategy around clearly defined audience segments. Effective storytelling starts with identifying who you need to reach and what matters most to each group, then tailoring messages to reflect their priorities. This often requires translating technical language into relevant business or social outcomes and creating multiple entry points into your core narrative. Always ask, “Why should this audience care?” and adapt messaging accordingly.

Anchor communications in credible data and use narrative to bring it to life. Build reporting on auditable data, then use storytelling to explain the outcomes and human impact behind those numbers. Treat data as the backbone of your communications, and narrative as the mechanism that connects evidence to impact. This allows you to humanize outcomes rather than leading with corporate frameworks alone, ensuring your message sticks.

Maintain a consistent core message while adapting delivery to changing external conditions. Establish stable principles and core truths, but adjust tone, framing, and distribution channels as political and regulatory contexts shift. Flexibility in messaging preserves credibility, manages risk, and ensures communications remain relevant in dynamic environments.

Focus storytelling on narratives that deliver the greatest strategic value. Prioritize concise, data-backed, and purpose-driven communications over exhaustive reports. Highlight stories that connect social impact to business goals, emphasize outcomes, and avoid overcommunicating. Limited attention and reporting space require identifying the stories that move the needle most effectively.

Align impact initiatives directly to business performance and risk mitigation. Link programs to measurable business outcomes such as revenue, talent retention, or risk reduction to demonstrate their material importance. Position impact activities as contributors to core enterprise value, showcasing how “doing good” drives both social and business outcomes. This tactic proves especially critical when engaging executive leadership, including the CFO and other financial decision-makers.

Create a cross-enterprise ecosystem of reporting. Engage key stakeholders across functions, such as materiality, risk, and assurance, to build a connected village of reporting that supports consistent, credible communications. Identify the connective tissues between social impact, business performance, and brand positioning to uncover better opportunities in the marketplace.

Frame workforce and inclusion communications around enterprise-wide value. Emphasize outcomes that benefit the full employee population, such as talent development or retention, rather than narrowly focusing on specific population groups. Expand DEI storytelling to include pathways for veterans, first-generation employees, and multiple demographic segments to maintain credibility and mitigate potential backlash.

Leverage technology and AI to accelerate data analysis and broaden reporting capabilities. Deploy digital tools to streamline data collection and analysis, model potential outcomes, and generate actionable insights efficiently. Consider AI tools to explore multimedia formats for your reports to increase audience accessibility and engagement.

Rural communities face some of the most persistent health challenges in the country—provider shortages, long travel distances for care, limited broadband, higher rates of chronic illness, and underfunded local health systems. Yet, across these same regions, practitioners, employers, health systems, nonprofits, and local leaders are piloting innovative approaches: mobile and telehealth models, community health workers, cross-sector care networks, and employer-backed wellness programs that meet people where they are.

During a March 24 virtual Leader Roundtable, leaders from the NationSwell community came together to discuss the real-world models working on the ground, the operational and financial barriers to scaling them, and the opportunities for multi-sector collaboration that can create more reliable, equitable access to care. Some of the most salient takeaways from that discussion appear below:

---

Key takeaways

Recognize Community Health Workers as the connective tissue. CHWs are most effective when embedded within communities and linked to broader care systems, bridging social services, clinical care, and local resources. Sustaining and expanding this impact requires flexible funding that meets CHWs where they are by unlocking early-stage innovation, reducing unnecessary restrictions, and resourcing the work already happening on the ground. 

Anchor care in community infrastructure to expand access at scale. Care is most effective when it flows through familiar structures, such as churches and local organizations that have long served as anchors in their communities, rather than relying solely on traditional clinical settings. From faith-based health navigation to in-home support for high-risk populations, training and deploying workers from within these networks strengthens engagement and increases the likelihood that care is sustained.

Leverage technology to unlock reimbursement and coordination. Purpose-built platforms, hub models, and shared infrastructure are enabling community-based organizations to track outcomes, meet compliance requirements, and access reimbursement. When paired with technical support, these tools reduce administrative burden and make it possible to scale impact while maintaining quality.

Use data to prove value and secure sustainable funding. Demonstrating outcomes like increased primary care engagement, reduced emergency utilization, and cost savings is critical to making the case for continued investment. Data not only validates the impact of community-based models but also translates that impact into language that funders and policymakers act on.

Invest in training that is locally relevant and role-specific. Expanding the workforce requires equipping CHWs with training that reflects the populations they serve, from maternal health to behavioral health to chronic disease. Tailored, community-informed curricula ensure that workers are prepared to meet the specific needs of their communities.

Close the gap by aligning systems, funding, and community needs. Persistent barriers like fragmented data systems, limited interoperability, and short-term funding continue to slow progress. Closing the rural health access gap requires deeper coordination, sustained investment in community-based infrastructure, and policies that reflect how care is actually delivered on the ground.

