The All Access Podcast

Brandon Giella: Hello and welcome
back to another episode of

the Effective Giving Podcast.

I have with me as always the illustrious
founder of All Access, Lane Kipp.

So glad to have you here.

Thank you, Lane.

And now we also have two other guests.

We have Brian Grasso and Andrew Forrester.

Gentlemen, can you introduce
yourselves to our audience?

I would love to hear, who are you?

What are you doing here?

Brian Grasso: Yeah, Brandon, I'm
a little disappointed I didn't get

illustrious before my name, but that's

Brandon Giella: Sorry about that.

But you, we, we did talk about.

We did talk about wicked before this
so I know you're like astute on all the

cultural influences in today's society, so

Brian Grasso: yeah.

Um, yeah, my name is Brian Grasso.

I serve as the executive director
of Simple Charity, calling from

Cumming, Georgia, north of Atlanta.

So we don't say howdy here in
Georgia, but we do say y'all.

So I have that in common with, with Lane.

Brandon Giella: That's right.

That's right.

I'm actually from georgia, you know,
fun fact i'm i'm from gwinnett county.

So it's

Brian Grasso: Oh, okay.

Down the road.

Yeah.

Brandon Giella: i'm i'm with you.

I'm a texas transplant

Okay, andrew, how about uh, how about
you who are you why are you here?

Andrew Forrester: Yeah, my
name is Andrew Forrester.

I am Simple Charities
Director of Operations.

I've been in that role since this summer,
and before that did about every other

thing you can do in Simple Charity.

Interned, worked part time as a student.

Um, yeah, I've been doing that for
about three years and I am in Midtown

Atlanta, slightly South of Bryan.

Brandon Giella: Nice

Brian Grasso: The big city.

Brandon Giella: times

Lane Kipp: Y'all

Andrew Forrester: do say,

Brandon Giella: that

Lane Kipp: are both Duke grads, right?

Brian Grasso: Yep, both Duke grads.

Um, I studied economics and global health.

So if I had a passion, interest in,
um, development economics, especially

kind of research, um, microeconomic
approaches to development economics that

prove causation and show that things are
actually alleviating poverty, making a

difference, making an impact, um, and
took a lot of classes around that in

college and have a passion for that.

Something Elaine and I have in common,
we've both read, um, all the books that

I don't know if a lot of people read
books about how to solve global poverty.

There's a lot of them out there.

There's like a dozen or
so ones worth reading.

And, um, so that's, that's
something I have in common.

That's lame.

Brandon Giella: So, how do we solve it

Brian Grasso: How do we solve it?

Andrew Forrester: I've been asking
him that question for years.

I still don't have an answer.

Brian Grasso: By giving money to
all accesses collective fund as

Andrew Forrester: Hmm.

Brian Grasso: as a proud
member of the all access fund.

That's how we solve
global poverty, Brandon.

And by investing that money in evidence
backed solutions that have good data, not

just on activities and outputs, but good
data on outcomes, ideally with a model.

That, um, is able to say something about
causation, um, where this intervention

is actually moving the needle on
key indicators that track poverty.

So, that's how we solve it.

Brandon Giella: It's funny you mention
that, Brian, I feel like that's something

that we should talk about on today's So
you guys have, uh, a, a very rigorous

process for how you evaluate organizations
that are doing good work abroad.

Some of them more effective than others,
and they have, you know, different

strategies and different, um, emphases and
targets and what they're working through.

And so I know Simple Charity and All
Access has, uh, formed somewhat of

a partnership and working together
to evaluate these organizations.

So I'm curious, how did that go this year?

I know this year you guys
have been, uh, evaluating, I

think over 1100 organizations.

And so you've put many of them to the
test based on a very rigorous methodology.

What was that like?

Uh, how did that go this year?

And we'll talk about some of the, um, I
guess successful organizations that made

it through that process here in a moment.

But, but how was 2024?

What was that like this year?

Brian Grasso: ahead, Lane.

Sounds like you were
going to say something.

Lane Kipp: yeah, uh,
it, it took a long time.

It was a lot of work.

Um, but these guys really helped
with a lot of the legwork of it.

And so, you know, we essentially,
so every year we kind of back

up and re evaluate the data.

We're always talking with
experts throughout the year.

