Factors in Successful Capacity Building with Immigrant- and Refugee-Led Organizations (IRLOs)

Nexus Project Research Report

Prepared by: Alexandra Pierce, Wilder Research

Background
Summary
    Benefits of capacity building for IRLOs
    Factors that contribute to successful capacity building in IRLOs
    Factors that hamper success
    Research methods
Definition of Terms
Research Methods
    Literature review method
    Method for surveys and interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs
Reviews of the Literature
    Results of initial literature review (overview of existing knowledge)
    Literature review part 2: Capacity building as a path to equity
Results of Wilder Research Surveys and Interviews with Capacity Builders and IRLOs
    Impact of the projects
    Agreement on objectives and degree to which they had been met
    Key success factors
    Areas for additional exploration
Results of Fieldstone Alliance Surveys and Interviews with Capacity Builders and IRLOs
    Project types
    Shaping the projects
    Levels of capacity building
    Respective roles of capacity builders and IRLOs
    Capacities built
    What helped the projects go well
    Areas for additional exploration
Appendix: Annotated Bibliography
Acknowledgments
Footnotes

Background

If you have the opportunity to do capacity building, seize it. It is great work that never gets done because of a lack of capacity, which can make a vicious circle—you don't grow because you don't have a plan (IRLO interview).

…By working with this project the confidence of who we are and what we are about has increased dramatically. We were fearful of where we didn't have expertise. This project showed where we had expertise and how this was transferable (IRLO interview).

Fieldstone Alliance, formed in June 2005 as part of a spin-off of Wilder Center for Communities from the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, has provided capacity building assistance to immigrant- and refugee-led organizations (IRLOs) for nearly 15 years. Over the years, it has investigated various approaches to successfully improve the capacity and performance of these organizations. Fieldstone Alliance was interested in learning what other capacity building providers across the country were learning in this area.

Through a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation Innovation Fund, Fieldstone Alliance initiated a two-year project in January 2004 called Nexus. The goal of Nexus was to enhance the knowledge and skill of capacity builders across North America in working with IRLOs, beginning with a core group of partner organizations and then expanding to the broader field of capacity builders. The Nexus project brought together 10 capacity building organizations that work with IRLOs in North America to form a learning community for sharing knowledge gained from working with IRLOs and to identify promising strategies for effective capacity building. The 10 capacity building organizations participating with Fieldstone Alliance in Nexus are:

Center to Support Immigrant Organizing (CSIO)
Community Consulting Group (formerly part of Wilder Center for Communities)
CompassPoint Nonprofit Services
Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services (Refugee Works)
The Management Assistance Program for (MAP) for Nonprofits
Mosaica
Nonprofit Assistance Center (NAC)
Twin Cities LISC
Partnership for Immigrant Action and Leadership (PILA, formerly Northern California Citizenship Project)
United Way of Greater Toronto

Summary

Benefits of capacity building for IRLOs

IRLOs interviewed for this study find their capacity building project experiences worth the time and energy they invested and, for the most part, say their organizations have grown in important ways as a result of the capacity building activities, well beyond even the stated objectives of the projects. These benefits include increased confidence in their own capabilities and perspectives, increased recognition by their communities, and increased comfort with asserting their own viewpoints and needs when working with consultants and mainstream institutions.

Factors that contribute to successful capacity building in IRLOs

Success factors described in the literature
In general, effective capacity building in IRLOs requires having sufficient assistance over a period of years and ensuring funding to support the entire period of capacity building as well as follow-up support. Peer learning and hands-on training approaches work best.

For IRLOs, stable leadership and operations, along with the time, energy, and commitment to engage in the process, are important success factors for capacity building. Preliminary assessment of an IRLO's strengths and weaknesses is highly recommended.

Capacity builders that work effectively with IRLOs, in addition to having the organizational expertise, have the ability to create an affirming, culturally sensitive, responsive, and productive relationship with the IRLO, based on the capacity builder's experience with, knowledge of, and sensitivity to the IRLO and its community's culture, norms, experiences, and challenges. Effective capacity builders also understand that within immigrant and refugee communities, training activities may be viewed by the IRLO as a valuable form of community (not just organizational) capacity building, which can further social equity for the community as a whole.

Success factors derived from interviews conducted for this study
IRLOs value skilled and knowledgeable capacity builders who have experience with similar organizations and who also have connections to resources.

Effective capacity building has specific and explicit objectives, which may require the capacity builder to spend a great deal of time coaching and supporting the IRLO as it articulates its goals and how those goals might be met. Successful capacity building also requires revisiting the original objectives and related activities repeatedly throughout the course of the project, with all those involved, to make sure they all are still in agreement and that expectations are being met.

Effective capacity building with IRLOs combines training with immediate and repeated hands-on use of the new skills, processes, and tools.

Effective capacity building in IRLOs requires the financial resources necessary to free key actors to participate in the capacity building activities. This "buying time" is especially important in IRLOs representing "newcomer" communities, where the IRLOs might have only one paid staff member and a volunteer board (most of whom have full-time jobs of their own) doing the essential work of the IRLO.

Effective capacity builders think and act as an ally to the IRLO, developing a relationship that is much more personal and engaged than the traditional "consultant" model. While capacity builders often attribute their success to specific expertise and activities, IRLOs more often attribute success to the capacity builder's deep commitment to their organization and community and to the quality of the relationship created by the capacity builder, making it possible for the IRLO to fully accept and use the assistance being offered. Capacity builders who are perceived as "allies" incorporate these approaches to the work:

Putting significant effort into learning about the history, culture, issues, experiences, and challenges of this particular IRLO and its community (a step beyond what is often considered basic "cultural competence") prior to beginning any work—demonstrating a "fierce commitment to learning."

Being flexible—willing to play multiple overlapping roles and adapting activities to the IRLO's specific needs and/or limitations.

Using words and actions that show a commitment to partnering rather than "teaching"—acting in ways that show the IRLO that they and their perspectives are of value; thinking and speaking in terms of "we" rather than "I" and "you."

Advocating for the IRLO and directly linking them to resources, such as setting up meetings with mainstream funders and institutions, accompanying the IRLO to the meetings, and following up with the resource contact to ensure a positive outcome.

Interacting with the IRLO in ways that are inclusive of, open to, and respectful of all perspectives and decision-making processes, balanced with providing the IRLO with a neutral and objective "outsider" point of view.

Being fluent about power in relationships involving organizations, communities, and institutions; putting it "on the table" as an issue for open discussion, and ensuring that people with limited English fluency are able to fully engage in all discussions and decision-making.

Factors that hamper success

IRLOs described three main factors that can impede successful capacity building:

Lack of flexibility in structured programs or initiatives for capacity building—required designs or templates with restricted timelines and/or choice in capacity building consultants.
Disruptions or constraints in funding—late funding, the unexpected end of funding prior to the end of the project, changes in rules about who receives funding and how, and inflexible rules about how funding can be spent.
An IRLO's perception that the capacity builder is biased or has deliberately excluded some stakeholder(s)—by using complex professional language and jargon; by providing translation assistance in multi-ethnic IRLOs to some groups but not others; or by favoring or leaving out some stakeholders when soliciting input during an assessment.

Research methods

The research for this Nexus report included literature reviews and qualitative surveys and interviews. An initial literature review by Wilder Research focused broadly on capacity building with immigrant- and refugee-led organizations (IRLOs). Next, Fieldstone Alliance gathered qualitative information about capacity building efforts, conducting telephone interviews with the 10 Nexus capacity builders and IRLOs with whom they had worked on a capacity building project. Wilder Research also gathered qualitative information from the 10 Nexus partners or a capacity builder they provided and a second set of IRLOs with whom they had worked on a capacity building project. This time, the capacity builders completed a self-administered survey, and the IRLOs completed interviews by telephone. The types of capacity building covered in both sets of interviews primarily concerned basic nonprofit management and board responsibilities and/or planning and implementation of particular organizational processes. Finally, Wilder Research completed a second literature review near the end of the project to explore in greater depth some new themes that emerged from the interviews.

Definition of Terms

To ensure clarity in the discussion of the research, the working definitions for the Nexus project are:

Capacity: The ability of nonprofit organizations to fulfill their missions in an effective manner. *

Capacity building: The process by which nonprofit organizations strengthen their administrative operations, program functioning and external relationships in order to enhance their performance. The most commonly listed aspects of capacity building are technical assistance, organizational restructuring, leadership development, and effective community intervention.*

Organizations are either incorporated or have a fiscal sponsor.

Provider: An external resource (an individual or organization) that focuses on organizational capacity building, or that guides an organization through the capacity building process. A provider's primary goal is to help organizations to develop capacity.

Peer capacity building: Capacity building that occurs through networking by two or more organizations. Organizations may share knowledge and links to resources, collaborate on providing services or applying for funding, and/or train one another's staff in needed areas of expertise.

Immigrant- and refugee-led organizations (IRLOs)
After much discussion, the following definition was somewhat agreed on by the group, and is at this time the Nexus working definition:

IRLOs are organizations with refugees or immigrants comprising:

a) The executive director or senior leadership roles, and
b) 51% of the board of directors, and
c) 51% of the people served, and
d) A constituency that faces issues related to poverty and lack of access to power and resources.

Evolving IRLOs may not currently meet all criteria, but are working toward them.

*DeLucca, Alison. 2002. Rising with the tide: Capacity building strategies for small, emerging minority organizations. Los Angeles Immigrant Funders' Collaborative.

Research Methods

The research activities related to the Nexus project were made up of three components:

Reviews of the literature to identify strategies and success factors that have been identified as effective in working with IRLOs.
Survey of capacity builders and interviews with their IRLO clients conducted by Wilder Research.
Interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs conducted by Fieldstone Alliance.

Literature review method

Despite an intensive search o f library and Internet databases, Wilder Research was able to identify only nine publications for the initial literature review that referred specifically to the capacity building needs of immigrant- and refugee- led organizations.

The following databases were searched to develop this list of publications: ArticleFirst, Business Management, Electronic Collections Online, EconLit, ERIC, PAIS, Periodical Abstracts, PsycFirst, SIRS Researcher, WorldCat, Expanded Academic Index, Cambridge Scientific, General Business File, InfoTrac, Ethnic Newswatch, Business and Company Resource Center, Business and Industry database, Business Source Premier, Regional Business News, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, GPO, PapersFirst, Proceedings, Dissertations.

Search expressions used were: (refugee+ or immigrant+) and (organization* or program+ or association+ or communit* or nonprofit+ or social w service+ or human w service+) and (assistance or training or leadership or capacity or information or support or need+ or capabilit* or performance or success or development or consult* or management or strategic), 1998-2004. In Google and AllTheWeb search engine searches, we searched the first 100 hits using the following search terms: (refugee OR immigrant) (organization OR program OR nonprofit OR service) and [one at a time] "capacity building," "technical assistance," training, "leadership development," consultation or consulting, needs, management, and support. We also searched the Wilder Research Knowledgebase, Wilder Research collection of Internet links, the University of Minnesota library catalog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy Nonprofit Handbook, Amazon.com, and various other web sites.

A short supplemental literature review was done near the end of the project, focused specifically on two themes that emerged from the IRLO interviews: the role of capacity building in the pursuit of equity, and the ways that community capacity building overlaps with organizational capacity building.

For this supplementary review, the following databases were searched to identify the seven sources: ArticleFirst, Business Management, Electronic Collections Online, EconLit, ERIC, PAIS, Periodical Abstracts, PsycFirst, SIRS Researcher, WorldCat, Expanded Academic Index, Cambridge Scientific, General Business File, InfoTrac, Ethnic Newswatch, Business and Company Resource Center, Business and Industry database, Business Source Premier, Regional Business News, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, GPO, PapersFirst, Proceedings, Dissertations. Search expressions used were: (capacity build* + equity) or (capacity build* + minority) or (capacity build + rac*) or (capacity build + community), 1998-2005

We also searched Google and AllTheWeb search engines, looking at the first 100 hits for these search expressions: (capacity build* + equity) or (capacity build* + minority) or (capacity build + rac*) or (capacity build + community), 1998-2005

Method for surveys and interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs

The primary data for this evaluation were gathered through self-administered surveys of capacity building providers from the 10 organizations participating in Nexus, and telephone interviews with staff or board members of immigrant- and refugee-led organizations (IRLOs) who had received capacity-building assistance from them.

Capacity builder surveys conducted by Wilder Research
Each Nexus partner was first asked to identify two refugee/immigrant-led organizations with which their capacity builder had worked. On the surveys and in the interviews, we asked capacity builders and their IRLOs to list the objectives of a specific project and to describe and assess the activities and approaches used to meet those objectives, with the goal of identifying "promising practices" for capacity building with IRLOs.

The capacity builder survey content and format were developed in a collaborative and inclusive way, with Nexus partners reviewing and offering feedback on multiple drafts until agreement was reached that data collection could begin. In April 2005, Wilder Research mailed two duplicate self-administered surveys to each of the 10 Nexus partners. In the surveys, capacity builders were to describe the objectives and activities for two projects completed in the past year for or with an IRLO, and to provide a contact person at each of the designated IRLOs who was familiar with the project. The surveys asked capacity builders to assess their overall success in achieving each objective, and to provide their perspective on why the objective was or was not achieved. By August 2005, all 20 capacity builder surveys had been completed and returned to Wilder Research for analysis (two from each of the 10 Nexus partners).

IRLO interviews conducted by Wilder Research
IRLO interviews were modeled on the capacity builder survey to allow comparison of the capacity builder's and IRLO's descriptions of the projects, opinions about specific activities, and perspectives on relative success. Each interview was conducted at least three months after the end of the project under review.

From June through October 2005, Wilder Research contacted IRLOs by telephone, making appointments and continuing to call until an interview was completed. In July, after three interviews had been completed, Wilder Research stopped calling to revise one portion of the questionnaire in which questions were not garnering the necessary types of information. A new section made up of qualitative (rather than the earlier closed-end) questions was developed, and beginning in August 2005, the three IRLOs with whom interviews had been completed were re-interviewed to complete the new section. Wilder Research interviewers continued calling the remaining IRLOs, using the revised version. At the end of data collection, 11 IRLO interviews were completed, producing IRLO feedback on at least one project with each Nexus capacity builder. One additional IRLO interview was partially completed and is not included in this analysis.

It took between 1 and 15 contacts to complete each interview, not including calls placed in which interviewers were unable to leave a message or speak to a person. On average, six contacts were needed to complete IRLO interviews. Of the eight IRLO interviews that were not completed, interviewers were able to contact six organizations an average of six times each, but not to complete an interview with the designated respondent. One organization was not contacted because the project had ended too recently (less than three months earlier) to allow for a complete review of project success.

In the IRLO interviews, Wilder staff first asked whether the objectives listed by the capacity builder were accurate, and noted any differences in descriptions of the objectives. Interviewers also asked IRLOs to describe the specific activities completed and the approaches used by the capacity builder, and asked IRLOs to assess the projects' relative success and reasons for that assessment. During the interview, three sets of open-ended questions were posed to the IRLO to determine:

The respondent's perception of the success of their work with the capacity building organizations. These questions were quite similar to those on the capacity builder surveys to allow for comparison.
The nature of the relationship between the capacity builder and the IRLO and the manner in which they worked together.
The characteristics the IRLOs found most important in the person or organization providing capacity building assistance.

Consultant and IRLO interviews conducted by Fieldstone Alliance
Fieldstone Alliance asked each Nexus partner to provide information regarding two projects they had recently completed with IRLOs, and to provide contact information for two people within each selected IRLO who had worked on those projects with either the Nexus partner or a consultant provided by the partner. One of the recommended projects was to have been considered successful by the capacity builder, and the other was to have been considered unsuccessful. Because the criteria for determining what constituted a successful project were not universally understood, in later requests partners were not asked to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful projects.

Interview questions were developed by Fieldstone staff in collaboration with Consulting Scientist Richard Chase at Wilder Research, and finalized based on feedback from Nexus partners. Five Nexus partners provided client contact information for 10 projects, and for each project Fieldstone attempted interviews with the capacity builder who worked directly with the IRLO on that project. Fieldstone also attempted telephone interviews with the IRLO representatives who were named by the Nexus partners.

A total of 20 interviews were completed between September 2004 and June 2005. Seven were with Nexus partners or their staff, three were with independent consultants hired by a Nexus partner, and 10 were with representatives of client IRLOs. Of those 20 interviews, there were eight "matched sets", where interviews were done with the Nexus partner and/or consultant, and a representative of the IRLO involved in the same project.

