Upload
edmund-farmer
View
239
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chesapeake Bay Funders Network
Capacity Building Initiative
Development of Capacity Building Initiative (CBI)
Rauch Foundation – Chairs CBFN Capacity Building Workgroup
River Network – Conducted research, prepared white paper
CBFN Workgroup– Developed key goals and objectives
TCC Group & Trust– Finalizing Initiative details
Capacity Building Models Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation
Pfizer Foundation Southern HIV/AIDS Prevention Initiative
Peninsula Community Foundation Organizational Capacity Grants Initiative
Capacity Building Initiative Process
• Targeted General Operating Grants
• Large Capacity Building Grants
•Customized Assistance
• Networking /training Opportunities for Capacity Building• Networking Opportunities for Watershed Issues
Org
aniz
atio
nal
A
sses
smen
t P
roce
ss
Eligible Watershed
Organizations’ Applications
Sel
ecti
on
Pro
cess
Tier 3
Organizations
Tier 2
Organizations
Tier 1
Organizations
•Smaller gen. ops Grants•Smaller Capacity Building Grants•Customized Assistance
RegionRegion
Y1 - Y3 Goal: To strengthen/ build core organizational capacities of watershed organizations
Capacity Building Initiative:Enhancing the Effectiveness of
Watershed Groups
WatershedOrganizations
WatershedOrganizations
RegionRegion
Communities
Programs
Network
Collective Impact
Capacity Building Initiative:Strengthening the Ecological Health
of Communities
RegionRegion
Y3 Goal: To improve the quality of education/outreach, restoration/ protection projects and advocacy activities to impact communities
Watershed Organizations
Watershed Organizations
Communities
Programs
Network
Collective Impact
Capacity Building Initiative:Establishing and Sustaining a Regional Network and Greater
Collective Impact
RegionRegion
Watershed Organizations
Watershed Organizations
Communities
Programs
Y3 Goal: To have a functioning Chesapeake Bay regional network of watershed organizations and supporters and to continue to enhance the network’s effectiveness and their collective impact
Network
Collective Impact
Nonprofit Capacity Building Needs
4 Core Capacities:
– Adaptive (6)
– Leadership (5)
– Management (11)
– Technical (11)
+ Organizational Culture
Adaptive and Leadership Capacity:
– Crucial for nonprofits and vital at every life cycle stage, but often overlooked
Adaptive
TechnicalManagement
Leadership
External Environment
Resources
OrganizationPolitic
al and
Regulatory Forces Social and
Demographic Forces
Economic ForcesTechnological Forces
Adaptive CapacityMonitoring, assessing, and responding to
internal and external changes
• Networking/collaborating • Evaluating programsand services• Assessing organizational
effectiveness • Planning
OrganizationalCulture
His
toryStructure Ritu
als
Beliefs
Lan
gu
age
Values
Technical Capacity“Doing” the work of the organization,
delivering programs and services• Technology• Accounting• Budgeting• Fundraising
• Facilities development and maintenance• Marketing/communications• Evaluation/research
Key Resourcesthe one or more critically needed resources
that most directly support programs and services
• Legal
Finances/Funding
Program Design and
Model
Time Technology
Facilities Human Resources
Management Capacity• Ensuring effective and efficient use oforganizational resources
Leadership Capacity• Visioning• Inspiring
• Directing• Innovating
• Prioritizing • Modeling• Decision Making
TCC’s Four Core Capacities Model
Self-Assessment Survey 4 Core Capacities + Organizational Culture 36 Sub-Capacities 146 Total Questions, averaging 4 questions for each sub-capacity
CCAT Participation Minimum of 3 organizational leaders must take the survey Anonymous survey with answers reported in aggregate – no weighting
CCAT Results On-line system with instant access, analysis and reporting PDF files (summary and details) for download to share with stakeholders Highlights strengths and provides recommendations on areas of challenge
Core Capacity Assessment Tool (CCAT)
Core Capacity Example 6 Sub-Capacities for Adaptive Capacity
– Decision Making Tools
– Environmental Learning
– Organizational Learning
– Organizational Resource Sustainability
– Program Resource Sustainability
– Programmatic Learning
~30 Total Questions, averaging 5 questions eachAdaptive Sub-Capacity Example
Decision Making Tools– Our organization’s constituents/clients are actively recruited to provide input
