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

Nexus project research report

Prepared by: Alexandra Pierce, Wilder Research

Contents
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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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.
   
4. 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.
   
5. 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.
   
6. 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.
   
7. 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

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 i