But, um, this year we kind of
looked at, took the data and looked

at a wider range of countries.

We looked at like 11 or
12 countries, I believe.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And, uh, we're looking
at specific cause areas.

So education, healthcare, we looked
at some wash as well, but really

dialed in on education and healthcare.

And, uh, Andrew went to town
on scraping the world on who.

addresses those cause
areas in those countries.

And that's where that 1100 number
started was we're looking at

specifically in these countries who's
addressing those, um, cause areas.

And then what we did is we sent them a
form and said, Hey, if you Uh, believe you

can reduce these poverty levels in these
countries, then tell us more about your

program and, uh, tell us how you collect
data, what your strategic plan is, your

output outcomes, what it costs to do that.

And, uh, Andrew kind of did the
science, uh, behind that of when you're

looking at comparing opportunities.

And when we talk about ending global
poverty, it's all about, Getting

these spreadsheets down to zero.

And so all we're looking for is who
can best reduce these indices in

these places, the most per dollar
and the most sustainable way.

And so there's some qualitative
checks, you know, about look at

sustainability, how they're doing
things, financial efficiency.

Uh, but when they make it through
that, then we start looking at impact

per dollar, which becomes more of a.

science And, uh, Andrew, once you, uh,
share more about if I missed anything

and then what that process look like.

Andrew Forrester: Yeah, it's, so it's a
really interesting problem when you're

thinking about, you think about all the
different cause areas that we were looking

at, like wash, um, education, you know,
all of the different things that we laid

out for nonprofits that we might consider.

You have to compare those one to another
and decide which one is more effective.

But you're kind of comparing
apples and oranges, right?

You're saying this non profit, oh, you
spend this much money and it will enable

a thousand people to access water.

How do you compare that to, um, this
non profit will build a school that

will enable a thousand students to
get an education for four years?

So, We're using the, we're using different
methodologies and we're trying to

use, you know, all of the data that we
have available, especially the MPI to

form some basis of comparison between

Brian Grasso: is the NPI?

Andrew, for the

Andrew Forrester: So the multidimensional
poverty index tracks, uh, there, there

are different ways to build it, but.

It tracks, um, a few different
areas in which a person can be poor.

So, for example, access to
education, access to clean

water, cooking fuel, sanitation.

These things that we classically think of
as, um, you know, do you have the means

to live a productive, a healthy, um, life?

And so, the MPI the MPI
conglomerates all these things

together into a single number.

That you can assign to a region or to
a country and what we were trying to

do essentially was build a model to see
how much will a particular non profit's

intervention change the MPI over time
and how much will it do that per dollar.

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Yeah.

And what that MPI, uh, two things
are really powerful about it.

One is that they're like, uh,
University of Oxford developed it.

USCID helps fund it
along with other groups.

Um, But they're collecting this data every
five years in all of these developing

countries at a subnational level.

And so every five years we have
new data on exactly what the

needs are, what percent of people
lack access to what, where.

It's very, very powerful information.

Um, but what the MPI also does is
help you compare apples and oranges

according to this weighted index.

That's.

Broken down into three dimensions,
health, education, living standards.

We can actually weigh, Hey, an
education org versus a healthcare

org and see how much will that reduce
the poverty level in these countries.

And so, you know, Brandon, you
were asking about how do we, um,

poverty, um, you know, giving, uh,

Brian Grasso: uninitiated, the topic of,
uh, the topic of today's discussion in

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Uh,

Brian Grasso: global poverty,

Lane Kipp: But as Brian, you know, we've

talked about giving is giving is
completely backwards, you know, for

the most part, you start off, you get
approached and people ask you to give

to this activity or whatever and hope
that it impacts some number somewhere.

We do the exact opposite.

We flip it on its head and
start with a problem and see and

say, who, I don't care who, but who
can best reduce this poverty level

in this place, the most per dollar in
the most sustainable way, regardless

of what names on their shirt.

And that just by doing that alone,
which is to be honest, the same thing

we do with our investing or anything
else in the for profit sector, it can

expedite

Brian Grasso: Good investors,
the good thing, good investors do

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Brian Grasso: is yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, I, cause I want to talk for a
second about the 1100 number and why

I think that actually really matters.

