The All Access Podcast

Lane Kipp: Well, welcome
to the All Access Podcast.

Uh, I'm excited to have
another guest with us today.

A couple guests with Plan with
Purpose, uh, one of our, our

newest additions to our portfolio.

Uh, I was telling the guys before
this call when we went through

our evaluation process this last
year, there was a group that.

Stood, uh, highly above the rest as far
as impact, especially with the, the metric

we use and that was Plant with Purpose.

And so I'm really excited to, uh, learn
more about, about them and, uh, I'll

let the guys, uh, introduce themselves.

But, uh, miler Corey, thank you
for taking the time to join us.

Milmer: Thank you.

No, thank you, Elaine, for
letting us be here with you.

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Well, uh, we'll start with you, millware.

Tell us, uh, a little bit about yourself
and your role at Plant with Purpose.

Milmer: Hmm.

Yeah, it's a little bit of both in the
same, uh, um, I was born in Colombia.

I came here to do my grad
school in, um, in, uh, molecular

genetics with marine mammals.

And I, uh, um, I, while I was going
to my church, I, there was a group.

There was a table about plan with
purpose, and I did about flues at

that time, flues of plan with purpose.

And so I, I got to meet Scott, our CEO
and, and got to understand that the,

there was an intersection between the
work that I was doing from a conservation

perspective, from an environmental
perspective with what, with, with the

possible scope of, of Loreta at that time.

So.

Um, I've been, um, I mean I can go
deep in this, but I've been working

with Plan with Purpose for 17 years.

I've been volunteering, uh, with
Plan with Purpose for since 20

2001 when I started my grad school.

And, and yet I'm currently in
the role of, uh, vice presidents

for international programs.

Uh, but yeah,

Lane Kipp: Awesome.

Milmer: just like a small version.

Lane Kipp: Yeah, that's awesome.

Miler.

I didn't know that about the,
the marine biology background.

Uh, my, I'm in my background's
in the marine space as well

in the engineering side, ocean

Milmer: Oh, I see.

Lane Kipp: I, when people ask
me, what is ocean engineering?

I say, well, we design oceans of course.

And obviously not true.

I, but that's, uh, that's awesome.

Milner.

Uh, that's really, really cool.

Now, Corey.

Uh, tell us a little bit about yourself.

We've had some fun conversations the
last few months, so, uh, yeah, Corey.

Corey Chin: Yeah, thanks Lane.

Uh, my name's Corey Chin and my
formal education was in environmental

studies, uh, specifically natural
resource management and conservation.

And I also studied geography.

Uh, but I've been at Plymouth
purpose for just over 11 years.

I started as an intern, uh,
hosting booths and everything,

like the one miler visited.

And my current role is within the
international programs division.

I lead our M and EF.

Thanks.

Lane Kipp: Yep.

And, uh, so ME monitoring evaluation,
I want to dive deeper into that 'cause

you guys do it really, really well.

And honestly, you're an example to
a lot of groups out there and to

us as well about how to do that.

Well, you've done some really
interesting studies, uh, miler.

Can you, as far as the, the plan
with purpose model and what you

guys do, it's really unique.

Can you give us a, like
an overview of the model?

Milmer: Yes.

Um, yeah, I would say that we are,
we're a faith driven, agree, ecological,

community centered development
organization, right, in which we are.

We aim to restore livelihoods and
ecosystems by, by working with, uh,

small holder farmers in conditions
of poverty around the world.

So that would be kind of like the.

Yeah,

Lane Kipp: Got it.

And.

Milmer: I can, I can
go into what it is, but

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Well, tell us what it looks like on the
ground specific, like, I guess start at

the watershed level, which, you know,
as I was learning about, you guys had

to learn about the watershed model.

Milmer: Mm-hmm.

Lane Kipp: what is a watershed?

Why a watershed?

What that, share more
about what that looks like.

Milmer: Correct.

So, so if we, if we're attempting what
I said before, we are attempting to

facilitate a process of restoration.

And we have to take into account
that a family or a community is

nested within, within a bigger
space, within a bigger community.

So if you're really aiming to, to
be a part of the process of, of

restoration, you really need to be,
we need to be thinking systemically.

So the watershed model attempts to
delineate an area, um, big enough.

With some characteristics that
give a sense of cohesion, like

culture, environment, trade crops.

Um, so the idea is that, that by
deploying the work that we do in

the areas of, of regenerative ag,
agriculture and areas of, of community

development, of human development,
the idea is that by, by planning at

a territorial, at a big scope level.

