capacity building · capacity building: a literature review of needs, approaches and principles for...
TRANSCRIPT
Capacity Building: A Literature Review of Needs, Approaches and Principles for
Supporting and Funding Capacity Building for Resident-led,
Emerging and Established Organizations
Social Planning Toronto
2
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 What is Capacity Building? .............................................................................................. 3 Individual, Organizational and Collective Capacity ............................................................. 4 Why Build Capacity? ....................................................................................................... 5 Defining the Groups ........................................................................................................ 5
Resident-led .............................................................................................................................. 6 Emerging .................................................................................................................................. 6 Established ................................................................................................................................ 7
II. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 9
III. RESULTS: KEY ELEMENTS ......................................................................................... 9 Capacity Building Needs ................................................................................................ 9 Topics .......................................................................................................................... 10
1) Governance and Structure .................................................................................................... 10 2) Funding ................................................................................................................................ 11 3) Human Resources - Recruitment, Training, Management and Retention ............................. 12 4) Communication ................................................................................................................... 12 5) Partnerships and Collaborations........................................................................................... 13 6) Planning ............................................................................................................................... 14 7) Program and Project Management ...................................................................................... 14 8) Technology .......................................................................................................................... 15 9) Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 15 10) Financial Management ....................................................................................................... 16 11) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion ............................................................................................ 16 12) Accessing Space ................................................................................................................ 17
Types of capacity building ............................................................................................. 17 Choice-making ............................................................................................................. 18 Principles of Effective Capacity Building.......................................................................... 19
1) Effective Capacity Building is Based on the Current Circumstances of the Organization ...... 19 2) Effective Capacity Building is Continuous ........................................................................... 20 3) Effective Capacity Building Uses Multiple Methods .............................................................. 21 4) Effective Capacity Building is Collective ............................................................................... 21 5) Effective Capacity Building is Adequately Funded ................................................................ 21 6) Effective Capacity Building Includes Evaluation .................................................................. 22 7) Effective Capacity Building is Accessible ............................................................................. 22
Capacity Building Methods ............................................................................................ 24 1) One-on-one Support ........................................................................................................... 24 2) Workshops / Training .......................................................................................................... 25 3) Networks ............................................................................................................................. 25 4) Information and Resources ................................................................................................. 26
Funding and Supporting Capacity Building ...................................................................... 27 Who Should Deliver Capacity Building? ................................................................................... 27 Collaboration Among Funders ................................................................................................ 28
3
Models for Providing Capacity Building Support ...................................................................... 30 How Are Other Funders Supporting Capacity Building? ........................................................... 30 Cedarmere Foundation ............................................................................................................ 30 Greater New Orleans Foundation............................................................................................. 31 The Pfizer Foundation .............................................................................................................. 31 The James Irvine Foundation ................................................................................................... 31 ArtReach Funders' Collaborative .............................................................................................. 31 Metcalf Foundation - Toronto Sector Skills Academy .............................................................. 31
Funding Levels ............................................................................................................. 31 Evaluating Capacity Building ......................................................................................... 33
How Do You Evaluate Capacity Building? ................................................................................. 33 Who Should Evaluate Capacity Building? ................................................................................. 34
Evaluation Tools / Measures ........................................................................................... 34 1) Organizational / Needs Assessment ..................................................................................... 34 2) Intermediary/Mentor Reports .............................................................................................. 35 3) Conversations With Grantees ............................................................................................... 35
How Are Funders Evaluating Capacity Building? .............................................................. 36 Counterpart International ........................................................................................................36 The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation ....................................................................................36 Weingart Foundation ...............................................................................................................36 The Cricket Island Foundation ..................................................................................................36 The Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts ....................................................................36 St David’s Foundation .............................................................................................................. 37 Share the Results ..................................................................................................................... 37
IV. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................... 38
V. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 38
VI. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 42 Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 42 Appendix B .................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix C................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 45
Sample Assessment Tools ....................................................................................................... 45 Appendix E ................................................................................................................... 46
I. INTRODUCTION
What is Capacity Building? Although there is no universal definition of capacity building, Grantmakers for Effective
4
Organizations points to many types of capacity building but states “ultimately, capacity building is
about assisting nonprofit leaders, their staffs and their boards to develop the skills and resources
needed to create and sustain effective, efficient and resilient organizations” (Grantmakers for Effective
Organizations (GEO), 2015a, p. 18).
Similarly, while some definitions are explicit, Chandler and Scott Kennedy (2015) take a more general
approach: “Capacity building is whatever is needed to bring a nonprofit to the next level of
operational, programmatic, financial, or organizational maturity, so it may more effectively and
efficiently advance its mission into the future” (Chandler and Scott Kennedy, 2015, p. 3). In short,
leaders in the field encourage a flexible conception of capacity building that is responsive to context
rather than a fixed and rigid definition of the work.
Individual, Organizational and Collective Capacity Literature on capacity building also divides the work into capacity building to support individuals, organizations, geographical or communities of interest, as well as the non-profit sector as a whole (Light and Hubbard, 2006). Each of these types of capacity is important on its own, but also within the context of the others. The following definitions of individual, organizational and collective capacity are drawn from the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations’ report Investing in Leadership. Volume 1: A Grantmakers Framework for Understanding Nonprofit Leadership Development (Hubbard, 2005).
Individual capacity for an individual refers to building their capacity to develop their own personal
skills (e.g. general leadership skills). Individual capacity within an organization supports people to be
effective in carrying out their work for the organization (e.g. staff training). Within the community,
individual capacity refers to the capacity of residents to be effective leaders (e.g. fellowships).
Collective capacity for an individual supports them in building their capacity to collaborate (e.g.
networking activities). Collective capacity within an organization builds capacity to work
collaboratively towards common goals (e.g. convening opportunities and collective action). Within
the community, collective capacity refers to supporting the community to work together towards
common goals (e.g. community leadership programs).
Organizational capacity refers to the structures and systems that enable a group to succeed (e.g. good
governance policies, good evaluation systems etc.).
Each individual’s, organization’s and collective capacity may be different and may be needed at
different times to varying degrees. Capacity building can mean different things to different people,
and depends on the context of each individual organization; their size, age, resources, and ultimately
what they feel they need. Capacity building can (and should) be done in a range of different ways that
respond to the current context. Methods for building capacity in a variety of contexts are identified in
this review.
5
Why Build Capacity? Building capacity benefits funders and grantees. Organizations provide a valuable service to
communities on behalf of the funder, so it’s in a funder’s best interest to support those organizations to
do the best work possible. It’s a reciprocal relationship where organizations do the frontline work that
enhances the ability of the funder to achieve their goals, while the funder is simultaneously enhancing
an individual or organization’s capacity. The funder’s investment will ultimately lead to organizations
being able to fulfill their missions and have greater impact (GEO, 2015a). Grantmakers have
consistently seen the benefits of capacity building in increasing effectiveness (GEO, 2015a; Chandler
and Scott Kennedy, 2015).
In the nonprofit sector, there is a range of types of organizations that are working to address social
issues and there are some differences between them in terms of the challenges they face and solutions
for addressing those challenges (Scott, Tsoukalas, Roberts and Lasby, 2006). Some are in the early
stages of their development while others are more established so they would understandably have
different needs, however age is not always the best indicator (Andersson, Faulk, and Stewart, 2015).
Some groups may have been operating for several years but are still emerging, and others may be new
but have been able to establish themselves quickly.
In Toronto, the work with nonprofits has tended to conceive of the groups in three main types:
resident-led, emerging and established1.
Defining the Groups
There were very few items in the literature, (Barr et al., 2006; McWatt and Condren, 2016 being
notable exceptions), found that defined subgroups of organizations and their unique needs. However
it is clear that not all groups have the same structures, the same capacity, the same needs or the same
priorities (McWatt and Condren, 2016). Not all groups or organizations are trying to reach the same
status either; some will be aiming to achieve charitable status while others may want to remain less
formal.
There are four key aspects that distinguish organizations that surface intermittently in the literature
and are reinforced by broad experience in the sector. These characteristics can help determine which
1 For the purposes of this literature review, we have chosen to use the term ‘emerging’ rather than ‘grassroots’, which is used by some
funders, because the term grassroots could apply to either the structure or nature of an organization’s work. By definition, much of the work
that is done by all of the groups is grassroots. So, for example, even an organization that has been around for over 10 years and has full-time
staff and adequate resources could still be considered grassroots based on the frontline, engaged participant-focused work that they do.
6
of the three categories set out by the City groups and organizations fall into: 1) funding (e.g. adequate
levels of funding that support ongoing capacity); 2) governance (formality and complexity of
oversight), 3) staffing (e.g. having permanent, stable staff) and 4) capacity to navigate the broader
systems (e.g. able to identify and access funding etc.).
Resident-led
Resident-led groups include a wide range of organizations oriented toward a wide variety of
objectives. These groups are typically focused on a single, specific issue or geographic location, and
often both. At last count in 2014, there were approximately 500 resident-led groups registered with the
City of Toronto (McWatt and Condren).
There are some common characteristics that can be derived from the limited literature on the topic.
1) These groups tend to be more informal in terms of their governance.