Um, sorry, I kind of cut you off

Lane Kipp: Go for it.

Brian Grasso: okay.

Uh, so the 1100, why
the 1100 number matters.

Um, you know, I, I think
about, um, I think about.

Uh, Sovereign's Capital, which is a
Christian private equity firm, and

I've heard Henry Kayser talk about
Sovereign's Capital say, you know,

when we're, we're looking at potential
businesses to invest in, we're saying

no to 99 out of 100 businesses, um,
and, but the reason, you know, so what

investors call that is, is good deal flow.

Which is the quantity of, of
potential investment opportunities

that you're looking at.

And so investors, you know, a lot of
people don't know this about kind of

venture capital, private equity world, if
you're not, you know, plugged in there.

But, um, investors are competing
with each other to, um, to invest in.

And certain businesses, um, because
if you have businesses, you know, as

great chances of success, then you want
to have some share of that business.

You want to have some equity.

Um, on their balance sheet,
uh, before they grow and,

and have tremendous success.

So, but the, the thing about
philanthropy at your point, Landon,

is most, most people have very bad
deal flow, which just means, you

know, we choose why or not we get to
something on the basis of relationship.

And we, you know, most people know three
or four people who work for nonprofits

or family members who start nonprofits,
and those are the requests they get.

But what we're doing with.

You know, what I'm hoping we're,
we're doing with All Access by,

by reviewing 1, 100 organizations.

That are, um, addressing global
poverty is we're saying no to a lot

of them, you know, or maybe, you
know, for some of them, we're saying

actually not no, but not right now,
um, but that really matters because

that allows us to give a couple yeses.

To the cream of the crop, you
know, organizations that have

a solid theory of change.

They're collecting good evidence and the
evidence they're collecting is showing

that they are having, um, extremely
cost effective impact on a few set

of metrics that we've predetermined.

And so it's really
completely, you're right.

It is turning kind of the way things
are typically done on their head.

I mean, we, we want to take the
level of rigor that, um, top

performing private equity funds.

Bring to their work and we want to apply
that to philanthropy so that Christians

can have a great deal of confidence
that they are transforming people's

lives and they are alleviating poverty
and suffering and hardship, advancing

the gospel, like spreading the love of
Jesus throughout the world and to do

that actually requires a lot of kind of
technical, you know, you know, Having a

good funnel, you know, having a system
to pare down that funnel, um, and finding

the cream of the crop where, where God
is at work, um, you know, through some,

some really remarkable organizations.

Lane Kipp: Yep.

Brandon Giella: I want to pick
up on that analogy because I like

the way you're describing things.

So, uh, and I, I want to get technical
here just for a minute if, if that's okay.

But, um, I would love to hear more
about the, the actual model, the

spreadsheet, the things that you
guys are looking at in some detail.

And the reason I'm saying that is.

Lane, you and I have talked a lot
on this show about the strategy and

thinking through things, but you know,
Having andrew and brian here who've

really been some spreadsheet gurus over
the last several months Um, I I want

to hear more about that because I like
your analogy of the investment portfolio

So you've got this deal flow coming in
you've got these 1100 organizations.

You've got this big spreadsheet And you're
building financial models to understand

each of these, you know as if you were
a private equity firm And what a private

equity firm would be looking at is like
You know, the equity premium they're

taking the beta on this, you know, the
risk, the volatility, they're looking at

PE ratios, balance sheets, you know, all
of that sort of thing to understand and

analyze whether this is a good investment
or not, in addition to qualitative

factors like management team and
sector and, you know, things like that.

So what are those?

What is like the, uh, capital
asset pricing model for these

organizations that you're looking at.

What is like volatility or risk or
what are those metrics that you're,

and how do you quantify those?

And I've heard stories.

Legend says that there is differential
equations involved in this model.

And I'm very curious on like, how do
you actually quanti, uh, quantitatively

analyze these organizations for those
that don't have a lot of background

in the nonprofit world or are familiar
with Oxford's MPI or anything like that?

Like Like, give us, give us like, follow
that analogy and help me understand

what I'm looking at in the spreadsheet.

Lane Kipp: Andrew?

Andrew Forrester: I was gonna
say, Brian, do you want to talk

maybe about the qualitative parts
and then I can tackle the math?