You are, you are not only addressing
the micro, the family, the family based

issues, but also you're attempting to,
to catalyze change at a significant

level that maintains the changes
that you catalyze at a smaller level.

so so the idea is that

that by, by understanding that that
communities are nested by families

are nested within a bigger community,
within a bigger environmental

community, ecological community.

Within a bigger human community
then, then the idea is that,

that the work sustains over time.

So, so that's kind of like, uh, what we
attempt more of a territorial level than

family, family, community, community.

Lane Kipp: Got it, got it.

Now Corey, at the, uh, with the program
itself, you know, so you've got.

A reforestation component, a saving screw
component, spiritual renewal component.

Ag, uh, I'm trying to remember
the terms you guys used for

it, but like ag component, uh,
improved agricultural methods.

Uh, tell us I guess more the programmatic
level, what that looks like all

together with plant with purpose.

Corey Chin: Yeah, so, uh, you
described it well and I, I think

how it works is we use the VSLA.

Savings group methodology as a
platform, and we provide regenerative

agricultural training to those groups
as, as well as partnering with, uh,

local institutions like the local
church, church leaders and schools.

And with them we promote, uh, care of
creation, peace, and reconciliation.

And we have trainings on
identity and vocation.

And so we have an agricultural
curriculum that's called Seeds of Change.

And it incorporates, uh, regenerative
ecological techniques as well as,

uh, training on what a watershed
is and the importance of, of

seeing it through that lens.

And we're nearly done finishing
a spiritual renewal curriculum

that incorporates the creation
care, theology of work, and

identity of and vocation trainings.

Lane Kipp: Awesome.

Awesome.

And I guess we should say a little bit
of context of where you guys are working.

I know we specifically are, are
partnering with you guys and, uh,

Burundi, Tanzania, uh, Ethiopia,
and the DRC, but you guys are in a

few more countries than that, right?

Milmer: Correct.

Yeah.

We're currently working in Mexico,
Dominican Republic, Haiti, um,

at the ones that you mentioned,
Ethiopia, Malawi, and Thailand.

So a total of nine
countries around the world.

Lane Kipp: Got it.

Got it.

Yeah, I, um, first I have to say the.

I really gained appreciation
for reforestation and care of

creation in Haiti where I lived,
uh, on the border of the DRC.

Actually, we had to evacuate
through the DRC, uh, when we

couldn't make it to the airport.

And when you cross the border
at the DRC, uh, I'm sorry, Dr.

Uh, immediate change in the
topography, uh, and it's pretty wild.

And obviously there's a.

You see the, the poverty
level changes as well.

So it, it, yeah, gained a huge
appreciation for how important the

landscape is to these communities.

And I, I would honestly say I'm
still gaining that appreciation.

I think I will when I go and, and see
you guys work in person in Tanzania, but,

um, so I'd love to hear more about, okay.

So we heard about the program, what
you guys do, but the Impact, which is

where we, you know, really, uh, just
saw Plant With Purpose stand out as

we're looking at those indicators and
you guys taking m and e very seriously.

So, uh, Cory Miler, whoever wants to
take it on the, you know, the indicators

you guys are looking at when you think
about ideal outcomes, um, what that

looks like at Plant with Purpose.

Milmer: Um,

I think it's, I, I think it's worth
clarifying if we step back for a little

bit, it's worth one of the values.

I'm usually kind of careful about.

How much time can I take
to explain all this kib?

So, uh, Elaine, so, so.

Mm.

Lane Kipp: You're good.

Take your

Milmer: Yeah, so I'm being a little, uh,
I'm being a little, uh, syn Synaptical.

But anyway, all that to say that I want,
I, I, one thing that I, that I wanna

make sure that we, that we consider
a value of plan of purpose is that,

uh, we see monitoring, evaluation, and
research very much part of programming.

We don't see it as an
additional component.

We don't see it as a, as a, as a luxury.

We see it as an integral
component of programming.

So.

So from the beginning, from, from
the essence that we, we conceive

the work that we do from that
perspective, we actually, uh, take

the lesson from biological systems.

There's no biological system in, in,
in, in, um, in, in life in organisms

that doesn't have a self-regulating,
um, uh, a self-regulating, uh, process.

So we very much, uh, uh, think about
it from that perspective, the, the

perspective of impact, the perspective of.

Of outcomes.

All, all these things are, are
mapped out in our theory of change.

So when we, when we sit down, when we
think about how do we want to catalyze the

change in partnership with the community,
we take into account, um, those pathways

and the logical steps that go into
explain the change that we wanna see.

So in essence, very much the impact,
though the system that we have in

place are very much to capture the
change that we're trying to catalyze.

So, so that's the, the, the basic stuff.

I'm gonna let Cory talk more specifically
about the framework and the work that we

do, but I just wanted to make sure that,
that, that you understand that one of

our values as an organization is that one

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Milmer: is, is there's no,
there's no this or that.

There's the program that is completely
merged with, with the concept of, of

regulating itself so that we can improve
what we do, and so that we will make sure

that we are doing what we say that we do
without what we hypothesize that we do.

Lane Kipp: Exactly.

Yeah, that's one of the, I mean, it
was very obvious in, in, in getting

to know Plant with purpose, that
connection of, Hey, we're measuring

this to see how we can improve.

And, uh, I love that.

I really encourage other groups
to like, Hey, uh, take that on.

See monitoring through that lens.

Uh, Corey, when we think about,
okay, what do we measure to

figure out what do we improve?

What are the metrics you guys have
found to be really helpful in, in

learning and um, and just seeing
how, how is our program doing?

Corey Chin: Yeah, I, I think when you
talk about metrics, uh, I think it's

important to remember that the metric
is no more or less important than the

process and method to get that metric.

And we like to say that, um.

Hm.

Bad data is worse than no data at all.

So the quality of what you're collecting
really is the essence of its utility.

But as you know, we really like using MPI.

Lane Kipp: Mm-hmm.

Corey Chin: Um, but we don't
just measure and look at MPI.

We're interested in socioeconomic
conditions changing, and so we're

looking at things like income assets,
savings amount, uh, we're looking for

environmental conditions to change.

And so we measure things like agricultural
practices, uh, things like conservation,

agriculture and agri forestry.

And we're also looking for
spiritual or social changes.

And so we're looking for internal
transformation and community cohesion.

And I wanna mention, I, even though
they're, they're shorter term outcomes,

I don't wanna overlook significance
of indicators like tree planting.

Lane Kipp: Mm-hmm.

Corey Chin: And so we're looking at.

Not just the number of trees,
but the species planted.

And all of these are planted
voluntarily by farmers.

Uh, we look at savings group
metrics like amount saved, uh,

equity loan utilization, et cetera.

And I think these are good examples
of things that we don't do ourselves,

but we facilitate and they're
indicators of the growth that's

enacted by the participants themselves.

Milmer: Lane.

Something else that I'd like to add.

Kinda like bringing it back to the concept
of the watershed model is that, um, we

carry out the impact evaluations of the,
or the monitoring of what we do, uh,

let's say that the hypothetical scenarios
that if we work with enough people in

a wa in as a watershed, that usually
goes anything between 150 to 350 square

kilometers and we want to see changes
sustained and reflected in, in the whole.

In the whole, uh, territory, we're,
we're, we're also taking into

account that there is, there is
an element of, of, um, multiplier

effect or an elephant, an element of.

There's no need to see the changes
in every community if they're

represented within the sub watershed,
because there's already a natural

cohesion within that environment.

So besides working on developing,
um, working, um, uh, to develop

those changes, to facilitate those
changes, we're also, we also wanna

see as a measure of impact, how things
are moving around, how things are.

Are, are being reverberated across
the space, even with a, with

partic within, with people that are
not directly participants of us.

So that's an element of that.

Within, within the sub watershed,
within the concept of, of the changes

sub watershed, we, we want, we want
these changes to be represented in a

significant, in a significant matter.

Because our, our hypotheses is that if
there's enough representation, then.

Then we don't need to work with
a hundred percent of the people

to see the changes over time.

So I see.

I think that's one, one consideration
to have in mind as we think as,

as we think about how we work.

Um.

Lane Kipp: Yeah.

Yeah.

That's uh.

Really fascinating.

I'm curious to know what are some of the
most interesting things you have learned

as far as that the community as a whole,
knowing, not everyone went through the

program, but that ripple effect, uh,
we're the most interesting findings.

You guys have learned that, okay, because
we did this with this group of people.

Now the community as a
whole is, is is X, Y, and z.

Are there any interesting things that.

That you found out that maybe
weren't, uh, maybe you did expect

it, but, uh, anything that stood out.

Milmer: I can tell you one thing, and
Corey can tell you 10 things, but one

thing, one thing that, that I, that it
might be obvious, the obvious things

are the most difficult to explain, but.

Is that when things work,
people wanna do them.

So, for me, the, as we deploy in a, in
an area, after, we do community readiness

assessments and participatory appraisals,
and even if there's not like a significant

participation, as people start seeing
how the, lives of the other people start

changing, suddenly things just explode.

Meaning that, suddenly people
are literally, Doing a queue to

be, to apply to work with us.

So that's something that I
really appreciated that the

effectiveness of the work,

is the biggest way to propagate the work.

So it's, so Go ahead Corey.

I don't know what else, but.

Corey Chin: Yeah, I think one that comes
to mind is, so as Miler stated, our

assumption is that if we've achieved
a critical mass in a watershed and

we've been working there long enough to
facilitate change, we expect to see change

amongst participants and non participants.

And so that's how we, of course,
approach our impact measurement.

And an example of something that we
learned recently, we ran a, pretty

large DID study measuring change
in five treatment watersheds in

the DRC in comparison to a, control
non-treatment watershed, and the

reduction in poverty that we saw in
only three years of programming across.

Again, we're measuring the
entire watershed population,

participants and non participants.

So across the whole population, we saw a
75% reduction in MPI in just three years.

And so we were honestly
quite surprised by that.

And based on that experience, we're
looking to try and better understand

what exactly is the optimal time that
we should be programming in a watershed.

And that might vary between
cultures and contexts.

Um.

But we're, we're actually
running an experiment now to

try and better understand that.

Lane Kipp: Nice.

Awesome.

Well, I'm eager to hear
what you guys find out.

Uh, I'd love to touch on, uh, you
know, when I talk about MPI, so that's

a multi-dimensional poverty index.

Uh, a lot of people aren't
super familiar with that.

Um, you guys are very familiar with that.

So that was a, a really
great connection with us.

Uh, what was it about?

The NPI, I know you guys have kind of
like a modified version of that, but yeah.

Share the, the history of
looking at the NPI as a a, a

good tool to help measure impact.

Milmer: Maybe, maybe, uh, if I
can start, Corey, I think that,

um, we are an organization that
we understand the complexity

of, of what poverty is.

We embrace that complexity.

We don't, we don't shy away from it.

We don't want to simplify it.

When we think about poverty, we
don't think about poverty just

from a socioeconomic perspective.

We're thinking about it from a
perspective of relationships and,

and dysfunctional relationships.

But so we, I, uh, we felt that the MPI
really embraced this complexity and tried

to to, to put it in a language that was
easy to understand with a single metric.

So I think that, that, as I said, much
more than like, oh, these people are

using MPI or we think this is good.

It comes from, from the belief
that we understand that what we are

addressing is multidimensional and, and
requires a multidisciplinary approach.

So, so the idea, so the concept of
MPI, the concept of, of finding a way

to reconcile, uh, different indicators
or metrics in a way that would be easy

to, uh, that we, that would be easy
to, to communicate, I think was part

of the essence of why we use NM PI.

Lane Kipp: Got it.

Got it.

Milmer: Maybe, maybe Corey can talk about
a little bit about the mechanics or of

some specific indicators, but, but as
I said, in the essence, it's very much

aligned to how we think, how we think the
problem is, and how we want to approach.

Lane Kipp: Right, right.

Yeah.

I mean, it's what I mean the UN when
they define, I have this conversation

all the time, especially in the
impact investing space about poverty.

Uh.

And we have to define
what that term means.

So when I was starting all access
and doing this research, you

know, that's what the UN is using.

When they say 1.1

billion people live in poverty,
you know, there's the World

Bank number out there as well.

But, um, the data behind the
NPI is really fascinating.

You know, seeing at a subnational
level what they're measuring

through these surveys.

Um.

So, yeah, Corey, uh, yeah.

Specifically I guess the modified what you
guys have taken and improved this to, uh,

to what you guys are doing about the MPI.

Corey Chin: Yeah, we took the
original U-N-D-P-M-P-I methodology

and adapted it to try and better
suit the rural context specifically.

And throughout that process,
which was many years ago now.

We found a lot of value in, there's
some MPI training materials from

UNDP that provide best practices for
actually modifying and adapting it.

They have best practices for indicators,
for thresholds and for waiting.

And so that was really helpful.

And what we came up with is
comprised of 12 indicators.

Four of those are, I think, identical,
uh, from their original MPI and I

think those are nutrition housing.

Education and access to clean water.

Lane Kipp: Right.

Corey Chin: And we're using the same
calculation method where you have

not to go too deep, but you have the
deprivation threshold for each indicator.

You score each household.

You come up with households that are quote
unquote mult, multi-dimensional, deprived,

and then multiply that with the quote
unquote multi-dimensional headcount ratio.

Lane Kipp: Right.

Which do you guys, uh, uh.

Which is a interesting conversation
we've had this past month about the

threshold that, one third, you know,
if, if they're deprived in, you

know, more than a third of these,
that counts as multiculturally poor.

Uh, those who are less than that are not.

We've had to wrestle with the
censored versus uncensored headcount.

Now we're getting really in the weeds.

But how, love to hear Corey, your, uh.

Yeah.

What you guys, what was helpful for
you guys in, in looking at that?

Corey Chin: I can't say we have
compared sensored versus not sensored

we, we do use the sensored deprivation
score with one third being the cutoff.

Um.

Yeah, we haven't, we haven't played
around with, with both options.

I think you may have gone
deeper than we have actually.

Lane Kipp: Well, I don't know about
that, but we, we wrestled with,

okay, if, if there's a group, a
population out that out there that is.

of clean water, uh, in a certain area,
but because of certain other things,

they may not be deprived in a few of
the other ones that are weighted higher,

you know, because all 10 of these on
the NPI are not weighted the same.

For example, education, if they may
have access to education, but they

don't have access to, uh, solve these
other things that are really important,

especially in disease prevention.

We didn't know the right answer there.

And uh, something else we learned was.

If we looked at a percent reduction in
MPI, it highly favored, uh, places with

smaller populations because obviously
if you help, uh, a hundred people

out of extreme poverty in a smaller
country, that's a larger percentage.

So it, it, uh, somewhat unfairly favored.

Smaller countries and
smaller subnational regions.

So we're, we're learning, I mean,
these are all improvements we

made in this last few months that
we honestly didn't have before.

So, uh, I think you guys have helped
us, like, encourage us in the right

direction of making those improvements.

Uh, so it's, it's really cool to see
what you guys are doing with the NPI

and especially, I'd love to hear.

More about, so you talked about
the, the, the DID, is that the

RCT and the DRC that you guys did?

Uh, last year or a few years
ago, or a different one?

Corey Chin: Uh, so we actually,
we don't usually use the term RCT

even though it, it pretty much is.

Um, we, I mean, a DID is part of an RCT.

We do a DID everywhere,
not just in the DRC.

That's our standard methodology now,
and the way that we approach that

is by randomly selecting treatment
watersheds and then randomly selecting

control watersheds from a pool of
selected eligible watersheds based

on community readiness assessments.

And so there is a
randomization element there.

And then we will go in and apply
random sampling across the entire

population within those watersheds,
like we already talked about.

Um, I forget exactly
what your question was.

Whether the DID was in the DRC?

Lane Kipp: Yeah, but I think you,
you, uh, you clarified it, but.

I know you guys did a pretty
extensive study there that, uh, I

know I think like 37% crop yield
improvements and, and so forth.

And, um, yeah, I, the, one of the last
things I'd love to hear more about,

and guys feel free to share more about
what you're doing, is the regenerative

farming techniques, because that's
newish to us, uh, and trying to get

a better picture of what that means.

Milmer: So, so before I, before I can
talk a little bit about it, uh, lane,

I, I wouldn't, I wanted to say about the
whole, the whole, uh, thought process

that you're going with your team about.

The MPI.

Um, though we care about the metric by
itself, we care, we, we, we pay more

attention to the trends over time.

Meaning that, that we, we, and again,
this, anytime that you're doing

statistics, anytime that you're doing.

We, we want to, we want to, we wanna
see we're measuring a process over time.

So the change over time that Delta using
what if, if it using the MPI or using

any specific metrics that go within
the IPI or that are simply part of our

framework is we really wanna see that.

So as you, as you, um, contend
or, or work with your team.

That's something that, that we've
really, uh, we, it is been very

insightful for us to start thinking
about the picture once you step out.

Like how, what is the trend over time?

And then, then, then Pat start,
start kinda like jumping out to you.

Anyway.

That's just, just as a, something that, a
process that we went through that we've,

that we've learned a lot from that.

That's one thing.

So seeing things more as a movie
as opposed to just a picture.

Um.

As it relates to regenerative
agricul, uh, regenerative agriculture,

one of the reasons why I like to use the
word agricul in what we do is because

I've been using it for, for 20 years,
and, and I very much appreciate the

movement in which, in which it, it moved
away from a certain perspective ology

into a, a scientific dis discipline.

Into, into something
that you can actually.

Uh, uh, well, it's a,
it's a science discipline.

So, um, as we think about regenerative
agriculture, the term, we believe it's

very much aligned to the intent that
we have with the work in the community.

Um, I'll make the link with Agricul in
a second, but basically by promoting,

by working with, with, uh, local
producers, farmers, family, farming

families, to use techniques that are not.

Exploitative but are, are, are
thinking about the longer term

our thinking about sustainability.

You have to, you have to implicitly use
techniques that restore the areas in

which you are, because basically that's
the only reason why we're working there,

because the areas are already depleted.

So, so what we like about, about using
that term is because it really encompasses

the objective of working with specific
in a specific way that is not simply.

Addressing a food security is issue in
the now, but in order for us to think

about food security in the future,
you need to be able to restore the

areas, the agricultural landscapes
in which those farms are nested.

And again, it's another point in which
why we think at a territorial level, like.

There's a term that I like that
is called geographic solidarity.

And Corey actually helped me, uh,
go through this process with the

local team and communities in Haiti.

We're up in the mountains, uh, of Leo,
uh, above Leon, between GaN and Jael.

And we are working with all these people
and we're, we're looking at satellite

pictures and we're asking people to
point us where their farmers are and,

and, and we're, and we're here pointing
out and people say, oh, my farm is here.

Oh, my farm is here.

And we're, we're showing that.

That the work that we do up here
upstream actually affects the

work that they're doing there.

So suddenly they, this process
facilitating an awareness of,

of what I do affects what they
do, what, what, how they live.

So the idea of of of, of thinking
about territorially, the idea that,

that the work that I do actually is
restoring something that not only

provides for me, but for someone else.

Promotes this idea of, of solidarity
that it only was catalyzed by seeing

things from a different perspective.

Anyway, so forgive me that I'm taking so
long, but, but, but the whole idea of, of

the reasons why I like using agricul is
because Agricul takes that into account.

Agricul thinks about a food system
and agriculture production system that

is nested within an ecological system
that provides all the, uh, provides all

the indispensable, um, ingredients or.

Or elements for that farm to thrive.

So, so that's why, that's why we think
that that the word regenerative much more

than a buzzword, it really is descriptive
and is tied to the objective that

we're trying to do as an organization.

Lane Kipp: Nice.

Milmer: What would you, what
else would you say, Cory?

Corey Chin: No, I have
nothing to add to that.

That was great.

Lane Kipp: yeah, miler, you,
you, uh, nailed it there.

That was really helpful.

Thanks for, uh, explaining
it's here to, uh, good to hear

the word jock mail as well.

Um, so yeah, it's, um, I'm just
really encouraged by you guys.

Thank you for.

Uh, going, the lengths that you
guys do to, uh, help, you know,

my friends in Haiti, uh, look at
their, their farming that way.

And, uh, I'm just really encouraged
by it, especially at a time right

now where I think I would say charity
is under a spotlight of, and, uh,

really discouraging spotlight to.

Uh, to shine the spotlight on you guys.

And what you're doing is an encouragement.

I mean, you mentioned scientific
standards behind what you guys are doing.

I mean, this is, um,
really impressive work.

I know you guys are, uh, would
probably say you have a lot to

learn, but you guys have taught us
a lot and so keep learning, keep up.

Your work and what you're doing.

We're excited to come
alongside what you're doing.

Um, Corey, keep pushing me on the
m and e stuff and, uh, helping me

improve there, but I mean, just for
those listening, we added plan with

purpose to our portfolio this last year.

And so you can, uh, come alongside
what they're doing online with us.

So specifically we're partnering
with them in Burundi, uh,

DRC, Ethiopia and Tanzania.

This is a.

A fairly large scale program, like
61,000 farming households involved,

and so you can learn more, uh,
on their page on our website.

But thank you guys for what you're doing.

Thanks for taking the time to join us here
and, uh, appreciate what you're doing.

Corey Chin: Thank you

Milmer: you so much, lane.

Lane Kipp: All right guys,
I'll talk to you soon.