Rural communities across the U.S. are too often framed by what they lack rather than in terms of the deep assets, leadership, and innovation they already hold. They also face persistent gaps in philanthropic investment, infrastructure, and long-term capital, even as they are critical to the nation’s economic, cultural, and civic future

During a March 19 virtual Leader Roundtable, NationSwell, the Walton Family Foundation, the Delta Philanthropy Forum, and a great group of cross-sector leaders gathered to explore what effective, community-centered rural investment actually looks like in practice. Drawing on insights from the Mississippi-Arkansas Delta — a region that reflects both the challenges and the promise of rural America — the conversation highlighted how place-based strategies rooted in trust, listening, and long-term commitment can unlock opportunity.

Some of the most salient takeaways from the discussion appear below:

---

Key takeaways:

Rural isn’t just a geography, it’s a cultural context. Rural communities are often discussed as sparse populations or hard-to-reach places, but in practice they function as distinct cultural ecosystems with their own histories, norms, and relationship structures. That shift in framing matters: Once rural is understood as a culture and context rather than a category, the equity implications become harder to ignore.

Let the people closest to the challenge shape the solution. Across the conversation, one principle kept resurfacing: the most durable ideas tend to come from the people already living and working in the place. Funders can play an important and catalytic role, but the work is strongest when capital flows from local wisdom rather than overriding it. Experimentation matters — but it matters most when communities help define what success looks like.

Redefine scale in percentage points, not raw volume. Traditional philanthropic metrics tend to privilege large urban markets because outputs are easier to maximize there, but in rural communities, impact often shows up more meaningfully as share of need met, not total number served. A smaller absolute number can represent a far deeper level of transformation.

Partner with rural communities as “test kitchens”, but also fund them beyond the pilot. Rural places can serve as ideal proving grounds for innovation because interventions can be tested at smaller scale, with lower upfront capital and clearer community feedback loops. But too often, philanthropy treats rural communities as places to experiment on rather than places to invest with. If a model works in a rural context, it may be more transferable than assumed — but only if funders stay long enough to support sustainability.

Invest in ecosystems rather than isolated projects. In rural regions, no single town or institution exists in a vacuum. What happens in one community often creates ripple effects across neighboring towns and regional networks, meaning that effective place-based investment requires thinking beyond individual grants or municipalities and designing for coordination across a broader ecosystem.

Pair data with lived experience to understand what a region actually needs. Quantitative indicators can identify where opportunity gaps exist, but can’t fully explain how those gaps are experienced on the ground. Stronger investment decisions emerge when funders use data as a starting point, then pressure-test it through direct conversation with local residents, practitioners, and community leaders. In rural communities especially, context is often the difference between a good strategy and a misfire.

Remove match requirements and other structural barriers that quietly exclude rural communities. Many rural and rural BIPOC communities are shut out not because they lack ideas or leadership, but because they lack the upfront capital required to meet standard philanthropic or public-sector thresholds. One-to-one matches often reproduce inequity under the guise of rigor; if funders want different outcomes, they need to revisit the rules that determine who can even get in the door.

Make communities of choice, not just communities of need. The goal is not simply to mitigate decline or address deprivation, but to build places where people want to stay, return, and invest their lives. That means activating local assets — including culture, recreation, history, civic pride, etc. — alongside economic fundamentals. Place-based investment becomes more durable when it supports belonging and aspiration, not just service delivery.

Rural communities of color sit at the sharpest edge of underinvestment. The most severe inequities often emerge where rural geography and race intersect. Rural Black communities, tribal communities, and colonias are places where the funding gap is especially stark, despite persistent poverty and strong local leadership. Any serious conversation about equitable place-based investment must confront that layered exclusion directly.

A year after sweeping federal funding cuts and mounting political pressure on equity- and justice-focused work, many funders are reexamining how to stay effective and principled in an increasingly constrained and polarized environment—while also stepping up to fill the void left by government withdrawal.

On March 17, NationSwell hosted a virtual Leader Roundtable dedicated to unearthing the future of resilient, adaptive philanthropy. Together, participants explored how funders are retooling their strategies, embracing new approaches to partnership and capital deployment, and designing innovative responses to ensure critical work continues—and flourishes—despite the headwinds.

Some of the most salient takeaways from the conversation appear below:

---

Key Takeaways:

Build resilience by expanding your role beyond grants.
Funders can use tools like loan guarantees, intermediary contracts, convenings, and data partnerships to unlock public dollars, de-risk capital projects, and move money more quickly to smaller and BIPOC-led organizations. This “beyond-the-grant” posture helps communities weather policy and funding shocks while preserving critical services.

Invest in leaders as people, not just as program drivers.
Sabbaticals, accelerators, and holistic leadership support shift leaders from surviving to stewarding long-term power. Funding wellness, reflection, and capacity functions as essential infrastructure for any durable ecosystem, not a luxury line item.

Move resources at the speed of community need.
Models like the Bridge Project’s direct cash to moms, rapid-response funds for immigrant communities, and crisis cash distributed through platforms such as GoFundMe show how trust-based, flexible capital can stabilize families and organizations in moments of acute disruption. Designing for speed, flexibility, and local decision-making allows philanthropy to meet the moment, not just the grant cycle.

Use data and narrative to protect civic infrastructure.
Tools like the Congressional District Health Dashboard and City Health Dashboard, paired with investigative and movement journalism, help communities see where systems are failing and where solutions are emerging. Revisiting philanthropic origin stories and aligning capital with equity, democracy, and community-defined priorities are critical to strengthening civic infrastructure.

Strengthen the ecosystem through relationships and matchmaking.
“Philanthropic matchmaking,” co-funding, and warm handoffs ensure that promising leaders and organizations can connect with the right capital, even when a single funder cannot meet a need. Transparent feedback, honest conversations about fit, and intentional network-building help great ideas secure flexible, multi-year support and reinforce that no one has to navigate this landscape alone.

A year after federal funding cuts, the dismantling of USAID, and politicized targeting of organizations advancing equity and justice, many nonprofits have been forced to adapt—revisiting their models, rethinking partnerships, and finding new ways to sustain mission-critical work amid heightened uncertainty.

On March 10, NationSwell and fellow nonprofit leaders gathered virtually for an honest, forward-looking discussion on what resiliency and innovation look like now, exploring how organizations are evolving to protect their missions, secure new sources of support, and design fresh solutions to address the widening gaps in funding and services left in the wake of these shifts. Some of the most salient insights from that discussion appear below.

---

Key takeaways

Build resilience through financial contingencies and diversified resources. Leaders are strengthening their ability to navigate uncertainty by planning for multiple scenarios and expanding the range of resources that sustain their work. Diversified funding creates the flexibility organizations need to adapt while continuing to serve communities.

Utilize partnerships as investments in long-term capacity. Nonprofit leaders and funders emphasize the power of trust-based philanthropy and capacity-building investments. Partnerships rooted in flexibility, shared learning, and multi-year support enable organizations to strengthen their operations while responding more effectively to shifting contexts.

Anchor innovation in a clear value proposition. In a disruptive environment where resources are constrained and expectations continue to rise, organizations are sharpening their understanding of the value they deliver. Clarity around distinct roles, interventions, and offerings, enables the sector’s most impactful ideas to emerge through creative adaptation.

Listen closely to key constituents through ongoing discovery. Resilient organizations are deeply attuned to the needs of the people and partners who shape their work. By continuously engaging communities, participants, funders, and collaborators through conversation, feedback, and observation, organizations can ensure that programs remain aligned with evolving needs.

Leverage storytelling to connect mission with impact. Storytelling is a powerful tool for navigating complexity while keeping organizations grounded in the purpose of their work. By translating outcomes into compelling narratives, nonprofits clarify the role of their programs, strengthen their relevance, and communicate both the urgency of today’s challenges and the progress being made.

Create shared infrastructure that strengthens the ecosystem. Rather than working in isolation, organizations should explore ways to pool resources, knowledge, and operational capacity across partnerships. Shared infrastructure allows nonprofits to scale impact and reduce duplication across the sector.

Strengthen the ecosystem through collective resilience. In times of uncertainty, nonprofit leadership relies on networks of support that extend across organizations, funders, and communities to enable progress toward shared goals. The strength to navigate disruption grows from shared responsibility, trusted partnerships, and the belief that the work only moves forward together.

Collaboration is only as strong as the structure behind it. When priorities shift, leadership changes, or tough tradeoffs arise, collective impact efforts can be put at risk unless stabilized by good governance. The initiatives that endure look different. They build governance systems that clarify roles, set decision rules, distribute authority, and manage accountability with discipline.

During a virtual Leader Roundtable on March 5, NationSwell convened impact leaders from business, philanthropy, and nonprofits to dig into what “best-in-class governance” actually looks like in cross-sector collaboration today. Some of the most salient insights from that discussion appear below:

---

Key takeaways

Clarified expectations and roles require transparency at the outset of a collaborative effort. In collaboratives that represent the interests of a broader community, don’t be shy about overcommunicating about what participation will entail from the outset of the effort. Being explicit on the front end about things like time commitments, decision-making authority, and what kind of representation is needed helps prevent misalignment and helps partners understand both the opportunity and responsibility of participation. 

Ensure governance bodies include leaders capable of acting at a systems level. Not every forum is designed for broad participation. Governance groups are most effective when members have the authority, perspective, and institutional backing to move ideas into action within complex systems.

Clearly distinguish between advisory voices and decision-making bodies. Successful collaboratives often separate broad community engagement from formal governance. The delineation allows initiatives to incorporate diverse perspectives while ensuring decisions can be made efficiently by a defined leadership group. 

Design governance structures that enable action, not bureaucracy. Governance should create clarity and accountability without slowing momentum. Clear decision pathways and defined roles helps partners move quickly while maintaining shared responsibilities.

Invest in backbone organizations to coordinate complex partnerships. Large collaboratives benefit from a dedicated coordinating entity responsible for facilitation, communication, and operational alignment. This backbone function helps maintain momentum while allowing partners to focus on their specific contributions. 

Revisit governance structures as collaborations evolve. Many initiatives begin informally, but as they grow in scope and complexity, clearer governance becomes essential. Periodically reassessing roles, processes, and decision rights helps ensure structures remain fit for purpose.

Balance urgency with long-term stewardship. In moments of volatility and uncertainty, leaders often feel pressure to act quickly. Thoughtful governance provides the discipline needed to move decisively while protecting long-term collaboration and shared goals.