2) The issues addressed by resident-led groups tend to reflect the needs of a specific population,
often geographically defined, such as local development, school closures or local safety.
3) These groups tend to have a very modest funding base if they have income at all
4) These groups tend to have no paid staff and be volunteer driven
These issues are often limited in duration as well, making the ongoing operation of the groups less of a
concern for the group than the resolution of the issue they were designed to address. As a result, these
groups are less likely to be working towards a more substantial, formal structure like registering for
nonprofit or charitable status, and focus less on broader systems and more on their ability to address
specific issues and decision makers. (McWatt and Condren, 2016, grant guidelines2).
Emerging
This group of emerging organizations has often been referred to as grassroots. Emerging groups come
together in similar ways to resident-led groups in that they are often started by a group of friends or
community members wanting to address a social or community need (McWatt and Condren, 2016).
Emerging groups may be working on addressing issues specific to the geographic area they live in, or
they may be addressing wider social issues that are impacting their communities, for example issues
related to ethno-specific, newcomer, disability, or LGBTQ communities. Emerging groups are more
likely to be working on issues that may not be resolved readily and are often working on addressing
them in ways that reflect the need for longer term structures such as more substantial governance
2 While there are few formal definitions of “resident led groups”, there are a variety of granting programs that are
specifically designed to serve them. These guidelines consistently offer grants to unincorporated, local groups with few or no staff delivering service focused on a specific neighbourhood or single issue, for example Citizens Committee for New York City (https://greatnonprofits.org/org/citizens-committee-for-new-york-city), and City of Toronto Neighbourhood Microgrants.
7
structures and working towards achieving nonprofit and eventually charitable status.
While emerging groups are often defined by their annual revenues (budgets of less than $75,000 have
been cited) total funding appears to have less impact on groups than the nature of the funding. Groups
with large but unstable budgets, or large budgets that are wholly devoted to service delivery, with no
component available for sustaining infrastructure may face the same struggles as organizations with
smaller budgets. For example, though some emerging groups have accessed $70,000 through the
Youth Opportunities Fund, some of these are one year grants and at the end of those grants, these
groups are not necessarily able to access the same level of funding.
Similarly, access to other resources such as space and staff, that can contribute to the stability and
resilience of the organization, tend to be in short supply in emerging organizations. Emerging
organizations tend to have few if any full-time or permanent staff (McWatt and Condren, 2016) and
rarely have dedicated access to space.
Emerging organizations may be facing these constraints on resources or infrastructure due to being
new, or due to ongoing barriers to navigating the systems that support the acquisition of resources and
infrastructure. Language and culture can be factors in that navigational challenge.
There are some common characteristics that can be derived from the limited literature on the topic.
1) These groups tend to be informal in terms of their governance, but their emerging status tends
to be moving them toward more formal governance.
2) The issues addressed by emergent groups tend to reflect the needs of a specific needs but often
over a larger geography or a larger issue base.
3) These groups tend to have a modest funding base, usually under $100,000, though their
funding can fluctuate quite widely.
4) These groups tend to have few paid staff.
5) These issues are likely to be working towards addressing issues in a broader and more
systemic way and so work toward longer time horizons and more the substantial, formal
structure like registering for nonprofit or charitable status that allows them to address it.
Established
Established organizations are those that have substantial and stable governance, funding and staffing
that contribute to their ability to sustain themselves in the future and be resilient in the face of
challenges. These organizations have often existed for a long time while they set up the structures that
sustain them and are effective at navigating the broader systems that assist them in accessing the
resources and support they need.
Going forward, capacity building programming for groups and organizations in Toronto need to
8
determine criteria for each of the three groups that is based on their stability of funding, stability of
governance, established staffing and capacity to navigate the broader systems.
9
II. METHODOLOGY
Literature for this review consisted of both peer reviewed and “gray” literature. Literature was
identified in a variety of ways, including:
Literature identified by organizations that focus on strengthening nonprofit organizations
including Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (a coalition of grant makers committed to
building strong and effective non-profit organizations
Google searches of ‘capacity building’, ‘capacity building funding’, ‘evaluating capacity
building’, ‘capacity building needs’, ‘capacity building principles’, ‘literature review capacity
building’; and
Sources identified by staff and stakeholders for this project.
Articles that lacked concrete data from the field of applied capacity building were eliminated from the
analysis. Approximately 40 articles were used in the review. Articles were reviewed for their
contribution to distinct aspects of the analysis of capacity building and of the groups involved. Results
were reviewed by the project team and an outline of the findings were developed. The outline of
findings was reviewed by an Advisory Committee composed of experts in the field, community
leaders, and front line workers in capacity building for non-profits of all types. Feedback from the
Advisory Committee was incorporated into a revised outline and guided the drafting of the literature
review. The completed draft of the literature review was reviewed by the project team for final
revisions.
III. RESULTS: KEY ELEMENTS
Capacity Building Needs Each group or organization will have their own unique needs depending on several factors including
size, age, model, location, developmental stage and revenue streams (GEO, 2015a). Organizations’
needs also change depending on their current activities, for example if they have an upcoming event,
proposal or reporting deadline their capacity building priorities will be different from those that occur
when they are struggling with a governance crisis or a funding issue. However, a core list of topic
needs emerge from the literature as recurring and common challenges.
In some cases, there is literature to suggest that there are differences in needs between the three
groups. Capacity building issues for informal resident-led groups are, for example, often different
from those of a more established organization. However, sometimes issues are not different, but it may
be more appropriate for the capacity building to be delivered in to reflect the circumstances of the
organizations.
10
Topics
The capacity building needs found in the literature were collated into the following 12 main topics: 1)
governance and structure; 2) funding; 3) human resources; 4) communication; 5) partnerships and
collaborations; 6) planning; 7) program and project management; 8) technology; 9) evaluation; 10)
financial management 11) diversity and equity; and 12) accessing space.
1) Governance and Structure
Understanding and implementing effective governance and organizational structures is a need that
occurs in all types of groups, however there may be differences in terms of the content, format,
approach and extent of the capacity building required. There are also several different types of
governance structures for which capacity building may be relevant, including informal, non-profit,
registered charity and shared platforms. Shared platforms, whereby groups without official status can
be trusteed by a registered charity, have emerged as a model that enables groups to gain support,
address issues their structure limits and reduce administrative costs like human resources (Cave,
2016). However, many groups and organizations may be unaware of the available models, how they
work and how to identify the most suitable structure for them.
Some resident–led groups may be interested in formalizing their structure and need tools to help them
do so. Others are happy to maintain an informal group, but still need support in understanding those
structures (McWatt and Condren, 2016). Emerging groups are more likely to want to know how to
incorporate yet some want to remain informal and need support in creating a structure that will support
their work. Resources on governance that are simple, practical, accessible, affordable and aimed at
less established groups are rare (McWatt and Condren, 2016).
In each of the governance models there are additional aspects that need to be understood, for example
managing advisory committees and boards of directors. Having an effective board relies on creating a
successful board culture, which requires trusting relationships between board members and staff in
order to create an environment where constructive debate can happen (Bugg and Dalhof, 2006). These
are skills that often require support to build.
Capacity building needs for governance and structure identified in the literature cover a range of skills
including:
Identifying appropriate structures and governance models
Determining appropriate board or advisory committee structure
Recruiting, training and retaining qualified board or advisory committee members
Articulating board member roles and responsibilities
Creating productive board/advisory member – leadership staff relationships
Succession planning
11
Leadership development
Policy development
Strategic planning
Risk management
Transparency and accountability
(Hubbard, 2005; Bugg and Dalhoff, 2006; McAlpine and Temple, 2011; Claussen, 2011; Geo, 2015a; McWatt and Condren, 2016). Given the many different types of governance models available, and the wide range of skills involved in maintaining them, support with identifying the appropriate structure and implementing it effectively is required to help build organizational capacity.
2) Funding
Funding is an obvious key to the sustainability of organizations and is therefore an important capacity
building need. There are differences between the three groups in terms of their capacity to access
funding. People from less established groups often lack access to practical information that would
support them in identifying or applying for funding, and often lack the time and legal status required
as a result of not having dedicated staff to write grants (Barr et al., 2006; McWatt and Condren, 2016).
Groups that do not have registered charitable status are unable to apply for many funding opportunities
unless they apply through a charitable partner. Many emerging groups are unaware of their options in
connecting to trusteeships or partnerships to broaden access to funds, while others don’t have an
existing relationship with a charity (Barr et al., 2006; McWatt and Condren, 2016).
The literature identifies a variety of areas where capacity building is needed to improve access to
funding including:
● Basic information on granting
● Grant-writing
● Sponsorship/trusteeship
● Crowdfunding
● Event organizing
● Access to a database of funding opportunities
● Fund development (i.e. fundraising strategy and planning, skills and internal systems for
fundraising and other revenue-generating activities)
(GEO 2015a; McAlpine and Temple, 2011; Claussen, 2011).
Accessing and successfully navigating the granting system is a key concern for many organizations
and often a frustration for smaller groups, and therefore a high priority for capacity building.
