Cecilia Conrad
In 2023, when Yield Giving founder MacKenzie Scott wanted to give $250 million to 250 charities serving low-income households and people facing discrimination, she turned to Cecilia Conrad for help choosing which groups most deserved the grants. Conrad runs Lever for Change, a nonprofit that connects donors with organizations through 'open calls,' or competitions for funding, then brings in experts to evaluate applicants for financial soundness, impact, and effectiveness. It's a reversal of the typical invitation-only system most foundations use for grants, and gave, on the one hand, little-known nonprofits a shot at significant funding and, on the other, donors a chance to discover compelling new groups to support.
The upshot for Scott? Lever for Change identified so many promising organizations that last year she ended up more than doubling her initial pledge, giving away $640 million to 361 groups, chosen from more than 6,000 applicants.
Such is the transformative power of Conrad, a Stanford-trained economics professor-turned philanthropy executive who previously led the MacArthur Foundation's Fellows program, aka its 'Genius' grants. She founded Lever for Change in 2019 to dismantle barriers in philanthropy. 'There are donors who want to fund creative, effective organizations and creative, effective organizations who need funding but they have trouble finding each other,' Conrad says.
To date, Lever for Change, which has also advised LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, has influenced $2.5 billion in donations to more than 500 charities. And more is coming: The organization is now vetting hundreds more charities to help Melinda French Gates decide how to allocate $250 million to improve women's health. 'We exist to help donors discover new ideas, new potential," Conrad says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
a day ago
- Business Wire
Citizens for Judicial Fairness Slams Excessive Delaware Chancery Fees Following New Stanford Report
WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Citizens for Judicial Fairness today responded to a new Stanford study from renowned professor Joseph Grundfest that shows Delaware's Chancery Court has become a national outlier in awarding excessive legal fees. The report, which analyzed thousands of cases, found that Delaware hands out attorney fee multipliers at a rate up to 57 times higher than federal courts – with some attorneys being paid as much as $35,000 an hour. The findings were highlighted in The New York Times' DealBook newsletter, and arrive as more companies continue to question Delaware's value as the 'gold standard' for corporate law. Citizens for Judicial Fairness released the following statement in response to the study: 'This study confirms what we've been saying for years: Delaware's Chancery Court is more interested in enriching lawyers than serving shareholders or protecting everyday investors. Two judges, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick and Vice Chancellor Travis Laster, are responsible for a majority of these outrageous fee awards, and must be reined in so that litigants in Delaware's courts can have reasonable fee expectations. The pattern is clear: corporate insiders and well-connected firms are cashing in while Delaware's reputation burns. Delaware lawmakers can't look the other way anymore. These payouts aren't normal, and they aren't defensible. They're part of a system that's increasingly out of step with every other court in America. It's time for serious reform – and if Delaware won't fix it, the market will.' The Stanford paper shows that two judges alone account for over 60% of the supersized awards, which often exceed ten times the base legal fee. In some cases, lawyers were paid nearly $50,000 an hour after inflation adjustment. No federal judge has ever come close to authorizing these kinds of fees. Citizens for Judicial Fairness has long advocated for transparency, common-sense reform, and balance in the state's corporate legal system, and has warned that if left unchecked, judicial overreach will drive companies, jobs, and corporate revenue out of Delaware.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
San Francisco wants to use AI to save itself from bureaucracy
San Francisco's municipal code runs about the same length as the entire U.S. federal rulebook — that's 75 "Moby Dick"s and counting. No lawyer, or even a team of them, could ever muck out all the redundant and outdated sections contained in it. So City Attorney David Chiu, a former state assemblymember and city supervisor, is calling in Stanford's AI experts to help him out. And he hopes others in government will follow him. A team from Stanford's Regulation, Evaluation and Governance Lab trained an AI program to chew over a city's legal code in search of every instance in which a city department is mandated to produce a report. Then Chiu's team went to those departments to see which reports could be tweaked for efficiency, combined with similar requirements, or slashed altogether. 'This tool saved us countless hours of work," Chiu said. 'Because of the length of our code … it's likely a project we would never have undertaken.' Now Chiu is sponsoring city legislation that would change more than a third of the nearly 500 reporting requirements that can be altered by a city ordinance. Chiu wants to do away with 140 of them entirely. 'This isn't just a San Francisco problem,' Chiu said, referencing a report that described the millions of pages produced by Congress every year as a black hole. 'We need to be delivering results and services, not just churning out more reports,' he said. 'Particularly in this era of budget scarcity we need to get up staff time to focus on the truly pressing issues of the day.' Stanford professor and HAI Senior Fellow Daniel Ho, who leads the team behind the AI endeavor, said to tackle those reams of legalese, his team trained an AI model to essentially think like a lawyer to find and parse the required reports. One requirement still on the books that Chiu and Ho pointed to requires the city's Public Works Department to issue a biennial report on the city's fixed newspaper racks. The problem is those don't exist anymore. Chiu said that while hundreds of similarly obsolete reports were required of departments across the city government, the controller, city administrator, planning department and the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development were particularly backed up with what Ho dubbed 'policy sludge.' Chiu will see his legislation introduced at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors next week. While city rules prohibit supervisors from co-sponsoring legislation brought by another city department, Supervisor Bilal Mahmood said in a statement that City Hall has been weighted down by unnecessary code for too long. 'This legislation will cut through that clutter, freeing up staff time so departments can focus on what matters most—serving San Franciscans.' Ho said his team calibrated and tested the tool before running the city search, trolling through the U.S. legal code and successfully turning up 1,400 known reports, along with hundreds more. It's the first time he said the tool has been used in this way, although last year his lab trained an AI tool to identify racial restrictions in millions of property records.
