Promising Practices for Improving the
Capacity of
Faith- and Community-Based Organizations
Table of Contents | Chapter
8: Strengthening the Capacity of Intermediaries |
References 
Chapter 9.
Lessons
Over the course of the past 18 months, Branch Associates, Inc., and our partner Abt Associates, Inc., undertook case studies of 10 exemplary intermediaries. Rather than select a group of organizations that were representative of all intermediaries, we deliberately focused on intermediaries with considerable experience working with FBOs and CBOs, expertise in nonprofit organizational development, and an abundance of promising practices. Our examination of the range of services those intermediaries provided and how they worked with their constituent FBOs and CBOs leads to the overall conclusion that the intermediaries successfully strengthened FBOs and CBOs in a variety of ways. Looking across the intermediaries, we identified practices in all areas of their work that seem worthy of replication.
Taking all of the practices together, we have drawn the following specific lessons and recommendations for improving intermediaries' effectiveness.
Intermediaries provide an efficient means for the federal government to work with faith- and community-based organizations.
Through CCF, HHS has invested in intermediaries to work with FBOs and CBOs more efficiently than it could work with them directly. This study found that intermediaries successfully recruited a range of grassroots organizations at different levels of capacity, from some that were barely even formal organizations, to others that were sophisticated and experienced.
Intermediaries developed various approaches to accommodate this diverse group. By conducting initial assessments, intermediaries identified specific areas of each organization's development—such as board development or strategic planning—that was holding it back in terms of its fundraising or other aspects related to its organizational health. Assessments served to educate FBO and CBO leaders about their own organizations' strengths and weaknesses, and focus the leaders on a small number of achievable steps. The participatory assessments we observed in this study, all of which involved group discussions with three or more organizational representatives, led to in-depth and sometimes unanticipated assessments that engaged the FBO and CBO leadership and led to steps for addressing critical issues and concerns.
Once organizations' most pressing needs (and interests) were known, intermediaries acted by providing services such as leading board retreats, hiring consultants to develop long-term fundraising plans, and awarding grants that allowed organizations to modify programs according to proven practices.
Through these targeted services delivered over months or even years, intermediaries nurtured organizations to reach higher levels of capacity in ways that government agencies cannot. What is not fully known—but will be examined in future research efforts—is the response of FBOs and CBOs to intermediaries' efforts. Our early interviews with a small sample of these organizations are encouraging. We hear from them that they developed fundraising plans, re-engaged their boards of directors, acquired 501(c)3 status, and upgraded their computer and Internet technology.
HHS should continue to recruit both faith-based and secular intermediaries. Both types demonstrate strength in building relationships with constituent organizations and providing quality services.
Faith-based and secular intermediaries in this study represented effective vehicles for government support of grassroots organizations. Both types developed good relationships with staff from the constituent organizations and provided a range of services designed to improve the effectiveness of both FBOs and CBOs.
Although faith sometimes provided an immediate bond for FBOs working with faith-based intermediaries, reputations for providing "good quality work" enabled exemplary intermediaries—both faith-based and secular—to recruit organizations to their CCF project and develop strong relationships with them. In the end, quality services are what is necessary for sustaining any relationship between intermediaries and grassroots organizations.
There is an important role for large group training, but the bulk of resources should be directed to more intensive technical assistance.
Large group training sessions serve several purposes. Group training exposed staff of emerging grassroots organizations to new terminology, the ingredients for writing a good proposal, the process for submitting a proposal and methods for developing a budget. Sessions on strategic planning and board development introduced these organizations to more professional ways of running their operations. These trainings can also be used to advertise intermediaries' services. By getting the word out to the large numbers of organizations who attend a training, these sessions can serve as a forum for recruiting organizations interested in participating in a new project or applying for a grant.
However, one-on-one technical assistance has several advantages for strengthening organizations. First, group training sessions, which typically last one or two days, tend to cover topics in a broad but limited or cursory way that does not necessarily address the specific needs of individual organizations. In contrast, one-on-one technical assistance allows for an in-depth exploration of issues that directly affect an organization. One intermediary commented on the importance of covering topics in detail: "Capacity building is about going deep as opposed to going wide." Intermediaries that took a long-term approach to capacity building and worked one-on-one with a set of organizations for a year or more allowed organizations the time to thoroughly tackle a series of steps leading to improved capacity.