12
3) Human Resources - Recruitment, Training, Management and Retention
More than half of Ontario’s non-profit organizations are run entirely by volunteers (Scott et. al., 2006).
Therefore, having a dedicated staff person to take on a human resources role is less likely among the
less established groups. Existing resources tend to focus on human resources in the context of a larger
organization that has paid dedicated staff (McWatt and Condren, 2016). However, many smaller
organizations require related skills in attracting and retaining volunteers in nonprofits that have little
or no staff capacity. Training and information in this area is harder to find. To begin to address this
gap, Volunteer Toronto has recently created training resources for volunteer-run groups.
Capacity building needs in HR and volunteer management identified in the literature include:
● Ability to recruit skilled volunteers
● Retention of volunteers
● General volunteer management or HR support
● Be able to better determine the skills of their volunteers and match them with appropriate
tasks, scheduling shifts
● Overburdened core volunteers
● Assigning the roles that are required of incorporated non- profits, such as having a treasurer
on the board of directors
● Transition and success planning
● Need for conflict resolution skills
● How to create job descriptions
● Performance evaluation
(McWatt and Condren, 2016; McAlpine and Temple, 2011; Claussen, 2011).
With limited access to revenues, many organizations depend heavily on volunteers and these skills are
critical to success.
4) Communication
There are a range of communication needs among groups and organizations. Among them are the
skills to facilitate effective meetings, conduct effective outreach to key audiences, navigate social
media and manage traditional media. Volunteer Toronto has recently created resources for volunteer-
run groups, however most existing resources are predominantly focused on the context of larger
organizations (McWatt and Condren, 2016).
Capacity building needs in communication identified in the literature include:
● Social media training
● Strong online presence to raise awareness and attract attention and resources to the
organization or issue
● Outreach strategies
13
● Marketing
● Media and external relations
● Advocacy, including how to talk to politicians and decision makers to gain government
support
● Facilitation (e.g. being able to run effective meetings)
(McWatt and Condren, 2016; GEO, 2015a; Claussen, 2011).
Groups and organizations need support to build both their internal and external communication
skills in order to run effectively, and to increase awareness and support for their cause.
5) Partnerships and Collaborations
Working with other groups and organizations can increase impact, however this requires knowledge,
skills and resources on creating effective relationships with partners and collaborators (GEO, 2013).
The benefits of working with others include increased access to resources and increased social capital,
which can support individuals, groups and organizations in creating systemic change (Sobeck, Agius
and Mayers, 2007). However, resident-led and emerging groups often lack the resources to help them
identify best practices in terms of forming, joining or maintaining partnerships and collaborations.
Capacity building needs in partnerships and collaborations that were identified in the literature
include:
● Identifying strategic alliances and potential partners/collaborators
● Articulating shared vision, goals and clear outcomes
● Creating written partnership/collaboration agreements including roles and responsibilities
● Decision-making, communication and conflict resolution skills
● Learning from peers through mentoring and networking
● Collaborating to reach common goals more effectively
● The importance of mutual trust
● Sharing resources
● Partnering with a larger organization to qualify for services unavailable to unincorporated
groups
● Accountability
(McWatt and Condren, 2016; GEO, 2013; GEO, 2015a; Krebs and Holley, 2006; McAlpine and
Temple, 2011).
Capacity building for partnerships and collaborations helps to develop the skills and mindset to create
and sustain strategic relationships with colleague organizations, stakeholders and decision-makers that
can help advance their mission.
14
6) Planning
One of the barriers to capacity building related to planning for resident-led or emerging groups can be
the high cost of training and consultants that can support coherent planning processes (McWatt and
Condren, 2016). Strategic planning is a complex task, and so it is often done with the support of
consultants who have those skills, but this is not a tool most small nonprofits can afford. Alternate
planning tools are needed by smaller nonprofits to enable them to plan effectively in the absence of
specialized planning expertise.
The literature identifies a variety of planning skills and tools needed by organizations, including:
● Articulating mission, values, goals, objectives
● Theories of change
● Strategic planning and development
● Organizational and group planning
● Program design
(McWatt and Condren, 2016; GEO, 2015a; McAlpine and Temple, 2011).
Since clear plans are often a requirement for funders, planning can be a significant issue for
organizations. However, there is no one-size-fits-all planning model so planning processes and tools
need to reflect the realities of the group applying them. Planning approaches should be appropriate to
the size and scale of the group or organization.
7) Program and Project Management
Learning how to effectively manage projects and programs is important for increasing an
organization’s impact. Staff and/or volunteers need to ensure that the expectations of the project are
realistic, to understand staff and/or volunteer roles and responsibilities, ensure that there are adequate
resources and realistic timeframes. Work plans that include resource allocation are often required by
funders, so the ability to articulate sound program management plans can have a significant impact on
sustainability.
Program and project management capacity building needs identified in the literature include:
● Creating and operationalizing work plans
● Articulating impacts and their relationship to program activities
● Creating critical paths and managing timelines
● General project management skills including prioritizing, scheduling, budgeting, grant
reporting
● Program delivery
● Using project management tools and software
(McWatt and Condren, 2016; GEO, 2015a).
15
Managing all of the tasks that are required to implement impactful programs requires a range of
organizational and communication skills that groups could benefit from learning through capacity
building activities.
8) Technology
Technology capacity building requires having both the resources to acquire the necessary technology,
as well as the skills to use it (TCC Group, 2010). Having skills in using technology can support an
organization’s effectiveness (Connolly and York, 2003 as cited in Robertson, 2005). Technology can
be used to keep track of project information and can also help to share knowledge as well as
participate in capacity building activities, for example online webinars.
The literature identifies some of the capacity building relating to the use of technology including:
• Database management
• Computer skills
• Using the internet and online tools
• Access to appropriate technology and equipment
(McWatt and Condren, 2016; GEO, 2015a; McAlpine and Temple, 2011).
Skills and knowledge in using technology can increase an organization’s efficacy and effectiveness
and is a priority for many of them.
9) Evaluation
Evaluation is an area of work for nonprofits that is often under-resourced and under-funded (GEO,
2015b). Grantees are often expected to evaluate their work and their impact, but are not always given
the guidance, tools or resources to do so. This is true for all types of organizations, however
established organizations are more likely to have the financial and human resources to engage in
evaluation (GEO, 2015b).
Evaluation capacity building provides learning opportunities for individuals, groups or organizations
to understand effective and meaningful evaluation methods that will support groups in collecting,
analyzing and interpreting data to inform programming, policies and processes. Successful evaluation
capacity building enables participants to embed evaluation activities into their everyday work by
providing leadership support, resources and opportunities to apply their learning (Preskill and Boyle,
2008). Groups and organizations need support in understanding different types of evaluations (e.g.
process and outcome evaluation) as well as the different approaches to evaluation (e.g. participatory,
developmental) and to help develop systems, processes, policies and plans to help track an
organization’s progress towards its goals (Preskill and Boyle, 2008).
16
The literature identifies several areas where capacity building is needed to support successful
evaluation including:
● Data collection approaches, methods and tools
● Understanding qualitative and quantitative data
● How to assess and interpret data
● How to communicate lessons learned and impact
● Collecting feedback from volunteers and other stakeholders
(McWatt and Condren, 2016; GEO, 2015a; GEO, 2015b; Claussen, 2011).
Evaluation can help groups and organizations understand what’s working and what isn’t in order to
improve programs. It also helps to identify the outcomes of their work in order to communicate their
impact to their funders, stakeholders and the communities they serve.
10) Financial Management
The financial capacity of an organization can have a significant impact on its ability to achieve its
goals (Claussen, 2012). Ensuring that people have the skills for financial management also
contributes to a group or organization’s sustainability and resilience (Bowman, 2011).
The literature identifies several areas where capacity building is needed to support successful financial
management by nonprofits, including:
● Financial planning
● Budgeting and managing expenses
● Basic bookkeeping
● Skills and systems for accounting
● Risk management
(GEO, 2015a; Claussen, 2011; Claussen, 2012; Bowman, 2011; McAlpine and Temple, 2011).
Sound organizational financial management is an expectation of most funders and consequently a key
skill in sustaining an organization.
11) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
In order to be responsive to the communities they serve, groups and organizations need to have the
skills and ability to create diverse, equitable and inclusive spaces, policies and practices (GEO,
2015a). Understanding and incorporating different perspectives related to race, sexual identity, social
class, religion, appearance, and abilities is crucial for ensuring that programs are delivered within an
anti-oppression framework. It is critical to understand the history, context, assumptions and behaviour
17
of communities to ensure that community members and residents feel included (St. Onge, Cole and
Petty, 2003).
The literature identifies a range of capacity building needs that support diversity, equity and inclusion,
including:
● Anti-oppression and accessibility training
● Policies to ensure equity and diversity in the organization
● Attention to equity and anti-oppression throughout the organization’s practices, programs and
work
● Being intentional about addressing diversity
● Learning how to be reflective of the community you serve
● Understanding the worth, dignity, and unique assets of members of the community
● Recognizing and honouring the existing culture(s) in a community
● Understanding the community’s history including its strengths and challenges
(St. Onge et al., 2003, GEO, 2015a).