The same open-ended questions were asked of capacity builders and the IRLO who had worked on the designated project. Interviewers asked respondents to reflect on a number of issues related to providing capacity building support to IRLOs. These included:

What prompted the work, and the reason that assistance was sought from a professional capacity builder.
A description of the work done, the respective roles of the survey respondents, and what or who shaped the project.
Process and criteria used to identify and select a consultant.
What helped the project go well, what didn't go well, and what the consultant could have done differently to help it work better.
Satisfaction with the client/consultant relationship, and with the work products and results of the consulting assistance.
Ways that the organization grew or learned as a result of the project; what capacities were built.
Characteristics and abilities of the consultant, their importance in the project outcomes, and degree to which goals were met.
Advice for other IRLOs considering working with a capacity building consultant.
Advice for consultants who are working with IRLOs.

Because the interview was conducted as a conversation, additional aspects of the capacity builder's and IRLO's work together were discussed. The survey instrument allowed the interviewer to capture anecdotes or additional information that arose during the conversation.

The SurveyMonkey online survey program was used to capture the data collected during the interviews. Some interviewers entered the respondents' answers during the interview, while other took notes and entered responses into the survey form upon completion of the interview. Fieldstone Alliance staff then downloaded the SurveyMonkey data in Excel table format and sent the data to Wilder Research for analysis.

Data analysis (Wilder Research and Fieldstone Alliance data)
The surveys of capacity builders and the interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs produced primarily qualitative data from open-ended questions. Qualitative analysis was used to compare data from the capacity builder(s) with data from IRLO on the nominated project. The specific technique used for analysis was open coding, in which overarching themes are identified in the data.

Limitations of the samples
It is important to note that the capacity builders interviewed are part of a collaborative initiative, and each of the representatives of IRLOs was personally selected by the capacity builder. For these reasons, the data collected cannot be considered representative of perspectives of capacity builders or IRLOs in general, nor can we assume that the interviews with IRLO representatives reflect all opinions within their own organizations. Rather, the goal of the surveys and interviews was to identify practices and approaches found to be useful in a specific set of projects.

An additional challenge in drawing any firm conclusions about universal "promising practices" is that both the capacity builders and IRLOs interviewed are quite diverse in the way they operate and the number of projects examined is quite small. Some of the capacity builders provide both funding and direct consultation to IRLOs, some act as intermediaries that obtain funding from large umbrella organizations and contract with independent capacity builders who then work directly with IRLOs, and some are professional capacity-builder groups that contract directly with the IRLO to provide capacity-building services. Some IRLOs are front-line providers of services to immigrant and refugee communities, and some are nonprofit organizations or initiatives headed by immigrants or refugees that do advocacy and community organizing on a particular issue.

Nonetheless, this research makes contributions to the field of capacity building for IRLOs by listening closely to the experiences and reflections of a small group of capacity builders and IRLOs, and drawing out themes that suggest potential "promising practices" for further research and testing.

Reviews of the Literature

This literature review is composed of two sections. The first section presents the review materials developed at the beginning of the Nexus project, to assess existing knowledge on capacity building with IRLOs. Within this section are preliminary definitions of capacity-building roles appearing in the literature; descriptions of four capacity-building consultation models derived from the nine publications; a table showing the representation of specific strategies and factors for success within the nine sources examined; an annotated bibliography of the sources used; and outlines of information presented in each of the publications.

The second section of the literature review is a short supplemental review conducted near the end of the Nexus project. This second review summarizes literature on two factors that appeared in the interviews with IRLOs: the role of capacity building in the pursuit of equity, and the relationship between organizational capacity building and community capacity building.

Results of initial literature review (overview of existing knowledge)

Preliminary definitions used in the literature
These definitions simply outline the basic types of capacity builders described in the literature.

Provider: An expert (either individual or organization) on organizational capacity building that guides an immigrant- or refugee-led organization through the capacity building process in a culturally competent manner. A provider's primary mission is to help other organizations develop capacity.

Intermediary: An organization that guides and supports an immigrant- or refugee-led organization through the process of selecting and engaging a provider for capacity building services.

Peer capacity building: Capacity building that occurs through networking by two or more IRLOs. Organizations may share knowledge and links to resources, collaborate on providing services or applying for funding, and/or train one another's staff in needed areas of expertise. In the literature, the use of the word "peer" seems to indicate IRLOs from the same culture and/or language group,

Capacity building consultation models
Model 1: Provider-based/provider-directed model

A foundation provides grants to one or several nonprofit technical assistance providers (national or local) to provide capacity building assistance to grantees or other specified organizations.
For each provider, the foundation provides a scope of work and a budget specifying the levels and types of assistance to be provided and the targets of such assistance.
An immigrant- or refugee-led organization (IRLO) that wants assistance is encouraged to contact one or more of the funded providers, and providers may be asked to work with specific IRLOs or to do outreach to identify eligible IRLOs.
Decisions about the level and type of assistance provided to an individual IRLO are often made jointly by the IRLO and the provider, but the provider receives the funding and is the ultimate decision maker within parameters set by the foundation.
Sometimes the foundation retains considerable involvement and sometimes nearly all decision making is delegated to the provider.
The provider may have the authority to subcontract to other providers for training or technical assistance that it cannot provide directly.
Occasionally, the provider also serves as an intermediary, providing technical assistance subgrants to selected IRLOs to purchase their own assistance, primarily in situations where the provider is unable to fully meet the IRLO's needs due to location, language, or other factors.

Advantages

Model provides IRLOs with comprehensive long-term assistance.
Many providers have considerable expertise in and commitment to serving IRLOs.
Some have specific constituencies that include IRLOs.
Some providers are already known to the foundation; some are already grantees of the foundation and understand its needs and priorities.

Disadvantages

Few national providers are immigrant- or refugee-led.
Many have few or no immigrant staff or personnel who speak languages other than English.
Most are located in a few large cities, and often do not have offices in the same city or state as most recipients of their assistance. This makes it harder to establish and maintain a sustained relationship and to respond to immediate needs of IRLOs.
Many national providers have very specific technical assistance skills but do not have the staff capacity to provide intensive, broad-scope assistance, so they must use consultants extensively.

Model 2: Recipient (IRLO)-based model

Gives primary responsibility and authority to the organization that is seeking assistance.
Immigrant- or refugee-led organization (IRLO) receives a technical assistance grant from the funder to be used in purchasing assistance from one or more providers.
IRLO may be required to develop a clear work plan specifying the assistance to be obtained.
IRLO selects its own technical assistance provider(s), sometimes from a pool of approved organizations or individual consultants, and sometimes without limitation.
IRLO must report to the funder about how the funds were used. Funder often adds other requirements, such as:
- Requiring that the IRLO interview at least three providers before making a selection;
- Requiring the provider to submit a detailed proposal prior to funds being released, and/or requiring provider and IRLO to submit to the foundation an agreed-upon set of technical assistance objectives and work plan;
- Requiring the IRLO to include a summary of the provider's final report or other major products, or a report from the IRLO about the assistance received in its final report to the foundation.

Advantages

This model is empowering for the IRLO and allows it to locate and select its own technical assistance provider(s).
The IRLO decides the kinds of assistance it needs and the kind of provider it wants, particularly local providers with appropriate cultural and language capacity.
This flexibility facilitates the development of an ongoing relationship between provider and IRLO.
The provider may be viewed more positively and used more intensively because the IRLO made its own selection.
The IRLO's board and staff have the opportunity to learn new skills in selecting, working with, and managing a technical assistance provider.

Disadvantages

Some IRLOs have very limited experience with technical assistance providers.
The process of selecting a provider is often unfamiliar and time-consuming, and an additional burden on time-constrained leaders of IRLOs.
IRLOs often report great difficulty in locating potential providers, evaluating their proposals and making an appropriate selection, determining whether fees are reasonable, and monitoring the chosen provider's work.
They may have particular difficulty identifying competent providers to approach, and face challenges if they cannot locate an appropriate local provider.
They may have few national contacts and no idea how to find and interest a national provider in what is usually a small-scale assignment.
Sometimes the IRLO is unable to objectively assess its own technical assistance needs, and as a result may select a provider that lacks some needed skills or experience, or may not use that provider effectively.

Model 3: Intermediary model

The foundation provides technical assistance funding through an intermediary organization, usually a national or regional nonprofit organization, whose responsibility is to assist a defined group of IRLOs in choosing and overseeing their technical assistance provider(s).

The intermediary organization may be involved in assessing technical assistance needs but usually does not provide technical assistance itself, or provides only a small amount of direct assistance.
The intermediary serves as a consultant to the IRLO in determining its technical assistance needs and choosing a provider.
The intermediary is available to resolve any problems that occur during the delivery of assistance.
The role of the intermediary can be extensive or limited, but always includes some level of involvement in determining what technical assistance will be provided and providing referrals to potential providers.
The intermediary has some responsibility for ensuring that the technical assistance provided is appropriate and of good quality.
The intermediary may be responsible for coordinating individualized technical assistance as well as for arranging training sessions or other shared technical assistance.

Often, the intermediary carries out some or all of these tasks:

Identifies a pool of technical assistance providers and keeps some form of database that specifies their location, skill areas, cultural and language capacity, etc.
Contacts IRLOs that are eligible for technical assistance to determine whether they wish to receive such assistance.
Carries out some form of organizational assessment to help the IRLO define its technical assistance needs and priorities. Works with each IRLO to clearly define its technical assistance needs, sometimes requiring a concise proposal and plans for managing the assistance.
Provides a recommended process for interviewing and selecting a technical assistance provider, and assists with the process as needed. Requires that providers submit for approval a proposal or work plan that the IRLO has agreed to before technical assistance funds are released.
Pays the consultant at the instruction of the IRLO in situations where the IRLO does not have that fiscal capacity.
Assists as needed in dealing with any problems that arise with the provider. Evaluates the quality and immediate results of the various technical assistance assignments and of specific providers, and reports this information back to the foundation.
Keeps track of technical assistance costs and ensures that providers complete their assigned work.
Is responsible for managing the technical assistance process as well as for teaching IRLOs how to recruit, select and manage technical assistance providers so they have that capacity in the future.

Advantages

Helps to overcome two problems: that provider-based technical assistance is sometimes not relevant or appropriate to the IRLO, and that some IRLOs are not prepared to identify, hire, and effectively oversee providers themselves.
An intermediary can help the IRLO select the right provider and use its skills effectively, and also ensure that the IRLO develops the capacity to directly carry out those tasks in the future.
The intermediary's involvement in organizational assessment ensures that the IRLO accurately identifies its most important technical assistance needs and puts capacity building funding to best use.
An intermediary is involved with a variety of IRLOs and providers, so can provide quality assurance and evaluation functions, and can identify trends in technical assistance needs and issues in the delivery of assistance.
The foundation is freed from having to directly oversee the recipients of assistance, and the intermediary can handle small technical assistance grants for the foundation, taking responsibility for monitoring and administration.

Disadvantages

It may be difficult to identify appropriate intermediary organizations. The best are likely to be minority or multicultural nonprofit organizations, but many of these prefer to provide direct technical assistance, not to act as intermediaries.
An intermediary that lacks a variety of skills and organizational capacities, multicultural and multilingual capacity, and an in-depth understanding of immigrant and refugee organizations can create serious logjams that are detrimental to IRLO development.

Model 4: Peer capacity building

IRLOs with varying types of skills, expertise and experience important to capacity building cooperate to teach what they know to other IRLO leaders and staff.
Staff from one IRLO spends time at an IRLO that has strong capacity in an area the first IRLO wishes to develop, learning by observing and through direct instruction by peers.
Staff and trainers from each IRLO provide one-on-one training and group training to staff and trainers from other IRLOs.
Leaders of IRLOs participate in a network that supports their independent and mutual efforts on behalf of their organizations and communities.

Some peer-led capacity building activities include:

Collaborative grant-writing.
Meeting as a group with potential funders and policymakers to communicate their collective needs.
Cross-referral among member organizations to ensure a full spectrum of services to the community.
Regular communication of newly-identified resources for organizational and community needs.
Collaborative planning and funding for community-based events where IRLOs market their organizations and programs to the community.

Advantages

Both IRLOs and the community experience increased capacity through the networking of knowledge.
Adoption of new practices may be quicker due to the higher level of trust for peer organizations than for outside organizations.
Cultural competence is not likely to pose as big a challenge, and IRLO leaders and staff are less likely to feel embarrassed for not knowing more than they do.
IRLOs are empowered by their ability to meet their own needs through cooperation.

Disadvantages

The quality of peer technical assistance may not be as high as that provided by an outside organization that specializes in capacity building.
While organizational capacity may be built, it is less likely to be in an organized, strategic manner. Organizational assessment is not part of this model, nor is there usually a specific work plan with clear priorities and goals.

Model sources
Models 1-3: Gantz McKay, E. et al. 2001. Immigrant and refugee-led organizations and their technical assistance needs. Washington DC : Mosaica, the Center for Nonprofit Development and Pluralism.

Model 4: Holley, Lynn Carol. 1998. Dissertation: Ethnic agencies in communities of color: A study of missions, services, structures, and capacity building needs. University of Washington.

Effective strategies and success factors in capacity building with IRLOs
(review of research literature)

	Holley	Gantz McKay 2001	Waldau & Khalsa	Gantz McKay 2000	Brooks Masters & Permutter	Ho	Pendleton	ANPM	DeLucca
Structuring of time and training
Provide one-on-one consultation to strengthen the organization as well as hands-on workshops with groups of board members, staff and volunteers
Be accessible, providing ongoing assistance/coaching over a minimum of two years, preferably three, with regular follow-up on all training efforts
Provider qualifications
Have experience working in or with grassroots organizations, small-budget community-based organizations, and/or IRLOs
Have the ability to help organizations determine whether to strive for incorporation and 501(c)3 status, or to seek a sponsoring "umbrella" organization to serve is fiscal agent/sponsor
Have experience with government agencies
Be willing to attend social functions in the community, outside formal work with the organization
Provider characteristics
Have knowledge of/experience with organization's ethnic community/their challenges in acculturation
Have a clear understanding of the post-9/11 environment facing the community and the organization
Either be immigrant/refugee or have worked with the specific population(s) previously
If an intermediary provider, attempt to use local, bicultural, bilingual trainers who are viewed by the community as neutral parties
If not an immigrant/refugee, have broad cultural competency skills (knowledge of/experience with multiple cultures)
Have the capacity to provide training, technical assistance and materials in languages other than English
Culturally competent process recommendations
Create an environment where organizations understand that assessment is a useful and empowering exercise as opposed to a threatening activity
Create a dynamic of confidentiality where organizations feel safe sharing their vulnerabilities, identifying their short- and long-term needs, and exploring appropriate methods
Be fully inclusive of the community
Be able to adapt training to the culture, norms and values of the community, board and staff
Come to agreement on the values driving the work, agree on a theory of change
Be able to focus on ethnic awareness/consciousness as a motivating factor in organizational development
Be aware that the concept of social services includes family and community gatherings that provide opportunities for connection, celebration of traditions, and social networking
Help organizations to view and work with U.S. systems through culturally competent lenses
Support organizations' interest and efforts in developing innovative capacity building strategies
Provider skill set—Funds development and management
Know potential funders' attitudes toward funding the particular immigrant/refugee community or type of program(s)
Be able to work with the fact that immigrant and refugee communities sometimes lack understanding about the role of nonprofit organizations and therefore don't financially support the organization
Provide coaching for leaders' meetings with potential funders
Assist identification of potential partner organizations for cooperative campaigns
Provider skill set—Development of/links to other needed resources
Collect, develop and disseminate self-help materials in multiple languages
Collect and catalogue existing multilingual materials
Understand immigrant/refugee support and educational needs and have the ability to create links to fill them
Serve as a networker for small and emerging immigrant groups, linking them to funders, policy makers and like-minded agencies
Support multilingual communication with grantmakers and other organizations doing similar work.
Provider skill set—Leadership development (Board, managers, recruitment/preparation/support of new leaders)
Assess the formal and informal methods by which the organization gets and gives information
Use leadership models organized around issues critical to immigrants/refugees' lives
Bring immigrants and refugees together across cultures
Provide training, community assignments and materials in participants' native language
Facilitate mentor/mentee relationships between emerging and more involved organizations, where mentees can "shadow" mentors, learning new approaches and skills
Require that more than one person at any given organization is involved in the customized intervention as a way to ensure the learnings are planted in the organization, in the event of staff turnover
Non-traditional training techniques
Maximize creative use of peer and reciprocal learning experiences
Facilitate development of cross-training and peer technical assistance capacity among organizations with similar missions
Use skits/scenarios to encourage discussion and brainstorming
Major barriers to successful technical assistance
Providers are unaware of cultural and contextual issues impacting the organization (patterns of inclusion/exclusion based on home country national, social, political and economic forces, community power dynamics)
Time/financial constraints discourage organizations from taking full advantage of technical assistance/staff development opportunities
Trainers are unable/unwilling to provide training, technical assistance and materials in languages other than English
Organization and advocacy training fails to provide methods that are culturally appropriate or transferable to immigrant and refugee populations or organizations
Organization becomes overly dependent on the provider rather than developing the needed skills and resources itself
Organization underutilizes technical assistance support because the provider roles and options are unclear

Literature review part 2: Capacity building as a path to equity

There are two major themes in the literature on capacity building as a path to equity. The first is organizational capacity building, usually done with community-based nonprofit organizations that serve disadvantaged individuals and communities. The second is community capacity building. Each is summarized as it is appears in the literature.