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Interview Bias Is Real: How to Name and Overcome It Confidently
There are moments in a career conversation—whether it's a job interview, a pitch for freelance work, or a conversation with a potential client—where everything seems to be going fine. Until something shifts. Maybe it's a flicker in the interviewer's eyes when you walk into the room or turn your camera on. Maybe it's a slight hesitation when you mention your background. Or a question you expected, but it never comes—because legally, it can't. And yet, you know. You know that despite your portfolio, credentials, or stellar track record, something unspoken has entered the conversation. The elephant in the room. It could be your age—too old, too young. Your background—an accent, a name, a story that doesn't match expectations. Or your identity—gender, parenthood, or anything else that makes you 'not what they pictured.' Whatever it is, you can feel the silent questions: Will she be able to keep up with a young team? Will he understand our culture? Will she be too distracted with seven kids at home? These questions often can't be asked. But they're still answered—in the privacy of the interviewer's mind. And that's precisely why they're dangerous. We're entering an era where authenticity is not only accepted—it's expected. Particularly for Gen Z, but increasingly across the workforce, being real has become a professional advantage. According to Stanford research, Gen Z employees expect transparency and are drawn to people whose words and actions align. That push for transparency is transforming more than just workplace culture—it's reshaping how people want to interview, pitch, collaborate, and be perceived. Being guarded no longer feels like strength. Being real does. Most conversations about bias in hiring focus on the structural fixes. As Harvard Business School outlines, we train recruiters to avoid unconscious bias, diversify panels, and define roles more inclusively. These are critical, but they assume the bias is accidental—something to be corrected through awareness. Bias can be unconscious—but sometimes it's not. And even when it is, the effect is the same: assumptions get made in silence. What happens when the person on the other side of the table is asking themselves a very conscious question—one they know they can't say out loud? That's when the real danger begins. Because if they can't ask the question, they'll answer it themselves. And they'll answer it wrong. Behavioral science shows that we don't need to change people's beliefs to change their behavior. As Siri Chilazi, a senior researcher at the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of Make Work Fair, put it in a recent episode of The Future of Less Work: Instead of asking people to unlearn their bias, Siri's work focuses on designing systems that reduce the opportunity for bias to show up at all. That might mean standardizing interview questions so that every candidate is asked the same ones in the same order. Or it might mean evaluating responses one question at a time across all candidates, rather than building a subjective impression of each individual. These small shifts can make a big difference—turning hiring from a judgment call into a fair comparison. But even the smartest systems can't account for every assumption, every hesitation, every flicker in the conversation. And until those systems are the norm, individuals still have to navigate what's left unsaid. That's why when you're the one sitting across the table—and you sense the question they're not asking—you still need to be ready to answer it. Not because it's your responsibility to fix the system. But because it's your best chance to be seen for who you really are. That's why I recommend what might feel like a bold move: bring the elephant into the conversation. Not defensively. Not apologetically. Confidently, directly, and with intent. Let's say you sense age is in play. You're in your 50s, applying for a consulting gig in a tech startup led by 30-somethings. You could say: Or let's say you're a mother of seven. You're being considered for a high-responsibility role, and you can feel the hesitation in the room: Or maybe you're pitching a project and realize the client assumed you'd be local—until they heard your accent or saw your LinkedIn profile: This isn't about defending your identity. It's about owning your story. It's about answering the question they're not allowed to ask—on your terms. We often talk about inclusion as the responsibility of the hiring manager or organization. And yes, they have work to do. But when you're the one sitting in the room, waiting for a decision to be made, your power lies in your ability to name what they can't. Not everyone will be comfortable doing this. It requires emotional intelligence, timing, and a calm kind of courage. But being nice won't get you what you want. And the alternative is to be silently disqualified for the wrong reason—one you never got the chance to address. So the next time you feel the elephant walk into the room, don't ignore it. Invite it in. Name it. And then answer the question the way only you can. Because when you do, you're not just shifting the outcome of that conversation—you're changing the conversation itself.