Diversity, equity and inclusion should be fundamental values of any community-serving organization.
Knowing how to create safe, inclusive and equitable programs and policies is an important capacity
building need for all groups and organizations.
12) Accessing Space
Groups and organizations need safe, inclusive and appropriate spaces to work and hold meetings as
well as programming or events. Access to space to ensure that groups can carry out their work is an
important factor that contributes to their resilience and core capacity. Some resident-led and emerging
groups may not need space full time while established groups are more likely to. Renting space
requires financial resources that resident-led or emerging groups are less likely to have (McWatt and
Condren, 2016).
Resident-led and emerging groups are also less likely to have structures in place that are required to
book a space, for example insurance. Acquiring permits for some spaces can be a challenging task,
which also often require money. Some groups have been successful in accessing space through
connections; local politicians have been able to connect people to churches, community centres for
little to no cost (McWatt and Condren, 2016).
Types of capacity building
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (2005) points out that there are different types of capacity
18
building. Much of the capacity building work that takes place enhances the skills and knowledge of
individuals in organizations. However, the structure of organizations can be the area of capacity
building most needed by an organization, alternately the dynamics of a group may be the target of
change. These areas of capacity building are outlined further in the GEO framework included in
Appendix E.
Choice-making
The literature notes that the choice-making process may not be simple. While the literature is clear that
grantees should be at the centre of planning for their own capacity building, McWatt and Condren
(2016) note groups and organizations may not be able to accurately define their own exact capacity
building needs. Some programs provide detailed needs assessment tools designed to help
organizations identify capacity needs on a range of topics (GEO, 2015a). These tools can help
organizations identify capacity building priorities in order to determine the design of a capacity
building program that is most suitable for them (UNEP, 2006). GEO recommends a collaborative
approach to setting capacity building goals (2015b).
19
Principles of Effective Capacity Building
Even with the needs clearly identified and a commitment to provide programs to meet them, capacity
building for nonprofits can face a host of challenges. The lack of accessible opportunities to learn is a
critical concern for many groups. However, groups may also face a variety of other barriers to
participating in capacity building including training that isn’t relevant to the organization or isn’t
delivered in a way that meets the organization’s needs, capacity building that functions on one-time
basis where ongoing support is needed, and, of course, cost.
Groups may also struggle to identify their capacity building needs without information or tools to help
them do so. The key principles that underlie effective capacity building address these barriers.
The following seven principles were identified through the literature as key to effective capacity
building: 1) is based on the organization’s current circumstances, 2) is continuous, 3) uses multiple
methods, 4) is adequately funded, 5) is collective, 6) is evaluated and 7) is accessible. Underlying all
of these principles is critical component of trust between the grantee and the capacity building
provider. “The greater the trust, the better the principles will work” (Philbin and Linnell D, 2013, p.
2).
1) Effective Capacity Building is Based on the Current Circumstances of the Organization
The way in which an organization operates should inform the approach to building their capacity
(GEO, 2015a; Whittle, Colgan, and Rafferty, 2012; Andersson et al, 2015; Chandler and Scott
Kennedy, 2015; Philbin and Linnell D, 2013; McWatt and Condren, 2016). Sustaining change among
nonprofit organizations requires individualized, tailored support that meets the needs of each grantee
(Millesen and Bies, 2007). Key circumstances to take into account when developing capacity building
support include the organization’s size, status, age, readiness and stage of development. Failure to
consider the state of the organization (often referred to as “context” in the literature) has been
identified as contributing to why some capacity building initiatives may have had less impact (Whittle
et. al., 2012).
However, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, in their report Strengthening Nonprofit Capacity
(2015a) emphasize the importance of understanding the organization. “Consider what happens when
capacity-building support is not contextualized. When funders or technical assistance providers adopt
one-size-fits-all approaches to capacity building, participants may see it as a waste of time and not
applicable to their specific circumstances. This can subsequently reduce their appetite for or interest in
any kind of capacity building. If it is not going to support them as they continue to struggle with all the
challenges faced by their organizations, they may think, “What’s the use?”” (GEO, 2015a, p. 26)
Although capacity building support should be tailored to the needs of each organization, groups often
20
have similar needs and participating in group activities like workshops and trainings can be effective
(GEO, 2015a).
Capacity building granting programs need to be flexible enough for groups to self-identify the help
they need and how they want to receive it in order for support to happen in best way possible. This
means capacity building should be tailored to meet the needs of an organization in relation to: a) its
readiness, and b) relevance to the organization’s developmental stage.
a) Readiness
Groups must be ready and willing to participate in capacity building (Jacobs, 2001; Chandler and
Scott Kennedy, 2015; Andersson et al, 2015; GEO, 2015a; Whittle et. al., 2012; Pond, 2015).
Readiness can be assessed by asking groups to consider if they are open to change; can clearly
describe their mission; believe that capacity building will help them; and are prepared to commit their
time and resources (Jacobs, 2001).
An organization’s readiness can also be impacted by their financial stability. If groups or
organizations lack operating funding it can be challenging to prioritize capacity building (GEO
2015a). They may need to wait until they have secure funding to be able to participate in capacity
building. The effectiveness of capacity building support can be increased when it is also provided
with grant support to enable the necessary commitment of time (Connolly, 2007). This can include
funding for an organization’s core operations to create the space for capacity building to occur and be
implemented effectively.
b) Relevance to the Organization’s Developmental Stage
Given that effective capacity building depends on factors like size, stage of development, age etc.,
capacity building needs can vary for the different types of groups (resident-led, emerging and
established). Despite there being many resources on capacity building topics, there is little available
that is aimed at less established groups (McWatt and Condren, 2016). Less established groups may
benefit more from simple tools to help them do their work rather than intensive professional training
(McWatt and Condren, 2016).
2) Effective Capacity Building is Continuous
Capacity building takes time because people and systems evolve gradually (Robertson, 2005;
Connolly, 2007). It is rarely a one-time event, rather it is continuous and iterative to allow for time to
absorb, implement and learn from capacity building experiences (GEO, 2013; GEO, 2015a; Jacobs,
2001; Connolly, 2007; Chandler and Scott Kennedy, 2015; Whittle et. al., 2012). Long-term capacity
building has better impact including increased connections and trust, and stronger networks (GEO,
21
2015a; Connolly, 2007).
Sometimes capacity building takes time because it doesn’t happen as planned, particularly when it
comes to addressing complex social issues (GEO, 2015a; Whittle et. al., 2012).
Issues like leadership change or staff turnover (GEO, 2015a), unanticipated events, recruiting capacity
builders, getting stakeholders on board or changing capacity building needs can all impact the length
of time it takes to implement and learn from capacity building initiatives (Whittle et. al., 2012).
Sometimes nonprofit staff and leaders participate in capacity building and when they leave that
organization, the learnings go with them. It is therefore important that capacity building is provided
on a continual and sustained basis. Connolly (2007) suggests that an adequate time frame to provide
capacity building support is three to four years. Alston-O’Connor and Houwer (2016) report that it can
take close to five years.
3) Effective Capacity Building Uses Multiple Methods
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to capacity building. Instead there is a range of capacity building
methods available that can and should be used (Andersson et al, 2015; Jacobs, 2001; Whittle et. al.,
2012). Effective capacity building includes multiple elements such as convening, peer exchange,
training, coaching, and consulting (Connolly, 2007).
Using multiple methods ensures that different types of learners access the most effective type of
support to meet their needs. “Some learn by doing. Others learn by experimenting. Some people need
to talk. Others need to think things over. Some are more visual. Some are more verbal” (Jacobs, 2001,
p. 4). People often need hands-on experiences to turn knowledge into skills and abilities (UNEP,
2006).
4) Effective Capacity Building is Collective
Although capacity building activities aimed at improving individual’s skills and knowledge are
effective, collective activities can increase the impact of building capacity (Wei-Skillern, Silver and
Heitz, 2014; GEO, 2015a). Wei-Skillern et al., (2014) report that collective efforts can produce
“impact at a scale exponentially greater than the sum of their individual parts” (p. 24). Collective
capacity building can happen within organizations, for example with different levels of leadership (i.e.
executive director, board members, trustees); across funders; and between nonprofits and networks
(GEO, 2015a). Capacity building networks (discussed in the next section on capacity building
methods) appear to be an effective way of supporting organizations to work collectively.
5) Effective Capacity Building is Adequately Funded
Capacity building often takes a back seat over core and project funding (GEO, 2015a). As a result,
organizations often lack the financial resources to participate in capacity building. Funding for
22
capacity building needs to cover the staff time it takes to participate in an activity as well as the
process of sharing and implementing the learnings within the organization in order for them to be
embedded. GEO (2015a) reports that sometimes capacity building projects don’t work because of a
lack of funding to implement and also maintain the work.
6) Effective Capacity Building Includes Evaluation
There is a significant emphasis on evaluation in the literature on capacity building (see GEO, 2009;
Whittle and Rafferty, 2012; GEO, 2015a). Evaluating capacity building is not just about counting
outputs like the number and type of activities; it is a way of understanding what is working, what isn’t,
and why (Whittle et. al., 2012; GEO, 2009). Although it can be complex, it is worth the effort to
ensure that the capacity building initiatives are achieving their goals.