Organizational capacity-building
There are many ways to define "organizational capacity", which can pose a challenge to actually building that capacity. There are three, however, that effectively capture the middle ground of the variety of definitions:

…an organization's core skills and capabilities, such as leadership, management, finance and fundraising, programs and evaluation, in order to build the organization's effectiveness and sustainability.¹

…the ability of nonprofit organizations to fulfill their missions in an effective manner.²

…the combined influence of an organization's abilities to govern and manage itself, to develop assets and resources, to forge the right community linkages, and to deliver valued services—all combining to meaningfully address its mission.³

The Effective Communities Project identified seven major elements that make for effective capacity building, that are commonly listed by organizations providing technical assistance this area⁴:

Capacity building is guided by overarching principles or values. It is guided by an "assets model" in addition to a "deficit model," recognizing both strengths and weaknesses. There is a valued partnership between the nonprofit building capacity and the grantmaker funding the effort. Capacity building is recognized as an ongoing process.
The nonprofit itself supports its own capacity building efforts. Staff and Board must see the link between capacity building and the ability of the organization to fulfill its mission. An "organic" approach where the whole organization comes to an understanding of the need for strengthening all aspects of the organization must be accompanied by the organization's leadership in the process.
The nonprofit creates its own plan based on an assessment of strengths and weaknesses. It is important to assess present capacity—what is working well and what's needed to get stronger to better enable the organization to fulfill its mission. It is also important to prioritize which areas of an organization's functioning to focus on first. Once the priorities are clear, the organization needs to develop a plan outlining strategies and methods that allow it to get stronger in each priority area; designate who will lead the effort in each area and why; how the organization will know it has been successful in each area; how those within the organization will be accountable for following through in areas that affect them; and how the organization will integrate what's learned by day-to-day operations.
The nonprofit has choices about capacity building methods. A great many strategies exist for developing capacity, and it is important that a nonprofit has the full variety to consider and choose from. Some grantmakers such as The Community Foundation Silicon Valley write this flexibility into the guidelines of their grants. Others, like The Otto Bremer Foundation include a disclaimer stating that the Foundation neither endorses one particular model nor encourages nonprofits to follow one particular approach. It is also important that a nonprofit chooses whether to hire a consultant or a facilitator, or whether to use its own staff.
There is ongoing support from outside the organization. This may include peer support from a network of nonprofits that are all undertaking capacity building; financial support; facilitation by a neutral third party or coach; and access to technical assistance.
There is emphasis on outcomes and accountability. Partnering between grantmaker and grantee is important in holding nonprofits accountable for achieving capacity building outcomes. These partnerships can be important in identifying areas to address, setting measurable process and outcome objectives, agreeing to track progress, sharing experiences, and making corrections along the way. It is also important to shift the emphasis from grant outputs to organizational outcomes, which requires articulating more clearly how the capacity building effort is expected to contribute to organizational effectiveness for the long-term, not just the short-term.
There is emphasis on learning about what is working and what is not. The larger field of capacity building can learn about successful strategies when lessons learned are shared. This may be accomplished by the hiring of a third- party evaluator by the grantmaker or following grantmakers over a period of years to see what growth actually "looks like."

Community capacity-building
The second major focus is community capacity building that develops a community's cohesion and general ability to respond to either opportunities or problems.⁵ For both types, one of the primary areas of concern in ensuring effectiveness is that of cultural competence. The National Community Development Institute (NCDI) suggests that too often, consultants and grantmakers wanting to assist with capacity building focus all of their attention on the overall culture of ethnic and minority communities, forgetting other within-group cultures based on religion, geography, age, sexual identity. NCDI asserts that focusing on the dominant culture as well as the cultures of ethnic and minority communities (including those established via religion, geography, age, and sexual identity) is critical to successful capacity building, rather than viewing the dominant culture as simply the norm. "Erasing" awareness of all cultures can impair one's ability to be aware of and deeply engage with individuals and communities.⁶ NCDI describes the way that culture plays out in the world as an iceberg:

Above the surface are the external dimensions of culture including food, dress, music, art, dance, literature, language, celebrations, etc. Below the surface are the more subtle areas where culture impacts our worldview: notions of modesty, conceptions of beauty, relationship with nature, engagement patterns (e.g., competitive vs. cooperative), patterns of emotional response, non-verbal communication (e.g., eye contact, hand gestures), relationship to time and space, and many more.⁷

A respectful approach and the engagement of the entire community is an important aspect of cultural competency in capacity building efforts. Makani Themba-Nixon of the Praxis Project suggests:

The very idea of capacity building, though necessary and important, is a bit presumptuous. We work with people, with communities to draw out their assets and expand upon them…to help them gain greater power and agency over the institutions and systems that affect their lives…Although capacity building is indeed presumptuous because we presume there is something there that needs building, even fixing, we operate on the principle that there is a "there" on which to build.⁸

The Effective Communities Project, which is in process in Minneapolis, focuses on neighborhoods as the primary element of community next to families. The Project works with neighborhood-based organizations, including those involving clusters of neighborhoods that are generally organized around common interests or purposes rather than around official or institutional structures. Steven Mayer (writing for the Project) identified a number of ways that neighborhood voluntary groups and nonprofit organization form "political bedrock" that can draw in resources from schools, churches and other religious institutions, government, small and large businesses, and community foundations:

Commitment: Neighborhood and development groups support political movements behind better housing, schools, recreation, health, safety, and other issues. They also crate processes for facilitating governance and justice, such as elections, juries, political parties, police and advocacy groups.
Resources: Considerable money changes hands in neighborhoods. Most of businesses and service areas, and the formal institutions that exist in neighborhoods, like schools, parks, churches and other religious institutions, draw their support from a larger territory.
Skills: The skills of individual residents provide capacity for the larger community because, by definition, they are organized around common issues, themes, or interests. Individuals educate each other and the larger community, raise money in support of projects they want to promote, and develop the political and organizational skills to accomplish their goals.⁹

Other types of communities that are not necessarily neighborhood-based (though they may be in part) include those centering on major life areas such as work. An example of community building with workers is the work of the Central Texas Immigrant Worker Rights Center (El Centro de Apoya para Trabajadores Inmigrantes). Some of the activities of the Center are:

Worker rights education and advocacy

Providing weekly worker rights clinics for low-income and immigrant workers that informed over 1500 working men and women of their workplace rights between 2002 and 2005;
Recovering workers' unpaid wages through legal advocacy and direct action, resulting in the recovery of over $350,000 in unpaid wages for 325 workers between 2002 and 2005; and
Facilitating a Transnational Workers' Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law where law students work with El Centro to assist workers with their wage claims.

Leadership development and organizing

Hosting workers' meetings every Tuesday evening where workers can unite in their struggle recover unclaimed wages and defend worker dignity and human rights;
Providing the 8-week Leadership Course for workers who wish to serve as Workers' Rights Advocates with El Centro and in their communities, resulting in over 20 graduates in its first year; and
Housing and supporting the Worker Coordinating Committee (formed in June 2005) that serves as El Centro's first worker-led decision-making body.
Organizing day laborers to improve their lives at informal hiring sites and supporting the creation of Day Laborer Committees; and
Producing and performing "Day Labor Street Theatre" that utilizes popular education to inform day laborers about their rights, and to analyze the realities on the corners where workers wait for employers who may hire them for the day.¹⁰

Strategies for supporting and facilitating community capacity building
The National Community Development Institute (NCDI) suggests the following model for supporting capacity building with underserved communities:

Function as enablers, facilitators, resources and co-creators with the community, not as "experts" imposing "other" cultural perspectives or approaches.
Identify, document, synthesize and transfer knowledge about lessons learned and return it to the community, because it belongs to them; and incorporate the lessons learned into the institutional practices of those providing support or technical assistance so that they, too, can continue to grow;
Engage in a process of diagnosis that consists of creating a planning team made up of individuals who represent the various perspectives within an organization or community;
Review the history and cultural elements of the community prior to beginning a project (conduct a "listening project");
Engage the planning team in dialogue to define the best approach for overall organizational effect (done with them…not to them); and then create a Technical Assistance Plan that reflects the voices of the planning team.

To carry out this model, NCDI describes appropriate personnel sent into the communities (staff and consultants) as teams that are technically and culturally appropriate to the specific community, in terms of background and experience. That team does the following:

Does a scan of the environment and selects the tools and process that are culturally based and arise from the organization or community's wisdom;
Includes a strategy for leaving capacity in the organization or community that outlives their work with them, and the offer of follow-up check-in to increase the chances of sustained institutional capacity;
Provides culturally and linguistically appropriate processes and tools;
Adapts their service delivery methods to meet the unique needs of diverse groups and ensures that all voices are included in the process. Tailors the methods to the community's history and cultures, and uses this history and culture(s) as tools;
Ensures that those impacted by decisions are in steering positions;
Ensures that the language and process of the intervention (strategic plan, program evaluation, etc.) is not oppressive;
Ensures that support services (child care, food, translation, transportation, etc.) are provided so that everyone can participate; and
Delivers services and products in multiple media (written, oral, electronic, paper, etc.) so that everyone in the community has access to them.

Results of Wilder Research Surveys and Interviews with Capacity Builders and IRLOs

Findings are reported for interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs involved in the 11 projects for which both capacity builder and client data are available. The primary focus areas for this discussion were identified by their prominence in the data from the interviews. This discussion of findings from surveys and interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs includes: the impact of the projects on IRLOs' capacity; agreement between capacity builders and IRLOs about the project objectives and the degree to which they had been met; and key factors described as reasons for a project's success.

Impact of the projects

Of the 11 capacity builder/IRLO pairs, seven of the IRLOs interviewed said "definitely yes" when asked whether the project had helped their organization grow in being able to meet important goals, and three more said "probably yes". Only one IRLO representative [a board chair] said that the IRLO did not benefit from the project or make use of what they learned, but that representative attributed the lack of success to the IRLO's own executive director and board members rather to than the capacity builder. Even so, this IRLO representative felt that participating in the project was valuable in becoming a better board chair.

Every IRLO named outcomes of the project that were helpful to the organization. Most were directly related to the specific objectives of their work with a capacity builder. Some general themes in IRLOs' descriptions of their organizations' increased capacity are:

Improved ability to network, partner, or develop coalitions
Improved ability to engage and organize the community
Expanded resources to provide to the community
Improved systems and greater expertise among staff

Other important types of expanded capacity, though not listed by either capacity builder or IRLO as objectives for their work together, were evident in the interviews with IRLOs. They were described as after-effects of the actual capacity building project, including:

Improvements in board and staff confidence, and in ability to plan and pursue goals
Improved visibility and status within the community
Increased self-sufficiency within the community resulting from expansion of IRLO's resources or services

Agreement on objectives and degree to which they had been met

During qualitative analysis of the capacity builder surveys and the IRLO interviews, it became apparent that people working on the same project frequently gave different responses not only on how well the project's objectives were met, but on the actual objectives themselves.

Listed objectives
There was often disagreement on the specific objectives among six of the 11 capacity builder/IRLO pairs, with five capacity builders listing more objectives than their IRLOs, and one IRLO listing more objectives than the capacity builder. This implies some degree of less-than-perfect communication between capacity builder and IRLO. Nonetheless, in all cases there were at least two objectives that both capacity builder and IRLO agreed upon, and there were no cases where capacity builder and IRLO completely disagreed on project objectives.

Agreement on degree to which objectives were met
At times capacity builders reported higher success that IRLOs, and at times IRLOs reported higher success than capacity builders, but the disagreement was small. Either one said the objective was exceeded and the other said it was met, or one said the objective met while the other said it was partially met. There were no cases where one felt that an objective listed by both partners had been met to some degree while the other felt it had not.

Patterns in mutual determinations of success
Two major patterns emerged when capacity builders and IRLOs agreed that objectives had been met or exceeded. The first was that the more specific the objective, the more likely the capacity builder and IRLO would agree on the degree to which it was met. For example, when capacity builders performed finite tasks such as technology upgrades, implementation of new financial systems, completion of organizational assessments, and rewriting of policies and procedures, capacity builders and IRLOs more often agreed about the degree to which the objective had been met.

A second pattern appeared most often when both IRLO and capacity builder agreed that the objective was only partially met. In these cases, the capacity builder frequently focused on not having fully met the end goal while IRLOs focused on progress made toward that goal, highlighting the capacity builder's commitment to being an ally and advocate.

Patterns in differing determinations of success
There was less agreement between capacity builders and IRLOs in how well the less measurable objectives had been met, such as whether or not a dialogue had been facilitated, or whether an IRLO's influence in some area had been increased. In some cases, the capacity builder rated the meeting of the objective more highly than the IRLO, most often emphasizing progress made while IRLOs more often emphasized the failure to attain a specific outcome they felt to be essential. In a few instances, IRLOs rated the degree to which a single objective was met more highly than the capacity builder. In all of these cases, the capacity builder reported less satisfaction because training was incomplete while the IRLO was enthusiastic about either having received financial support or having learned something specific that they found very useful.

Especially when the project involved an initiative or community organizing, capacity builders attributed success to their involvement in laying the foundation, their own status or influence on decision-makers, the activities or procedures they implemented, the strategies they used, the resources they provided (including skilled capacity builders). The IRLOs engaged in these projects almost universally based their ratings on not what was done, but on how it was done, with the major theme being the importance of the capacity builder coming to the table as an ally and equal partner rather than as the expert directing the uninformed.

Two major themes appear when comparing capacity builders' and IRLOs' responses related to meeting objectives: first, that though there may not have been perfect agreement on the project's objectives (which indicates a need for capacity builders to check in with stakeholders periodically), all IRLOs were nonetheless very grateful for the assistance they received. Second, when the capacity builder was viewed as an ally, the IRLO was more likely to rate the success of the project positively even when objectives had not been fully met.

Key success factors

Nexus capacity builders' perspectives on ensuring success
The survey asked capacity builders to rate the relative importance of specific characteristics and strategies in the work they did with IRLOs on the target projects. The characteristics and strategies are shown below, in order of the importance given them by capacity builders (the high end of the scale was 1, the low end was 3):

Nexus capacity builders' rankings of importance of specified success factors

	Average Score
Tailoring the assistance you provided to the organization's specific needs and priorities	1.00
Building on skills, systems and structures that were already working for the organization	1.00
Being aware of community politics and power dynamics that could affect the organization's ability to reach their goals	1.27
Creating a relationship where you and the people you assist learn from each other	1.36
Coming from, or having direct experience with, the communities the IRLO organization works with	1.45
Allowing the organization to set and adjust the project timeline according to their needs	1.45
Having skills and direct experience relevant to the organization's work	1.45
Having the capacity to bridge language and cultural barriers	1.64
Being aware of and transparent about your own individual values, class, use of power and biases	1.73

IRLO perspectives on success factors

Being an ally
The factor for success most frequently mentioned in interviews with IRLOs was a capacity builder's demonstrated commitment to being a true ally, advocate and capacity builder of the IRLO and/or the community it serves. The depth and quality of the capacity builder's personal and emotional investment in the IRLO or its community appears to have a powerful impact on not just the ability to get work done, but also on the IRLO's assessment of the project's success. The following are a few examples of this theme from IRLOs' interviews:

They are allowing us to work according to the community and its culture…It is more of a two-way street between us.