Brian Grasso: Sure.

Yeah, that sounds good.

Um, I don't know why Andrew, well,
this probably fits because Andrew is

better at, better at math than me.

And so that that's maybe why he said
that, um, uh, the qualitative part.

So to start with 1100 organizations.

You know, the first thing
we did was a screening.

So are these organizations working in the
poorest areas of the world, addressing one

of the factors that the MPI, um, you know,
is, that is used to calculate the MPI.

So, so that was the, the first thing
is kind of, is this group within scope?

Um, and so, and the reality is you
just have to do that organization by

organization and it, it actually can take
a decent amount of time to figure out.

What does this nonprofit do?

Um, I think there's, gosh, I've
seen 50 nonprofit websites in the

human trafficking space that are
all going to end human trafficking.

I hope that one of them does.

And, uh, but the marketing
can look the same.

Um, and so, but how do you actually
get down into what do they do?

Um, so that's, that's the first thing.

And then finding their
contact information.

Reaching out to them, um, and asking
them to, um, to complete our, our

application form, which gets into some
of the things like, you know, what is

your monitoring and evaluation process?

Like, how are you collecting data?

What data are you collecting?

How much does a particular project cost?

What are you expected
outputs and outcomes?

And so starting to get some, to
getting some of those numbers.

Um, maybe Andrew could share a
little bit about the, the, the.

You know, the nice thing about all
access is there's this clear, this

clarifying element of, hey, we're
trying to tackle the MPI, you know,

we're, we're moving the needle on this,
this one particular vetted metric.

It's the instrument developed from
Oxford, but the math for the MPI

is actually fairly for the complex.

Maybe.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Lane Kipp: Yeah, no, and this
is kind of where I came in.

So we developed this application and
then sent it out to them and we're

telling them what we're looking for.

Like, Hey, we're trying to reduce
these numbers, um, prove that you

can, and we'd love to consider you.

And so that process saves a lot of time
because they self weed themselves out.

Um, and they say, you know what?

If I don't have those documents or if we
can't prove it, we're not going to apply.

And that's fine.

So that process alone narrowed
it down to, I think, about 150.

Brandon Giella: Oh,

Lane Kipp: And, um, which helps a ton.

And so I came in and
reviewed all of those 150.

Because they're, and, Pretty much all
of them provided outputs, at least.

Not all of them provided outcomes.

But what was important to me, uh,
in doing this last few years is,

how are they getting those numbers?

And so I went through and viewed all of
the M& E processes for all 150 of those

of, how are they, how do they document
how they're collecting that data?

And then once I kind of, uh, I
think I narrowed it down to about

40 or 50 for Andrew to do a deeper
dive on the quantitative stuff.

Brandon Giella: Okay, I'm
not sure when you sleep.

But we'll get there in
another episode maybe

Lane Kipp: Have young kids, man.

I

never,

Brian Grasso: Never,
never is the right answer.

Brandon Giella: Amen So andrew, yeah,
so talk about okay So you have this set

now 50 or so organizations that you're
you're now you're you are the Analyst

and you're diving into this spreadsheet.

Like what does that look

Andrew Forrester: Yeah.

Yeah.

That, that, that it's just a
matter of, um, plugging into

this model that we created.

Um, the information that we get from
these nonprofits about their impact

and trying to assess how much are they
going to change the MPIs of the future.

Their country of their region.

How many people can we expect to be
lifted out of multidimensional poverty

because of the investment that we make?

Um, so that's where the calculus
comes in and that's where the, the

dealing with a lot of the complex math
that, um, the people at the Oxford

program, um, and the UN development
program have already done for us.

We just have to plug in the numbers
that we get from these organizations.

Um, and make a best guess about,
because sometimes they're not

always key to The oxford or the U.

N.

Categories, right?

So an organization might report
impact metrics to us that say

it's a water organization.

They might say this number of
people got access to clean water.

Well, we kind of have to dig
into their documents and say,

Okay, what does that mean?

Does that mean they already had access,
but it was 60 minutes away, not 15.

Does that mean that, um, they just got
an improved source of drinking water?

So you have to dive into what
exactly is the organization doing?

And does that match with what the
MPI considers to be an improvement

in their living standard?