While group training provides useful information to organizations, the goal should be for FBOs and CBOs not only to be more aware of how they should be operating, but also to take action toward improved capacity. As anyone who has attended a professional conference, workshop or training can attest, awareness does not necessarily lead to action. Technical assistance can help organizations put newly gained information to work. Project-based technical assistance helps organizations undertake new projects, moving them from initial ideas through implementation. The motivation associated with receiving funding for a particular project may hasten the achievement of capacity-related goals, such as engaging the board in fundraising or developing new partnerships.
Other specialized support, such as assistance on the implementation of software (e.g., "Quick Books"), provides a tangible benefit in the form of improved financial management. Similarly, help in using a database for tracking outcomes data gives FBOs and CBOs actual program results to show funders.
Finally, technical assistance allows for maximum customization. Organizations have different needs: new organizations may need assistance in obtaining 501(c)3 status, while more sophisticated organizations may benefit from a marketing campaign. A customized approach allows intermediaries to work with each organization starting from the place where it currently is and bringing it to the next level of capacity. For example, not all organizations are ready, or will be ready in the short term, to seek federal funding. But some are, or can be with modest investments. Responding to this, a few intermediaries took steps to link appropriate CCF participant organizations with larger partners for federal grant proposals.
Sub-awards, when used to fund activities aligned with organizational assessment results, can also provide customized, action-oriented assistance. In many cases, sub-awards were used to achieve the same goals as technical assistance, such as attaining 501(c)3 status, developing an organizational marketing brochure, or re-energizing the board of directors through a strategic planning retreat. The sustainability of using sub-award funds for program expansion, however, remains a question for future research.
Organizational mentoring for the intermediaries, at the executive level, is an approach to consider.
The array of services provided by intermediaries requires expertise in such areas as implementing outreach efforts, facilitating large group sessions, providing one-on-one consultations and managing a sizable sub-award program. Intermediaries did not necessarily possess in-house capabilities in all areas. To different degrees, intermediaries in this study obtained complementary skills and expertise by hiring staff, using consultants and developing partnerships with other organizations.
A special type of partnership, organizational mentoring, is one approach worth considering for improving intermediaries' own capacities. Unlike technical assistance that is limited by contractual specifications, organizational mentoring relationships provide an opportunity for senior leaders to receive guidance and support in an ongoing, flexible and supportive manner around a variety of related topics. In our study, this approach—involving clear goals and intensive contacts between high-level staff—was used effectively for developing and improving staff infrastructure, financial systems and proficiency with grants management for less experienced intermediaries.
Organizational mentoring should not be considered lightly as it requires considerable commitment of time from both sides of the partnership. In the model relationship we observed, the mentor and mentee executives held in-person meetings each week and spoke daily by phone during the first year. The people involved credited this frequent communication and their active involvement, as well as the respect and trust among the key players, as critical to their success.
Another possible application of organizational mentoring—although not one that we observed in this study—involves an organizational mentoring relationship between an intermediary and an FBO or CBO. Many intermediary staff have experience running nonprofits, and their knowledge about organizational development issues would qualify them to serve as mentors.
Intermediaries should do a better job of assessing their own services.
HHS identified several goals that intermediaries should be working toward (e.g., diversifying funding of FBOs and CBOs, creating collaborations). However, we saw few serious attempts at self-evaluation by the intermediaries and few external evaluations to measure the extent to which they were achieving their own goals. Intermediaries' limited efforts to measure the outcomes of their own initiatives mainly involved administering satisfaction surveys to group training participants. Other than plans to re-administer organizational assessments and compare the initial and subsequent assessment scores, intermediaries did not measure outcomes associated with their technical assistance services.
Intermediaries should assess their own services and measure their attainment of the desired outcomes. External evaluations and the collection of uniform and specific data from participating organizations will enable intermediaries (and HHS) to improve their programs, set realistic expectations and goals, and measure progress toward achieving those goals.
Table of Contents | Chapter
8: Strengthening the Capacity of Intermediaries |
References