They were more of a resource…The closest thing that would describe our relationship is capacity builders.

They were part of us in working the program out…It was a collaboration; we feel they were behind us and with us in our work for the community, not pushing us.

Several key approaches to capacity building appeared in IRLO interviews that seem to increase an IRLO's tendency to see a project as a success. They are described in the following sections.

Cooperative, hands-on approaches
IRLOs emphasized the value of providing hands-on learning that allowed them to immediately apply new information and new skills. This approach was mentioned as particularly helpful in any kind of training. One IRLO in particular talked about wanting participants who took part in a training activity to be able to move into leadership roles in training the next wave of participants, as a way to both solidify what was learned and to expand the development of new content and new approaches through fresh and varied perspectives.

As a contrast, another IRLO described a board's growing resistance to a more formal approach:

The capacity builder was lecturing like they were in Grade 5… The board was often receivers of information, not thinkers of information. The capacity builder came back to teaching and not building true capacity and leadership. In strategic planning, we got to the end, and it's "Let's just get this thing over, because she is beating it to death."

Similarly, the IRLO interviews reveal a preference for team-building for particular tasks or issues rather than formally structured networking activities. The IRLOs appeared to find greater value in relationship-building that occurs as a part of doing the actual work that is important to the IRLO's mission, than activities having networking as a specific goal.

IRLOs feeling valued
IRLOs emphasized the importance of feeling that their input is valued by the capacity builder and that they are met as equals. IRLOs frequently cited a capacity builder's inclusive approach to information-gathering, planning, and problem-solving as a reason for success. In one case, the IRLO reported that the capacity builder organization implemented a process in which a series of phone calls and informal surveys were used to give training recipients a consistent role in determining specific topics and setting goals for training activities.

In another case, an IRLO reported that the capacity builder spent "really focused time" interviewing all staff involved in a particular capacity area of the IRLO, getting a clear sense of everyone's experience, perspective and suggestions so that capacity could be developed. In a third case, the IRLO described the value of the capacity builder's ability to work one-on-one with a resistant manager by putting himself in her shoes and showing a willingness to see things from her point of view. By using common language and finding a comfortable way for the manager to interact with him, the capacity builder was able to explain what needed to be done and why in a way that made sense to the manager and gained her support.

In another case where an objective was a planning process, the IRLO attributed success to the capacity builder having taken on the role of facilitator at two staff and board retreats. According to the IRLO, the capacity builder ensured success by handling all facilitation responsibilities, including taking notes (rather than assigning a staff or board member to do so, which they had experienced previously), rephrasing and feeding information back to the participants. The IRLO described this approach as "true technical assistance", and indicated that the capacity builder's approach created a strong sense of staff and board ownership in identifying critical issues and outlining objectives and strategies on those issues.

Flexibility in adapting support to specific needs or limitations
Another theme in IRLO descriptions of success is the capacity builder's flexibility in responding to the unique needs of the IRLO or the community they serve, to the IRLO's familiarity or comfort with using mainstream approaches, and to constraints on an IRLO's ability to spend staff or board time on a project. In one case, the IRLO attributed the success of their project to a Nexus capacity builder's flexibility in allowing them to use the funding provided to build housing that fits the community's cultural norms and family needs, and the Nexus capacity builder's willingness to go to bat for them with other potential capacity builders and funders. In another case, the capacity builder acted as a bridge between the IRLO and mainstream decision-makers by visiting the IRLO, setting up meetings between the decision-makers and the IRLO, going with them to the meetings, and making follow-up calls to the decision-makers.

As a contrast, another IRLO described her response to the capacity builder's approach to building a network of relationships:

[Relationship-building] was a priority issue [for us]. [The capacity builders] provide names of contacts, but it is hard for a small organization like us to have the time to make the contacts. And we do not see how the contact relates to the overall plan.

Another IRLO described a similar difficulty in a project in which a capacity builder was to provide training to the IRLO's very small board and two-person staff on new system software. From the IRLO's perspective, the capacity builder was more focused on implementing the system than on ensuring staff's ability to use it. Because staff and board could not consistently attend training sessions as a group but that was the structure provided, the outcome was that three people were partially trained on varying components of the system but none were fully trained on all. Still, because the capacity builder was also contracted by the Nexus capacity builder to provide follow-up technical assistance, the IRLO considered the organizational capacity to have been expanded though she would have preferred another approach.

Beyond "cultural awareness"
IRLOs consistently mentioned a capacity builder's deep knowledge of their organization's and community's history, culture(s), critical issues, learning and decision-making styles and ongoing challenges when describing reasons for the successful completion of objectives. The link between seeing capacity builders come in with (and constantly attempt to increase) their cultural knowledge and sensitivity, and a project's perceived success, was described in three distinct ways in the IRLO interviews. The first was that the capacity builder is sensitive to the IRLO's culture and unique needs and abilities because the capacity builder has extensive cross-cultural experience in multiple communities, which makes him/her open to cultural perspectives, communication styles and needs unique to a particular community. The second explanation is that the capacity builder either is a member of the ethnic community or works closely with a team having members of that community. The third is that the capacity builder is open, flexible, understanding, and willing to believe that the IRLO is an authority on their community and knows what they or the community needs, even though the capacity builder is not a minority, immigrant or refugee. The following are some examples of IRLO comments about whether or not it is important that the capacity building capacity builder have the same background as the IRLO:

Not necessarily, but working with groups like ours helped. Having knowledge about the particular challenges facing the community.

It is helpful to have someone from that background, not necessarily from the same ethnic group, but able to understand.

It's best if they have an idea of the challenges. If all the capacity builders are mainstream, they wouldn't understand the issues.

They don't necessarily have to be from the community (that can be challenging), but certainly should be reflective of the community. [The Nexus capacity builder] seems to use only one group of capacity builders, none of whom are of color.

They need to understand the culture. It is important to be strong enough, to establish accountability and common ground.

The capacity builder needs to align with the community to determine ways to help the grantee organization to the next level rather than trying to make that determination him/herself.

Some IRLOs found it helpful if the capacity builder's ethnic background was consistent with that of the IRLO, some felt similar backgrounds and/or knowledge about community politics and powers could complicate the work to be done, and still others wanted greater diversity in their choice of capacity builders assigned to them. The following is what some had IRLOs had to say on the topic:

The capacity builder we got had a similar background, and he was able to use examples from his own organization's activities and approach and his own daily leadership model. He could talk about practice, not just theory.

They should hire capacity builders who are "visible minorities."

A few IRLOs commented on the lack of diversity in the pool from which they had to select a capacity builder, and described a lack of cultural competence as a real barrier to success. The following are a few examples of comments in this vein:

If they were to come in and tell us what to do, it is not beneficial for the community.

[The consulting organization] says our board needs to reflect the cultural composition of the community, but they don't reflect that themselves.

Experience with similar organizations
Six of the 11 IRLOs completing interviews said that to be effective in building capacity with their organization, a capacity builder needed to have experience with similar organizations. IRLOs listed a number of qualifiers for this statement:

But as capacity builders not teachers.

Especially small to medium size organizations.

It's always a plus to have the level of necessary understanding and experience related to the challenges and issues of small organizations.

Similarity helps when the organization providing the capacity builder has a pool of organizations that provide services to refugee-serving organizations.

Several of the IRLOs interviewed felt that successful capacity building requires some level of familiarity or prior experience with the community, its culture and its unique needs. These are some IRLO comments:

Capacity builders need to be understanding of diverse communities and aware of varying needs.

They need the ability to understand the unique needs of each community and the level of need of that community.

[Capacity builder's long history of doing this work with the community] gave us confidence about their work and guidance.

On the other hand, some IRLOs were cautious about requiring that capacity builders have prior experience in the community because some capacity builders who are members of ethnic communities may not have the needed level of skills and abilities.

Objectivity and neutrality
A few IRLOs described a capacity builder's ability to remain neutral and objective while also being very inclusive as a very important contribution to a successful process. One IRLO said:

He was neutral about it, not on anybody's side. He was trying to figure out how do we get to the next goal, not being on anybody's side.

Two IRLOs in particular attributed a project's limited success to bias on the part of a person essential to the success of the project. The first IRLO felt that the capacity builder's previous alliances within the IRLO caused the capacity builder to not include everyone who would have been relevant in the organizational assessment. The IRLO said

I had to direct her to interview everybody, and she didn't do that. It was more her alliances with the specific programs that came out in her report…I didn't see it happening until the report came out and I felt really uncomfortable telling the capacity builder how the report should be. In my mind, she should have had more integrity to be unbiased…the same capacity builder did the strategic planning.

The second IRLO, whom the capacity builder described as their "champion," attributed their project's relative lack of success to bias on the part of the IRLO's executive director, who refused to support the capacity builder's proposed model and searched for others, and the board, who would not engage in the project. In the latter case, it appears that the issue may have been not bias, but pre-existing tensions within the IRLO itself that were exacerbated by the capacity builder's alignment with a single "point person" who was already in conflict with the executive director and staff of the organization.

Other things that help ensure success
A capacity builder's access to resources and their level of influence can play an important role in the success of a project. In two cases, the capacity builder had the relationships and reputation necessary to bring key decision-makers to the table with the IRLO. Providing funding for an IRLO's capacity expansion is seen by IRLOs as a key ingredient in achieving objectives, especially funding that supports the addition of key staff. The desired type of staffing additions varied, from hiring people with specialized knowledge to hiring people to recruit and coordinate the activities of volunteers so that the current staff could devote more time to moving the organization forward in a coordinated and efficient way.

In nine of the 11 projects covered in this report, a Nexus capacity builder either directly funded the capacity building activities, or paid for an independent capacity builder who provided that assistance. In five cases, the Nexus capacity builder funded and provided services for the capacity-expansion project, and in four the Nexus capacity builder provided an independent capacity building capacity builder. In the remaining two projects, the IRLO provided the funds itself.

Beyond being able to provide financial resources, the capacity builder's own capacity to be a sort of "resources encyclopedia" for their IRLOs was consistently cited by IRLOs as a reason for their success in meeting objectives. This includes having specific in-depth knowledge about particular people, organizations, systems, issues, processes or skills. It also involves their ability to quickly answer very specific questions and link IRLOs to other capacity builders or resource-providing organizations. At the organizational level, capacity builders are seen as a "rich resource" by IRLOs when they have a number of specialists on staff or available for consultation who can provide very specific types of information or training. IRLOs' descriptions of this kind of support were unique to those working directly with Nexus capacity builders rather than with independent capacity builders hired and provided by the Nexus capacity builder, and often noted the speed and thoroughness of the Nexus capacity builder's response to IRLO requests.

Another visible pattern in what IRLOs listed as contributors to success is the capacity builder's provision of clear and specific examples. For training activities, fact sheets, graphic illustrations of a model or process, printed information about free resources and materials, and materials for training others (especially in languages other than English) are highly valued by IRLOs. In projects involving the introduction of new models or new systems for governance, financial management, or human resources policies and procedures, IRLOs praised the usefulness of verbal stories and written examples showing a variety of options or what is being used currently by a number of other similar organizations.

Areas for additional exploration

A number of areas have the potential to be significant in successful capacity building. The following may be useful topics for future discussion and areas of exploration by Nexus capacity builders:

Re-thinking the practice of assigning tasks or responsibilities to IRLO staff and board members as a way to instill "ownership."
Finding innovative ways to loosen the constraints on small organizations' board and staff so they can fully engage in strategic planning and capacity building.
Determining the successful attainment of objectives that are processes rather than tasks.
Establishing IRLO's credibility with funders and policy-makers.
"Generational" approaches to training leadership and development, in which those just trained immediately train others.
Considerations and approaches needed for selecting and introducing models and systems for use by IRLOs, especially very small organizations.
Building flexibility into large initiatives.
Ensuring capacity builder quality and IRLO satisfaction when independent capacity builders are provided to an IRLO by a capacity builder.
Improving capacity builders' overall responsiveness to IRLO's specific questions and individual needs.
The considerable importance of relationships in IRLOs' assessments of success.
Cultural differences in types of support needed to build relationships with potential capacity builders outside the immigrant or refugee community.

Results of Fieldstone Alliance Surveys and Interviews with Capacity Builders and IRLOs

Findings are reported here for interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs involved in the eight projects for which both capacity builder and client data are available. No findings are reported for questions related to what prompted the work, reasons assistance was sought, types of work done, identifying and selecting a consultant, or characteristics and abilities of the consultant, because data are not available for all respondents in the eight sets of interviews. The primary focus areas for these reported findings are: the respective roles of capacity builders and their clients, the shaping of the projects, what helped projects go well, what did not go well, and advice given by capacity builders and IRLO representatives to other capacity builders and other IRLOs.

Project types

The eight projects could be loosely characterized in one of two ways: assessing and/or strengthening one or more strategic areas of a single IRLO and its work; or formalizing and/or creating systems to strengthen collaborative efforts among multiple IRLOs. Six projects involved capacity builders working with individual IRLOs on individual projects (either singly or in a setting where multiple IRLOs participated in peer learning activities), and two projects were undertaken by a Nexus partner while working with a network of IRLOs.

Shaping the projects

Interviewers asked capacity builders and the IRLOs who worked with them on the eight projects "Who all was involved in shaping this project?" Follow-up questions included "Who shaped the work plan or agenda?", "How much input did the organization have?" and "How wide was the consultation?" Since the probe questions varied and are subjective in nature, it is not surprising that there was a great deal of variation in various respondents' answers about the same project.

In three of the projects, the Nexus partner played a major role in shaping the project, usually because the IRLO applied to be part of the partner's initiative or program that focused on specific types of capacity building. The following table illustrates partners and consultant's responses to questions about how projects were shaped compared to clients' responses, for each "matched set" of interviews on the same project.

Who or what shaped the projects?

Set #	Partner's/Consultant's Response	Client's Response
1	Nexus partner sent questions to the board president, who distributed them to the board. Through their responses the board shaped their own agenda	Nexus partner presented a proposal to board, which the board accepted
2	Client respondent had the idea and approached the Nexus partner, who provided a capacity builder consultant, the consultant helped the IRLO move forward	Advisory committee from community agencies, of which IRLO is a member
3	Members of the network that made up the IRLO group	Members of the client IRLO network and the executive director
4	No information	IRLO's executive director, board president and board, some ex-board members who serve on committees, and IRLO staff
5	Nexus partner developed the project with the senior management team	Internal capacity team (staff and board)
6	Executive director, board, management team, frontline staff, IRLO's partner agencies	Consecutive presidents of the board, the whole executive body of the board, and City and community resource staff
7	Multiple-IRLO project: Nexus partner, through their screening and application process—then fine-tuning of focus was based on the needs and expectations of selected IRLOs	IRLO's program director
8	Nexus partner designed the project, participating IRLOs approved and then took ownership	Nexus partner and eventually IRLO members

Levels of capacity building

In both types of projects, IRLOs and capacity builders described two general levels of capacity building. The first (baseline) level involves simply helping an IRLO develop the capacity to spend time and energy on the second level, which is made up of the activities that are generally considered to be "capacity building:" training, strengthening the structure and processes of the organization, strategic planning, and consultation support before, during, and after implementation.

Respective roles of capacity builders and IRLOs

There was a great deal of variation in roles that capacity builders occupied in their work with IRLOs, and in most cases the capacity builders acted in multiple roles. Interviews indicate that capacity builders acted as trainers in six projects. Six projects also involved board governance and strategic planning. Three projects involved training on evaluation and/or reporting, three involved training on operations and finance, two involved training on grant writing and/or fundraising, and one project received training on community engagement.

Capacity builders also frequently acted as coaches or advisors to IRLOs. In six projects, capacity builders described their work as involving mentoring, encouraging, guiding, and/or advising their IRLOs. A third common role (mentioned in five of the projects) was that of facilitator, usually of a decision-making or planning process. A fourth role was supporting or doing assessments, either supporting IRLOs in conducting their own organizational or community needs assessments, or performing those assessments with input from the IRLO. A fifth role was that of an advocate/liaison, someone who linked the IRLO to government agencies and other decision-makers having the authority to help the IRLO reach a goal, and endorsed the IRLO's efforts.