Just as capacity building takes time, evaluating capacity building also takes time. Funders need to be
realistic about when they are likely to see outcomes. “The majority of grants are still one-year terms.
Funders are unlikely to see major capacity transformations in a group or organization within a 12-
month period” (GEO, 2015a, p. 44).
The extent of the evaluation should reflect the scale of the capacity building activity. Small, short-
term capacity building activities may only require making sure that the activity has taken place. When
it comes to longer-term, significantly funded projects however, systematically assessing outcomes and
impact is important (GEO, 2015a).
Fortunately, there is enough in the literature about effectively evaluating capacity building programs
to help guide the development of an evaluation framework and measurement tools. Many funders
have made sure to document and assess their programs and there is a lot of information and guidance
available about how to effectively evaluate capacity building. Examples of how grant makers are
evaluating capacity building, as well as links to sample evaluation tools can be found in the last
section on evaluating capacity building.
However, in order for an evaluation to be meaningful and useful for both the organization and the
funder, evaluation tools and processes should be customized depending on each grantee’s needs
(Linnell, 2003 as cited in Robertson, 2005). There are many existing tools that can be adapted in
collaboration between the funder and the grantee.
7) Effective Capacity Building is Accessible
a) Accessible Designs Are Needed
Accessibility of capacity building relates to the language used, timing, location, physical and
intellectual accessibility and cost.
23
Available resources are sometimes written in an academic, technical or legal language and are not
easy to understand and are often not even available to people outside of the particular field (e.g. non-
academics) (McWatt and Condren, 2016).
Sometimes capacity building opportunities are provided at times or locations that are not accessible
for non-profit staff or volunteers. Many people are supporting groups or organizations on their own
time (McWatt and Condren, 2016). Consequently, resources need to be available that can be accessed
at times from any locations that accommodate those constraints. Technology can be used to provide
accessible training for example like online webinars where people can participate from their offices or
can access at another time. Groups need information, but also the tools and guidance to help them
navigate and apply the information to their particular situation (McWatt and Condren, 2016).
Cost is often a barrier, particularly for less formal groups. Resources that are free are crucial (McWatt
and Condren, 2016).
Accessibility also includes addressing disabilities such as using clear language for people labeled with
intellectual disabilities, using wheelchair accessible spaces, ensuring proper seating and room set-up
for people with chronic pain, accommodating needs for scent-free spaces, ASL, live scribing and
incorporating universal design principles.
b) Equity and Anti-Oppression Approaches Are Needed
No matter what approach is taken, all capacity building should be provided with an anti-oppression
lens, including accessibility and equity. Anti-oppressive practices create safe spaces where everyone
feels welcome and helps to build trust.
Anti-oppression is about ending the mistreatment and oppression of people based on their race, sexual
identity, social class, religion, appearance, abilities etc. and refers to the activities, practices, policies,
ways of thinking, and initiatives that address the different types of oppression (Ontario Council of
Agencies Serving Immigrants, 2011). Inclusive processes must be in place to allow recipients to play
an active role in the identification, development and implementation of the capacity building supports
they need.
To ensure equitable and anti-oppressive capacity building practices, it is important to pay attention to
the values and approaches that are utilized. This includes being intentional on how they are delivered
and by whom. Capacity builders need to be technically and culturally appropriate to the specific
community, in terms of background and experience.
Creating an anti-oppressive approach to capacity building also requires reviewing the history and
cultural elements of the community prior to beginning a project; listening to the authentic voices of
clients, peers and partners in the field; helping individuals, organizations and communities to identify
and/or articulate their own cultural context; paying attention to assumptions, acknowledging that we
have a cultural lens through which we engage the world; and ensuring that the language and process of
24
the intervention (strategic plan, program evaluation, etc.) are not oppressive.
The literature identifies four principles for culturally-based capacity building:
1) Listen and learn: Listen to, learn about, and build trust with each community that you serve. Work with individuals and teams who understand culturally-based capacity building.
2) Co-design the change strategy: Take into consideration local conditions, cultural context,
resources available, languages spoken, and leadership assets. Adapt methods based on community
input and have capacity builders working as peers rather than as experts.
3) Facilitate action and learning: Capacity builders should be active participants in the learning and
doing process, from conducting community-driven research and developing action plans to
connecting organizations and/or communities through peer learning activities. Share learnings and
best practices.
4) Build capacity for social change: Bring together the diverse voices of a community to develop a
common agenda for social change through concrete community engagement, organizational
development, and relationship building. Create results-oriented plans that will help to build
sustainable organizations (Omowale Satterwhite and Shiree Teng, 2007).
Capacity Building Methods
Once a group has established their capacity building needs, they need to determine how they would
like to receive the support. There are a range of effective capacity building methods including 1)
networks 2) workshops / training, 3) mentorship / coaching, and 4) information and resources.
Examples of how these methods are being used in capacity building initiatives can be found in the
next section and in Appendix A.
Whatever methods are chosen, it is important that the key principles underlie how the capacity
building is provided. This includes the need for a trusting relationship between the person(s) doing the
capacity building and the staff/volunteers of the organization (Philbin and Linnell, 2013). Trusting
relationships enable grantees to feel comfortable discussing and working through their challenges.
1) One-on-one Support
Many groups and organizations learn from one-on-one supports including mentoring or coaching. This
role requires expertise and is often delivered by providers who have direct experience in the field or
have been through the same or similar situations that they are experiencing. Mentors or coaches can
25
provide new ideas and perspectives and help grantees process and learn to apply new information
(Connolly, 2007). Effective relationships rely on having a trust between the provider and the
participant. In some cases, individuals or organizations may already know a support provider they
would like to work with (Connolly, 2007).
2) Workshops / Training
Training and educational opportunities range from one-time workshops to regularly
scheduled webinars to year-long institutional courses (Connolly, 2007). Workshops and
trainings are a popular capacity building activity. Online workshops and trainings can
increase accessibility by allowing people to participate from anywhere and can also be
saved and accessed at any time. The acquisition of skills and knowledge through training
can contribute to creating a learning culture in a group or organization.
Best practices in implementing workshops and training include having a clear agenda and
set of goals, as well as using exercises, case studies, and other tools to create an
interactive format (Connolly, 2007; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
2006). Additionally, training activities like workshops are more effective when they are
embedded in long-term programs rather than one-off events, as well as when they use
other capacity building approaches in parallel (UNEP, 2006).
3) Networks
In line with the principle of providing capacity building that is collective, networks have emerged as
an effective way of learning (GEO, 2015a; Chandler and Scott Kennedy, 2015; McWatt and Condren,
2016; Philbin and Linnell, 2013). Networks, sometimes referred to as peer exchanges, are a
community-based approach to capacity building that involve groups of nonprofits coming together to
exchange information, share resources and work together towards a common goal. This concept of
peer-to-peer learning is regarded as an effective approach (Pond, 2015). Networks address some of
the barriers to nonprofit work including that leaders often work in silos and in competition with other
organizations (Chandler and Scott Kennedy, 2015). Some networks remain informal while others
develop into communities of practice. The literature consistently suggests that networks enable
organization staff and volunteers to be more effective than working in isolation (Chandler and Scott
Kennedy, 2015; Philbin and Linnell D, 2013; Whittle et. al., 2012; Krebs and Holley, 2006; Pond,
2015).
Strong relationships are key to effective networks. Mutual trust between the members of a network
26
provides the foundation for building positive relationships that will increase the success of the
collaboration. For this reason, funder-driven networks are often less successful than those that
develop organically (Wei-Skillern, Silver and Heitz, 2014).
In addition to supporting new networks where there are gaps, resources should also be put towards
strengthening existing networks that may not currently have resources to support their work (Wei-
Skillern, Silver and Heitz, 2014). The benefit of existing networks is that organizations wanting to
build their capacity and join a network can do so at any time.
Chandler and Scott Kennedy (2015) describe an example of one of the potential benefits of networks:
“Imagine your nonprofit is rapidly adding new staff members and desperately needs to move into a
larger space – something you lack the resources to do. Through participation in a network you are
connected with several other organizations that face similar challenges. After several discussions, you
decide to co-locate all of your organizations in one new office. What was once an unachievable
capacity goal became possible because of the information you learned and relationships forged as a
result of your participation in a network” (p. 5).
Convening, for example through conferences, could be considered another example of networks.
Connolly (2007) reports that the impact of an initiative can be increased by convening groups and
organizations. “Conferences can be used to develop a learning community through customized
trainings and clinics, peer exchange, and informal networking. These forums can also facilitate
discussions about issues in the field or community, as well as joint actions related to funding, policy
advocacy, and programs” (Connolly, 2007, p. 19)
4) Information and Resources
There are many print and online publications that provide information on a range of
capacity building topics (Connolly, 2007). One example is toolkits that often provide not
only information but also tools to help people work through the learning. Although
resources, such as policy manual templates, board self-assessment tools, and budget
templates, can be helpful to gain some knowledge, it is often helpful to have support to
address organizational challenges and the opportunity to learn through applying the
information (Connolly, 2007).
27
Funding and Supporting Capacity Building There is a lot of information available about how to effectively support capacity building. In addition
to applying the key principles, this section describes how to fund and support effective capacity
building programs including determining who should deliver capacity building; collaborating with
other funders; options for supporting capacity building; levels of funding and evaluating capacity
building. A tool to guide decisions and options for creating a capacity building program can be found
in Appendix B.
Who Should Deliver Capacity Building?
In line with the principles of context and employing multiple methods, there will be several people
involved in delivering capacity building.
Intermediaries
Intermediaries are organizations, separate from the funder and the organization receiving the capacity
building, that support and organization in its capacity building efforts. Because the funder-grantee
relationship involves a power differential, that relationship can limit a grantee’s openness to
discussing their challenges. Intermediaries can reduce that barrier as a third party and are often a key
component of delivering effective capacity building. (Connolly, 2007).
Capacity building needs to be done with grantees rather than to them. Capacity builders should
function as facilitators and co-creators with the community rather than as ‘experts’ imposing their
perspectives or approaches. Capacity building should result in knowledge transfer about the lessons
learned that are documented and synthesized and shared with the community as the owners of the
information. The lessons should be incorporated into capacity builders’ institutional practices so that
they continue to grow. The capacity building process should begin with dialogue between the grantee
and the capacity builder to determine the best approach (GEO, 2015a).
The literature suggests that capacity building is more likely to be effective if it is not directly provided
by the funder. Trusting relationships are key to successful capacity building (Philbin and Linnell D,
2013) and the power imbalance can make it difficult for a grantee to be open about their challenges
with a funder (GEO, 2014a; Connolly, 2007). “Nonprofits are accustomed to trumpeting their
achievements and successes in their communications and relationships with funders, but capacity
building turns these conversations to vulnerabilities and areas of weakness” (GEO, 2015a, p. 10).
Additionally, funders may not have staff who have the knowledge or training to deliver capacity
building, so hiring external expertise is often necessary (GEO, 2015a). Some funders find that hiring
external support can decrease the power differential and increase trust. “Using an outside intermediary
may be appropriate where there is scarce funder time, in-house competencies in organization
development, or a wish for greater distance and objectivity” (Whittle et. al., 2013, p. 35).
28
Organizations and Networks
There are a range of organizations and networks that provide capacity building. In Toronto,
organizations like the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI), Alternative
Planning Groups, Civic Action Network, and Ontario Nonprofit Network provide support to their
members. These organizations are sometimes referred to as Management Support Organizations
(MSOs). These can also provide arms-length access to support in a context that is trusted and
collegial.
Service Providers
Service providers are a part of many capacity building initiatives (Whittle et al., 2012). Service
providers can be individual professionals, experts in a particular field or organizations that provide
assistance and support (including nonprofits and agencies that provide services free of charge, for
example the Management Advisory Service or Volunteer Lawyer’s Association in Toronto).
As always, the option to use a service providers depends on each grantee, and an effective consultant-
grantee experience depends on mutual trust and building good relationships. Grantees should not be
required to work with a particular service provider, nor should they be pressed to accept one. It is
preferable to find a provider familiar to the grantee that can build the needed relationship of trust.
(GEO, 2015a).
Advantages of service providers include that they are easily accessible, can be mobilized quickly, and
can provide dedicated and targeted support. Disadvantages may be that it can be difficult to determine
the quality of a service provider’s expertise or ability to work with a certain group (Whittle et. al.,
2012).
A key component of delivering effective capacity building is the competence of the provider.
Competence refers to the level of skill and knowledge of the provider, as well as being able to work
within an equitable and anti-oppressive framework including an understanding of contextual issues
like culture. (Cummins & Worley, 2001; Whittle et. al., 2012)
Collaboration Among Funders
Collaboration between funders that are supporting capacity building has also been identified as an
effective way of providing support. Coordinating capacity building support amongst funders can
prevent duplication, address gaps, increase the amount of resources available and make it easier for
potential grantees to navigate and access capacity building (GEO, 2015a). For example, The Pierce
Family Foundation’s Peer Skill Share program covers topics including social media, volunteer
retention, fundraising strategies and board transitions. Grantees are paired with nonprofit
professionals to provide one-on-one support. Originally exclusively for the Foundation’s grantees, the
program attracted the attention of other foundations and eventually became a collaborative of 15
funders (GEO, 2014a).
29
In Washington, the Statewide Capacity Collaborative was formed to address the issue of a lack of
systemic approaches to capacity building. The collaborative has since created an online directory of
vetted consultants and resources related to capacity building; targeted funding to rural areas; and an
organization that gives a voice for nonprofits through advocacy, education, capacity building and
networking (GEO, 2014a). “We understand the power of working as a group, and no one funder can
drive or invest in this alone” (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, 2015a, p. 34).
30
Models for Providing Capacity Building Support Grantmakers for Effective Organizations identifies five main funding and support options for
providing capacity building listed below. (Please see Appendix C for a breakdown of the benefits,
limitations and examples of each.)
1) Unrestricted Support
Unrestricted support includes multi-year, general operating grants.
2) Organizational Capacity Building Grants
Capacity building grants provide support related to specific needs like leadership, fundraising,
communication, collaboration, evaluation. These grants can be paired with program grants or general
operating grants.
3) Organizational Capacity Building Grants Plus Technical Assistance
Funders can provide grant support as well as technical assistance from consultants or other capacity
building providers. This can include technical assistance programs, training, organizational
assessments, peer learning groups or consulting engagements.
4) Efforts to Build Capacity Collectively
Collective grants and/or support can be given to groups to build the capacity of a field, group of
grantees, networks or other collaborations.
5) Grants to Technical Service Providers, Intermediaries or Researchers
Funders can also support capacity-building providers to build their capacity or to develop knowledge
to help guide practice in the field. (GEO, 2015a, pp. 21-22)
How Are Other Funders Supporting Capacity Building?
In order to help guide the work of developing a capacity building program in Toronto, below are some
examples from the literature of how funders are supporting capacity building.
Cedarmere Foundation
Groups can access capacity-building grants ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 to work with consultants
and facilitators. Grantees have used the funding to access executive coaching, board training, strategic
planning support and fundraising training. In order to address an identified issue of recruiting and
sustaining board members, one group used the funding to create a comprehensive and customized
board training program to help members understand their roles. Two year later the organization
reported a significant success: they had 100% of board members extend their terms (GEO, 2014a).
31
Greater New Orleans Foundation
In providing and gathering feedback about its capacity building support, the foundation learned that
grantees felt that while peer networking was important, they needed to learn how to do it well. As a
result, the foundation offered a webinar, sponsored a workshop, and hosted a six-month community of
practice in strategic partnering and collaboration. The foundation recognized the expertise of
consultants in supporting the network and invited five consultants to participate in, and work with, a
community of practice (GEO, 2014a).
The Pfizer Foundation
Grantees can access funding ranging from $20,000 to $55,000. The foundation also paid pre-qualified
consultants to provide capacity building, with costs ranging from $1,200 to $29,000 per grantee (GEO,
2014a).
The James Irvine Foundation
The foundation provided three to four-year grants of $200,000 to $400,000 to 12 arts organizations to
cover capacity building, program, and general operating costs (GEO, 2014a).
ArtReach Funders' Collaborative
The ArtReach Funders’ Collaborative in Toronto is a capacity building and funding program designed
by an 11-member funders' collaborative made up of all three levels of government, foundations, social
agency funders and arts councils. Multi-year grants were provided for youth arts projects ranging from
$10,000 to $25,000. Technical supports (e.g. orientation sessions, grant writing workshops) were
provided to applicants arms-length through the program, which evolved to include successful capacity
building supports for grantees through one-on-one mentorship by the program manager, and a capacity
building workshop series entitled Grassroots Organization and Leadership (GOAL). Workshops were
provided in-person and online, coupled with the distribution of toolkits (paper and film-based) made
available online (Cawley, Freeman and Ilkiw, 2010).
Metcalf Foundation - Toronto Sector Skills Academy
The Toronto Sector Skills Academy was created to build leaders’ capacity to grow, strengthen and
sustain sector strategies. The curriculum was developed and tested by the Aspen Institute’s National
Sector Skills Academy and includes three retreats and three workshops. Participants learn about
individual leadership and strengthening partnerships through experiential learning (e.g. exercises and
tools), working with peers from different organizations as well as experts to learn how to implement
and sustain a strategy (Metcalf Foundation, 2017).
Funding Levels Levels of funding reflect the funder’s budget, what they are prepared to fund, the desired impact and
number of participants they hope to fund. Cost will depend on the duration of the funding, types of
32
activities provided, the type and size of group, amount of support for each group and their level of
experience in participating in capacity building.
Costs for capacity building investments will include planning and managing the initiative and
supporting the capacity building activities in addition to the grants provided (Connolly, 2007). Costs
also include evaluation, which is typically 5-10% of the total initiative (Connolly, 2007).
Funders note that it is important to consider an organization’s ‘absorptive capacity’, in other words
how much capacity building they can absorb given their job/volunteer role and other commitments.
The Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund found that although they had awarded $100,000 per year,
grantees only spent approximately half that amount. The researchers suggest that nonprofit leaders
and staff or volunteers can only dedicate a certain amount of time to capacity building in addition to
fulfilling their roles. They conclude that this doesn’t mean that less should be invested since capacity
building continues to be underfunded, but rather that considering the current state and capacity of the
organization can help determine their readiness and the volume and pace of investment for maximum
impact (GEO, 2015a).
In reviewing other funders’ capacity building programs, $5,000 is the minimum financial support that
has been provided and many grants have been made available for tens to hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Again, the context of the organization and their capacity building needs should be taken into
account when determining levels of funding. Groups that currently have limited access to appropriate
supports may need even more financial support than those that are more established. Financial support
should fully cover the time required to prepare for, participate in, reflect on and share the learnings,
and put them in practice. See Appendix A for examples of budgets for capacity building programs,
factors that influenced the cost and how the money was spent (Connolly, 2006).
33
Evaluating Capacity Building Evaluation provides an opportunity to learn about grantees’ experiences and learnings from capacity
building and to assess how to improve the activities. The first step in evaluation is to clearly articulate
the goals of the program. With capacity building, the overall goal is to increase people’s skills,
knowledge, networks and resources to ultimately increase the effectiveness of an organization.
The specific goals for each grantee should be determined collaboratively, in order for the evaluation to
be meaningful and useful. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (2015b) suggest starting with the
following questions: 1) What capacity improvements does the nonprofit hope to see as a result of this
funding? 2) What organizational outcomes will this contribute to? (GEO, 2015a, p. 43)
Light and Hubbard (2006) outline three levels of assessment when it comes to evaluating capacity
building: 1) Grant outputs – what activities were conducted as a result of the grant? 2) Organizational
outcomes – did the capacity building activity improve the performance or functioning of the group or
organization? 3) Mission impact – how did the capacity building help to move closer to the group or
organization’s goals?
GEO (2014b) recommend considering three key factors when it comes to implementing self-
assessments: 1) ensure buy-in from grantees; 2) get a comprehensive view of all of the capacities that
the grant aims to address; and 3) ensure that there is clarity in relation to use, ownership and
confidentiality of the information gathered.
How Do You Evaluate Capacity Building?
Once the grantees’ goals have been determined, groups can identify appropriate evaluation questions.
Danielle Scaturro, director of program operations for PropelNext, reports that “To us, progress is
asking, is the group learning, and are the supports we’re providing helping organizations really
institutionalize the changes they’re making?” (GEO, 2015a, p. 43). The foundation uses three
questions to help assess their work:
How are grantees progressing through the program? What facilitates or supports grantees’ progress in the program? What hinders grantees’ progress?
How and to what extent are grantees infusing learnings and practices into their organizations?
It is important to “make evaluation a two-way street” (GEO, 2015a. P. 47). Grantmakers benefit from
using evaluation to improve their efforts by asking grantees key questions that help grant makers
assess their strategic approach:
What is working well with this grant? What’s not working? What can we do better?
What difference is this support making to your organization?
What unexpected challenges are you facing?
In what ways are you learning from this work?
How could we, as your funder, provide better support?
34
This type of evaluation supports a developmental evaluation model, which ask evaluative questions to
support ongoing development of the program, staff and organization. The process gathers feedback
and identifies learnings in order to inform improvement, adaptation and intentional change (Quinn
Patton, 2006).
Who Should Evaluate Capacity Building?
Evaluation can be done by both internal staff and external evaluators. Grantmakers for Effective
Organizations report that “Having an external evaluator lends a level of credibility that ensures they
are looking at outcomes from multiple perspectives. At the same time, the foundation has come to
realize that these formal assessment processes aren’t a substitute for sitting down with grantees and
engaging in an open conversation about how things are going and what grantees have been able to
achieve“ (GEO, 2015a, p. 41).
Evaluation Tools / Measures Evaluation should include both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess change and also
provide context to understand grantees’ experiences. GEO suggests identifying existing tools that can
be used or adapted in collaboration between the grantee and the funder (GEO, 2015a). It is important
that the evaluation measures are useful for both parties and are not so cumbersome that they
overburden grantees. Context is important when it comes to evaluation; tools need to reflect the needs
and circumstances of each organization including its size, developmental stage and funding model
(GEO, 2014b). The literature reveals three key tools for evaluating capacity building: 1)
organizational assessments; 2) intermediary or mentor reports and 3) conversations with grantees.
1) Organizational / Needs Assessment
Several funders are using tools that are designed to assess an organization’s level of capacity and to
identify capacity needs on a range of topics which can be re-assessed at the end of the grant to
measure change (GEO, 2015a). They should be used to identify strengths and weaknesses rather than
to determine pass or fail. The assessment tools can be used to identify the priorities for groups and
organizations in order to determine the design of a capacity building program that is most suitable for
them (UNEP, 2006). Examples of organizational/needs assessment tools include:
OCASI OrgWise
www.orgwise.ca
OrgWise provides a tool for assessing an organization’s community based approach, governance
and leadership, operations and human resources. The tool was specifically developed to meet the
needs of immigrant and refugee-serving organizations.
35
Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/ocat/
The Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) can help Boards, leadership and staff to
assess their operational capacity and identify their strengths and areas for improvement. It is an
online tool that is available free of charge.
Checklist of Nonprofit Organizational Indicators
http://managementhelp.org/organizationalperformance/nonprofits/index.htm
The Checklist of Nonprofit Organizational Indicators is a tool that can be used internally to help
organizations identify their strengths and weaknesses and to get a better understanding of their
needs in order to make improvements. It was created by staff and volunteers of the United Way
of Minneapolis Area. It can be completed online, and is free of charge.
More examples of assessment tools can be found in Appendix D
2) Intermediary/Mentor Reports
The people who are working with grantees to provide capacity building can also be a source of
information about how the group is progressing (GEO, 2009). These reports can take the format of a
semi-structured interview administered at different points of the capacity building activity, to identify
successes and challenges of the program.
3) Conversations with Grantees
Many funders are using conversations or check-ins with grantees as a qualitative way of learning
about their experiences and identifying areas for improvement. Funders report sitting down with
grantees to ask them what’s working, what isn’t, and what they do or don’t like about the type of
support they are receiving. “These conversations, paired with the quantitative and qualitative
evaluation findings from the external evaluation, have resulted in important changes in the
foundation’s capacity-building support” (GEO, 2015a, p. 41).
36
How Are Funders Evaluating Capacity Building? The following examples from Grantmakers for Effective Organizations’ report
Evaluation in Philanthropy (2009) show how funders are evaluating capacity building.
Counterpart International
Counterpart International pairs funding for capacity building with program funding. They work with
grantees to conduct a capacity assessment and a capacity-building action plan that connects nonprofit
capacity needs to the programmatic outcomes.
The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
Grantees can access funding and peer learning, coaching and technical assistance from consultants.
The PropelNext capacity building initiative works with a cohort of youth-serving nonprofits over three
years to help build capacity in relation to program design and implementation, developing a theory of
change, and collecting and using data to improve programs. Evaluation activities include an
organizational assessment tool to assess each grantee’s overall capacity. Based on those results of the
assessment, grantees agree to the programmatic milestones they hope to achieve.
Weingart Foundation
The foundation provides unrestricted funding that most grantees use for capacity building.
The foundation developed a learning and assessment framework that includes gathering information
about specific areas of organizational effectiveness at the time the grantee applies, at the beginning of
the grant, a survey completed by grantees at the end of the grant (rather than a final report) and a
conversation with a program officer to inform an assessment at the end of the funding.
The Cricket Island Foundation
The Cricket Island Foundation provides small grants for a range of topics including board
development and fundraising. Working with an outside evaluator, the foundation used a range of data
sources. The foundation created an organizational capacity assessment survey that is completed by
staff, board members and youth representatives of the organizations. The tool can be used before and
after the capacity building activities to assess changes. Consultant reports are also used to describe
grantees’ progress in building capacity. Consultants rank organizational capacity on different
dimensions using a three-point scale: low, medium and high. Grantees also participate in focus groups
with an evaluator to discuss how the support has impacted their capacity.
The Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts
The foundation designed the Results-Oriented Grantmaking and Grant Implementation system. The
system engages grantees, foundation staff and external evaluators in grant program planning,
monitoring and documenting outcomes. External evaluators developed 10 “accountability questions”
based on the organization’s capacity building plan that allow grantees to monitor implementation and
make adjustments as needed.
37
St David’s Foundation
The foundation employs an external evaluator to administer quantitative and qualitative measures. As
part of the qualitative assessment “We ask them what’s working and what isn’t, what do you like
about the support we are providing, and what don’t you like” (GEO, 2015, p. 41). Grantees
consistently reported that they found one-on-one coaching to be the most effective so the foundation
provided more support for that particular method. Grantees also reported connecting with peers was an
effective way of reducing silos.
Many funders are using self-assessment tools that can be used at the beginning and end of a project to
measure change in an individual or organization’s capacity. Qualitative tools are also used by most
funders to help provide context for groups’ learnings. These interviews and/or conversations can be
administered by funders themselves (although there are limitations to this) or external people who are
working with grantees.