Lane Kipp: So a lot of that included,
uh, well, I'm just like, I was

just looking at the spreadsheet.

Andrew, while you're talking, you
know, that Delta Delta MPI per a

hundred thousand dollars number.

Yeah.

Um, which is, I just call
it Delta P for short.

Delta, the change in the
poverty per dollars spent.

And because this is a weighted index,
you know, index meaning it's unitless,

we can compare apples and oranges.

And, um, so that dwindles the
number down pretty quickly.

And then it becomes a little bit back of
an art of looking at the poverty data,

uh, which Countries have the lowest or
the highest poverty levels, um, of those

remaining few, you know, the, um, cost to
do it, the range and scope of, uh, these

programs and a lot more like making phone
calls and zoom calls with people who have

been there in person and saying, yes,
I've, I've seen it or yes, I've seen that.

And these are my concerns.

So, um.

Yeah, it's an art and a science.

Yeah,

Brian Grasso: I really appreciate about
Lane too, is there is this, um, I mean,

Lane's an engineer, Andrew studied
physics at Duke, which is not easy.

And, um, so, like, there is this,
this, um, desire to be quantitative and

objective in our approach, but, you know,
when we were getting through the end of

the process, like one of the things Lane
said was, you know, we need to, we need

to also establish a human connection.

Like this isn't just a.

Machine like this is there.

There are conversations by the time
we get to the point where we're, we're

actually serious about a program where.

You know, it's like, okay, this, they
check the boxes with their monitoring

evaluation, um, you know, documentation
with the, the cost equivalencies that

we're seeing here, then it becomes, okay,
who, who are these people, you know, and

so we do, um, it's not just quantitative,
like there are, there are real

relationships that get formed with these
nonprofits, and I think that actually

really matters a lot because that gives
us a chance to ask some deeper questions.

Thanks.

Um, and also to, um, and it becomes
an ongoing relationship, you know,

like it's not just a one time grant.

It's a, you know, there, there, there's
communication, there's, um, trust, you

know, there's this desire to, really,
it's a partner to, to make a deep impact.

I've seen that in Lane, anyone who
knows Lane Kemp knows he's just super

relational and, um, you know, it's,
it's, it's not a, It's not a formula.

There are formulas involved, um, but
it's, you know, and this is, I think, also

true about the best private equity firms.

I think if we were to contrast what
we're doing, um, with private equity,

it's just the different, I mean,
obvious, the biggest obvious ones.

This is a different bottom line,
you know, like the goal is not

the performance of a business, the
financial performance of a business.

The goal is.

Human lives, escaping poverty, achieving,
flourishing, and like doing that, you

know, investing that to the glory of God.

Um, so it's, it's, um, you know, I
like to say, the motivation, hopefully,

for all of us in our work is, is love.

Um, and you can do
investing from anywhere.

a place of love.

Please don't hear me say that.

Um, you can, um, but,

yeah, but, you know, there's something
about giving money away for free.

You're not getting it back, um, just to
benefit other people, strangers, that I

think is spiritually formational for all
of us to grow into kind of like Jesus.

Jesus y love, um, that I think is unique
to the act of, of effective generosity.

Brandon Giella: Amen amen

Brian Grasso: tangent there, Brandon,

Brandon Giella: I love
what you guys are doing.

It's so cool.

And it's so like next level.

I just think, I mean, and
Blaine, you've talked about like.

It's sort of basic if you think about like
how effective are you in doing the thing

that you say you're going to do that?

It's a very simple question, but it's
really difficult to to create the

documentation like you're saying.

And then for somebody on the outside as a.

Uh, donor giver investor in the
analogy to basically look at all

these organizations across the world
and understand who's doing what.

And so you guys kind of step in at
that place doing that due diligence.

So it's very, very cool.

And I love it.

So I guess to to kind of wrap up is
that there were two organizations.

That made it through this process that are
doing what they say they're going to do

and they're doing it really well And so
the two organizations are musana and plant

with purpose So lane i'll start with you.

Tell me about these organizations and
and What they're doing and why you're

excited to add them to the portfolio

Lane Kipp: we really came down
to a final four if you compare

it to like a NCAA basketball

analogy, but we had a final four
that kind of stood above the rest.

