The only thing I'd like to mention is that often if the government doesn't incentivize the change into renewable solutions appropriately, or doesn't learn quickly and then adapt, then rural and / or off-grid communities face incredible challenges due to the lack of public support. And it's very difficult for governments to adapt quickly because it's all based on laws and regulations. But I've seen governments that have been able to move the needle quite quickly on those aspects and others that have put the wrong incentives in place where ultimately individual citizens or households or also companies have just kind of de-invested and that's not good.

But other than that, it's a very good question that also allows for a lot of positive change. I do see that in some governments, no matter what the governmental framework there is fast growing enterprises that have found very smart solutions like solid supply chains to ensure that despite supply chain risk or whatever happens, they can continue to produce solutions. And also, of course, a viable economic model. So it is possible to still have solutions without government backing, so to speak, but for these communities, the lack of support from a national plan or scheme means they are at a disadvantage when wanting to integrate renewables.

Securing long-term funding is a big challenge, but it's crucial for ensuring continuity. My mentor, who stepped down in October, worked for over 20 years to ensure financial stability, and one of our key rules is that we don't spend what we don't have. It's not about just figuring it out on the fly, because we're working with people's lives, and that needs to be handled responsibly.

In the beginning, we raised funds for emergency relief, like hygiene packets or bedding, and that would last until the funds ran out. But when we moved toward development work, like providing ongoing STEM education or scholarships, we realized that funding needs to be continuous to sustain these programs.

We are mostly privately funded and have some long-term commitments, such as endowments. For us, it's about looking ahead and assessing whether we can support a program for several years, or even perpetually. We know some programs will run out of funding in a few years, so we start planning early—ensuring we have a strategy in place before that happens. That long-term thinking is essential. If we never received another dollar today, our programs would still be able to sustain themselves for a significant period. We plan for the long haul, not just the short term.

Tracking success in long-term education programs requires a variety of measures, depending on the specific focus. For instance, in medical education for refugees, we track the number of doctors and nurses who complete the necessary training and are then able to secure jobs in Armenia. This is a key indicator of success, especially for Artsakh refugees who need additional credits to practice medicine in their new location.

In STEM education, the focus is more on engagement. While it’s difficult to measure success in terms of whether every student becomes a scientist, we track engagement through Olympiads and other activities, looking at how well students learn and progress in these subjects. It's about getting them interested in STEM, not just having them memorize facts.

For economic development, we measure success through the success rate of small businesses we support with grants. If the business survives and grows, that’s a clear indicator that the program is working. Profitability is the next level, but the initial goal is sustainability.

In areas like child protection, success is measured by whether children can be safely reunified with their families or placed in an appropriate alternative setting. Ultimately, we want to break the cycle of vulnerability and ensure the children are better off than before they entered the program. The key is tangible outcomes, whether it’s securing jobs, creating sustainable businesses, or protecting the most vulnerable.