Nexus partners were also funders of the assistance provided, either directly or indirectly. Four of the five Nexus partners involved in these eight projects provided at least partial funding for at least one of the projects they nominated. Capacity building support for five of the projects was funded (at least in part) Nexus partner providing the services; in another two projects, consultants were hired by a Nexus partner to provide capacity building support; and in the remaining project, the Nexus partner helped the IRLO obtain county funding to pay for the partner's consulting services.

Capacities built

Interviewers asked both capacity builders and IRLOs to describe the ways that the IRLO did things differently as a result of the project, probing for types of growth or learning and capacities built. As on other questions, capacity builders and IRLOs often had different perspectives, but responses to that question and additional comments throughout the interviews still showed a large variety of ways that IRLOs had been strengthened. The following table shows types of growth and how often they were mentioned by capacity builders and by IRLOs.

Capacity Builders	IRLOs
Stronger operations
Improved ability to raise funds/financial management (4 projects)	Improved ability to raise funds/financial management (2 projects)
Created or improved operations/management systems (3 projects)	Created or improved operations/procedures/ management systems (3 projects)
Greater assertiveness/awareness when working with mainstream systems (3 projects)	Greater assertiveness/awareness when working with mainstream systems (1 project)
Stronger/more sustainable organization (3 projects)	Stronger/more sustainable organization (1 project)
More efficient use of staff time (2 projects)	Increased staff participation/unity (2 projects)
Better understanding of staff needs (2 projects)	Better understanding of staff needs (1 project
	Created or improved services or programs (1 project)
Stronger leadership
Improved board effectiveness (3 projects)	Improved board effectiveness (5 projects)
More defined, better understood mission/vision (2 projects)	More defined/better understood mission/ vision (3 projects)
Strategic plan in place/increased ability to plan and act (3 projects)	Strategic plan in place/increased ability to plan (1 project)
More able to take on new things	Increased participation by board (1 project)
	Improved risk management/governance systems (1 project)
Stronger position in the community
Improved community relations (2 projects)	Increased participation by community/improved community relations (1 project)
Changes in work/approaches to partnerships/collaboration (1 project)	Improved relationships with other ethnic groups within racial category (1 project)
Better understanding of stakeholder and external needs (2 projects)
Improved ability to use and share tools developed/act as a resource
Improved networking/relationships with other IRLOs (1 project)

What helped the projects go well

Capacity builder's knowledge or expertise
Not surprisingly, IRLOs and capacity builders alike described a capacity building professional's expertise as very important to the success of a project. Consultants' deep knowledge about governmental, financial, and legal systems, the grant-making community and specific development areas such as housing clearly helped IRLOs do informed and useful strategic planning in those areas. Consultants' high level of skill as trainers was credited for the creation of innovative and inclusive learning environments where recipients of information described being able to participate at their own level and gain important awareness and knowledge in their areas of need. One of the areas that IRLOs reported as especially helpful was consultants' facilitation skills, particularly a consultant's ability to keep the IRLO's team together and focused on the process or issues at hand. Tied to these types of expertise is the importance of a capacity builder's connections to resources and the people who can provide access to those resources.

Though these factors are clear contributors to successful capacity building, there appear to be three critical components that must be in place for expertise to be transmitted. Nexus partners, consultants and providers highlighted 1) money, 2) time, and 3) an "ally" relationship between the capacity builder and the IRLO as the key components of successful capacity building.

Buying time
The interviews indicate that it is necessary to literally "buy time" when doing capacity building with IRLOs, especially with young or very small organizations. Predevelopment funding appears essential, to support the IRLO financially so that its leaders feel less pressured to "chase the money" and more able to engage in activities that strengthen the organization in other ways. This seems to be particularly important when government agencies are cutting financial support for the organization. All of the IRLOs viewed training and strategic planning as extremely important to the stability and sustainability of their organizations, but many also talked of how difficult it is to balance a small organization's need to ensure its financial survival against its need to expand the capacity of its internal and external structures, systems, and processes.

In four of the eight sets of interviews, the IRLO specifically stated "it takes capacity to build capacity," and capacity builders and IRLOs both frequently referred to time demands on IRLO leaders and staff as a cost often ignored by funders of capacity building efforts. IRLOs repeatedly mentioned having too much to do in too little time, and one mentioned the consultant's obvious frustration with the IRLO's failure to prioritize time schedules.

All eight IRLOs reported having volunteer boards whose members' time was constrained by the demands of their own jobs, family, and community responsibilities. These boards were often occupied the actual management and survival of the organization, and for several IRLOs the sole staff person was the executive director. Volunteer board members often could not attend even free workshops during business hours, since they were all working at their own jobs. In these cases, time was described as the limiter of not just what could be accomplished, but what the organization felt itself able to take on. This was particularly true in projects where the timeline was dictated and/or constrained by the organization funding the project.

Lack of time had other costs, too. Not having enough time to develop an IRLO's credibility among mainstream institutions prior to moving forward on a project made it impossible for one IRLO to get essential data from those sources. Feeling driven to move forward prematurely in order to stay on schedule was repeatedly mentioned by both capacity builders and IRLOs as a part of the project that "didn't work". One capacity builder reported that the combination of time constraints and her lack of awareness about community politics caused her to move ahead without first ensuring that consensus had been achieved, resulting in conflict within the board—which slowed the strategic planning process significantly.

Feeling that the project was left unfinished, or that the product was not as good as it could have been, were mentioned as very real costs of adapting the quality of the work to time constraints. One IRLO commented that some things are a "quick fix," but others require gradual change over time and longer-term work. Another reported that the though a strategic plan can be developed, there is usually no funding to ensure that it is implemented with fidelity to the plan.

On the other hand, when the IRLO was able to achieve the baseline capacity of time and energy, spending that time was viewed as a strong positive in doing sustainable capacity development. Having time allowed IRLOs to "get up to speed," creating the essential foundation needed to engage in strategic planning. IRLOs that had a long, funded time frame reported that they were able to:

Identify common ground—with the consultant(s) providing assistance, and among members of networks and coalitions involving IRLOs representing multiple ethnic and racial groups.
Build trust by airing and discussing differences, negotiating and resolving conflicts.
Increase basic knowledge within the IRLO board and leadership about nonprofit management, leadership, and legal responsibilities related to finances and human resources that are particular to the U.S. context.
Understand what was being taught or proposed, process information, practice new knowledge and skills, participate in what was being offered.
Revisit important questions at each stage of the work, potentially recognizing early definitions of "primary issues" as simply symptoms of other underlying primary factors that must be resolved prior to moving forward.
Determine which kinds of capacity are essential to the sustainability of the IRLO—which can be hired from outside (in some cases, financial, human resources, or legal assistance) and which must be developed as systems or processes within organization.
Develop a "strategic thinking" model for decision-making that forms the foundation for strategic planning.

Having a longer time frame is even more important to doing capacity building with a network or coalition of IRLOs than it is in working with individual IRLOs, particularly when the network is made up of organizations representing multiple ethnic groups from multiple continents. In the two network-IRLO projects, a very diverse set of IRLOs were brought together to network and collaborate, and ethnic groups from the two large continental regions formed factions. This is not surprising given that immigrant and refugee communities must frequently compete with one another for governmental attention and support. The Nexus partner organization's acceptance of this development as a step toward collaboration, the Nexus partner's ability to provide a diverse set of consultants for various purposes, and the consultants' consistent modeling of collaborative attitudes and behaviors created an environment in which the various ethnic groups were able to find other kinds of mutuality upon which to base new collaborations—and the IRLO indicated that ongoing support over a three-year period made all of this possible.

Nexus partners who funded their own projects and provided training and consultation over several years appear to have been most successful with IRLOs. Providing predevelopment financial incentives to engage in training on the organization, structure, and legal responsibilities of nonprofits and their boards played a strong role in gaining strong buy-in from IRLOs with little or no staff, and volunteer boards. Not surprisingly, IRLOs most often considered a project to be a major success when both time and money were provided.

The quality of relationships

The importance of prior relationships
In seven of the eight projects, at least one leader at the IRLO had a previous relationship with the Nexus partner funding or providing the capacity building assistance, and three of those seven involved relationships spanning several years. Each of those IRLOs indicated that the trust established in previous work was the foundation for trusting the partner's/consultant's guidance and advice in the current project.

Beyond the establishment of that basic trust, IRLOs emphasized the importance of capacity builders' ability to engage in a "reciprocal partnership" as a friend, ally, and advocate.

Being an ally

At the first whiff of a consultant "knowing it all," it's done.

Sometimes the immigrant agency may tell you they want ABC, and then will not bother you again, giving you respect that you are taking care of ABC. You may think they don't care. You should ask. If you haven't heard from them for a while, ask for opinions and updates; take the initiative to communicate.

The ability to convey information, offer support, and provide advice in ways that make recipients feel respected, included, and valued appears to be of great importance to IRLOs. One capacity builder described this approach as "blurring the lines" between multiple roles and being willing to play more roles than are typically expected of consultants. Individual IRLOs emphasized the importance of a consultant having mutual values and purposes, and active commitment to their organization and community. One IRLO described the capacity builder on his project as the IRLO's "organizational therapist," involved in every aspect of the organization from hiring committees to raising awareness on the importance of "back office" functions. He also described increases in participation by the staff and board, and better cooperation between them, as outcomes of the project. It may be that capacity builders' visible demonstration of their own commitment to being an ally and friend, and their modeling of a reciprocal partnership, can contribute strongly to long-term engagement and investment of precious time and energy by IRLO leaders and staff members. The value of this type of relationship also emerged as a priority in the interviews that Wilder Research conducted with Nexus partners and other IRLOs.

It is important to note that IRLOs did not see being an ally as lacking objectivity or being unable to view a situation or system from the outside. In several of the IRLO interviews, respondents made specific reference to the value of having an objective, neutral expert partner who was also a trusted ally, in guiding IRLOs through internal assessments and organizational change.

Getting a consultant from a "similar background" seems to be the preference of IRLOs. The fact that "similar background" was interpreted in many different ways clearly complicated that process. Descriptions of "similar background" included speaking the same language, coming from the same ethnic group, coming from the same continent, having a shared experience as an immigrant or refugee, having the same religion or sexual orientation, or currently living in the same local community. When the capacity builder's definition differs from the IRLO's and an ally relationship is not fully established, it appears to have inhibited the success of the project and the IRLO's satisfaction of the outcomes. On the other hand, the strength of an ally relationship coupled with a high level of expertise in the consultant(s) seems to dramatically improve the likelihood of success and the IRLO's satisfaction with the project outcomes.

IRLOs' advice for capacity builders
There were a number of general themes in the various pieces of advice that IRLO representatives gave to capacity builders working with IRLOs. All appear to be important components of the same sort of "ally" relationship that was highlighted in the Wilder Research surveys and interviews.

"Do your homework." Engage in active and ongoing efforts to learn as much as possible about the history, immigrant or refugee experience, problems, culture and preferred ways of working of the IRLO organization and community it serves—prior to engaging in work together. Ask a lot of questions if you don't understand something.
"Don't bring bias." Be sensitive to the community and have experience with it. Be sensitive to your own culture and ways of doing work, and recognize that bridging cultures is critically important. Be respectful at all times; you do not know it all.
Really listen to the IRLO leaders and its community, and "listen with your hearts." Meet the IRLO staff and board at their level of function and get to know their personalities and learning styles. Create the safe space for the organization to acknowledge its weak areas without fear of judgment or consequence.
Be aware that in some cultures, "receiving help" indicates that the person or organization needing help is bad or broken. Frame the project as "working together," not "helping."
"You need a fierce commitment to learning." Be willing to learn and show that you are willing to learn—it is essential to establishing rapport.
"Be fluent around [the issue of] power." Be willing to talk up front about how you will communicate through or resolve conflict, and how you will approach getting and giving feedback.
Say "we," not "you" to show you're willing to work with us. Don't refer to yourself as a "consultant."

Capacity builders' advice to peers about working with IRLOs
The Nexus partners also offered advice to other capacity builders on how to build strong working relationships with IRLO staff and board members, much of which also focuses on the quality of the relationship:

Be aware of yourself and your position; don't present yourself as "the expert" in the relationship. Remember there's no such thing as a cookie cutter solution to problems—we have to learn as much as or more than the IRLOs we work with.
Make it clear that you are not a problem-solving person—but that you will help the IRLO find a solution themselves. Be prepared to do a lot of handholding whenever there are steep learning curves.
If you have familiarity/affiliation/identity with their ethnic or other culture, mention it—it's a key bridge.
Customize your approach to their challenges. Let go of the perception that smaller organizations are not sophisticated thinkers even if they don't have particularly sophisticated systems. Focus on the IRLO's assets, what their vision is and what their skills are, rather than just the weaknesses.
Create an inclusive process that allows you to hear about the experiences of stakeholders, especially staff.

Advice from one IRLO to another about working with a consultant
Interviewers asked IRLOs for advice, for other IRLOs considering working with a capacity-building consultant. The following list is a summary of their comments:

Using a consultant is a capacity-building effort in itself. Don't let the need for money undermine working with the consultant on building your strengths.
You need free time and energy to keep pace with consultants who are on a limited time line. Answer their questions, comment on their interim reports, give them they information they need. Consultants can get frustrated with a lack of response or information.
Do your homework—obtain names, resumes and references, get recommendations from other organizations, talk to people you know. Interview capacity builders; get a feel for what they've done and what they're able to do. Check their references and be sure they're the right one.
When a funder is providing the consultant, unless you have to, don't just accept the first person suggested or the "big names"—especially if they don't have experience working with your community or other organizations like yours.
Be as clear as possible about your needs and goals. Have a dialogue and develop a clear mutual understanding about the big picture—what your organization is trying to accomplish, your larger mission and vision. If you are too vague, you may not get what you want.
Define the boundaries between consultant and staff—what do you expect from the consultant, and from your own organization's time commitments?
Ask questions about how the consultant works and what they can do for you. Be sure that you understand what they can and cannot do. Be clear about how you want to develop your relationship, what drives the work, your preferred style, and how it gets done. Get a feel for their personality and whether they can work with the board. Ask them to describe the problems of immigrants and refugees.
Know how to make your values explicit in the choosing of a consultant who shares those values. Acknowledging shared values is an important part of creating the success, especially for comprehensive projects.
Have an open mind. Listen for new ideas, and be open to suggestions about how your project goals connect to other things your organization is doing.
Learn not to reserve information—share it with the consultant.

Other contributors to success

Training
Training is clearly an important part of helping IRLOs develop both baseline capacity and more traditional organizational capacity. Conveying the very basic foundations of concepts, such as the description of what constitutes a nonprofit organization, why board leadership is central to a strong nonprofit organization, and the essential functions of a governing board, were all described as areas where consultants had helped strengthen IRLOs. Hands-on activities involving active learning with peers and immediate and repeated application of what was learned were the most frequent themes in descriptions of successful training activities. It also appears important to check in with IRLOs about who they consider their "peers." As in the case of "similar background", "peer" may mean a variety of things to a variety of people.

As noted above, the experience of putting new knowledge to good use was considered very important in successful training. Receiving coaching and assistance from the consultant as they did their own assessment is one way that IRLOs described feeling empowered in their ability to examine and improve the structure and work of their organizations. The use of examples of potential outcomes was particularly important in training related to finances and board governance, particularly when working with groups not familiar with U.S. policies and regulations related to fiscal and legal responsibility. One IRLO representative described the value of linking tangible examples to something the IRLO leaders can see, such as the financial implications for board members when nonprofit management practices to not adhere to U.S. laws and regulations.

Capacity builders and IRLOS provided some very specific advice for capacity builders working with IRLOs, related to training. The following are direct quotes from Fieldstone Alliance's interviews with capacity builders:

Be articulate about your theory of change.

Base the methodology of your training in popular education models (adult learning approaches and interactive, experiential learning).

Be aware that board members may have previous experiences outside the U.S. , and may experience confusion about what being active on the board means in the U.S. context. Find a way to open a discussion of what is similar or different in the two environments.

Find out at what level the IRLO understands what they are looking for, and work with them to clearly articulate what they want, create a plan to reach it, and implement that plan. Be more of a facilitator than a teacher.

People in the organizations know best—you bring the tools so they can be more effective. Understand that and don't be a know-it-all.

Leadership development
The importance of developing, distributing, and expanding responsibility and leadership was mentioned frequently by IRLOs and capacity builders. One of the main strategies described as successful for working with IRLOs combined leadership training with ongoing opportunities to use the skills learned. This includes workshops where the consultants listen first, present the key issues, and explain "the how and why" of various options rather than dictating "shoulds;" distributing leadership opportunities broadly by encouraging the participation of board members, ex-board members, and staff in multiple committees; and rotating leadership responsibilities throughout a group, giving a large number of members the opportunity to try out different approaches and processes.