And we, you know, it's a public
fund, so we're able to give

as much as we pull together.

It takes about 50 grand to add an
organization to our portfolio on top of

what we normally distribute out quarterly,
uh, to the programs in our portfolio.

So we had funding and room for in our
portfolio for two, two of those four.

And so we took a lot of time
looking at those four and chose, uh,

number one was plant with purpose.

I would say fairly by far,

uh, it was very, very clear.

They, They also focus on the M.

P.

I.

Then measure.

I mean, they do randomized control trials.

They measure outcomes really well, which
makes our job really easy because they

when we say prove it, they proved it.

And, um, sometimes that's
not so easy getting that on.

They proved it really well.

So what they do is
essentially savings groups.

So village and loans associations,
micro finance, and they do

it through the local church.

And they also combine that
with, um, ag development, like

regenerative, uh, ag, uh, training.

So teaching rural farmers, which are,
uh, most of those who are impoverished

in developing countries are rural
farmers, teaching them improved farming

methods, giving them access to banking.

And, uh, the impact is pretty amazing.

Um, I'm trying to remember off the
top of my head, but I know they,

I believe, tripled their savings.

Uh, when they go through the
program, uh, I believe they cut

their, uh, poverty level in half.

So

55% of, uh, people who go through the
program, uh, they reduce their MPI by 55%.

And, uh, it's pretty amazing.

So we're specifically partnering with
Plant With Purpose in four countries.

So Burundi, uh, the DRC,
Ethiopia and Tanzania.

And it's a really, uh, rather large.

program.

So it's 790 local churches, 61, 000
farming households, about 360, 000 people.

And it's over what they call
watersheds, 28 watersheds.

So that's a whole another story.

Maybe when we get the plan with purpose
folks on to explain what that is.

But basically it's land
covering about 5000 square

So, yeah, we're very excited
about Plant With Purpose.

I don't know if you guys have
anything else to add on them.

Brandon Giella: It sounds
like another program in your

portfolio called seed effect.

I know they do some microfinance and, and,
uh, savings groups and things like that.

And they're very effective.

They have really great data
collection and things like that.

I'm very excited to see the effect
part of the portfolio, but it sounds

very similar in that way, except
for adding some of that ag element.

I think it would be a little bit
more unique, but it's really cool.

Hmm.

Lane Kipp: know, with consulting
the experts, I have several years of

having already looked at seed effect,
very familiar with VSLAs and savings

groups and the ins and outs of that.

But, um, they do a lot of environmental
restoration as well because they've

just made an association between
land degradation and poverty.

because they're mostly rural
farmers and I mean Haiti is an

obvious case study for this.

Um, when I evacuated Haiti and went
from Haiti to the DR because we

couldn't make it to Port au Prince
safely, uh, it's like as soon as you

cross the border, it's the same land.

As soon as you cross the border, it's
forested and beautiful, but Haiti

is deforested and, um, obviously

in more poverty.

So.

Brandon Giella: That reminds me.

I just finished this book over my shoulder
as a window berries Collection of essays

called the world ending fire and he
talks so much about our connection to

the land obviously, it's it's window
berry if you're familiar, but But just

that idea that our like hope and our
future is actually the topsoil and the

land and local cultures and climate
And all of that so it's cool that

they have that kind of element have
made that connection That's awesome.

Lane Kipp: yeah.

Brandon Giella: Okay.

So the second, uh, we can talk more
about playing with purpose maybe, but

the second, uh, organization is Musana.

So tell us a little bit about that one.

Lane Kipp: Yeah, Musana
is a very interesting one.

And so what they do is they
actually use donations as capital

investments and building Ugandan
led, Ugandan owned enterprises, i.

e.

hospitals, schools.

You know, like hotels, restaurants,
but particularly we're focused

on the hospitals and schools.

So primary education, secondary
education, uh, D I T training,

which is more vocational training.

And these hospitals are
Fully comprehensive.

I mean, so if I go to the hospital
down the road, very similar, you

know, you can deliver babies,
have surgeries, X, Y and Z.

You know, there's also disease
prevention and care, uh, there.

So we saw is in Uganda, but they're
scaling to be in seven more districts

in Uganda to, um, yeah, start these
hospitals, start these schools

and they'll use the donations to
build them, get them operating.