and feedback on how programs/services should be provided– Our organization has a written strategic plan that includes a clear, specific,
and measurable set of goals and objectives that will ensure success– Our organization informally evaluates our programs by engaging staff to
document and/or share stories and anecdotes
Core Capacity Assessment Tool (CCAT)
Review of CBI Proposals CCAT Participation
– On-line self-assessment tool, minimum of 3 participants per org– T1 Range: 6 to 16 survey respondents– T2 Range: 3 to 13 survey respondents– Strong board participation
Interviews– T1 100% in-person interviews– Grantee feedback on process/approach
Aggregate review and discussion with CBT
CBI Assessment Process
Tier 1 and 2 were comparable in strengths and challenges–High in Leadership and Management –High in Organizational Culture –Low in Technical capacities across the board
Opportunity for peer learning/mentoringCBI participants noted the assessment as a “rare opportunity”
Assessment Results
Review of CBI proposal CCAT results Org Interview
– Context/Life Cycle– Other CB efforts completed or under way
CBFN Capacity Building Workgroup Budget
From Needs to Recommendations
“art and science”
Areas of Need (In order of “need”- * = omni-need) Adaptive Management
– Program Evaluation Training and coaching*– Strategic Assessment/Planning*
Leadership
– Board Development through Consulting, Group Training & Follow-up*
Management
– Assessing/managing Staff Performance Consulting, Group Training & Follow-up
Technical
– Marketing Group Training & Follow-up– Fundraising Group Training & Follow-up– Technology Skills Assessments, Hard/Software & Training*
Summary of Recommendations
Grant Awards & Group Assistance by Tiers and Type
Grant AssistanceTier 1 (8 groups)Targeted General Operating $227,500
Targeted Capacity Building $104,500
Tier 2 (11 groups)Targeted General Operating $77,500
Targeted Capacity Building $73,000
Group AssistanceTier 1, 2, 3 (36 groups)
Group Assistance $74,500
(Prog eval training, IT assist)
TOTAL $557,000
Grants by Region/State
Capitol Area MD $83,763Central MD $175,447Eastern Shore MD $77,342Southern MD $35,842MD TOTAL $372,394
VA TOTAL $199,605
MD avg T1= $50,400* T2 = $25,333*VA avg T1= $50,000 T2 = $15,000
*includes ex. capacity building grants
Preferred Service Providers
54 RFQ’s submitted21 preferred
Assessed using 3 Criteria
1. Knowledge and Track Record2. Exp. With Env./watershed non-profit groups3. Capacity/flexibility to deliver services
needed
Developed CBI Logic Model for planning and evaluation purposes
Developing core evaluation questions Prioritizing evaluation components and indicators Working individually with grantees to identify measures of
success Developing evaluation plan within context of evaluation goals
and budget which will include multi-layered approach–Organizational–Programmatic–Regional/Network
CBI Evaluation
RegionRegion
Indicators: capacities in leadership, strategic planning, board, fundraising, partnerships, technology, evaluation, etc. Data Sources: Organizational assessment, grantee interviews, grantee reports, etc.
Capacity Building Initiative:Enhancing the Effectiveness of
Watershed Groups
WatershedOrganizations
WatershedOrganizations
RegionRegion
Communities
Programs
Network
Collective Impact
Capacity Building Initiative:Strengthening the Ecological Health
of Communities
RegionRegion
Indicators: ecological conditions, numbers of volunteers, diversity of funding, competitiveness for existing grant funding (i.e. Trust, NFWF, KCF) Data Sources: Grantee interviews, grantee reports, etc.
Watershed Organizations
Watershed Organizations
Communities
Programs
Network
Collective Impact
Capacity Building Initiative:Establishing and Sustaining a Regional Network and Greater
Collective Impact
RegionRegion
Watershed Organizations
Watershed Organizations
Communities
Programs
Indicators: membership, quality meetings, # of collaborations, greater involvement in Bay-wide issues, greater use of existing/new technical tools (i.e., NEMO) Data Sources: Evaluations of network meetings, membership roster, interviews, etc.
Network
Collective Impact
Next Steps
Develop CBI action plan with Tier 1 and 2 groups (grant agreement)
Watershed Network Activities– Listening sessions with Jeff Lape, 5/30, 6/7– CBI kickoff and network meeting, June 27,28 – 2nd Annual Watershed Forum, Oct. 12-14
Develop evaluation and tools Next CBFN meeting – evaluation, CBI
progress report