These are tips from capacity builders to other capacity builders working with IRLOs related to board leadership:

Help boards see the need for their clear link with the membership, and to view the service delivery component as important to consider during planning for the organization.

Review the organization's bylaws with the board prior to developing any board development tools. The membership may view the president of the board as the president and CEO, which can create confusion about redistributing authority to give the executive director more power. Sometimes bylaws need to change.

IRLOs also offered these pieces of advice to professional capacity builders thinking about developing leadership on boards:

Put resources and emphasis on board governance [for IRLOs] in newcomer communities.

We need to have a process where community members can be prepared to become board members, like a certification program that could even be a requirement for executive committee members.

Problems with financial mismanagement that result in cuts to [IRLO] budgets could be avoided if knowledge about policies, procedures, and responsibilities of boards was available to community members.

Communication
Both capacity builders and IRLOs described innovative communication strategies that facilitated communication and decision-making, particularly in projects where volunteer boards had very little time to spend in meetings. One of the strategies was the use of technology to expedite planning, including using e-mail to distribute documents and to gather input. Another strategy was doing an assessment by telephone with key members of the organization. However, some IRLOs pointed out that not all communities have the technology or are accustomed to using e-mail as a mode of communication, and members of some cultural communities may be uncomfortable with returning telephone calls, especially when it is considered a virtue not to speak up or discuss problems. Others mentioned that asking IRLO board members to read large documents may not be a helpful approach, which may be related to low literacy rates (especially in English). Also, in communities accustomed to decision-making as an in-depth discussion of all aspects of the issue over an extended period of time and face to face with others involved in making a decision, it appears that developing a strong relationship must be the first order or business.

Some of the specific pieces of advice from IRLOs to capacity builders about communication include:

Put everything "on the table."

Be authentic, present and honest, and tell the IRLO what you have to offer.

Clarify expectations and roles, ensuring that everyone has the same understanding.

Talk clearly about money, products, and the roles of those involved in getting or producing these.

Pay attention to different communication styles and patterns. Don't assume that the words and phrases used mean the same things to the IRLO members as they do to you.

Communicate so people not at your level of experience or understanding can still understand.

Be aware that written communications may not be best for communicating ideas through the organization. Think of creative ways to communicate, like a "talking wall" with graphic rather than written depictions of values.

An important piece of communication, according to IRLOs, involves capacity builders making sure they truly understand what the IRLO wants, and that they are clear about the issues that are driving the work. Several IRLOs suggested that capacity builders should revisit these questions throughout the project, checking in regularly to make sure that there is consensus between IRLO and capacity builder about goals and the processes used to achieve them.

Capacity builders also provided advice for other capacity builders on the topic of cross-cultural communication. These are a few quotes from Fieldstone interviews:

Recognize the inadequacies of your cultural competencies. You can't assume, especially early on, about how you are being perceived. You need to loop back, check things over.

You really can't make any generalizations about aspects of culture, like communication, that will accurately describe the diversity within a culture or an organization.

Speed bumps
On the flip side of the contributors to success, a number of subtle but important barriers to success were evident in the IRLO interviews: barriers imposed by language; a breakdown in the flow or distribution of financial support; and funders' inflexibility regarding the design or process of a project.

Excluding through language
The IRLO interviews indicate that one of the barriers to building relationships, or being able to convey knowledge or advice, is a capacity builder's use of professional "lingo" or complex language without recognizing that this language makes it difficult for those whose first language is not English to fully engage and participate. Because this barrier was mentioned by four of the eight IRLOs, it may be important to give special consideration. If helping IRLOs "learn the language" of capacity building is considered by professionals in the field as part of the actual work, it may be advisable first to see if the IRLO itself sees this as valuable and if so, to make that goal explicit.

A related issue mentioned by a member of a collaborative group of IRLOs is the importance of providing translation in an equitable way. It appears that when working with IRLOs based in multiple ethnic communities and languages, capacity builders sometimes provide translation assistance for some groups but not all, causing the groups not receiving that help to feel excluded. From the IRLO's perspective, it seems important to ensure that everyone in the group has help with translation if it is needed.

Funding constraints
Barriers related to funding for the projects include late funding, the unexpected end of funding, changes in rules for receiving funding, and a funder's lack of flexibility regarding how money can be spent. Even though one IRLO described his project as "hands-down the most successful capacity building work or technical assistance we have ever received", he still voiced disappointment that they hadn't been able to do all they set out to do because the funding was delayed over half a year. In a second project, a Nexus partner had worked with a network for many years and was helping the network through the legal process of establishing itself as a nonprofit organization. The Nexus partner had funded the project, and their own ability to do so ended abruptly. The IRLO representative from that project reported that due to the disruption in support, the group has been only partially successful in making the transition to incorporation. It also appears to have forced changes in the network's grant-making processes, which contributed to conflicts within the IRLO network. In a third project, one of the primary goals was to secure county funding to establish a permanent office and staff, and that funding did not come through—which severely hampered the IRLO's ability to grow.

Lack of flexibility in programs and initiatives
In cases where IRLOs applied for assistance with projects specified and limited by the funder, recipients reported this assistance was not as useful as it could have been if the IRLO had more flexibility to amend its scope of work or timelines. In two of the eight "matched sets" of interviews, the use of templates for strategic planning was pointed out by Nexus partners as a "cookie-cutter" approach that impedes successful capacity building with IRLOs.

Some of the projects described as having inflexible designs or timelines involved IRLOs selected by a funder to participate in an initiative, with consultants provided for specific types of capacity building. Some IRLOs indicated that they did not feel they had as much choice in consultants as they would have liked. One IRLO representative commented that the funder seemed to recruit consultants from only one ethnic group, and another suggested that funders do not appear to be aware of the importance of providing consultants who were sensitive to the unique needs and cultural styles of multiple ethnic groups within larger racial communities.

Time-limited projects, especially those in which all organizations selected for funding must meet a specified set of requirements and follow a specified set of processes, also appear to inhibit a project's ability to build the type of capacity the organization felt it needed. One IRLO pointed out that IRLO/capacity builder relationships can't be that strong when a funder sets up the project as time-limited and formally structured, and nothing new can emerge if it's not in the timeline. It also appears that whenever there is a three-way relationship (funder, independent capacity building consultant and IRLO), it can contribute to a lack of clarity about goals and responsibilities, and create challenges for the consultant and for the IRLO as they attempted to define their work, its process, and its goals. One IRLO asserted that though short-term goals were reached in their time-limited project, "quick fix" gains in capacity can be lost over the long term without ongoing support, and said that more effort needs to be focused on sustainability of built capacity and long-term growth.

One capacity builder described large amount of time spent repeatedly training leaders of multiple IRLOs in a network as a significant problem related to high staff turnover, and a challenge to the success of the project. It appears that the IRLO involved in this project did not view this as equally problematic. It may be that IRLOs see the training of a large number of people (including those who move on to positions in other IRLOs, the county or the state) as a strengthening of the community as a whole. This may warrant further discussion among capacity builders about the broad goals of their work, and consideration of the possibility that IRLOs may have different broad goals.

Areas for additional exploration

As in the interviews with Nexus partners and their IRLOs, these interviews also indicate a number of areas that may be useful topics for future discussion and areas of exploration by Nexus partners. They are:

Discuss projects in which the Nexus partner did not directly or indirectly provide financing for the project, to determine whether or not the heavy emphasis on "buying time" is an important factor across all capacity building work with IRLOs.
Identify innovative communication strategies for working with IRLOs whose boards are made up of people from several ethnic groups and speaking several languages, whose English language skills are not strong
Identify strategies and processes to strengthen an IRLO's credibility within mainstream systems and institutions to improve the IRLO's access to information and resources
Approach leadership development through coordinated activities that include training workshops, application of skills learned through involvement in committees, and opportunities to get practice in a variety of contexts through rotation of leadership roles.
Suggest ways to negotiate conflicting expectations that can result when definitions differ—i.e., "similar backgrounds," "cultural competence," and "peers."

Appendix: Annotated Bibliography

Alliance for Non-Profit Management. 2002. Regional meetings, Chicago and West Palm Beach. Retrieved January 6, 2004 from http://www.allianceonline.org/events_and_announcements.ipage/alliance_regional_meetings. page/2002_regional_meetings.file
In this report on the Alliance's 2002 Regional Meetings, Jennifer Henderson makes a number of suggestions about how to develop the quality relationship that is essential for quality capacity building, within four dimensions: Assessment, technical assistance/consultation, skills transfer/development and coaching/peer-to-peer.

Brooks Masters, Suzette and Ted Permutter. 2001. Networking the networks: Improving information flows in the immigration field. New York: The International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship at New School University.
Suzette Brooks Masters and Ted Permutter address the importance of information flow in capacity building in the immigration field. They focus on the adequacy of networks, relevance of content, ease of access, and organizational capacity.

DeLucca, Alison. 2002. Rising with the tide: Capacity building strategies for small, emerging minority organizations. Los Angeles Immigrant Funders' Collaborative.
This publication summarizes DeLucca's research among immigrant community organizations, conducted with four goals in mind:

To assess the capacity issues facing immigrant-based and immigrant-led organizations, including immigrant health organizations;
To identify the barriers that prevent these organizations from accessing the existing resources;
To explore more effective ways to respond to their capacity needs; and
To determine which actions would be most strategic for the LA Immigrant Funders' Collaborative to consider in the short and long term.

Dyer-Ives Foundation. 2003. New neighbors, new opportunities: Immigrants and refugees in Grand Rapids.
This short publication addresses the importance of strengthening immigrant and refugee communities' systems of support: organizations and programs, leadership development, and capacity development.

Gantz McKay, E. et al. 2001. Immigrant and refugee-led organizations and their technical assistance needs. Washington DC: Mosaica, the Center for Nonprofit Development and Pluralism.
Emily Gantz McKay and her colleagues report on a study they conducted for the Ford Foundation in the area of migrant and refugee rights. The project had three purposes:

To recommend IRLOs for consideration as potential recipients of Ford Foundation-supported technical assistance, providing profiles of the organizations and an analysis of the kinds of technical assistance they need;
To identify and analyze possible technical assistance provider models and organizations, and recommend to the Foundation a process and/or model (and specific organizations as appropriate) for assisting these IRLOs; and
To identify barriers and opportunities for leadership development among immigrant and refugee organizations and their communities.

The study involved identification of nearly 200 IRLOs and other immigrant/refugee-focused groups through approximately 50 contacts nationwide; screening interviews with 137 IRLOs; and identification of and interviews with 20 technical assistance providers (of various sizes and both mainstream and immigrant/refugee).

Gantz McKay, Emily et al. 2000. Research on barriers and opportunities for increasing leadership in immigrant and refugee communities: Public report. Boston MA : Hyams Foundation, Inc.
Emily Gantz McKay and her colleagues report on a qualitative research study carried out to a project team from MOSAICA, a multicultural nonprofit organization in Washington DC . The study focused on leadership development in immigrant and refugee communities (Hyams Foundation grantees), and involved 62 respondents—both grantees and foundation representatives—in personal and telephone interviews, e-mail discussions, focus groups, and literature and document reviews.

Ho, Mimi et al. 2002. Mapping the immigrant infrastructure: Executive summary. Oakland CA : Applied Research Center (for the Annie E. Casey Foundation).
Mimi Ho and her colleagues focus on facilitating community organizing for immigrant and refugee immigrant associations and ethnically based service providers. She emphasizes the importance of understanding each community's particular situation in relation to the post-9/11 environment, and the fact that some immigrants and refugees may not desire high visibility at this time. The report includes recommendations for training opportunities with these groups.

Holley, Lynn Carol. 1998. Dissertation: Ethnic agencies in communities of color: A study of missions, services, structures, and capacity building needs. University of Washington .
Carol Holley interviewed a purposive sample of 13 leaders of emerging ethnic agencies: African-American (3); Cambodian, Chinese, Ethiopian, Filipino, Laotian, Mexican (2), Samoan, Vietnamese, and Multicultural. Leaders listed their priority areas for training, types of training, desired trainer characteristics, and ideas of successful strategies. Holley concluded with recommendations for skill-building by consultants and useful strategies for increasing the effectiveness of mainstream agencies in meeting the technical assistance service needs of communities of color.

Pendleton, Gail. Building the rhythm of change: Developing leadership and improving services within the battered rural immigrant women's community. Washington DC : Family Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved January 13, 2004 from http://endabuse.org/programs/immigrant/files/Rhythm.pdf
Gail Pendleton's report is focused primarily on domestic violence, but she makes a number of good suggestions for training on difficult issues, particularly innovative ways to draw reticent participants into the conversation.

Waldau, R. and G. Khalsa. 2002. Providing technical assistance to build organizational capacity: Lessons learned through the Colorado Trust's Supporting Immigrant and Refugee Families initiative. Denver : The Colorado Trust.
Rich Waldau and Gurudev Khalsa, representatives of the Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning, assist the Colorado Trust by helping grantee immigrant/refugee organizations choose and oversee their technical assistance providers. This report summarizes the types of technical assistance needs found in immigrant/refugee-led organizations, in three main categories: programmatic technical assistance, organizational capacity building, and community/stakeholder relationship building. The authors also discuss lessons learned in implementing technical assistance, and recommendations for maximum success.

Detailed content outline of each reviewed publication

Mission-based management in times of financial difficulty

What works?

A viable (alive) mission statement, and put it on the table in every board meeting, every staff meeting.
A businesslike board. Boards need two kinds of people: Passionate advocates and business people who know marketing, fundraising—there needs to be a balance between the two.
Strong, well-educated staff. (Send three at a time in a single car to a peer organization for a day. One of the best and most cost-effective staff development exercises there is.)
Wired and technologically savvy. (Go to National Honor Society students at the local high school—they have to do 40-60 hours of community service and may have great tech skills to offer).
A bias for marketing (make people want what they really need).
Financially empowered (healthy endowments, cash flows and reserves)
A vision for where you're going with tight controls (PR policies, HR policies, financial policies)
All of the above, not some. They work together.

Consultant skills needed
Paraphrased from Jennifer Henderson's tips for success

Ask them what they need. ("What keeps you awake at night?") Keep asking questions—the more you let people talk, the more you learn what they need and can ask them about it. The organization is driving, the consultant has the map.
Candor is important from the start—and developing a safe place for it.
In the first consult, hear from the staff, board, beneficiaries, partners and community. It's important to listen to many sides of the story before jumping to conclusions.
In the assessment process, ask for their procedure manuals. Those manuals will tell you a lot about the organization (detailed or practically nonexistent).
Let them get their entire story out—then when you talk to other people, you get other stories so you can match up the results. Find the energy for changing.
When you can't make sense of the story, you'll find that many people involved don't understand the story either. Be willing to be dumb for a long time, and really listen—it's one of the most respectful things you can do.

Capacity building in general
Most effective when it includes:

Up-front assessment
Fully inclusive of the community
Agree theory of change
Variety of organizational models
Customized values match
Peer learning
Systems competencies
Timely and long-term enough consultation
Evaluation of capacity building
Capabilities and knowledge of capacity -builders

Brooks Masters, Suzette and Ten Permutter. 2001. Networking the networks: Improving information flows in the immigration field. New York: The International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship at new School University.

Consider immigration-related information resource needs of the organization and its service population.
Assess the methods by which organizations obtain and impart information.
Improve information flows within and between organizations.

Dyer-Ives Foundation. 2003. New Neighbors, New Opportunities: Immigrants and Refugees in Grand Rapids.

Strengthening the community's system of support

Strengthen newcomer-focused organizations and programs
- More leadership development opportunities
- Capacity building for mutual assistance associations (who play growing roles in conflict resolution, cross-cultural sensitivity training, citizenship preparation, leadership development, technical assistance and economic development.

DeLucca, Alison. 2002. Rising with the Tide: Capacity Building Strategies for Small, Emerging Minority Organizations. Los Angeles Immigrant Funders' Collaborative.