But once they're operating, they're
completely, uh, self sustaining,

meaning they don't need our donations
anymore, which has a compounding

effect on your impact per dollar,
uh, which helped them add up.

Pretty quickly.

And the fact that they focus on secondary
education is also really powerful with

the MPI because one of the indices
in the MPI is years of schooling.

And that's where, as we're looking at
a lot of education organizations, many

of them focus in primary education,
which is great, but where you see the

biggest need and the developing world
is actually in secondary education.

As you see a huge drop off of
kids who go to primary school and

then don't go to secondary school.

And now Musana is helping.

Kids have affordable access to really
high quality secondary schools, which

kicks that MPI in the sea of the years
of schooling and directly attacks that.

So,

Brandon Giella: So this
would be like high school?

Is that a secondary school?

Yeah, right, cool.

Amazing.

Brian Grasso: I add one thing
on this in the education piece?

One of my favorite studies on education,
and I think this shows how a lot of the

factors in the MPI are interrelated.

But, um, so there's an increase in your
income, The more educated you are in low

income countries and in America, but,
um, but I think what's really interesting

about that is it doesn't jump your
income as an adult doesn't jump just

when you graduate high school, um, like
the effect is not having the degree.

The effect is actually
the education itself.

So to go to have one more year of
education, like if you, if you make it.

To 11th grade, you're going to make more
money as an adult than you can make it to

10th grade, um, and low income countries.

And so that just shows, I think, just
how powerful education in particular

is where it's the, the effect of
that is, you know, and there's other

compounding effects to have more
educated population is more likely to.

You know, maintain a democracy, you
know, to your, there's a study that in,

um, uh, the book bottom billion, um,
from by Paul Collier, he says, countries

in Africa are more likely to have an
overthrow of a corrupt government and

become more democratic if more people
are educated, you know, so we talked

a lot about like, you know, in Africa,
especially corruption, government issues.

Um, but actually investing in education
is one of the best things we can do for

the long run chances of a country becoming
more democratic because people are

more involved in the political process,
they have kind of higher standards for

their leaders, um, anyways, education
is a great investment, and I think,

Brandon Giella: Fascinating.

Brian Grasso: um, that's, yeah, so
that's, um, just some of my favorite

things to think about with that,

Brandon Giella: It's what
strikes me is Africa.

It's it's especially important in Africa
that that window, because if you look at

demographic statistics, I saw this in a
pitch for a venture capital fund that's

focused just on on African businesses.

And one of the things that they were
talking about was if you look at

growth rates around the world and
age groups around the world, Africa.

Has a much younger population and
it's also a faster growing population,

especially among males But its growth
rate from 18 to 35 year olds was

like through the roof And so you can
you kind of extrapolate that for the

next cohort down the younger cohort.

That'll be in like a high school
You know entering kind of a college

age group um, it's it's fascinating
how many people there are in africa

that fit that demographic and also
how fast they're growing and so

You Investing in their education.

I can imagine it's like massive.

It can be massively helpful.

Brian Grasso: yeah.

I mean, hospitals and schools, like, both
of those are human capital investments,

and I just think, you know, I just believe
the best returns you can possibly get

are by investing in human capital, um,
and that's because human beings are,

are God's, you know, in the name of God,
we are creative agents in this world,

and so as we Develop people, you know,
now by just helping them be healthy

and well educated, you know, they're
the ones who are going to change their

countries and find the innovations and
the solutions to, um, their own problems.

Brandon Giella: Amen.

Amen.

Cool.

Well, uh, so you've got this
screening process narrowed it down.

There were four finalists
and two made it through.

And so now as we are approaching
Christmas time, it is a, a key time

of the year for people to, uh, work
toward their charitable giving.

A lot of times for tax reasons, but
it's also just a generous time of year.

And so, uh, there are probably listeners
that are like, cool, this sounds amazing.

Now what?

So what, Lane, Brian, Andrew, now what?

You have these organizations.

What do you recommend people do?

Brian Grasso: Can I take this one?

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

I mean, it's pretty
straight, straight forward.

I mean, all, all four of us on this

call are members of the fund.

So

we, I mean, these are the most
effective programs and the most

unreached and impoverished places.

There's no reason they
should not get fully funded.