Share the Results
There is much to be learned from grantees’ and grant makers’ experiences of capacity building, so it
is important that key learnings are shared (Whittle et. al., 2012; Pond, 2015). The information that
can be gathered about what works and what doesn’t is critical information for the sector. Creating
clear, concise and engaging knowledge mobilization documents will help grantees, funders and
capacity builders learn from others’ experiences.
38
IV. CONCLUSION
Capacity building is critical to the success of nonprofits of all kinds, however, the type and current
state of any nonprofit plays a key role in defining what capacity building is appropriate for it, which
makes the provision of capacity building programs context specific and unavoidably diverse.
There are a wide range of capacity building needs as well. The literature shows needs in a dozen
distinct areas of learning. That range of needs is expanded by the range of delivery methods. The
literature indicates that one-on-one supports, group settings like workshops, peer learning
environments like networks all offer options that are appropriate to different organizations depending
on their context. The choices of program or methods may also require support as small or emerging
organizations gain awareness of the option available and their impacts.
The literature confirms that capacity building works best when it follows established principles for
learning. Capacity building must be responsive to the current condition of the organizations, sustained
and adequate to allow the time and resources needed for change to take root, accessible and equitable,
and well evaluated.
The literature is consistent in stressing that capacity building should not be delivered directly by
funders but provided by intermediaries, whose arms-length status helps insulate the process from the
power dynamics that complicate funder-grantee relationships.
Funders should play an active role in building collaborative granting contexts, that bring funders
together to coordinate activities in ways that make the total granting activity greater than the sum of its
parts.
These considerations provide some clear guides to the creation of a capacity building fund, but those
considerations point unequivocally toward a more complex, multi-faceted model, rather than a simple,
traditional granting program.
V. REFERENCES Alston-O’Connor, E. & Houwer, R. (2016). Growing the Grassroots: Strategies for Building the
Organizational Capacity of Youth-led Organizations and Initiatives. Youth Research and
Evaluation eXchange (YouthREX). Toronto, ON.
Andersson, O., Faulk, L., and Stewart, A. (2015). Toward More Targeted Capacity Building:
Diagnosing Capacity Needs Across Organizational Life Stages. International Society for Third-
Sector Research. 27: 2860-2888.
39
Barr, C., Brock, K., Brownlee, B., Frankel, S., Hall, M., Murray, V., Nicol, R., Roach, R., Rowe, P.,
and Scott, K. (2006). Strengthening the Capacity of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations to
Serve Canadians. Imagine Canada.
Bowman, W. (2011). Financial capacity and sustainability of ordinary non‐profits. Non‐ profit
Management & Leadership, 22(1), 37‐51.
Bugg, G. and Dalhoff, S. (2006). National Study of Board Governance Practices in the Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector in Canada.
Cave, J. (2016). A Shifting Sector: Emerging Trends for Canada’s Nonprofits in 2016. The
Philanthropist. Retrieved from http://thephilanthropist.ca/2016/01/a-shifting-sector-emerging-
trends-for-canadas-nonprofits-in-2016/
Cawley, J., Freeman, A., and Ilkiw, V. (2010). How Funders are Supporting Social Innovation: Three
Examples From the Youth Sector. The Philanthropist, 23(3), pp. 319-325.
Chandler, J., and Scott Kennedy, K. (2015). A Network Approach to Capacity Building. Council of
Nonprofits.
Claussen, C. (2011). Capacity Building for Organizational Effectiveness. Literature Review: The
Journey of High Performance. United Way of Calgary and Area.
Claussen, C. (2012). Capacity Building for Financial Management: A Literature Review. United
Way of Calgary.
Connolly, P. (2007). Deeper Capacity Building for Greater Impact: Designing a Long-term Initiative
to Strengthen a Set of Nonprofit Organizations. TCC Group. Accessed from
http://www.tccgrp.com/pdfs/index.php?pub=per_brief_ltcb.pdf
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2005) Investing in Leadership, Volume 1. A Grantmaker’s
Framework for Understanding Nonprofit Leadership Development.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2009). Evaluation in Philanthropy. Council on
Foundations.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2013). Working Better Together: Building Nonprofit
Collaborative Capacity.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2014a). Who is Successfully Building Nonprofit Capacity?
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2014b). What Are the Key Things We Need to Know
About Organizational Assessments? Accessed from
http://docs.geofunders.org/?filename=organizational_assessments.pdf.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2015a). Strengthening Nonprofit Capacity: Core
Concepts in Capacity Building.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2015b). How Can We Help Our Grantees Strengthen
Their Capacity for Evaluation?
Hubbard, B. (2005). Investing in Leadership. Volume 1: A Grantmakers Framework for
Understanding Nonprofit Leadership Development. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.
40
Krebs, V., and Holley, J. (2006). Building Smart Communities Through Network Weaving.
Appalachian Center for Economic Networks.
Light, P., and Hubbard, E. (2006). The Capacity Building Challenge. Part 1: A Research
Perspective. The Foundation Center.
McAlpine, J., and Temple, J. (2011). Capacity Building: Investing in Nonprofit Effectiveness.
PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada Foundation.
McWatt, C., and Condren, M. (2016). From the Bottom Up: A Growth Strategy for Grassroots
Groups in Ontario. Volunteer Toronto.
Metcalf Foundation. (2017). Toronto Sector Skills Academy. Retrieved from
http://metcalffoundation.com/our-programs/program-area/inclusive-local-economies/
Millesen, J. L., & Bies, L. (2007). Nonprofit capacity building: Who is doing what for whom and to
what end? Journal for Nonprofit Management,11(1), 18-27.
Gloger, A., and Fitzsimmons, J. (n.d). Neighbourhood Trust.
Jacobs, B. (2001). Echoes From the Field: Proven Capacity Building Principles for Nonprofits. The
Environmental Support Center and Innovation Network, Inc.
Omowale Satterwhite, F., and Shiree Teng, M. (2007). Culturally-Based Capacity Building. An
Approach to Working in Communities of Color for Social Change. National Community
Development Institute
Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. (2011). Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression.
Retrieved from http://www.orgwise.ca/make-your-organization-more-accessible-and-inclusive
Pond, A. (2015). Supporting Grantee Capacity: Strengthening Effectiveness Together. Grantcraft.
Philbin, A., and Linnell, D. (2013). Funding Learning Networks for Community Impact: Lessons
from the Capacity Building Fund. Third Sector New England.
Quinn Patton, M. (2006). Evaluation for the Way We Work. Developmental Evaluation. The
Nonprofit Quarterly.
Preskill, H., and Boyle, S. (2008). A Multidisciplinary Model of Evaluation Capacity Building.
American Journal of Evaluation. 29 (4), pp. 443-459.
Robertson, T. (2005). Building Capacity, Granting for Impact: A Research Report. Ontario Trillium
Foundation.
Scott, K., Tsoukalas, S., Roberts, P. & Lasby, D. (2006). The Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector in
Ontario: Report Highlights of the National Survey of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations.
Sobeck, J., Agius, E., & Mayers, V. N. (2007). Supporting and sustaining grassroots youth
organizations: the case of New Detroit. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(1), 17-33.
St. Onge, P., Cole, B., and Petty, S. (2003). Through the Lens of Culture: Building Capacity for
Social Change and Sustainable Communities. Oakland, Canada: National Community
Development Institute.
41
TCC Group. (2010). Fortifying L.A.’s Nonprofit Organizations: Capacity Building Needs and Services
in Los Angeles County. The Weingart Foundation; Los Angeles, CA.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2006). Ways to Increase the Effectiveness of Capacity
Building for Sustainable Development.
Wei-Skillern, J., Silver, N., and Heights, E. (2014). Cracking the Network Code: Four Principles for
Grantmakers. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.
Whittle S., Colgan A. and Rafferty M. (2012). Capacity Building: What the Literature Tells us.
Dublin: The Centre for Effective Services.
42
VI. APPENDICES
Appendix A
Examples of Capacity Building Initiatives
Source: Source: Connolly, P. (2007). Deeper Capacity Building for Greater Impact: Designing a
Long-term Initiative to Strengthen a Set of Nonprofit Organizations. TCC Group. Pp. 12-13.
43
Appendix B
Source: Connolly, P. (2007). Deeper Capacity Building for Greater Impact: Designing a Long-term
Initiative to Strengthen a Set of Nonprofit Organizations. TCC Group. P. 6
44
Appendix C
Options for Providing Capacity Building Support
Source: Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2015a). Strengthening Nonprofit
Capacity: Core Concepts in Capacity Building. Pp. 21-22.
45
Appendix D
Sample Assessment Tools
OCASI OrgWise Organizational Self-assessment
http://www.orgwise.ca/learn-more
Core Capacity Assessment Tool
Available for purchase at http://www.tccccat.com/about-the-ccat
Weingart Foundation Grantee Survey
http://www.weingartfnd.org/files/Weingart_Foundation_Grantee_Survey.pdf
Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/ocat/
Checklist of Nonprofit Organizational Indicators
http://managementhelp.org/organizationalperformance/nonprofits/index.htm
46
Appendix E
GEO Capacity Building Framework