Immigrant-specific barriers to increased capacity

Language
- Grant-writing, public relations and coalition building are difficult for organizations that are monolingual and have limited access to capacity building services designed for English-only speakers.
- Multilingual abilities enable an organization to convene diverse communities and, in some cases, to develop multiethnic coalitions.
Experiential knowledge
- Immigrant-led organizations benefit from the first-hand knowledge and experience their leaders and staff have to offer on issues facing their communities.
- Despite the importance of first-hand knowledge, a lack of formal, U.S. based education can lead to credibility questions about the organization and its leadership.
Constituency involvement and home country politics
- Some immigrant groups benefit from their home country experiences with organizing, civic participation and philanthropy.
- Groups that lack this type of cooperative history find it challenging to involve their community members in organizing and fund-raising efforts.
Legal status
- Organizations led by and involving undocumented immigrants have encountered problems when trying to incorporate the organization, hire staff, and conduct community outreach.
- Sometimes established immigrant organizations whose leadership has legal status have been willing to incubate or house a colleague organization, recognizing the importance of their work in the community.

Lessons learned

Raise consciousness about capacity building and its short- and long-term benefits.
- Smaller organizations that are overwhelmed just dealing with day-to-day challenges and work that has to be done don't have the time to think about areas needing strengthening, and may see capacity building as an ideal but not a practicality.
Encourage fluid and multilingual communication
- This type of communication between grant-makers and grantees, as well as other organizations doing similar work, is essential to capacity building.
Conduct a detailed and participatory needs assessment.
- Grant-makers should consult and work closely with their grantees to identify technical assistance needs to ensure that programs and resources are well utilized and effective.
Put the organization in the driver's seat.
- To be effective, the organization must commit itself to the capacity building process and take an active role in defining that process.
Choose a culturally competent technical assistance provider and/or coach.
- In addition to providing technical knowledge and skill, the technical assistance provider should be familiar with immigrant organizations and the immigrant rights field.
- If a culturally competent provider is unavailable, a "coach" who is culturally competent and organizationally savvy can play a liaison role between the organization and the technical assistance provider.
- Though not ideal, grant-makers can play this role in some instances.
Recognize that there is no single prescription that will apply to every organization.
- It is imperative to make available a comprehensive array of available services in order to accommodate the diverse needs of immigrant communities.
Employ appropriate methods
- Organize training workshops as peer-based learning and networking opportunities, not didactic programs.
- Customized trainings and consultations are ideal.
Support the development of innovative capacity building strategies
- Take the risk and allow grantees to develop and test their own innovative strategies.
Create a culture of mutual learning
- Make monitoring and assessment a critical component.
Envision capacity building as a long-term process and investment.
- This perspective can contribute to the organization's long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

General identified capacity needs

Fundraising
Board development
Technological advancement
Strategic planning
Leadership development
Language capacity
Consensus building
External relations

Gantz McKay, E.G. et al. 2001. Immigrant- and refugee-led organizations and their technical assistance needs. Washington DC : Mosaica, the Center for Nonprofit Development and Pluralism.
Groups described in the publication: Immigrant- and refugee-led organizations in New York, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.

Commonly listed technical assistance needs

Resources and resource development
Organizing and advocacy
Organizational systems and evaluation
Staff and board capacity building
External relations
Technical assistance in languages other than English
Space, equipment and technology

Most-often-reported types of technical assistance received

Strategic planning
Advocacy, lobbying and/or media
Subject-specific technical assistance in community development or immigrant issues
Organizing
Management
Computer/technical areas
Program development
Board development

Concerns about assistance that is provided

Agencies would like providers to have culturally relevant skills and the capacity to provide training, technical assistance and materials in languages other than English.
Agencies prefer providers with experience working in or leading grassroots organizations, small-budget community-based organizations, and immigrant/refugee-led organizations.
Technical assistance providers should understand advocacy-focused grassroots organizations, small-budget community-based organizations, and immigrant/refugee-led organizations, and bring specific needed technical skills.
Providers should be committed to meeting the specific needs identified by the agency itself.
Agencies want technical assistance that
Uses holistic, individualized, sustained approaches
De-emphasizes one-time "generic" training sessions
Emphasizes the development of several tiers of immigrant and refugee leadership
Maximizes creative use of peer and reciprocal learning approaches.
Agencies want to actively define the scope of the technical assistance they receive, choose their own providers, and retain control over the process.

Recurring themes

Funding issues
The most serious obstacle to agency development, from the perspective of agency leaders, is the time and energy spent raising funds.

Without adequate funds, many agencies will be unable to take full advantage of technical assistance opportunities.
Financial support is crucial for developing and maintaining advocacy and organizing activities.
Some immigrant and refugee communities do not yet understand the role of nonprofit organizations, and therefore are less likely to provide flexible funding for the agency serving them.

Language and culture
Language is a crucial barrier to seeking technical assistance

Agencies need training, leadership development, technical assistance and materials in languages other than English.
At the very least, technical assistance providers should understand of the regions of origin of the refugees and immigrants with whom they work, and of the challenges they face in acculturating.
The area of "organizing and advocacy training" was highlighted as rarely providing methods that are culturally appropriate or transferable to immigrant and refugee populations or agencies.
Agencies want training that has been adapted, combined with culturally competent follow-up assistance that helps them:
View U.S. political and administrative systems through appropriate lenses
Apply organizing concepts to their communities and populations.

Leadership development

Immigrant and refugee communities face many barriers to leadership
More needs to be done within immigrant and refugee-led organizations to develop the next generation of leadership as well as the current leadership

Technical assistance models

Provider-based/provider-directed model

Foundation provides funding to one or several technical assistance providers—national or local, usually nonprofit but sometimes for-profit entities or individuals—to provide capacity building assistance to grantees or other specified organizations.
Typically the foundation approves a scope of work and a budget specifying the levels and types of assistance to be provided and the targets of such assistance, including the number and characteristics of recipient organizations.
An agency that wants assistance is encouraged to contact a funded technical assistance provider, and providers may be asked to work with specific agencies or to do outreach to identify eligible agencies.
Decisions about the level and type of assistance provided to an individual agency are often made jointly by the agency and the provider, but the provider receives the funding and is the ultimate decision maker within parameters set by the foundation.

Recipient-based model

Gives primary responsibility and authority to the recipient of assistance.
Agency receives a grant from the foundation for purchasing assistance from one or more providers.
The agency may be required to develop a clear work plan specifying the type of assistance to be obtained, or may have considerable flexibility.
The agency then selects its own technical assistance provider(s), sometimes from among a pool of approved organizations of individual consultants, and sometimes without limitations.
The agency must report on the assistance obtained.
The foundation may add other requirements.

Intermediary model

Foundation provides technical assistance through an intermediary organization, usually a national or regional nonprofit organization whose responsibility is to assist a defined group of agencies in choosing and overseeing their technical assistance providers.
The intermediary organization may be involved in assessing technical assistance needs but usually does not provide technical assistance itself or provides only a small amount of direct assistance.
The intermediary organization serves as a consultant to the agency in determining its technical assistance needs and choosing a provider, and is available to resolve any problems that occur during the delivery of assistance.
The role of the intermediary can be extensive or limited, but includes some level of involvement in determining what technical assistance will be provided and offering referrals to possible providers, and some responsibility for ensuring that the technical assistance provided is appropriate and of good quality.

Recommended guiding principles for foundation-supported technical assistance

Use a multi-year approach in helping to build immigrant and refugee-led organizations—best is a mutual commitment of at least two, preferably three years.
Provide general support grants along with technical assistance, so agencies will be able to make staff available to participate meaningfully and consistently in training or individualized technical assistance, and maintain ongoing advocacy and other activities.
Require and help agencies to complete organizational assessments of technical assistance needs before finalizing an assistance plan or selecting a provider.
Empower organizations to choose their own technical assistance providers.
Support the use of local technical assistance providers where feasible.
Test innovative capacity building strategies such as cooperation on campaigns
- Support for exchanges through which agency leaders visit and learn from other
- Organizations that successfully use strategies or models the immigrant/refugee-led organization would like to emulate

Peer exchange
Mentoring by seasoned immigrant/refugee leaders

Encourage a balance between leader- and organization-focused assistance.
Discourage short-term assistance and training without follow-up.
Emphasize efforts to enhance resource development capacity among agencies.
Ensure the availability of organizing and advocacy assistance from bicultural, bilingual individuals.
Make participation in specific training or technical assistance activities voluntary.
Investigate technical assistance partnerships with other grantmakers.
Encourage the collection, development and dissemination of self-help materials in multiple languages, and support efforts to collect and catalogue existing multilingual materials.
Encourage the development of technical assistance assistance capacity among agencies themselves.
Fund ongoing documentation and evaluation of the process.

Gantz McKay, Emily et al. 2000. Research on barriers and opportunities for increasing leadership in immigrant and refugee communities: Public report. Boston MA: Hyams Foundation, Inc.

Barriers to development and exercise of leadership

Individual barriers

Major barriers: Income, education, language, lack of knowledge of U.S. society and how to navigate systems and institutions
Others include family pressures that discourage community involvement; linguistic and cultural isolation; within-group class issues; focus on eventual return to homeland; concern with home country politics that contributes to divisions and distrust here in the U.S.; absence of a tradition of volunteerism in home country; trauma-related psychological barriers; sexism, youthism and ageism; fear of being noticed by the authorities (particularly among undocumented immigrants).

Organizational barriers

Lack of resources, especially relatively new, small groups (funding to provide the salaries and fringe benefits to attract and retain talented staff).
Limited staff time (related to financial constraints). Executive directors often report they can't afford the time for developing staff or program volunteers since it means hours away from service delivery and executive tasks.
Lack of experience in management and do not know how to structure training for staff and volunteers.
No committees or vehicles for ongoing volunteer involvement and growth.
No path (other than board membership) for resident empowerment or involvement.
Lack the knowledge, skills, experience and mechanisms to foster leadership or involve their constituents in decision-making (seldom do "inreach" to develop leadership among staff, volunteers and board members).
Talented individuals often lured away to the private sector (insufficient salaries, fringe benefits and professional development opportunities).
Home country politics (tribal/clan affiliation, class, generational differences) define who will and won't seek services, become a volunteer, or become a board member.
Lack of English proficiency, hence lesser access to mentoring
Multicultural organizations report problems related to lack of cultural competency with some groups

Summary of challenges to leadership development

Ensuring the personnel time needed for careful planning, program design, and agreement about desired outcomes and indicators of program success (personal and community).
Ensuring ongoing linkages between theory and practice by providing for appropriate field experiences with careful guidance and support
Establishing and maintaining appropriate community partnerships; this may include locating guest trainers, finding strong and stable placement organizations offering appropriate internships or volunteer activities, and identifying and retaining mentors.
Recognizing, respecting and bridging differences among participants on issue priorities, leadership styles, ethnic backgrounds and cultures, and economic and social backgrounds.
Maintaining ongoing attendance and high retention rates
Finding ways to ensure ongoing involvement of program and community alumni
Documenting, evaluating, and refining the leadership training program
Obtaining resources needed to continue and maintain leadership training

Summary of factors that facilitate leadership development and exercise

Immigrants and refugees bring a wealth of personal experience and energy
Organizations working with immigrants and refugees are uniquely positioned to build leadership in these communities.
Organization has already identified a potential participant pool for leadership training (clients, community contacts, and board members)
Volunteer position in community-based organizations provide opportunities for immigrants and refugees to develop decision-making, governance and other leadership skills
Organization shares a common language among a well-developed network of service providers
Organization has the ability to link leadership building to existing services and classes (part of ESL classes, develop skills and values that lead to civic participation)
Organization provides constituents a link to community organizing
Organization provides links to empowerment (through organization services and community activities)
Pre-existing commitment to leadership development
Organization provides a link to citizenship preparation
Organization has a history of activism
Elected and appointed officials from immigrant/refugee communities can open doors to the development of future leaders.

Leadership-building strategies and models
Leadership development (National Council of La Raza): "Training and other formal and informal learning opportunities, usually but not necessarily including a series of informational and skill development sessions as well as ‘learning by doing' at the neighborhood level, designed to enable participants to become more—and more effectively—involved in their community."

Sponsoring organizations vary (IRLOs, minority organizations that are not immigrant/refugee-led, mainstream nonprofit organizations, and colleges and universities).
Variation in internal versus external focus: May focus internally (on staff, board members, and program volunteers) or externally (focus on clients, activists and other community residents).

Organizational "inreach"

In immigrant/refugee-led organizations
In mainstream organizations or coalitions that are non-immigrant led (targets immigrant and refugee staff of a single organization)
Board of directors training in immigrant/refugee led organizations

Organizational "outreach"

Service-focused client empowerment in immigrant/refugee-led organizations or mainstream organizations
Client/community resident "popular education" or community building program in immigrant/refugee-led or mainstream organizations (targets immigrant/refugee service recipients). (NLP provides popular education)

Best practices

Use of leadership models organized around issues critical to immigrants/refugees' lives (develop leadership capacity and commitment to assist the entire community and help immigrants/refugees involved to obtain needed information and skills)
Efforts that bring refugees and immigrants together across cultures
Programs that provide training, community assignments, and materials in participants' native language
Leadership models that include cross-cultural forums or meetings
Models involving training of trainers "each one teach one" commitments or other ways of ensuring a ripple effect
Organization-specific efforts involving a broad commitment to leadership building

Lessons learned

Provide ongoing, rather than one-time only, dissemination of information and materials
Offer the information in short, digestible pieces that have practical utility
Use a wide variety of dissemination channels, traditional and nontraditional
Seek input and guidance from leaders of different cultural backgrounds, on how to adapt the materials for different cultures
Work with intermediary organizations to reach grassroots leaders and encourage networking, discussion, learning, and feedback from report findings
Share knowledge via the Internet as well as in hard-copy formats

Ho, Mimi et al. 2002. Mapping the immigrant infrastructure: Executive Summary. Oakland CA : Applied Research Center (for the Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Consider post-9/11 environment: Immigrants and refugees may not want to be visible anymore.
Consider cross-training opportunities for immigrant and refugee organizations to discuss best practices, exchange experiences, evaluate approaches, and build relationships.

Holley, Lynn Carol. 1998. Dissertation: Ethnic agencies in communities of color: A study of missions, services, structures, and capacity building needs. University of Washington.

Strategies that help immigrant/refugee-led organizations build capacity
Groups that Holley interviewed: African American, Cambodian, Chinese, Ethiopian, Filipino, Laotian, Mexican, Samoan, Vietnamese and multicultural/multi-ethnic in King County ( Seattle area) WA

Agency leaders desire training for

Recruiting volunteers
Staff development
Financial management
Board leadership (boards are often made up of volunteer service providers—board needs the front-line perspective plus and to assist with fund-raising, setting policy).
Strategic planning (seeking funding to meet mission, not adapting agency to fit grant requirements)
Identifying potential grant sources
Identifying other potential funding sources
Grant writing
Meeting with potential funders
Program evaluation
Expanding community's support of agency (obtaining legitimacy)
Other fundraising (raffles, bingo, etc.)
Assistance in determining whether it is best to strive for incorporation and 501(c)3 status, seek a sponsoring "umbrella" organization to serve as fiscal agent/sponsor/mentor.

Desired training characteristics

Consultant comes to their agency in order to allow as many board, staff, and/or community members as possible to attend
Training specifically tailored to the agency's needs
Multi-agency workshops in addition to individual agency consultation, so administrators can meet/interact with other diverse groups so they "know what's going on out there."
Ongoing assistance, not a one-time workshop or consultation. Support through learning to put it into practice.

Desired trainer characteristics
(responses to open-end question)

Have knowledge of or experience with multiple cultures.
Either be an immigrant or refugee, or have worked with this population previously.
Focus attention on viewing ethnic awareness or consciousness as a motivating factor in agency development—a theme influencing all aspects of the agency.
Ability to tailor training to agency's specific needs.
Have some college or a degree in the training area.
Have a flexible schedule
Have experience with or knowledge about non-profit agencies.
Not "talk down" to us.
Good presentation skills

Desired trainer qualifications and characteristics
(ranked responses to researcher-developed list—high to low)

Experience in providing training
Expert in training area
Good listener
Experience with other cultures
Experience with government agencies
Experience in working in a small agency
Experience with "mainstream" agencies
Experience with/knowledge of my ethnic community
Experience with large agencies
Has been agency director
Bilingual in English and agency's language
Member of my ethnic community

Immigrant/refugee leaders' ideas of successful strategies

Collaboration, networking or cooperation with other organizations.
- Universities to get data
- Leaders of other ethnic orgs
- Joining local coalition
Develop leaders' administrative skills
Develop grant-writing capacity
Seek volunteers through organizations such as United Way in order to develop literature, public service announcements, other PR efforts.
Hire qualified staff for financial management—training won't do it.
Strategic planning that includes addressing all training needs
Develop an infrastructure that supports volunteers (though volunteerism isn't a traditional value in many immigrant/refugee communities.