And we right now I think have like 70
million worth of giving opportunity

or like giving opportunities.

potential in our fund.

Meaning if if we pulled together
70 million tomorrow, we could

fund these programs completely.

And,

Brian Grasso: if you have 70 million in
a donor advice, funder foundation, uh,

Brandon Giella: Give us a

Brian Grasso: for real.

yeah, yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I think, you know,
I think, like I said, like.

This is about love.

I think we have to center love in
conversations around philanthropy.

The root words of philanthropy
are literally love people.

I think as Christians, like,
the highest ethic, the highest

virtue, and our faith is love.

Jesus tells us this is the
most important commandment.

Um, and then Paul says if we
give all that we have and do

not have love, we gain nothing.

Um, and so I think, yeah, I mean,
come, genuinely, come join us.

And let, you know, like actually maybe
start by taking a moment and You know

to remember the poor like paul says
and in in this holiday season to just

remember that like all the things we
have are just great blessings from the

lord and um, And you know a lot of people
around the world hundreds of millions

of people are still in extreme dire
destitute poverty in the world and The

reality is what lane has built Gives
all of us an opportunity to do something

about that that we can have confidence
is actually going to work um and You

know, and Andrew's done the differential
equations on the Delta MPI and which

is a, which is a piecewise function
with in the calculus gets really messy.

I don't.

Yeah.

I mean, I, I'm not even joking
with that, but, um, So anyways,

yes, I heartily endorse as someone
who does not work for all access

international I work with all access.

I do not work for lynn.

I say join me in giving to all
access to fight global poverty

Andrew Forrester: And I would say go
look at the materials that these two

organizations put on the website.

Like read about them for yourself.

Our, our goal, you know, as people who
work for and with all access is to do

this work and to create a fund that
has very effective charities in it, but

you can feel free to check our work.

And we think that if you do, you'll see
the same things in them that we did.

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Yeah, that's exactly right, Andrew.

It's, uh, our hope.

My goal is that if anybody took
this process and did it themselves,

they would come out with Very
similar, if not the same portfolio.

So, um, that's our job as a public fund.

Uh, this is free and fair, just
like our elections should be.

Um, but it's, uh, yeah, that's

the,

Brian Grasso: go there for it

Lane Kipp: um, but no, I mean, that's,
that's the hope is that, um, this

is very, very objective and, um, so,
um, So come give with us to these

things and come check out the data
and go see for yourself if you want to

Brandon Giella: That's right.

That's one of the things I love
most about all accesses is the

transparency that it's like, Hey,
check out our records, check our math.

Like, like go check out these things.

If you do it yourself, you'll
find the same conclusion.

I love that.

Brian Grasso: land that you say give
with us and that is true like all

four of us give to the front And
you know, it's it's not give to us.

It's actually give with us.

Brandon Giella: Join your friends.

I think the communal aspect of
that is really neat as well.

Lane Kipp: Yeah,

Brandon Giella: And Brian would
also encourage you to go see wicked.

It's a great movie.

And for your holiday spirits.

Brian Grasso: Yeah,
yep, um Yep, go see it.

I was impressed.

Better than The Wizard of Oz,

Brandon Giella: That's great.

Uh,

Brian Grasso: but

Brandon Giella: Well, gentlemen,
thank you so much for this.

I love the evaluation process that you
have, the rigor behind it, the analogy

between, you know, financial investing
that people I think are more familiar

with than they are on the nonprofit
giving philanthropic side of things.

And so to to bridge those two
worlds, I think it's really cool.

And what you guys are doing
to the heart behind it.

The effort that it took.

I know like all year you guys
have been working on this and

doing some really amazing things.

And so I'm grateful because I
don't have to do that because I

don't know differential equations
cause I'm a creative writing

major and I don't know math.

Um, but I'm just really appreciate
the work that you guys are doing.

And I'm excited about 2025 with these new
programs and more people getting involved.

Brian Grasso: Amen.

Lane Kipp: let's do it.

Brandon Giella: do it.

All right, well, Merry Christmas and uh,
I guess we'll see you in the new year.

Brian Grasso: Merry Christmas, Brandon.

Brandon Giella: Bye guys.

Brian Grasso: Bye.

Andrew Forrester: Bye.