Topic: Community development

Five Minutes with… IBM’s Sara Link

Posted on by Brianna Provenzano

As artificial intelligence reshapes how institutions operate, many nonprofits and public-sector leaders are grappling with a pressing question: How can AI be deployed responsibly and equitably in service of the public good? 

At IBM, that question isn’t theoretical — it’s central to how the company designs, governs, and advances its AI strategy across sectors. In a new resource developed in collaboration with NationSwell, Responsible Use of AI for Social Impact, IBM outlines a practical roadmap for responsible AI adoption that moves beyond high-level principles and into actionable guidance for organizations navigating capacity constraints, ethical considerations, and rapidly evolving technology. The report emphasizes AI literacy; governance as an enabler instead of a blocker; and a clear focus on augmenting, rather than replacing, human capability. 

For this installment of Five Minutes with…., NationSwell spoke with Sara Link — IBM’s Global Head of Employee Impact — about what it takes to operationalize trustworthy AI at scale and why government and social sector leaders must be equipped not just with tools, but with the systems and confidence to use them well.

We asked Sara how IBM is reframing responsible AI from a compliance exercise into a performance advantage, what meaningful AI literacy actually looks like inside an organization, and what wild success for ethical AI adoption could look like five years from now. 

Here’s what she had to say:

NationSwell: What do you see as most distinctive about IBM’s approach to responsible AI, particularly for nonprofits and social impact organizations that face capacity constraints?

Sara Link, Global Head of Impact at IBM: It’s encouraging to see so many responsible AI principles circulating right now; that level of focus and intentionality is important. At IBM, our approach centers on making AI practical, understandable, and genuinely useful in everyday work. Our belief is that AI should help people do their jobs better — not replace them, overwhelm them, or create confusion.

One of the key insights in the report is that responsible AI has to be realistic for organizations with limited time, staff, and capacity. Nonprofits don’t have extra resources or margin for error, and in many cases they don’t have deep technical expertise in-house. So responsible AI can’t just live in a policy document — it has to be built in a way that reflects those constraints. That means designing tools and governance structures that are usable, accessible, and practical from the start, so organizations can adopt them confidently and integrate them into their daily work.

NationSwell: Augmenting rather than replacing human capability is central to IBM’s view of AI. Can you share an example of what that looks like in practice, either at IBM or with partners?

Link, IBM: In practice, we think about AI as something that helps bring work to life — whether that’s surfacing information, spotting patterns, or saving time on repetitive tasks. But at the end of the day, people still make the final decisions, especially when judgment, fairness, or context matter.

At IBM, for example, internal tools like AskHR or AskCSR help employees find answers more quickly and efficiently. They streamline the process, but they don’t replace accountability. People are still responsible for what happens next. The goal is to enable better, more informed decisions — not to obscure or complicate them.

NationSwell: The report emphasizes foundational AI literacy. What does “good” AI literacy look like inside an organization, and how does that translate into better outcomes?

Link, IBM: Good AI literacy means people aren’t afraid of the tools, but they also don’t blindly trust them. It shows up when leaders and staff understand what AI can support and where human judgment still needs to step in.

You can hear it in the kinds of questions people feel comfortable asking: Does this actually make sense? Should we double-check this before acting on it? For example, in a nonprofit using AI to screen applications or triage services, literacy shows up when staff know how to review AI recommendations, recognize when something doesn’t feel right, and understand that the final decision rests with them.

That kind of literacy leads to better mission outcomes. It reduces errors, helps guard against bias, and builds trust with the communities being served rather than simply automating decisions without oversight.

NationSwell: How does the report reframe responsible AI governance as an enabler rather than a blocker? What is one practical first step an organization can take?

Link, IBM: When you lay out clear rules, it actually becomes easier to move forward. Clarity helps people understand what’s acceptable and what’s not. Without that clarity, uncertainty can cause hesitation or lead organizations to avoid using AI altogether. One of the strongest findings in the report is that governance doesn’t slow adoption; it accelerates it by removing ambiguity.

A practical first step is to build a simple pause point into an existing workflow — a moment where a human reviews and signs off before an AI-driven decision affects someone. It doesn’t have to be complicated. It can be as straightforward as asking: Does this outcome make sense? Would I be comfortable explaining this decision to the person it impacts?

Over time, those small, repeatable checks turn responsible AI from a written policy into a daily habit. And that’s what enables organizations to scale AI safely and confidently.

NationSwell: If you could change one thing about how funders currently approach AI in the social sector, what would it be?

Link, IBM: First, it’s critical for funders to recognize the importance of investing in organizational capacity; that’s the foundation. I would encourage funders to focus not just on funding AI tools, but on supporting people’s ability to use AI well over time.

Investing in technology alone doesn’t create impact if organizations aren’t prepared to work with it. Right now, many nonprofits are expected to figure this out on their own. They may receive funding to pilot AI, but not necessarily the support for training, governance, or long-term learning that makes those tools effective and safe.

Through IBM’s AI for Impact program, which we launched in late 2024, we’ve brought nonprofits together to share how they’re using AI, what questions they have, and where they see opportunity. A recurring theme has been the need for funding that supports both the right tools and the training required to use them responsibly. And research from the IBM Institute for Business Value shows that skills are evolving rapidly — 57% of executives surveyed expect today’s skills to become outdated by 2030. That pressure is even more acute in the social sector, where resources are already stretched.

The funders making the biggest difference are supporting AI readiness, not just adoption — investing in training, shared standards, and giving teams time to learn and adapt, not just deliver. I’d also encourage funders to make their grantees aware of programs like AI for Impact. Many of these resources are free and can help organizations and their leaders build the knowledge and confidence they need to prepare for what’s ahead.

NationSwell: If responsible AI adoption truly takes root, what might wild success look like for the sector five years from now?

Link, IBM: The vision of success, to me, is that AI makes work easier and fairer — not more stressful or confusing. If we can eliminate that sense of overwhelm and instead empower people to use their skills more fully, that would be a meaningful outcome.

In that future, people would understand the tools they’re using and feel confident explaining the decisions those tools inform. AI would help nonprofits do more good without eroding trust or weakening human connection. Most importantly, technology would support organizations in serving communities better — not get in the way.

That’s what wild success looks like: better outcomes for communities, more efficient pathways to get there, and trust and connection preserved throughout the process.

NationSwell: What have you personally learned or found inspiring as you’ve helped lead this work around AI? How has this journey informed your broader leadership in the corporate impact space?

Link, IBM: For a long time, I’ve focused on capacity building for nonprofits and on how the corporate sector and funders can partner more closely with them, providing the right level of support so they can better serve their communities.

What’s been most inspiring lately is the openness I’ve seen when nonprofits come together — the willingness to share ideas, build relationships, and solve challenges collaboratively. There’s a real energy in the room when leaders from across sectors are learning from one another and exploring what’s possible.

I saw that firsthand at a recent conference after speaking on this topic: A healthcare employee approached me and shared that she and her colleagues had been experimenting with AI tools to solve internal challenges, and they were eager to bring leadership into the conversation to explore the potential more formally. She ended up connecting with another healthcare system that was further along, helping to broker a conversation between them.

That kind of openness — being curious about what’s out there and willing to imagine what could be possible — is what excites me most. It’s that spirit of shared learning and forward momentum that will ultimately drive meaningful change.

NationSwell: Is there anything else from the report — or from your leadership perspective — that you’d like to share?

Link, IBM: As someone who doesn’t necessarily have an engineering or a technical background, what’s been especially inspiring to me is realizing that you don’t need deep technical expertise to ask the right questions or to begin this journey of continuous learning. You don’t have to be an engineer to engage meaningfully with AI.

Personally, this experience has shown me how much further we can take our work by building our skills, staying curious, and asking thoughtful questions. When we approach AI as a tool for strengthening connections and building stronger partnerships — rather than something intimidating or purely technical — it becomes incredibly energizing. That mindset has been one of the most exciting parts of this journey for me.

Place Based Impact: Preparing Communities for Shifts in Funding

Posted on by Brianna Provenzano

Many communities are bracing for a new era of volatility in public funding. Federal and state commitments that once underpinned local economic development, workforce programs, public health, and social infrastructure are shifting—sometimes slowly, sometimes abruptly. For place-based partnerships, the question is no longer how to “navigate uncertainty,” but how to get ahead of it: building durable coalitions, diversified capital stacks, and locally anchored strategies that can withstand political and budget swings.

On February 24, NationSwell hosted leaders from philanthropy, business, and nonprofit organizations for a virtual Leader Roundtable on what it means to be proactive rather than reactive in this moment. Together, we identified some of the emerging funding realities that matter most, examined models that successfully blend public, private, and philanthropic investment, and explored how communities can lock in long-term capacity.

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

Key takeaways

Choose the sandbox before building the partnership. Cross-sector collaboration becomes more durable when partners identify a single, shared leverage point to experiment within first. Rather than attempting to solve everything at once, clarity about “where we play together” creates trust, momentum, and space for additional tentacles to grow over time.

Design for volatility, not stability. Federal funding cliffs, frozen allocations, and delayed rulemaking are cascading unevenly through state and local systems. The challenge is not only reduced dollars but radical unpredictability. Communities that build flexible structures — scenario planning, adaptable staffing, blended capital, diversified revenue — are better positioned than those waiting for clarity.

Build infrastructure that can outlast any single funding cycle. Place-based partnerships anchored around shared outcomes and generational time horizons prove more durable than programmatic responses tied to specific grants. When communities control data, define their own metrics, and align around long-term goals, funding shifts become disruptions — not existential threats.

Centering long term resilience while meeting emergency needs is critical. Crisis funding often pulls oxygen away from structural work. While emergency pivots are necessary, abandoning long-term capital strategies undermines resilience. Patient investment may move more slowly, but it builds the conditions that reduce the need for perpetual crisis response.

Sequence cross-sector roles intentionally — don’t assume alignment will happen organically. Many effective tools already exist across philanthropy, government, finance, and community organizations, but they operate in silos. Progress depends less on inventing new models and more on clarifying who de-risks first, who follows, and who sustains momentum over time.

Shift from dependency to agency in funding relationships. Traditional funding flows often create quiet dependency rather than shared ownership. This moment presents an opportunity to reimagine civic infrastructure so communities are less reliant on shifting political winds and more grounded in mutual aid, local partnership, and distributed leadership.

Define your highest leverage point with ruthless clarity. In periods of contraction, organizations that articulate a singular, sharp value proposition are better positioned to build durable partnerships. Simplicity creates alignment; alignment creates momentum.

Educate internally before reacting externally. Policy shifts, whether related to Medicaid, SNAP, or federal allocations, cascade through state and county systems unevenly. Investing in internal understanding of implementation realities builds smarter, steadier responses than reacting to headlines alone.

Plan for long-term disruption, not a return to “normal.” Assuming a political pendulum swing will restore prior funding norms creates strategic blind spots. Durable strategy accounts for sustained volatility rather than temporary turbulence.

Recognize that local governments are capacity-constrained, not idea-constrained. Municipal leaders are absorbing compounding responsibilities as federal roles recede. The barrier is rarely imagination; it is operational bandwidth and systems capacity. Partners who reduce friction and bring execution support add more value than those offering additional strategy alone.

Use this moment to reimagine civic infrastructure, not just fortify it. Resilience should not mean reinforcing fragile systems that created dependency in the first place. Volatility can serve as an opening to rethink power, partnership, and local agency. Cultural imagination and narrative often precede structural change.

Five Minutes with… Goodstack’s Aylin Oncel

Posted on by Brianna Provenzano

As corporate impact programs grow more ambitious, they’re also becoming more complex. Employee engagement, grants, foundations, and product-led giving often evolve in parallel — built by different teams, on different systems, at different moments in time. The intent is strong — but without shared infrastructure, friction sets in: fragmented data, inconsistent governance, duplicated nonprofit relationships, and rising operational costs.

Enter Goodstack, which was built to address that disconnect. As expectations around transparency, compliance, and measurable impact continue to rise, the need for connective infrastructure has become more important than ever. Rather than layering new initiatives onto old systems, Goodstack helps organizations unify nonprofit verification, donation rails, governance, and reporting into a cohesive impact operating system — allowing distinct programs to remain purposeful while connected in execution.

For this installment of Five Minutes with…, NationSwell spoke with Aylin Oncel — VP of Social Impact at Goodstack — about what breaks down when social impact efforts remain siloed, why infrastructure is emerging as the next frontier of corporate impact, and what becomes possible when programs evolve from ad hoc initiatives into a connected, compounding strategy.

Here’s what she had to say:

NationSwell: How would you describe the core problem Goodstack is trying to solve for in corporate social impact — what tends to break down inside companies when CSR programs, employee engagement, and product-led giving aren’t connected to each other?

Aylin Oncel, VP of Social Impact, Goodstack: In my role as VP of Social Impact at Goodstack, I spend a lot of time talking with companies that are deeply committed to doing good, but are navigating increasingly complex impact ecosystems. What I see consistently is not a lack of intent, but a lack of connective infrastructure.

Many impact efforts across an organization start off siloed. Employee engagement, grants, and product-led giving are usually built at different moments, by different teams, in response to different needs. That’s a realistic and often effective starting point. The challenge emerges as those programs scale.

As organizations grow, disconnected systems begin to create friction. Impact data fragments, experiences become inconsistent, and strategic alignment becomes harder to sustain, both internally and for the nonprofits on the receiving end. We often see the same nonprofit relationships managed across multiple tools, different verification standards applied across programs, and teams spending significant time reconciling data rather than learning from it. Operational costs increase, global rollouts slow down, and risk rises when governance and tracking are inconsistent.

Goodstack helps by providing shared infrastructure that allows these efforts to remain distinct in purpose, but connected in execution. By standardizing nonprofit verification, donation flows, governance, and reporting across programs, we help company impact evolve from standalone initiatives into a coherent, resilient impact operating system.

NationSwell: How do you define the role Goodstack is actually seeking to play for companies, and why does that distinction matter in the current CSR landscape?

Oncel, Goodstack: We think of Goodstack as infrastructure for corporate impact, and also as a strategic partner helping companies bring their impact efforts together in a way that’s sustainable over time.

Our role is to provide the core systems companies and nonprofits can rely on, including nonprofit verification, donation rails, governance frameworks, and shared visibility across employee programs, customer experiences, foundations, and grants. Our partnership shows up in helping teams see and operate those efforts as part of a single impact strategy, rather than as separate initiatives competing for attention or resources.

That distinction matters because impact work today is inherently cross-functional, while expectations around trust, compliance, and measurement continue to rise. Companies need flexibility in how they activate and scale giving, but they also need a partner who understands the full ecosystem and can help connect programs into a cohesive strategy. When that foundation is in place, teams spend less time rebuilding systems and more time focusing on outcomes, engagement, and long-term impact.

NationSwell: You’ve identified a gap between different internal CSR stakeholders — HR, foundations, product, sales — who often aren’t talking to each other. What’s lost when that fragmentation persists, and what becomes possible when those efforts are connected?

Oncel, Goodstack: When CSR efforts stay fragmented, the biggest thing that’s lost is momentum.

Each team may be doing meaningful work in isolation, but those efforts rarely reinforce one another. Employees don’t always see how their time or giving fits into a broader narrative. Impact data lives in disconnected spreadsheets. Leaders miss opportunities to understand what’s resonating, what’s scaling, and where real outcomes are being created.

When efforts are connected through shared infrastructure and standards, participation tends to increase because experiences are simpler and more transparent. Insights improve because impact is measured consistently. Companies move from one-off campaigns to an always-on strategy that scales across teams and geographies. Impact shifts from episodic to compounding.

NationSwell: Without getting into proprietary details, can you share an example of a moment when things really clicked — when a company started to see its impact efforts as one connected system, and changed how they worked or thought about CSR?

Oncel, Goodstack: One of the clearest “click” moments I’ve seen is when a company realizes it no longer needs separate systems for nonprofit programs, employee giving, and grants. Once the underlying infrastructure is standardized across nonprofit verification, donation flows, and shared reporting, impact stops feeling like a collection of disconnected initiatives and starts functioning as part of the company’s operating system.

Teams spend less time managing logistics and more time thinking strategically. Reporting cycles that once took weeks begin to happen in near real time, and moments like GivingTuesday shift from one-off obligations into genuine opportunities to accelerate engagement. Volunteer initiatives spark interest in giving, giving data surfaces the causes employees care about, and those insights inform grantmaking nominations and company-wide campaigns. Product-led programs reveal new opportunities to engage customers more meaningfully. Instead of running ad hoc initiatives, teams learn from patterns, adapt faster, and move forward with a shared sense of purpose.

NationSwell: How would you describe the next evolution of CSR, and what signals tell you whether or not we’re already moving in that direction?

Oncel, Goodstack: I see the next evolution of CSR unfolding across three dimensions.

First, expanding stakeholder engagement by embedding giving into products and everyday experiences. Thoughtful design makes participation intuitive and expands who gets to be part of impact.

Second, meet employees where they already are. Atlassian, a Goodstack partner, exemplifies this approach in its employee engagement program. As Atlassian employees volunteer and donate, they earn rewards for themselves and nonprofits they care about directly on the platform – with high-impact activities unlocking bigger rewards. It recognizes a wide range of giving behaviors and gives people a clear, flexible path to increasing their impact.

Third, connecting efforts across teams so impact isn’t experienced as a series of disconnected programs, but as a cohesive narrative that demonstrates compounding progress over time.

The signals are already here. More leaders are asking not just how much was given, but who it reached, what changed, and how programs influence behavior and outcomes. That shift in questioning reflects a maturing field.

NationSwell: Goodstack sits at a unique intersection of data, infrastructure, and ecosystem visibility. How do you think about using that vantage point to not just report on impact, but to help shape better decisions?

Oncel, Goodstack: We’re thoughtful about how we use data and AI, because visibility alone doesn’t drive better decisions. It has to be paired with strong infrastructure, clear standards, and human judgment.

Where AI becomes powerful for us is in reducing friction and surfacing patterns that are difficult to see across large, complex impact programs. That can include revealing where engagement drops off, where interest clusters around specific causes, or where programs unintentionally overlap. These insights help teams act with greater confidence and intention.

Importantly, AI isn’t replacing decision-making. It’s supporting it. By pairing intelligent systems with verified nonprofit data, consistent governance, and transparent reporting, we help leaders spend less time reconciling information and more time designing impact strategies that are intentional, equitable, and resilient over time.

NationSwell: For CSR leaders who feel stuck repeating the same campaigns year after year, what’s one question they should be asking themselves if they want to unlock a more integrated, strategic approach to impact?

I’d encourage leaders to step back and ask, what problem are we actually trying to solve?

It’s easy to default to familiar formats and moments on the calendar without reassessing whether they’re still aligned with today’s challenges. Instead of starting with what you’ve always done, it can be more powerful to focus on how you might unlock new impact in service of your goals and overall mission.

That might mean pulling different levers, such as engaging customers in giving, designing employee programs that drive meaningful behavior change, or increasing access to funding and visibility for nonprofits that are often overlooked. When infrastructure is stable, leaders have the freedom to think creatively, test new approaches thoughtfully, and learn from what works.

The shift isn’t about reinventing the wheel. It’s about being clearer on the outcomes you want and more strategic in how you get there.

A Better Marketplace: Aligning Workforce Supply and Demand 

Posted on by Brianna Provenzano

Despite historic investments in workforce development, America’s talent marketplace remains deeply fragmented – employers can’t find the skilled workers they need, while millions of workers remain underemployed or left out of opportunity altogether.

During a NationSwell roundtable on February 10, leaders from business, philanthropy, education, and policy came together to explore how we can better align the disparate pieces of the workforce ecosystem. Below are a few of the models that surfaced that are bridging the gap between training supply and employer demand, and driving real results for workers, businesses, and communities alike.

Key Takeaways:

Design workforce strategies for non-linear career journeys. Real-world careers rarely follow a straight path from education to employment. Adults cycle through transitions – career changes, skill updates, pauses, and reinvention. Yet, many workforce systems remain built on linear assumptions (train → place → exit) and risk excluding the learners they aim to serve.

The opportunity:

  • Design pathways that anticipate re-entry and reinvention
  • Normalize career cycling
  • Build systems that assume movement, not permanence

Extend support beyond initial job placement to enable sustained economic mobility. Entry into a role is only one milestone. Workers often stall after landing their first opportunity. The true test of alignment isn’t placement – it’s progression. Continued upskilling, advancement pathways, and alumni engagement are important to achieving long-term economic mobility. We need to be asking if workers are building durable mobility over time.

Sustained mobility requires:

  • Continued upskilling
  • Advancement pathways
  • Alumni engagement
  • Financial capability support
  • Clear progression toward a thriving wage (not just a living wage)

Close the communication gap between skills and courses. There is a fundamental disconnect between how employers articulate needs (skills, competencies, capabilities) and how education systems structure offerings (courses, credits, seat time). Translating between these frameworks, and moving toward skills-based validation, remains a critical alignment challenge. Research from WGU highlighted that employers struggle to evaluate skill sets beyond resumes. Employers prioritize critical thinking, adaptability, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence – but struggle to see those signals clearly. Translating between these frameworks – and moving toward credible, skills-based validation remains a central alignment challenge. 

Anchor curriculum development in employer-identified skill gaps. Effective training models are co-designed with employers, focusing on what companies are hiring for now and where talent shortages persist. Demand-driven alignment strengthens both learner outcomes and employer confidence in training pipelines. Hands-on training models reinforce the importance of foundational technical competency alongside durable human skills.

Build post-graduation ‘captive ecosystems’ that promote talent portability. In K-12 education, we have a captive ecosystem: learners are enrolled, connected to infrastructure, supported by shared tools, and guided through a structured progression. That system – while imperfect – creates continuity, accountability, and exposure to skill-building environments. After graduation, that ecosystem dissolves. For many workers – especially those who are low-income, career-changing, or not attached to a large employer – there is no comparable structure guiding ongoing development, skill validation, or mobility. Navigation becomes fragmented and self-directed in a system that is complex and rapidly evolving. 

The opportunity is to intentionally design post-secondary and workforce ecosystems that replicate the strengths of captive ecosystems: continuity of support, access to shared infrastructure and tools, structured exposure to experiential learning, ongoing skill validation, real-time labor market insight, and clear progression pathways.

Embed experiential learning as a core signal of readiness. Experience is increasingly the differentiator. Learners must be able to demonstrate capabilities in addition to acquiring knowledge. Simulations, project-based learning, real-world datasets, internships, and apprenticeships were framed as essential mechanisms for building confidence, validating skills, and meeting employer expectations for experience. Experiential learning lowers risk for employers, provides tangible evidence of capability, builds durable skills in real contexts, and supports transferable skill translation (especially for veterans or career changers).

Adapt to how AI is reshaping hiring patterns and skill expectations. AI is not eliminating talent demand – but it is reshaping it. Employer data indicates a shift toward mid-level talent, reduced entry-level hiring in certain sectors, and increased emphasis on AI fluency alongside durable human skills. This evolution heightens the importance of adaptable credentialing and experience-building pathways. Lagging data – often 12 months behind labor market realities, also limits responsiveness. Real-time data systems and better cross-platform integration are critical to staying aligned with demand.

Working Effectively With Your Board of Directors

Posted on by Brianna Provenzano

For many impact leaders, success depends in no small part on what happens in the boardroom. Engaging your board effectively can accelerate strategy, unlock resources, and strengthen accountability. But it can also be one of the trickiest parts of leadership, especially amid shifting expectations, limited time, and complex stakeholder dynamics.

On February 5, NationSwell hosted a group of social impact leaders for a solutions-focused conversation on working effectively with your board of directors. Together, we unpacked the most common challenges, share strategies for deepening alignment and impact, and explored how to get the most from your board while avoiding the pitfalls that can slow progress. Some of the key insights surfaced during the conversation appear below.

Key Takeaways:

Board effectiveness is largely built between meetings, not during them. The most engaged boards are cultivated through intentional, ongoing touchpoints outside formal meetings. Regular one-on-one check-ins, clear ownership over follow-up, and consistent communication rhythms create the trust and continuity that make board time itself more generative.

Clarity of role matters more than activity level. Boards struggle when expectations are vague. The highest-functioning boards create explicit expectations about what type of board they are (working, strategic, funding, hybrid, etc.), what each member is being asked to contribute, and where the board should — and should not — engage. 

Design meetings for decision-making, not reporting. Replace presentations with pre-reads. When board meetings are structured around discussion, judgment calls, and trade-offs rather than status updates, engagement rises and meetings stop feeling repetitive or performative.

Match engagement strategies to individual motivations and working styles. Board members show up for different reasons and process information differently. Effective leaders invest time in understanding each member’s “why” and “how”, then tailor communication, asks, and involvement accordingly. 

Consistency builds confidence and accountability. Using stable agendas, shared frameworks, and recurring formats across meetings helps boards track progress over time and understand how decisions evolve, especially in fast-moving or uncertain environments.

Accountability works best when paired with trust and peer ownership. Scorecards and assessments can be powerful, but only when introduced thoughtfully. Several leaders emphasized shifting accountability conversations toward peer-to-peer ownership (via board chairs or committees) and using self-assessment tools to invite reflection rather than defensiveness.

Strong board culture depends on strong internal coordination. Effective board engagement is often enabled by close partnership between the CEO, board chair, and roles like Chief of Staff or Executive Operations — particularly around preparation, follow-up, and clarity of expectations.

Practical Applications for AI in Impact Work

Posted on by Brianna Provenzano

Most impact leaders know AI is changing and reshaping many contours of our economy and lived experience. Fewer feel confident putting it to use in their day-to-day work.

On February 3, NationSwell hosted a group of peer leaders for a virtual roundtable focused on immediate, practical applications for AI on impact teams. Together, we explored how leaders are using generative AI – and increasingly agentic AI – to increase speed, clarity, and capacity in core workflows like reporting, communications, grantee engagement, operations, and more.

From day to day low-lift use cases to opportunities for mission delivery, the session surfaced plenty of actionable insights for implementing AI within teams and organizations; a selection of those insights appears below.

Key Takeaways:

Anchor AI adoption in user-centered design from day one. AI tools are far more likely to succeed when they are built with a deep understanding of end users, informed by diverse perspectives, and tested for usability. Grounding AI in user needs reduces failure rates and drives adoption, especially as many digital transformation efforts fall short.

Start with low-risk, high-return AI use cases to build momentum. Impact teams are already gaining value by using AI for summarization, synthesis, reporting, and more. These applications save time, require minimal technical lift, and help teams build confidence before moving into more complex AI-enabled workflows.

Use AI to augment human judgment, not replace it. The strongest applications position AI as a thought partner that accelerates analysis and surfaces insights, while leaving critical thinking and strategy to people. Reviewing outputs, checking sources, and applying human judgment remains essential to responsible use.

Embed AI into products and systems to reduce friction at scale. When AI is built directly into platforms, such as grantmaking and employee engagement, it can automate administrative work, surface patterns, and recommend next steps. This allows impact leaders to focus more time on mission-critical work.

Treat AI as a capacity multiplier in resource-constrained environments. With impact teams being asked to do more with less, AI is increasingly a necessity rather than a nice-to-have. Thoughtful adoption can expand organizational capacity, accelerate access to funding and services, and ultimately drive greater impact.

Apply advanced use cases of AI to unlock insights for decision-making. AI-powered analysis of geospatial and time-based data can help organizations anticipate risks, target interventions, and allocate resources more effectively. Whether modeling climate impacts, forecasting service demand, or tailoring workforce strategies, AI can be used to better understand needs and deliver more responsive, targeted support to your communities.

Unlock new capabilities from off the shelf tools.  Big unlocks don’t require developing a full stack AI solution. Fully leveraging the existing capabilities in off the shelf low/no cost LLMS, while protecting sensitive data and respecting organizational policies, present opportunities for major advancements in productivity and impact. Be sure to check out voice to text capabilities for braindumping, deep research modes for research and insights, and experiment with Claude for writing.

What’s Ahead for Social Impact in 2026? 

Posted on by Brianna Provenzano

The year ahead will challenge social impact leaders to stay focused, adaptive, and bold. Political volatility, economic uncertainty, and accelerating technological change will continue to reshape the landscape for companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits alike. To lead effectively, it’s essential to cut through the noise and anchor in a shared understanding of the conditions we’re operating within – the challenges, the opportunities, and the questions we can’t yet answer.

On January 27, NationSwell hosted a group of cross-sector leaders for a candid, forward-looking conversation on what’s ahead for social impact in 2026. Some of the insights that surfaced appear below:

Key takeaways

Continue pushing social impact from brand reputation to risk mitigation and core business strategy. Social impact is increasingly viewed as critical to managing risk and maintaining an organization’s authority to operate. Being “nice to have” is no longer sufficient; impact must be embedded in how the business functions locally and globally.

Build credibility through proximity and transparency. Trust erodes when there is a gap between executive narratives and the lived experiences of frontline workers and communities. Leaders should ground strategy and communications in real feedback from employees and local partners.

Establish clear mechanisms to collect and act on feedback. Organizations need structured ways to gather input from employees, partners, and communities, including voices that are critical or in disagreement. These mechanisms help leaders understand issues early and inform how decisions are escalated and addressed.

Question claims of “doing the work quietly.” Shifts in language, disclosures, or visibility are often described as cosmetic, but closer examination may reveal real erosion in effort or investment. Leaders should pressure-test whether reduced visibility aligns with sustained action and outcomes.

Acknowledge and plan for multiple timelines. Leaders are considering near-term pressures alongside five- to ten-year horizons and longer-term systemic change. Holding these timelines simultaneously is shaping how funders, nonprofits, and institutions think about strategy.

Increase focus on bridge-building, pluralism, and social connection. Many organizations are moving from equity programs alone toward strategies that emphasize connection, dialogue, and social cohesion. These approaches are becoming more prominent across corporate and nonprofit impact work.

Track the increased focus on the human side of AI and emerging technologies. Discussions about AI are increasingly focused on agency, mental health, well-being, and inequality. Leaders are examining how access to AI may widen gaps in power, choice, and opportunity.

Recognize that data alone is insufficient to drive change. Data can be interpreted or manipulated in ways that obscure true impact. Individual stories and lived experiences are increasingly important for moving hearts and minds and communicating impact.

Address burnout among social impact leaders. Leaders across the social impact field are experiencing significant burnout. There is growing concern about losing an entire layer of experienced leaders if organizations focus only on programs and not on supporting the people leading the work.