Summary: IRLOs particularly desire assistance in building their skills in

Funds management and development
- Trainer/consultant for such skills-building would need to have knowledge of an agency's community, its financial management capabilities, its past successes and failures at raising funds, and of potential funders' attitudes toward funding particular communities and programs.
- Skills in basic financial management
- Making decisions about their agency's best options for grant-seeking (community members, businesses, government, or private foundations)
- Identifying potential funding sources
- Grant-writing (or identifying consultants to write grants)
- Meeting with potential funders
Board leadership
- Requires knowledge of an agency's ethnic community as well as an understanding of leaders' preferences (democratic style leading to consensus, strong leader who recruits others to follow?)
- Assist board members to learn skills in making decisions, setting policy, strategic planning, seeking funds, and maintaining accountability for the agency and its programs.
Strategic planning
- Agencies must first be able to obtain enough financial and other support to function day-to-day.
- Strategic planning may need to follow the provision of assistance in building the agency's funds development and board development capacities.

Recommendations for skill-building efforts by consultants

Skill-building sessions should be offered over a period of time during which agency participants apply information learned.
Agency leaders should work with consultants who are familiar with their agency's and community's capacities and constraints.
Agencies need to have access to consultants who are available to provide one-on-one assistance to agency leaders as they develop their skills if those skills are to be fully developed.
Leaders are more likely to prefer consultation over workshop format for building their capacities in strengthening their organizations, though some note that workshops have some advantages.
Hands-on workshops in which several agency actors may participate, combined with the ongoing availability of consultants, may be the most effective way to assist agencies in building their capacities.
Though consultants (individuals or groups) offering capacity building assistance do not necessarily need to be members of the agency's ethnic community, they should:
- Have experience with multiple cultures
- Have experience in providing training
- Be good listeners
- Be experts in the training area
- Have experience with or knowledge about the agency's ethnic community.
Less important, but still valuable consultant abilities are:
- Have experience working in a small agency
- Have experience with mainstream agencies
- Have been agency directors
- Have experience with government agencies
- Social workers with this abilities could offer less- and moderately-established agencies much needed assistance

Important things to remember

In serving communities of color, the concept of social services should include such activities as family and community gatherings in which community members come together, connect with one another and celebrate their traditions.
These gatherings, despite lying outside the usual sphere of "social work," provide the opportunity for members to build social networks vital to their empowerment as subordinated groups living in a majority culture.
Other valuable service components for immigrant/refugee agencies are case management, information and referral, tutoring, English as a Second Language courses, and other supportive and educational services.
IMPEDIMENT: Consultants' lack of awareness about cultural and contextual issues (patterns of inclusion and exclusion based on national, social, political and economic forces, circumstances leading to U.S. residency)

Useful strategies for increasing effectiveness of mainstream agencies in meeting the service needs of communities of color

Expand the roles of same-ethnic-group staff and volunteers to help community members feel they see a "friendly face" at these agencies.
Employ staff who speak the languages of the ethnic communities served.
Educate all staff about the cultures and experiences of communities of color with whom they work.
Provide training that will enable all staff to recognize the influence of their own cultures and experiences on their lives and the helping process.
Staff volunteers need to understand the importance of working with lay people and organizations within the community about social change strategies which may improve the situations of communities of color. Such staff and volunteers may increase effectiveness by:
- Serving as role models
- Having knowledge of and implementing relevant cultural elements into services
- Serving as a link to other ethnic community resources (e.g. spiritual leaders and religious bodies, ethnic agencies, traditional healers).
Contract with ethnic agencies to provide specific services or other expertise, treating those agencies as equal partners.

Pendleton, Gail. Building the rhythm of change: Developing leadership and improving services within the battered rural immigrant women's community. Washington DC : Family Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved January 13, 2004 from http://endabuse.org/programs/immigrant/files/Rhythm.pdf
Non-traditional training methods: Skits of problematic interactions followed by facilitated discussion of all important points, provision of alternative strategies.

Waldau, R. and G. Khalsa. 2002. Providing technical assistance to build organizational capacity: Lessons learned through the Colorado Trust's supporting immigrant and refugee families initiative. Denver: The Colorado Trust.
Groups: General organizational capacity building for agencies serving immigrants and refugees. Used the intermediary model described in the Mosaica report.

Needs most frequently identified by agencies

Organizational assessment
Fundraising and sustainability
Public outreach and awareness
Board development
Program evaluation
Strategic planning
Collaboration with other community organizations
Enhancing program quality

Other documented technical assistance needs

Organizational capacity building

Staff hiring and retention
Volunteer recruitment and retention
Financial and budget management
Staff training
Team building
Performance evaluation
Management coaching and development

Community/stakeholder relationship building

Media relations/communications
Outreach to immigrant and refugee populations
Referrals and follow-up with other organizations

Programmatic technical assistance

Preparing to conduct program evaluation
Conducting program evaluation
Implementing model programs and best practices
Developing linguistically and culturally appropriate programming.

Lessons learned

Organizational assessments:
- Help identify technical assistance needs that might take strategic priority

Often show that "big picture" issues like strategic planning, board development and sustainability take precedence over programmatic technical assistance.

Systematically identifying technical assistance needs early on:
- Increases possibility of meeting those needs more efficiently and effectively through joint trainings provided to multiple grantees.
Culturally competent technical assistance is critical.
- However, limiting technical assistance resources to those with language proficiency can make it difficult to find the right technical expertise.
Individuals with previous knowledge of a refugee or immigrant community are in a better position to offer culturally competent services.
- More likely to know the power dynamics within a community that can be a stumbling block for the uninformed.
- However, when consultant is a community member, might not be seen as neutral.
A successful project consultant increases his/her familiarity with the community and enhances his/her relationships via informal interaction with community members outside the venue of the organization's office.
If project consultants do not have experience with a particular culture, having a greater breadth and depth of inter-cultural experience will make them more effective.
Relationships that work best are those in which the technical assistance consultant and the client organization develop a mutual interest in learning from each other.

Implementing technical assistance—roles and relationships

It is important to clarify roles when using the intermediary model.
- At best, the intermediary consultant becomes a good conduit for needed expertise beyond grantees he/she is working with.
- At worst, there is a tendency to under-utilize technical assistance or become too attached to the intermediary consultant as the provider of all technical assistance.
- Intermediaries and contracted consultants need to be ready to address feelings of vulnerability in grantees that are responses to discussion about areas to improve upon.
The intermediary must develop cultural competence and build trusting relationships in the community where he/she is working.
- Living in the community and attending community events is beneficial.
- Understanding the dynamics that affect immigrant and refugee issues is a process of ongoing discovery and must take place outside the agency receiving the technical assistance.
Technical assistance is most likely to be used effectively when the intermediary consultant is successful in getting input and buy-in from staff members and the Board, beyond the director or primary contact.
- May be critical for a feeling of ownership to develop
It is important to develop relationships of trust and a sense of appropriate pace when providing technical assistance over a three-year period.
- Timing of interventions must be done sensitively, recognizing that the organization may be juggling multiple priorities.
Even while the focus on agency-initiated technical assistance needs to remain strong, the intermediary and project consultants sometimes need to be more assertive in identifying need areas and possible approaches to meeting those needs.

Process

Coordinating intermediate needs to develop a systematic plan and timetable for working with grantees, while recognizing that extenuating circumstances will invariably occur.
- Grantees (agencies) are often very different in terms of their needs, staff resources, sophistication and readiness to utilize technical assistance.
- Crucial that the approach to technical assistance delivery be customized and flexible.
Up-front organizational assessment, consistently implemented across agencies, is invaluable.
Try to produce a focused technical assistance work plan near the beginning of a funding cycle
- It makes planning easier, implementation more likely to occur
- Enables the intermediary agency to develop a high quality consultant pool.
It may be possible to address several agencies' overlapping technical assistance needs with a standardized solution that is customized to each grantee's needs. Example: A database that assumes a similarity of data and evaluation needs among grantees, since they provide similar programs.
- Still, a certain amount of customization is always needed.
Promote the benefits of joint trainings
- They create opportunities for networking.
The experiences of grantees funded early in an initiative can accelerate the learning of grantees that obtain funding in later cycles.
- Emphasize networking among grantees by linking specific organizations with similar program objectives to develop a mentoring and mutually beneficial learning relationship.

Technical assistance content

Focus on the big picture first—strategic impact
- Agencies typically lack the resources necessary to devote much priority attention to strategic planning, board development, and sustainability.
- By supporting the strategic development of the organization, its board and its long-term outlook, the capacity for sustainable community impact is multiplied rather than added to.
Leverage training for common needs of multiple grantees
- Systematic identification of grantee technical assistance needs early on makes it possible to meet those needs more efficiently.
Customize training and consulting
- Appropriate to level of organization's development and staff skills
- Biggest challenge—organization perceives its staff to be so overworked that there is no time for capacity building or personal/professional development
Technical assistance vs. hired hands
- Organizations are sometimes tempted to see receiving technical assistance as an opportunity to have an extra pair of hands actually doing the work
- What is being offered needs to clearly build the capacity of the organization (consultant may be able to write the grant very quickly, but the job is to teach the staff to do it)
Sustainability
- Technical assistance should be over a period of time (this group took three years)
- Help staff look at sustainability from a broader and less rushed perspective, not simply replacing funds on an annual basis
- Other forms of sustainability (spirit, values, niche and capacity)

Cultural competence lessons

Desirability of language competence
- Makes delivery of technical assistance easier and understanding of cultural norms less of an issue
- For smaller refugee communities, the trade-off is that limiting technical assistance assistance resources to those with language proficiency can make it difficult to find the right technical expertise.
- Can also be difficult to find a technical assistance provider considered to be neutral in a small community
Value of community knowledge and perceived independence
- Aware of power dynamics but not part of them
- Independence may be more important than pre-existing knowledge of the community
Importance of "getting out" into the community
- Attend social functions within the community
- Develops a perspective on the community that isn't wholly formed by organization leaders' view
Inter-cultural experience a key
- If the consultant doesn't have familiarity with the community, greater breadth and depth of intercultural experience helps effectiveness
- Able to communicate across the cultural divide
Continuous learning
- Project consultant and grantee develop a mutual interest in learning from each other
- Balances the relationship, builds trust, and allows for systematic interventions in the organizational development that wouldn't otherwise be possible.

Acknowledgments

Wilder Research would like to thank Nexus staff members Sarah Gleason, Monica Herrera, Carol Lukas, Sida Ly-Xiong, and Kathy Kupecki, and all of the Nexus capacity builders for their support and advice in designing and carrying out this study. We would also like to thank the capacity builders who assisted the study by providing information on projects they recently worked on. Finally, the study would not have been possible without the immigrant- and refugee-led organizations (IRLOs) that provided comments and information through phone interviews with Wilder Research and Fieldstone Alliance.

The following Wilder Research staff contributed to the completion of this project: Nicole Behling, Cheryl Bourgeois, Richard Chase, Marilyn Conrad, Louann Graham, and Ginger Hope.

Footnotes

The California Wellness Foundation, cited in Doherty, Susan and Mayer, S.E.. 2003. Results of an Inquiry into Capacity Building Programs for Nonprofit Programs. Minneapolis : Effective Communities Project. Retrieved from http://www.effectivecommunities.org/ECP_CapacityBuildingInquiry.pdf

McPhee, Penelope and Bare, J., cited in Doherty, Susan and Mayer, S.E.. 2003. Results of an Inquiry into Capacity Building Programs for Nonprofit Programs. Minneapolis : Effective Communities Project. Retrieved from http://www.effectivecommunities.org/ECP_CapacityBuildingInquiry.pdf

Doherty, Susan and Mayer, S.E.. 2003. Results of an Inquiry into Capacity Building Programs for Nonprofit Programs. Minneapolis : Effective Communities Project. Retrieved from http://www.effectivecommunities.org/ECP_CapacityBuildingInquiry.pdf

Ibid.

Mayer, Steven E. May 2002. Building Community Capacity: How Different Groups Contribute (Adapted from Mayer, Steven. 1995. Building Community Capacity: The Potential of Community Foundations. Minneapolis : Rainbow Research). Minneapolis : Effective Communities Project.

Ibid.

St. Onge, Patricia, Cole, B., and Petty, S.. 2003. Through the Lens of Culture: Building Capacity for Social Change and Sustainable Communities. Oakland CA : National Community Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ncdinet.org/culturally-basedcapacitybuilding.htm

Themba-Nixon, Makani. June 2004. "Building Capacity for Policy Change: The Racial Justice Lens". Alliance for Nonprofit Management. Retrieved from http://www.allianceonline.org/Members/Enhance/enhance_-_june2004.enh/feature_-_thembanixon.epage

The Central Texas Immigrant Worker Rights Center . August 2005. "Immigrant workers: Defending workers' rights! Building worker solidarity and leadership!" Retrieved from http://www.equaljusticecenter.org/CTIWoRC.htm

Factors in Successful Capacity Building with Immigrant- and Refugee-Led Organizations (IRLOs)

Nexus Project Research Report

Contents

Background

Summary

Benefits of capacity building for IRLOs

Factors that contribute to successful capacity building in IRLOs

Success factors derived from interviews conducted for this study IRLOs value skilled and knowledgeable capacity builders who have experience with similar organizations and who also have connections to resources.

Factors that hamper success

Research methods

Definition of Terms

Research Methods

Literature review method

Method for surveys and interviews with capacity builders and IRLOs

Reviews of the Literature

Results of initial literature review (overview of existing knowledge)

Preliminary definitions used in the literature These definitions simply outline the basic types of capacity builders described in the literature.

Capacity building consultation models Model 1: Provider-based/provider-directed model

Effective strategies and success factors in capacity building with IRLOs (review of research literature)

Literature review part 2: Capacity building as a path to equity

Organizational capacity-building There are many ways to define "organizational capacity", which can pose a challenge to actually building that capacity. There are three, however, that effectively capture the middle ground of the variety of definitions:

Strategies for supporting and facilitating community capacity building The National Community Development Institute (NCDI) suggests the following model for supporting capacity building with underserved communities:

Results of Wilder Research Surveys and Interviews with Capacity Builders and IRLOs

Impact of the projects

Agreement on objectives and degree to which they had been met

Key success factors

Nexus capacity builders' rankings of importance of specified success factors

IRLO perspectives on success factors

Areas for additional exploration

Results of Fieldstone Alliance Surveys and Interviews with Capacity Builders and IRLOs

Project types

Shaping the projects

Who or what shaped the projects?

Levels of capacity building

Respective roles of capacity builders and IRLOs

Capacities built

What helped the projects go well

The quality of relationships

Capacity builders' advice to peers about working with IRLOs The Nexus partners also offered advice to other capacity builders on how to build strong working relationships with IRLO staff and board members, much of which also focuses on the quality of the relationship:

Advice from one IRLO to another about working with a consultant Interviewers asked IRLOs for advice, for other IRLOs considering working with a capacity-building consultant. The following list is a summary of their comments:

Other contributors to success

Areas for additional exploration

Appendix: Annotated Bibliography

Detailed content outline of each reviewed publication

Acknowledgments

Footnotes

Success factors derived from interviews conducted for this study
IRLOs value skilled and knowledgeable capacity builders who have experience with similar organizations and who also have connections to resources.

Preliminary definitions used in the literature
These definitions simply outline the basic types of capacity builders described in the literature.

Capacity building consultation models
Model 1: Provider-based/provider-directed model

Effective strategies and success factors in capacity building with IRLOs
(review of research literature)

Organizational capacity-building
There are many ways to define "organizational capacity", which can pose a challenge to actually building that capacity. There are three, however, that effectively capture the middle ground of the variety of definitions:

Strategies for supporting and facilitating community capacity building
The National Community Development Institute (NCDI) suggests the following model for supporting capacity building with underserved communities:

Capacity builders' advice to peers about working with IRLOs
The Nexus partners also offered advice to other capacity builders on how to build strong working relationships with IRLO staff and board members, much of which also focuses on the quality of the relationship:

Advice from one IRLO to another about working with a consultant
Interviewers asked IRLOs for advice, for other IRLOs considering working with a capacity-building consultant. The following list is a summary of their comments: