Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Organizational and community capacity building efforts: a case study of initiatives funded by the Children's Trust
(USC Thesis Other)
Organizational and community capacity building efforts: a case study of initiatives funded by the Children's Trust
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING EFFORTS:
A CASE STUDY OF INITIATIVES FUNDED BY THE CHILDREN’S TRUST
by
Tisa M. McGhee
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(SOCIAL WORK)
August 2007
Copyright © 2007 Tisa M. McGhee
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated in memory of my loving grandmother, Angela Flores,
and my two daughters, Taylor Alyssa McGhee and Paige Angela McGhee.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would first like to acknowledge God for the strength that it took to complete this
tremendous adventure. Without Him none of this would be possible.
Lendell McGhee and my children Taylor and Paige deserve a magnitude of the credit
for all of their love and inspiration in the achievement of my PhD.
Next are my parents, Stephen Flores and Patricia Morris for their vision to move to
the United States to allow my family to have many opportunities I may not have
been able to have. My father constantly challenged me to do my best and my mother
provided me experiences that fostered my curiosity to learn.
To my brother, Stephen I appreciate all of your love and support throughout our
entire lives together. I appreciate all of my brothers and sisters.
My grandparents, Angela & Vernon and Delmira & Reynold were my greatest
supporters at every phase of my life.
Always sources of inspiration and love are my many aunts and uncles including:
Anna, Brian, Michael, Corrine, Robert, Darlene, Jacqueline, Jennifer and Nakita.
iv
Colleagues, mentors and friends that encouraged my educational growth like Helene
Cerami, Barbara Kelley, Paula Boyd, Colleen Friend, Linda Mills, Devon Brooks,
Jacqueline McCroskey, Bob Nishimoto, Lori Hanson and Bruce Jansson.
My cohort in the doctoral program: Tina, Maxwell, Pat and Jung Won made getting
through the program a memorable experience.
Last but certainly not least is my chair, Dr. Ramon Salcido and my committee, Dr.
Kristin Ferguson and Dr. Peter Robertson. They helped me to focus on what was
really important in my research, data and conclusions.
I am so grateful to the many other family members, friends, colleagues, mentors and
acquaintances that I may have forgotten to name and anyone who ever said a kind
word about my completing my PhD in Social Work.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6
Community Building 10
Systems of Care 11
Development of Comprehensive Community Capacity 13
Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives 16
Organizational Capacity Building 21
Research Context 25
State of Florida’s Child Welfare System 26
Children’s Services Council Model 28
The Creation of The Children’s Trust in Miami-Dade 29
Conclusion 30
Current Research Questions 32
CHAPTER 3– RESEARCH METHOD 34
Trust Sponsored Initiatives Studied 35
Sample of Participants 38
Procedures 39
Instruments 41
Data Analysis 46
Quantitative Analysis 46
Qualitative Analysis 47
CHAPTER 4– RESULTS 49
Quantitative Research Findings 49
Capacity Building Knowledge Components 49
McKinsey Capacity Assessment Categories & Elements 55
Summary of Quantitative Findings 62
Qualitative Analysis 62
Capacity Implementation Processes 63
Funding from The Children’s Trust 64
Previously Established Infrastructure 65
Operational Planning and Timing 66
vi
Staff Knowledge about Program 67
Process Themes by Initiative 68
Most Influential Process Themes 68
Community Leaders and Engagement of Community Members 69
The Children’s Trust – Funding 70
Champions within the Initiative 71
CEO Leadership 71
Collaboration 72
Influential Factor Themes by Initiative 73
Lessons Learned 75
Program Growth – Need for Increases in Staff 76
Assessing the Community Needs 77
Marketing and Communicating Mission/Vision 78
Barriers to Capacity Building 79
Communication Issues 80
Financial Management Issues 81
Lack of Board Involvement 81
CEO with Little Management Experience/Skills 82
Summary of Qualitative Findings 83
CHAPTER 5– DISCUSSION 84
Research Question 1 84
Research Question 2 85
Research Question 3 86
Research Question 4 86
Research Question 5 87
Limitations 88
Implications 90
Future Research 92
References 94
Appendices
Appendix A: The Children’s Trust Initiative Descriptions 99
Appendix B: Initial Survey Instrument 100
Appendix C: McKinsey Capacity Framework 102
Appendix D: Modified Version of the McKinsey Capacity
Assessment Used in the Current Study 107
Appendix E: Interview Protocol 115
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sample Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Knowledge
Components and Single-Sample t-test Results 51
Table 2: Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Knowledge
Components by Initiative and One-Way ANOVA Results 53
Table 3: Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Knowledge
Components by Position Role and One-Way ANOVA Results 54
Table 4: Sample Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Categories
and Elements and Single-Sample t-test Results 57
Table 5: Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Categories by Initiative
and One-Way ANOVA Results 60
Table 6: Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Categories by Position
Role and One-Way ANOVA Results 61
Table 7: Process Themes Reported by Initiative 64
Table 8: Most Influential Process Themes by Initiative 75
viii
ABSTRACT
Community based services are viewed as a promising model for services in
neighborhoods affected by several risk factors such as poverty, inadequate health
care, inadequate housing and neighborhood disorganization. The current study
explored the processes used in implementing initiatives funded by an organization
and a community capacity building model developed in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, namely The Children’s Trust. To address the research questions, a case
study format was used to describe five selected initiatives funded by The Trust.
Using a mixed method design, this inquiry examined the capacity knowledge of the
participants, the capacity elements in place, the implementation processes, and
perceived lessons learned and barriers to success. All sources of data were examined
for content and framing of key themes. The data were assessed with regard to the
entire sample, by initiative, and by the participant’s role within the initiative. The
findings include: moderate levels of capacity building knowledge components,
categories and elements among participants; very little evidence to suggest that Trust
initiative representatives differ in their capacity building knowledge components and
their capacity building categories and elements with respect to the initiative that they
are associated with, nor is there much evidence that they differ across these variables
with respect to their position role. In terms of lessons learned and barriers to
capacity participants listed concerns about program growth and issues around
financial management as their top considerations. The study results have
ix
professional implications. The qualitative findings suggest that initiatives which
focus on Program Design and Strategic Planning may have increased capacity levels
in other areas that are needed like leadership, community engagement and financial
management. The study of The Trust and its influence on a community should be of
significance to those interested in the processes that lead toward capacity building in
a community setting.
1
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
For more than a century, child welfare has been guided by the recognition
that children have developmental needs that are best served within the context of a
caring, supportive environment with positive adult role models (Barter, 2001). Child
advocacy was a focus of early 20
th
century progressives and social reformers whose
ideas for intervention were based on the growing realization that families suffered as
a result of the conditions of their financial and social environments, rather than any
personal deficits or character flaws (Barter, 2001). Industrialization, urbanization,
and poverty were implicated as underlying causes of child neglect and abuse.
Poverty and its consequences, such as inadequate housing and neighborhood
disorganization, remain key contributors to child maltreatment (Dodge et al., 2004;
Webb & Harden, 2003).
Child welfare services operate primarily under the jurisdiction of the states,
and in some cases, county authority (Webb & Harden, 2003). However, state policy
is subject to federal legislation, regulation, and funding, as well as to the needs and
values of local citizens and political forces within the state. Judicial decisions,
grassroots and community organizing, and the actions of advocacy groups and
nonprofit agencies also work to shape the character of state policy. This myriad of
influences has resulted in a child welfare system that is routinely criticized for
fragmentation of services and poor collaboration among agencies.
The issues of fragmentation of services and poor collaboration are becoming
2
more apparent, especially in areas where children are at higher risk. The increasing
concentration of poverty in urban areas with unsafe housing conditions and lack of
access to essential resources such as transportation, health care, employment, or
occupational training has generated awareness that rebuilding impoverished
communities demands a multifaceted approach; one in which necessary attention is
given to particular neighborhoods with regard to their physical, economic, social and
cultural conditions (Ewalt, 1997). Recent reforms at the federal level offer the
prospect of greater collaboration among antipoverty and child welfare agencies
(Mitchell et al., 2005; Romero, Chavkin, & Wise, 2000). The result of such reforms
has been the evolution of comprehensive community initiatives (CCI) designed to
provide an array of resources and supports ranging from expansion and improvement
of social services at the individual, family, and community level, to the development
of educational programs and local enterprise. At the community level, CCIs work to
integrate services and build social capital (Ewalt, 1997). In addition to their scope, a
hallmark of CCIs is community collaboration in project development and
implementation, and in some cases, community control or governance. With
government support, many agencies are adopting a System of Care model in which
services and supports are integrated into a network that operates under a strong child,
family, and community focus (Dodge et al., 2004; Foster, Qaseem, & Connor, 2004).
The current research is rooted in the perception, shared by at least some
practitioners and researchers (e.g., Barter, 2001; Ewalt, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2005;
3
Romero, Chavkin, & Wise, 2000), that child welfare agencies in a number of
locations around the country are departing from a “traditional” strategy aimed
primarily at serving only the child and family to developing new strategies aimed at
building community using CCIs. According to many, the new strategies involve a
distinctly different mission, expanded core capacities, and more diverse operational
procedures for child welfare-related and non-profit agencies. Above all, this means
forging a new relationship with the local community in the nature of a “partnership,”
and developing a more active leadership role and capacity for solving broad-based
problems related to child welfare issues (Barter, 2001; Dodge et al., 2004; Ewalt,
1997; Foster, Qaseem, & Connor, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2005; Shields, 1995).
Child welfare agencies across the country, in differing localities and states
are continuously seeking solutions to the problems facing our most vulnerable
children and families. This is true in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where
community-based care initiatives (formed by the Department of Children and
Families) have captured the interest of the nation. They have done so by actively
negotiating and contracting with local, high quality, non-profit agencies to assume
the provision of child welfare services for those children in their local communities
who have been victimized by abuse, neglect and/or abandonment.
A model implemented called the Children’s Services Council was created in the
1940s and is used across the state of Florida today. It is perhaps one of the most
creative and unique local solutions available to address the many challenges facing
4
the families living in communities. Miami-Dade County is one of the largest
communities in Florida to use this model, known as The Children’s Trust,. One of
the aims of The Children’s Trust model is to build the capacity of the many service
providers and initiatives that they fund.
According to a report on Effective Capacity Building in Nonprofit
Organizations by Venture Philanthropy Partners (2001) capacity building is an
important predictor of a non-profit agency’s ability to fulfill its aspirations. Capacity
building is typically defined as a process by which organizations and communities
develop and strengthen the skills, abilities, and resources that are needed to survive,
adapt, and thrive in a quickly-changing world with ever-present social and
environmental problems (Eade, 1997; Linnell, 2003). For the current research, the
definition of capacity building refers to developmental assistance through the
creation of a social environment with appropriate frameworks to improve community
participation, human resource development, and community competencies.
Despite the fact that there is potential in the implementation of The
Children’s Trust model, very little research has been conducted to determine the
processes involved with the implementation of its initiatives and the capacity
building levels of initiatives The Trust funded. In addition, very little capacity
building knowledge of the communities that work with children and families is
available. Therefore, the current research was designed to gain a deeper
understanding of the capacity building knowledge of initiatives funded by The
5
Children’s Trust, including: 1) the capacity building elements that each initiative has
in place; 2) their implementation processes; and 3) the lessons learned from these
initiatives, as well as barriers to success. This understanding may shed light on
potentially promising practices that can be subsequently adopted in other
communities.
First, it is important to begin with a review of the existing literature regarding
the relatively recent changes in child welfare, as well as a review of the systems of
care, relevant development of capacity literature, and characteristics of the current
CCIs (see Chapter 2). In addition, factors effecting the implementation of initiatives
and differences in capacity among initiatives, including the successes and barriers to
capacity, that are found in the community capacity building literature are considered
with regard to the current research. Chapter 2 continues by defining the research
purpose (i.e., to assess the organizational capacity levels of five initiatives funded by
The Children’s Trust and to examine the processes involved in the implementation of
the initiatives). Specific research questions can also be found in Chapter 2. Chapter
3 outlines the exploratory and descriptive nature of the current research, using a
mixed methods design. In addition, Chapter 3 details the measures used and data
collection methods in detail. Chapter 4 provides the results from both the
quantitative and the qualitative data. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes of the results,
the limitations, implications and ideas for future research.
6
CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The importance of building social capital as a condition for reducing child
maltreatment and promoting healthy child development has been noted by several
sources (Austin, 2005; Dodge et al., 2004; Ewalt, 1997; Pan, Littlefield, Valladolid,
Tapping, & West, 2005; Roditti, 2005). Research consistently documents that
neighborhood conditions impact child development (Berlin, Brooks-Gunn, & Aber,
2001). There is also an ongoing dynamic interaction between families and the social
environment that affects this development (Ewalt, 1997). Family involvement with
schools, employment, the neighborhood, and the community affect interactions
between parents and children within the household.
Ewalt (1997) acknowledged that the effects of neighborhoods on different
subgroups are not clearly understood, nor are the mechanisms through which they
act. However, a report by the General Accounting Office stated that “community
development experts…advocate a comprehensive approach to address the problems
of distressed neighborhoods because such complex, inter-related problems are better
addressed in tandem than individually” (cited in Ewalt, 1997, p. 414). Experts,
interviewed regarding the General Accounting Office project, cautioned that
rebuilding distressed communities requires prolonged commitment and noted that
desirable results are not easily attained. At the same time, they noted that creative,
integrated approaches offer viable and significant options for producing enduring
and lasting change.
7
One approach, initiated in New York City has attained desirable results. In
1999, New York City incorporated the use of a Neighborhood-Based Service (NBS)
delivery model to better serve the 59 community districts in their jurisdiction. NBSs
are the service networks developed in a neighborhood so that children and families
can directly receive services in the communities in which they live. New York City
has made exemplary strides in decentralizing services consistent with the NBS
approach (Austin, 2005). The New York City Administration for Children’s
Services (NYACS) realigned all child protection, prevention, and foster care
agencies along community district lines in order to: 1) provide children and families
with a continuum of locally accessible services; 2) allow children in foster care to
remain in their schools and maintain contact with friends, family, and community
supports; 3) facilitate visits between children in care and parents and siblings in the
neighborhood setting; and 4) hold case conferences, service plan reviews, and other
decision making processes conducted in the community to include family members
and supportive community members (Chahine et al., 2005).
In a large metropolitan area, child welfare services must be strategically
targeted to address differential patterns across geographic areas. NYACS data
revealed that more than 60% of the children in foster care came from 18 of the 59
community districts (Chahine et al., 2005). An additional strategic initiative, known
as the Neighborhood-Based Services Community Partnership to Strengthen Families,
grew from the need to target services for districts most in need. Chahine et al.
8
described a case study of Central Harlem, which had the highest number of
placements of any district in the city. High rates of poverty, parental unemployment,
infant mortality, teen pregnancy, and homelessness triggered efforts involving
collaboration among multiple agencies, community organizations, local service
providers, and community residents. Consistent with the tenets of community
development, the services were uniquely tailored, culturally relevant, and involved
community members at all levels of planning and implementation. For example, the
Kasserian Ingera initiative (derived from a Masai greeting meaning “How are the
children?”) reached out to families and community members through faith-based
organizations. Community members were encouraged to become foster parents,
mentors, and adoptive parents to neighborhood children.
As a result of the NBS approach, foster care placements in New York City
have dropped dramatically (Chahine et al., 2005). In 2000, the number of children in
foster care equaled 34,354; that number significantly fell to 22,082 by 2004 and the
number of new children entering foster care had also fell from 8,065 in 2000 to less
than 5,000 in 2004. Chahine et al. attributed this trend to the development of, and a
commitment to, neighborhood-based services. Of the children placed in care, 75%
were placed in their home boroughs. Since 1999, 4.5 times as many children were
placed in their community districts as opposed to not being placed in their own
neighborhoods. As noted by Chahine et al., the significant change resulting from
community partnerships “streamlines public services for families, minimizes undue
9
trauma for children and families, and increases the ability of NYACS to ensure
safety and permanence for children” (p. 152).
The large immigrant communities in large urban centers like New York City
pose challenges to child and social service professionals that require uniquely
tailored efforts (Carten & Goodman, 2005; Chahine & van Straaten, 2005; Rivera,
2002). Overcoming culturally ingrained attitudes and beliefs about race and
ethnicity appears to be a particularly sensitive issue for child and social service
professionals (Mederos & Woldeguiorguis, 2003; Mitchell et al., 2005; Rivera,
2002). Rivera (2002) observed that communities, in particular, communities of
color, have traditionally been viewed in terms of deficits and needs rather than their
assets and resources. Partnerships between child welfare agencies and community
members have the power to overcome distrust by altering misconceptions and
misunderstandings on both sides.
Neighborhood conditions impact child development and the improvement of
neighborhoods and communities can help improve conditions for children, especially
those at risk for abuse. Traditional child welfare services are being reformed with a
focus on community capacity development. The existing literature relevant to the
current research (i.e., related to child welfare community approaches) can be
organized around five major themes: 1) the importance of community building; 2)
systems of care; 3) the development of comprehensive community capacity; 4) the
10
evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives; and 5) capacity building within
community organizations.
Community Building
Community building is conceptualized for the current research as the
enhancement of collaborative efforts among families, communities, and agencies to
improve supportive resources for families in the community (Austin, 2005). The
emphasis of community building is on the development and strengthening of social
network systems in hopes of supporting the emotional, social, and economic needs of
community families. A primary aim of community building involves enlisting the
active participation of community members in order to address issues that
community members (not outside professionals) consider to be of foremost concern.
Philosophically, community building involves a radical shift from a
professional/bureaucratic paradigm to a client/community paradigm (Barter, 2001).
According to Barter (2001), community building denotes the reclaiming of an
environment. It is also worthy of noting that Barter emphasized community building
as a process rather than a model; that is, a process driven by members of the
community as opposed to a model in which community members are the focus of the
interventions of others. Barter stressed that, despite child welfare reforms in child
protection services, children continue to be victimized in those responsible for their
protection (i.e., families, communities, public systems). Without efforts geared
toward prevention and without working to eradicate poverty, inequality, and other
11
environmental influences on child abuse, child protection services offer little more
than a band-aid approach to deeply embedded social problems.
According to Barter (2001), effectively combating child abuse and neglect
entails a shift from family strengthening to community building, whereby “the
community is a client system to be acknowledged and reckoned with in terms of
motivation, involvement, and change” (p. 269). Interdisciplinary collaboration and
service integration are cornerstones of a community-based approach. Best-practice
models include family resource centers customized to the needs and preferences of
constituents, convenient and accessible community-based services, and school-based
services in which schools serve as active centers for neighborhood children and
families. Economic development is furthered by enlisting support from the corporate
sector as well as nonprofit organizations (Austin, 2005).
Systems of Care
A community-based systems approach has been used since the inception of
the first children’s mental health services organization (Pumariega et al., 1997), the
aim of which was to provide children with high quality care in the least restrictive
setting. Nonetheless, the provision of adequate mental health services for children
has historically lagged behind that for adults (Holden, DeCarolis, & Huff, 2002).
The system of care concept extends the concept of community-based care beyond
conventional approaches. For the current research, system of care is defined as a
comprehensive system of mental health (and other necessary services) that satisfies
12
the diverse and changing needs of children, youth, and families (Dodge et al., 2004).
As (Foster et al., 2004) argued, the responsibility for sustaining such systems is
resides with the community rather than with a single agency. The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services defined a system of care as “the best practice standard
for the delivery of services and supports for children with serious or complex mental
health needs and their families.” (Dodge et al., 2004, p. 116). A system of care as
started in the mental health community has been adopted by other social service
delivery systems like child welfare. The principles listed below came from a system
of care in the child welfare setting.
According to the philosophical ideals of a system of care, all services and
supports should be child-centered, family-focused, neighborhood- and community-
based, and adapted to build on the cultural strengths of constituents (Dodge et al.,
2004). Agencies that adopt a system of care approach are guided by eight different
principles: 1) families should have access to a comprehensive package of services
and supports that build their strengths and address physical, emotional, social,
spiritual, and educational needs; 2) services and supports should be tailored to the
unique strengths and needs of each family under the rubric of one integrated,
customized service plan; 3) services should be provided to families in the least
restrictive and most conducive, safe environment; 4) families should be full
participants in all aspects of the planning and delivery process; 5) services and
supports should be integrated and linked among agencies and providers that facilitate
13
common mechanisms for planning, development, and coordination; 6) case
management should be used to maximize coordination and delivery of services and
supports; 7) families should have access to prevention, early identification, and
intervention services to promote positive outcomes; and 8) all services should be
provided to all individuals without discrimination and with sensitivity and respect for
cultural differences and unique needs.
Development of Comprehensive Community Capacity
Very few research efforts, with regard to the development of community
capacity building, have been documented. Most of what has been documented is
based on a series of articles from the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the
University of Chicago, regarding the Ford Foundation’s Neighborhood and Family
Initiative (NFI). The NFI was developed with the focus of revitalizing and
empowering community families (Chaskin, Joseph, & Chipenda-Dansokho, 1997).
NFI is being implemented by collaboratives in four cities, including: Detroit,
Michigan; Hartford, Connecticut; Memphis, Tennessee; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The initial research on the NFI analyzed its theoretical foundations and described the
chosen context of the initiative (i.e., the neighborhood), the nature of community,
and the practical implications of neighborhood definition for structuring social action
(Chaskin, 1992). The study found that there were a number of areas in which the
collaboratives felt that they would have benefited from more direct and specific
guidance from their funder (i.e., the Ford Foundation). Collaboratives indicated that
14
they wanted more clarity on the assumptions under which the Foundation worked,
especially in the areas of the degree of autonomy that the collaboratives should have,
assessed reasonable markers of progress, and what structures were in place after the
initiative was started.
Another study conducted, by Littell, Smoot, and Chaskin (1993), sheds some
light on developmental issues faced by community capacity building efforts. The
authors reported the results of a survey of heads of households in 700 homes in two
NFI cities (i.e., Hartford and Memphis). The survey was designed to measure
attitudes and perceptions of residents regarding a range of neighborhood issues. The
survey had two purposes: 1) to investigate resident satisfaction with neighborhood
services and opportunities and the extent to which residents felt connected to one
another; and 2) to explore residents’ sense of place in the community and their view
of themselves. The results of a cross-site analysis found that residents’ perspectives
and attitudes toward their community could be measured systematically and may
prove to be useful for local assessment and planning purposes. Such measurements
are essential to subsequent empirical efforts focused on enhancing capacity building
effectiveness.
Another report that is relevant to understanding the current perspective on
community capacity building development is that provided by Chaskin and Joseph
(1995). These researchers focused on the development of collaborative mechanisms,
strategic planning, program development, implementation plans and processes across
15
initiatives created to assist in the overall planning and implementation of NFI in each
city. The findings of that report indicated that the NFI collaboratives were most
successful when: 1) they were organized around a clearly defined project; 2) the
project was central to the work of the participating organizations working with
children and families; 3) each organization had specific contributions to make to
specific components of the work; and 4) participating organizations had sufficient
capacity (staff, resources, expertise) to contribute effectively.
Finally, Chaskin (1997) compared the capacity of two of the four cities with
comprehensive community initiatives. Using a qualitative case study approach, he
collected information on what “drives” CCIs. Chaskin found that the initiatives took
fundamentally different paths as their principal strategic thrusts, and as a result each
generated different kinds of outcomes. The case studies highlighted a number of
complications, including staff leadership, funding constraints, and the difficulty of
crafting collaborative arrangements.
At the heart of developing effective community initiatives is dedication to an
ongoing process of collaboration and coalition building. Mizrahi (1999) defined
collaboration as a process in which representatives of different organizations unite
for a common purpose while transcending individual, demographic, professional,
and ideological differences. Successful collaboration requires a balance of
pragmatism and vision, realistic expectations about what can be accomplished, and
accountability for the fulfillment of purported goals. Not unexpectedly, several
16
accounts of struggles to achieve genuine collaboration, among the parties involved in
community capacity building, exist (see Mizrahi, 1999). Many community
initiatives are still in the early stages of planning and implementation, driven by
dedication to maximize services and supports for children and families and achieve
positive outcomes. Thus, failure to achieve collaboration has continued to be an
inhibiting factor to the positive development of community capacity building efforts.
Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives
Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs) are designed to support a
broad range of ambitious goals. Such goals include: 1) fostering relationships among
families, neighborhood organizations, and service providers; 2) involving
community members in needs assessment and evaluation of existing services; 3)
promoting communication among communities and service providers to develop
accessible and relevant programs; 4) integrating existing services to reduce
redundancies and accommodate families with multiple needs; and 5) mobilizing
communities to advocate for changes in social and public policies (Lambert & Black,
2001). Program development training of families (particularly in the tenets of
prevention), and research and evaluation are the cornerstones of CCIs. At the same
time, the strength of CCIs, their broad base and far-reaching objectives, make
effective implementation a challenging process. Furthermore, the diverse
components of these initiatives make evaluation extremely complex (Armstrong,
Massey, Boroughs, Bailey, & Lajoie, 2003; Dodge et al., 2004; Ewalt, 1997).
17
Adequate evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of CCIs is an
important issue; one which has often eluded empirical scrutiny (Ewalt, 1997). One
commonly employed and effective strategy for gathering information regarding the
evaluation of CCIs is that of the individual interview. Ouellette, Briscoe, and Tuson
(2004) organized focus groups of parents, school representatives, social service
providers, and representatives of faith-based organizations in an economically
disadvantaged urban community to gain the perspectives of each group. Members of
all groups expressed strong interest in engaging in dialogue and networking with one
another and shared a collective commitment to the neighborhood children. Practical
barriers such as time, distance, and transportation proved a major impediment to
collaboration and implementation. Oullette et al. argued that such barriers are often
ignored. Focus group discussions showed that each group had valuable insights and
ideas on improving community services, with inevitable differences in priorities.
CCIs are meant to secure power for individuals and groups that have been
historically marginalized. Thus, CCIs are typically designed help empower involved
community members to actively construct environments to meet their basic needs
(Ewalt, 1997). Ewalt noted that while citizen participation is requisite for
community development, participation does not automatically translate into
empowerment. Specific, targeted action is needed to ensure that community
members effectively influence public policy. A successful example of this process
was demonstrated by the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in the Roxbury
18
section of Boston. From the inception of the project, residents made it clear that the
initiative would be under local control (Ewalt, 1997). Another example is Project
EAGLE (i.e., Early Action Guidance Leading to Empowerment”) in Kansas City,
Kansas, which was strategically designed on empowerment principles to facilitate
the economic and social self-sufficiency of families with preschool age children
(Bartle, Couchonnal, Canda, & Staker, 2002). Such examples suggest that
cultivating leadership from within the community is an important part of the strategic
empowerment process (Nissen, Merrigan, & Kraft, 2005).
However, these and other CCIs have yet to be adequately evaluated on all of
the levels and dimensions y which they are implemented. Another such example is
the Durham Family Initiative (DFI) in Durham, North Carolina, which grew out of a
community needs assessment, entitled State of Durham’s Children (Dodge et al.,
2004). This particular initiative sheds much light on the many different levels and
dimensions in which community capacity building efforts may be designed and
evaluated. The report, a joint endeavor by the Durham Youth Coordinating Board
and the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University, identified prevention
of child abuse and neglect as one of the community’s top priorities. The results of
the DFI (provided by Dodge et al., 2004) suggested that eradicating such problems
entails targeting intervention at four distinct levels. The first level involves the
individual. A history of abusive experiences or disrupted childhood attachment
relationships may lead to poor parenting skills. Interventions that help resolve these
19
issues may result in improved parenting practices. The second level involves the
family. Poverty, disorganization, family violence, and marital stress undermine the
quality of parent-child interactions, often leading to harsh parenting. Interventions at
the level of the family should focus on the causal relationship between these
conditions and child abuse. The third level involves the neighborhood. Abusive
parents are often socially isolated, have inadequate social support, and lack sources
of social persuasion regarding their parenting practices. Informal respite care
provided by friends and neighbors can potentially neutralize volatile parent-child
situations. Finally, the fourth level involves the community. Poor coordination
among social service providers may prevent some families from receiving financial
support and mental health services that could help them develop positive parenting
skills. It seems likely that primary and secondary efforts focused on any of the four
levels can reduce child abuse, yet the potential is greatest if intervention is targeted
to all four levels.
One component of DFI that may be particularly useful for community
capacity initiative is a community partnership, known as the DFI Collaborative.
Initially, the primary goal of this partnership was the design, implementation, and
evaluation of an assessment instrument for targeting families at risk of child abuse
and neglect. For at-risk families identified by the screening process, DFI offers early
intervention services at multiple levels. Child and family teams, in which parents act
20
as partners with case managers or service coordinators, are central to the system of
care approach.
At the time of Dodge et al.’s (2004) report, administrators of DFI intended to
service all of Durham’s 122 neighborhoods. Contributing to this goal, the organizers
successfully enlisted official support from Durham County commissioners, elected
officials, and directors of all relevant agencies and institutions including the child
welfare and juvenile justice systems, public schools, courts, and the health
department and mental health system. Consistent with Ewalt’s (1997) arguments
regarding the necessary involvement levels for successful capacity building, the
participation levels of the DFI were high.
However, the evaluation of the DFI was preliminary. Due to economic
constraints, DFI found that financial resources were not nearly sufficient to support
the array of prevention services that administrators had planned to implement
(Dodge et al., 2004). As noted earlier, adequate evaluations of CCIs are warranted.
Another example of an inadequate evaluation of a CCI was done of the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative in Pinellas County, Florida. This
initiative offers innovative educational and mental health programs to support
children and families (Armstrong et al., 2003). Like Durham, Pinellas County has
extremes of both wealth and poverty. Nearly half the students are eligible for free or
reduced price meals. In 1999, the district had an excessive number of children
receiving special education services (including a disproportionate number of
21
minority students), high rates of school suspensions, disciplinary problems, and
delinquency, a sub-optimal high school graduation rate, higher than normal rates of
teenage pregnancy and child abuse and neglect. Rather than introducing new
programs, the district decided to build on best-practices drawn from existing safe
schools programs. Project Achieve, a system of care approach to school reform that
focuses on primary prevention, forms the basic framework for the initiative. The
initiative has a unique attribute in the form of the Juvenile Welfare Board, which
applies property tax revenue and funds to support children’s programs. However,
underscoring the challenges of collaboration, Armstrong et al. noted that even with
this advantage there were difficulties in service coordination and collaboration.
Armstrong et al. (2003) conceded that the most difficult task of the SS/HS was
integrating evaluation procedures into an initiative comprised of numerous
components.
Organizational Capacity Building
According to Kubisch (2005), research on established CCIs (at least 10 years
old) provides evidence that these initiatives have contributed to improved outcomes
for children, families, and neighborhoods on key issues such as health, crime, and
employment. Most CCIs have also been effective in strengthening organizations,
developing new relationships, cultivating neighborhood leadership, and bringing
additional resources to the community. However, Kubisch conceded that CCIs have
yet to live up to their expectations as “agents of major community transformation”
22
(p. 22). Specifically, the ineffectiveness of CCIs was found to be related to
inadequate financial investments in capacity building at the community level and
insufficient work on strengthening community connections. Kubisch learned that
“most local organizations in poor communities are too fragile to take on a
comprehensive community building agenda at a level that has potential for
significant change, and the lack of capacity simply undermines many good efforts”
(p. 23). Kubisch also attributed ineffectiveness to organizer’s failure to recognize
that enduring change is a gradual process. To make CCIs more effective, Kubisch
stated that organizers need to be more strategic about investing in community
capacity building and more sophisticated about the influence of contextual factors on
neighborhoods and communities.
To explore the topic of capacity building, Connolly and Lukas (2002)
studied the capacity of nonprofit organizations and communities to identify several
different capacity building strategies that organizations can utilize to strengthen non-
profit organizational performance. They define capacity as including capabilities,
knowledge, and resources that a nonprofit needs in order to fulfill its mission through
a blend of sound management, strong governance, and a persistent rededication to
achieving results. In addition they define capacity building as activities that can
strengthen a nonprofit organization and help it better fulfill its mission. The activities
they define are: strategic planning, technology upgrades, operational improvements,
and board development. After surveying over one hundred organizations, they found
23
that the capacities that require the most strengthening in organizations include: 1)
governance and leadership; 2) programs and organizational operations; 3) mission
and vision; 4) planning; 5) efficient management systems and structures; 6) strategic
relationships; 7) a diversified revenue and resource base; and 8) strong management
support systems. Although this list is extensive of the capacities nonprofits need,
nonprofits are in need of comprehensive capacity building activities Connolly and
Lukas mention.
In 2005, Robertson from The Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF)
conducted research on capacity building to increase the impact of its grants to
individual organizations and thus strengthen the overall capacity of the voluntary
sector in the Ontario community. Over a three-month period, the researchers
reviewed capacity building literature and conducted open interviews with 28
recipients of OTF grants and a number of researchers and consultants in the field.
They also conducted in-depth follow-up interviews with six of the 28 grantee
organizations to ensure that their findings reflected a diverse range of capacity
building grants. After a careful review, the assessed findings revealed that
organizations need to be resilient, strategic, and responsive to the community, and
have strong management, solid board governance, appropriate organizational
structures, and well-planned programs and services. This study supported the
position that strengthening the capacity of community organizations is an
interconnected process. The interconnected process was related to a change in how
24
the foundation defined capacity building. In the end their new and broader definition
is that organizational capacity building is a process that strengthens four interrelated
pillars - the relevance, responsiveness, effectiveness and resilience of not-for-profit
organizations. OTF believes that organizations strive to build their capacity by
becoming more effective themselves and through their interaction with their
communities.
Guthrie and Preston (2005) further studied organizational capacity efforts to
create a portrait of the capacity of the grantees of three community funders. Using
the McKinsey Capacity Assessment (McKinsey & Company, 2001), they surveyed
all grantees of the three funders and examined potential patterns in organizational
capacity across grantees. A descriptive case study provided valuable information
regarding the lessons learned from each of the grantees. The most important of these
lessons is that there was a need for mechanisms to identify their capacity-building
priorities from their completed McKinsey assessment, from the perspective the
assessment measures broad differences in capacity and it provides clear articulation
of what improvement would look like for the grantees by defining the areas that need
improvement. Using the assessment priorities grantees were able to produce more
sophisticated targeted work plans and the funders were able to plan capacity building
support in more strategic and responsive ways. The lessons learned described tying
the assessment to an organizational planning and goal setting process. Funders were
also able to enhance their understanding of which capacity areas they could impact
25
the most since they were able to use the assessment to measure capacity at multiple
points in time.
Research Context
Miami-Dade County is the largest county in the southeastern United States in
terms of land area and population. The County currently covers 2,209 square miles
located in the southeastern corner of the State of Florida. In 2000, the population of
the County was estimated to have consisted of 2.2 million people, 13% of Florida's
total population and larger than 16 states (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000
Redistricting Summary). Miami-Dade is statistically the most diverse area in the
United States (60% Hispanic, 21% black or African American, 19% non-Hispanic
white, and more than half of its residents born in another country). According to
Dade Community Foundation (2002) Miami maintains one of the largest Hispanic
populations of any city in the U.S. Nearly two-thirds majority Hispanic ethnicity
was nearly four times larger than the state average at the turn of this century (Miami-
Dade, Alliance for Human Services Comprehensive Health and Social Services
Master Plan, 2001-2004). The multi nationality population growth was not only due
to significant Cuban immigration in the 1960s, but also to more recent arrivals of
Caribbean and Central American populations making 50.9% of the County’s
residents born outside the United States. This influx of immigrants has been
accompanied by a host of social problems. Miami-Dade has a significantly higher
than national average of under skilled, undereducated and impoverished people
26
living within its cities. Miami-Dade has a median household income of $35,966
(U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000). Miami's adults possess low education levels,
are often absent from the labor force, and must provide for relatively large
households (Brooks, 2000). In 2003, there were 786,000 households in Miami-Dade
County, the average household size was 2.92 people and twenty-five percent of the
population was under 18 years old. Residents struggle to pay for housing, healthcare
and the other necessities of life. In several neighborhoods in Miami-Dade, more than
40 percent of all residents lived in poverty and half of these families with children
have incomes below or near the poverty line.
State of Florida’s Child Welfare System
Nineteen ninety-eight was a significant year in the state of Florida for child
welfare and specifically the state agency the Florida Department of Children and
Families (DCF). In 1998, “six year-old Kayla McKean was beaten to death by her
father after several reported incidents of child abuse and neglect.” The Kayla
McKean incident led to many departmental and legislative changes aimed at
improving the failing system. DCF witnessed an increase in the number of alleged
child abuse calls received by the Abuse Hotline and the number of child abuse
investigations increased substantially. According to the Child Welfare Services
Review Report for Florida (2001) in 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the number of child
related calls increased by 29.08% and the number of new protective investigations
conducted increased by 28.63%. This was primarily attributed to the high profile
27
Kayla McKean case. Later during the 1998 legislative session, HB 3217 passed to
privatize the entire child protection system by January 1, 2003. The Miami Dade
community profile as described in the 1999-2000 Children's Report Card: A profile
on the Status of Children in Miami-Dade County highlighted several key issues that
supported the need for coordinated intervention and service delivery for all children
and families. These seven community markers included: unemployment, low
income, homelessness, lack of health insurance coverage, lack of affordable, quality
early education and out-of-school care. DCF and Miami-Dade’s Department of
Human Services collaborated with a network of more than 200 community-based
care initiative organizations to target more than their collective missions. Their
collaborative missions include a focus on child development, delinquency
prevention, family preservation, elderly services, employment and training,
homelessness, housing assistance, mental health, refugee and immigrant assistance,
substance abuse, and help for family violence.
Miami-Dade Department of Children and Families, DCF reported that
communities in Miami-Dade are making efforts to organize, on behalf of their most
vulnerable children, in order to demonstrate what community-based care was
designed to do (i.e., transition child protective services to local providers, who then
work within the community to ensure that children are safe and reside in a loving
environment). DCF is attempting to provide a seamless web of services to manage
the needs of the diverse families in Miami-Dade, creating what was referred to
28
earlier as a system of care. In Miami-Dade, it is widely acknowledged that not only
is the non-profit sector the key link to addressing social problems, but it is also a
major force in the community to be leveraged and valued. According to the Dade
Community Foundation Independent Sector Report (2002) in Miami-Dade County
there are 3,400 registered charitable organizations with $3.4 billion in revenue and
expenditures and $3.6 billion in assets. One-third of these organizations provide
social services as their primary type of activity. It seems possible that the viability of
the county could potentially enhance its capacity building through commitment and
support for community-based organizations. While community-based organizations
may play an important role in increasing capacity building efforts, it is important to
first evaluate the initiatives of The Children’s Trust before designing such efforts.
Children’s Services Council Model
By Florida state statute, a children’s services district may be created by a
county. It must be created by action of the county government, have boundaries
within the county, and have a governing board of at least ten members. The
dedicated funding, source taxing authority model for children’s services was
established more than a half-century ago with a decision made by voters in Pinellas
County (St. Petersburg), Florida. Established in 1946, the Juvenile Welfare Board
(JWB) was the nation's first countywide agency utilizing dedicated property tax
revenue to better the lives of children and families. The JWB does not provide direct
services, but funds non-profit, government, and grassroots community groups that
29
provide services. As the originator of this approach, JWB developed an agenda for
supporting the healthy development of all children and their families in Pinellas
County through advocacy, research, planning, training, communications,
coordinating of resources and funding. Today, eight Florida counties have such a
dedicated source. The overall mission of the Florida Children’s Services Council is
to provide the means for juvenile welfare boards and similar bodies to cooperatively
address the needs of Florida's families and children and the organizations
participating in the council. Much of the focus of the Children’s Services Council’s
is on prevention service strategies. The council’s interests also include new and
more effective ways of infusing best-practice methods into service delivery and
increasing the capacity of service providers.
The Creation of The Children’s Trust in Miami-Dade
In September 2002, voters in Miami-Dade County established an
independent special taxing authority for improving children’s services known as The
Children’s Trust (The Trust) by a margin of two to one. The approval for a
dedicated funding source for children was an especially significant victory following
an unsuccessful effort 14 years prior. This ratification of endorsement came from
every demographic segment and every neighborhood (Trust Report, 2003). Since its
inception, the mission of The Children’s Trust has been to employ strategic
investments to improve the lives of all children and families in Miami-Dade County.
The Trust has the authority to fund efforts to improve children’s health, safety, and
30
development, promote parental and community responsibility for children, and levy
an annual tax. The Trust’s tax levy generates up to $60 million a year. The Trust
has assumed a “convener” role in the community and has been designated to elevate
the overall quality of children's services and support early intervention and
prevention or "front-end" services for children and families. Prevention efforts are
frequently identified as ignored and/or under-funded in child welfare service
delivery. The Trust currently funds 9 initiatives in Miami-Dade County.
Conclusion
Recent years have been characterized by a large number of child welfare
community initiatives reflecting a reform approach to child welfare service delivery.
These reforms involve many separate strategies including allocating resources to
specific communities and turning over operational responsibilities to community-
based organizations. Child welfare scholars and professionals argue that a proactive
reform strategy requires the development of child welfare initiatives that
incorporates the needs of the community as part of its service delivery model.
Researchers and policy makers have identified community based services as
a promising model for structuring services in neighborhoods affected by poverty and
other risk factors (Mulroy, 1997). Child welfare workers are aware of the hardship
affects due to unemployment, gang activity, drugs, and structured poverty
(Venkatesh, 1997). Coyne (2004) observes that due to poverty and related needs,
community initiatives tend to focus on both at-risk communities and their
31
organizations. Most of these community child welfare initiatives are funded by a
number of private foundations and through government programs (Chaskin, 2003).
Community based organizations can provide a number of services that child welfare
agencies cannot provide themselves and often families are likely to find these
agencies less adversarial than public agencies. In addition, these local organizations
can directly provide financial, human, and social resources to the community
residents including children and their families and have the potential to assist in the
development community capacity.
Even though there is an interest in community type initiatives, few studies
have examined the affects of child welfare community initiatives that focus in
funding community organizations to assist families and also develop community
capacities. The purpose of this study is to examine a community based type
initiative like The Children’s Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida designed to
address problems of children and their families within a community context and also
develop community capacities and social assets. The study of The Trust and its
influence on a community level is a broad field of interest that can examine the
processes and indictors of child welfare organizations that lead toward capacity
building in a community setting.
Although CCIs and system of care models are designed to create favorable
outcomes for families and youth, much is still unknown about their overall
effectiveness. Further, little is know about the specific factors that may enhance or
32
impede this effectiveness. Several CCI projects appear to be recently developed and
are still in the stages of planning. Virtually all sources agree that the challenge of
implementing and sustaining collaborative projects is great. However, members of
all stakeholder groups tend to agree that CCIs hold the greatest potential for
producing enduring positive change for children, families, and communities.
According to Roberston (2005), capacity building within organizations is tightly
linked with community capacity building. Robertson implied a causal path by
suggesting that healthy and vibrant communities result when organizations build
their own capacity. However, the factors that make CCIs effective must first be
understood. Likewise, the development of adequate assessment tools must first be
validated before fully understanding of the processes needed to increase community
capacity.
Current Research Questions
To contribute to an understanding of the implementation of comprehensive
community initiatives, this current exploratory study addresses five questions that
have yet to be answered by previous research on CCIs. Because the current study is
exploratory, no hypotheses are drawn.
33
Quantitative Research Questions
Research Question 1. What is the overall level of capacity building
knowledge at each of the five CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust (and with respect
to the initiatives and their positions in the organizations)?
Research Question 2. How are capacity building perspectives of key
informants of the five CCIs, funded by The Children’s Trust, similar or distinct (and
with respect to the initiatives and their positions in the organizations)?
Qualitative Research Questions
Research Question 3. What are the processes involved in the implementation
of the five CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust? In other words, do the initiatives
demonstrate similar processes and which factors most influenced the processes?
Research Question 4. What are the unique lessons learned from the five
CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust?
Research Question 5. What barriers to capacity building are perceived by
key informants of the five CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust?
Information that addresses these questions may help to identify additional
questions that could be addressed in future research on this topic.
34
CHAPTER 3– RESEARCH METHOD
Given the comparative lack of empirical research on this type of child
welfare strategy and community capacity building initiatives in general, exploratory
and descriptive methods were deemed most appropriate for the current study
(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The current study utilized a mixed method research
design. Mixed methods research is characterized as research that contains elements
of both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Patton,
2002). Chaskin, Chipenda-Dansokho, & Toler (2000) employed a mixed method
design to study the experience of a ten-year, multi-site demonstration (i.e.,
Neighborhood and Family Initiative). Using this method, they were able to highlight
the contextual, political and organizational influences that shaped evaluation choices
and activities of the initiative.
An exploratory case study strategy was selected for several reasons. First,
case studies are appropriate for exploratory research that inquires about what
phenomena are occurring, as well as how and why (Yin, 1994). In this instance, the
phenomena being explored are knowledge and capacity. Second, a view of the
perspectives of key informants who have been central to initiating and managing the
implementation of the initiatives will be captured. Third, case studies offer rich
accounts and detailed images to document particular aspects of capacity, so that
researchers can observe what a comprehensive community initiative looks like
during the implementation process. As Yin (1994) described, case studies permit
35
empirical inquiries that investigate contemporary phenomenon within the contexts
that they exist. Such methods are especially useful when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are unclear. Case studies also rely on multiple sources of
data. In the current study, quantitative analysis and qualitative interviews will be
examined.
Trust Sponsored Initiatives Studied
The research involved an in-depth examination of five of The Trust’s
comprehensive community initiatives. A total of eleven initiatives were available to
participate in the current study. However, four criteria were employed for selecting
initiatives for the current study. These criteria were adapted from the criteria used by
Paulsell (2002), which included: 1) commitment to quality; 2) use of promising best-
practice strategies collaboration with other agencies; 3) types of clients served
include children with possible involvement in the child welfare system; and 4) a goal
to build community capacity. Each of the initiatives selected was been recognized
by staff at The Trust as having two or more of the above four factors. Six initiatives
met only one criterion and as a result they were not selected for inclusion in this
study. The Trust initiatives were also expected to be in an early stage of
organizational development, be willing to participate in the study by describing the
processes involved in the implementation of the initiative.
211 Helpline. The Children’s Trust 211 Helpline provides telephone
counseling, crisis intervention, and information and referrals to nearly 3,000
36
important social service agencies that help families and youth cope with their most
pressing issues. Specially-trained counselors at the Switchboard of Miami respond
to calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in English, Spanish and Creole. The Helpline
is also a valuable resource and referral tool for care coordinators and social service
agencies attempting to assist their clients. In addition, it provides the community
with resource database available via the Internet.
Project RISE. In an effort to improve quality in out-of-school programs,
Project RISE (Research, Inspiration, Support and Evaluation) aims to work in
collaboration with out-of-school service providers to design a comprehensive plan
for program improvement. The plan includes a framework for uniform quality
standards and program assessments, individual participant outcome evaluation
standards, and training/technical assistance supports for quality improvement. It is
implemented by an appropriate team of program evaluation and quality improvement
professionals.
Safety Resource Network. The Safety Resource Network aims to provide
training and technical assistance to service providers in the child safety and injury
prevention area. This area includes the prevention of child abuse and neglect as well
as the prevention of and intervention in cases of domestic violence. This investment
seeks to work within the realm of the systems of care framework for at-risk families,
children and youth.
37
Health Connect. In response to the health care crisis in Miami-Dade, The
Trust developed a major health initiative that responds to four focus areas. For
children in school, School Health Connect provides all public schools with a team of
professionals comprised of a health technician, a pediatric care provider, a social
worker and a mental health professional. Connectors are also placed in community
settings to assure that children and youth of all ages are enrolled in available
insurance and other assistance programs (especially for vulnerable and hard to reach
groups). First Connect is the early childhood health component that includes a
universal screening system for each newborn and his or her parents in Miami-Dade
County. Finally, health education campaigns are designed to address key health
issues.
Youth Transitioning to Adulthood. This initiative was designed to create a
cohesive and comprehensive system overhaul that would ensure that youth moving
from foster care or detention, or those with emotional and/or behavioral challenges,
are provided all the supports and skills needed to become productive, contributing
citizens. Its goal was to remove barriers to service through the cooperation of
community partners who serve youth though foster care, juvenile justice, mental
health and homeless systems.
Additional descriptive information regarding each of the initiatives may be
found in Appendix A.
38
Sample of Participants
Initiatives that agreed to participate were asked to submit the names of six
potential participants, including management and direct care staff. Trust employees
were those involved in the initiative on an ongoing basis. These individuals included
a group of four employees with one employee having responsibility for two
initiatives. Community members were chosen from a list provided by the Trust
employee or the initiative. The community member list contained a total of 15
names of professionals involved with the initiative who could represent the
community perspective. Community members were contacted by mail; seven
responded and only five completed the study materials. Following the data
collection procedures detailed later, potential participants were contacted initially by
mail.
Both quantitative and qualitative data were requested from a total of 30 “key
informants” (six from each of the five initiatives under study). Key informants
included managers, direct program staff, community members, and Trust staff. The
sampling method used to select key informants is typically referred to as “purposeful
sampling” (Patton, 1990). The purposeful sample of informants was chosen to get
in-depth information from people who have first hand knowledge about each
initiative. Informants were required to be with their CCI for at least 6 months at the
time data were collected. Furthermore, the informants were selected on the basis that
they were likely to provide a broad range of perspectives. It was assumed that the
39
perspectives of the management, direct program staff, and community members
would reflect some differences. According to Eyler, Mayer, Rafi, and King (1999),
key informant surveys are important tools for planning and evaluating
community
programs. Each informant was advised of the purpose of the study and asked to give
his/her verbal consent to use the information they provided for the purposes of this
study. Formal consent forms were not used as the study did not qualify as human
subjects research (no identifiable private information was shared about the
informants).
Sixty percent of the participants were female (n = 18) and forty percent (n =
12) of them were male. The informant's ages ranged from 25 to 59 with the median
age being 36. Almost 45% (n = 13) of the participants held masters degree and 20%
(n = 6) held doctorates. Fourteen participants held management positions (46.7%),
six were part of the community (20%) and ten were part of either the direct service
employees or Trust employees (16.7%). The various positions were evenly
distributed across the initiatives; that is, each initiative was represented by at least
one of each of the four position types, but not by more than three participants from
any one position type. More than half of the participants were involved in the
initiative for seven months to a year (51.7%, n = 15).
Procedures
Data were collected according to the recommendations described by Yin
(2003). Yin suggested that three principles of data collection were necessary for
40
case study research, which includes: 1) using multiple sources of evidence; 2)
creating a case study database; and 3) maintaining a chain of evidence.
For the current study, multiple types of evidence were collected from the
sample of key informants using a three-step protocol for collecting data from each
initiative. The protocol outlined below was used to maintain a chain of evidence
regarding the data collected at each step.
Step one. Written contact was made with each of the five Trust initiatives’
key informants to request their participation in the study. The letter sent to each of
the key informants described the study and requested their participation in the study
in three ways: 1) completion of the initial survey; 2) completion of the electronic
Capacity Assessment survey; and 3) a one-hour semi-structured interview. One
week later, each key informant was contacted by phone to schedule an interview
time.
Step two (quantitative). Once an interview was scheduled, information
regarding the introductory survey and the electronic assessment was forwarded to
each key informant. Each key informant was then asked to complete the initial
survey and the electronic assessment. Immediately following their completion of the
electronic assessment instrument, participants were permitted to observe their own
capacity assessment score in a summary assessment and table.
Step three (qualitative). During the scheduled in-person interviews, key
informants were advised again of the study purpose. A semi-structured interview
41
protocol was used to collect the qualitative data. Permission to include anonymous
quotations from individual informants was requested.
Instruments
Initial Survey. Demographic information was collected on each of the key
informants through an initial survey sent electronically to the study sample.
Specifically, information regarding the key informants’ sex, age, highest level of
education, role in organization, and time period involved in their initiative was
collected. This survey also assessed key informants’ awareness and knowledge of
capacity building with regard to seven components: 1) capacity building in general;
2) capacity building activities of their organization; 3) the nonprofit sector; 4) the
Miami-Dade community; 5) organizational assessment instruments; 6) assessment
instruments used in measuring capacity building; and 7) their ability to assess the
strengths and weaknesses of their initiative. Each of these items was measured using
a Likert scale with anchors ranging from 1 (very weak) to 5 (very strong). The initial
survey instrument is provided in Appendix B.
Electronic Capacity Assessment Survey (McKinsey Capacity Assessment).
The McKinsey Capacity Assessment (McKinsey & Company, 2001) was
developed to identify successful non-profit capacity building experiences as well as
the areas of capacity that are the strongest and those that need improvement.
According to McKinsey and Company (2001) the purpose of the measure was to
provide a common vision and vocabulary for assessing nonprofit capacity.
42
McKinsey and Company defined nonprofit capacity in the framework of a pyramid
with seven essential elements: three higher level elements (aspirations, strategy, and
organizational skills); three foundational elements (human resources, systems and
infrastructure, and organizational structure); and a cultural element that serves to
connect all the others (see Appendix C). The framework outlines several essential
elements that appear to be common issues that tend to cut across the full spectrum of
nonprofit activity. Although each element is closely connected, they are also
distinct. According to McKinsey & Company (2001), the pyramid emphasizes the
importance of examining each element both individually and in relation to the whole
enterprise. The McKinsey Capacity Assessment can be considered part of the larger
framework as well as a measurement instrument. The measurement instrument
contains 58 questions associated with the framework. Using a four-point Likert
scales, each question in the instrument is answered by referring to detailed
descriptions of activities that reflect four different levels of capacity. This approach
reduces the subjectivity of responses and increases the validity when comparing
scores across nonprofits (Guthrie, Preston, & Bernholz, 2003).
As an assessment instrument, the McKinsey Capacity Assessment is useful to
nonprofit organizations to the extent that it permits self-assessments of
organizational capacity building activities. It serves to identify those areas of
capacity that are the strongest as well as those that need improvement. Additionally,
43
the instrument can be used to clarify different views among different levels of staff
within an organization regarding levels of capacity.
Guthrie and Preston (2005) reviewed numerous capacity assessments before
deciding to build upon the McKinsey Capacity Assessment. They found that other
capacity assessment instruments tended to be inadequate, using numerical rating
scales without common definitions and focusing only on technical and organizational
skills. Guthrie and Preston argued that, while the McKinsey Capacity Assessment
included the most comprehensive set of questions and used a four-level rating scale
with detailed descriptions for what constitutes each level of capacity, the tool could
be strengthened by adding questions, reorganizing questions, and eliminating
redundant questions.
In 2005, Blueprint Research & Design, Inc., a strategy and evaluation
consulting firm for philanthropic organizations, assisted Social Venture Partners
(SVP) Seattle with identifying its goals for capacity assessment. Blueprint then
worked with SVP to customize the McKinsey Capacity Assessment to meet those
respective goals and fit the foundation’s mission. Specifically, the SVP version of
the McKinsey Capacity Assessment focused questions on fund raising,
communications and board issues. It also reorganized original questions into a
capacity-taxonomy, based on 10 skill areas, and added methods for nonprofits to
prioritize capacity building goals. In addition, the change included the creation of an
modified, electronic version of the McKinsey Capacity Assessment survey formatted
44
on an easy-to-use spreadsheet. Key informants were instructed to choose a score for
their organization, from 1 to 4, using definitions provided on a drop down capacity
rating menu. Participants responded to items by determining the extent to which
they perceived particular elements of capacity building to be in place within their
organizational initiative using a four-point Likert scale with the following anchors: 1
(clear need for increased capacity); 2 (basic level of capacity in place); 3 (moderate
level of capacity in place); and 4 (high level of capacity in place). In the event that a
particular question was not relevant to the organization being assessed, “N/A” was
available as a response option.
While the core of the McKinsey Capacity Assessment is useful, the work of
Connolly and Lukas (2004), Robertson (2005) and Guthrie and Preston (2005),
indicates that the areas of interest during a capacity assessment should be focused
specifically on eight different dimensions: 1) governance and leadership; 2) mission
and vision; 3) planning; 4) efficient management systems and structures; 5) strategic
relationships; 6) efficient and effective internal operations strong management
support systems; 7) strategic planning; 8) responsiveness to the community and well-
planned programs and services. The importance of these aspects of capacity building
is evident in the literature and was the basis for the analysis of each question used in
the McKinsey Capacity Assessment in the current study. To minimize redundancy
and reduce the number of questions asked by the assessment, a modified version of
the modified SVP version of the McKinsey Capacity Assessment was employed.
45
The electronic format, employed by SVP, was also employed in the current
study. However, only six survey categories were included: 1) aspirations, strategy
and planning; 2) program design and evaluation; 3) community engagement and
collaboration; 4) CEO/executive director leadership; 5) financial management; and
6) board leadership. Thus, categories not surveyed included: fund development;
information technology; legal affairs; and culture. The modified McKinsey Capacity
Assessment used in the current research is displayed in Appendix D.
Interview Protocol. Using Lofland and Lofland’s (1995) guidelines for
preparing interview guides, the study used a formatted interview protocol for
conducting the interview. A standard interview protocol with a set of pre-determined
interview questions was used with each key informant. This interview protocol is
provided in Appendix E. Lofland and Lofland suggested that face-to-face interviews
are important because the interviewer can both listen as well as observe interactions
and can increase the number of complex questions to be asked relative to other types
of data collection. The interviews were conducted at The Trust’s offices or the
agency location. Individual interviews with key informants lasted no longer than one
hour in duration. The interviews allowed the key informants to respond to a series of
questions regarding the lessons learned from working with The Trust. All interviews
were conducted in person and detailed notes were recorded.
Pilot tests were completed with staff from The Trust to anticipate the length
46
of time that would be needed to complete the measures, their ease of use and the
functionality of the electronic version of the McKinsey Capacity Assessment.
Data Analysis
According to Yin (1994), data analysis in case studies should consist of
examining, categorizing, tabulating, or otherwise recombining the evidence to
address the study questions. The rationale for using multiple sources of data is the
triangulation of evidence, which increases the reliability of the data and helps to
corroborate the data gathered from the various sources. The first two research
questions were examined with the data quantitative collected from the initial survey,
as well as data collected from the modified McKinsey Capacity Assessment.
Research questions three; four and five were answered by the qualitative data from
the individual in-person interviews.
Initial analysis began with the development of a master identification sheet
for all data from each informant: demographic information; initial survey data;
McKinsey Capacity Assessment data; and information collected during the semi-
structured interview.
Quantitative Analysis
Because most responses from both the initial survey and the modified
McKinsey Capacity Assessment were collected electronically, the data were
reviewed, cleaned for missing data and entered into the database with a
corresponding unique identifier for each informant. There were a total of four
47
participants who completed the survey and/or the assessment using paper/pencil,
their data was entered manually. When electronic documents were returned, they
were reviewed for completeness before being entered into the master database.
There were missing data on two assessments which were coded as N/A after
receiving verification that items were not skipped purposefully. Demographic data
for each informant was used to calculate descriptive statistics for the sample in this
study. Scores for each informant were automatically tabulated at the completion of
the electronic data collection process; these scores were then used to create a picture
of the capacity elements in place. Further analysis included a mean score analysis
around the six main categories from the modified McKinsey Capacity Assessment
measured. This analysis was also conducted to compare the capacity building factors
with respect to the individual’s role within the organization.
Qualitative Analysis
The notes from each interview were organized and reviewed on the day of the
interview or as close to that time as possible. Interview write-ups formed part of the
case study database. Given the exploratory nature of the research, these data were
examined using content analysis for consistent themes and responses as well as
network relationships between initiatives which were then compared within and
across groups. According to Patton (2002), content analysis is a systematic approach
to qualitative data analysis that identifies and summarizes message content. Content
analysis is used to analyze qualitative responses to open-ended questions on surveys
48
or interviews. Each qualitative question was coded separately. Codes were
developed only when responses were recorded multiple times. Responses, which
address similar issues, or appeared to be related based on the content analysis, were
coded as patterns emerging from the data. Themes generated from this analysis are
presented in the next chapter.
49
CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS
The total sample consisted of 30 key participants chosen from management,
direct service employees, community and Trust employees associated with each of
the five initiatives. For the quantitative data, a total of 30 initial surveys and
modified McKinsey Capacity Assessments were completed either online or on paper
and entered into a statistical database by the researcher. Follow-up interviews for the
qualitative portion of the study were completed in person. A 100% response rate
was achieved (i.e., all six of the participants from each of the five initiatives,
participated by completing both the quantitative and qualitative measures). The
following results represent both the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study.
Quantitative Research Findings
Capacity Building Knowledge Components
To answer the first research question regarding the level of capacity building
knowledge components of the sample, eight separate single-sample t-tests were
computed on the seven items of the initial survey (and a cumulative score). Sample
means were computed for the entire sample and tested against the midpoint of the
scale for each item (i.e., 3.00). The eight capacity building knowledge means and t-
test results are displayed in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the areas in which the key
informants expressed the strongest knowledge included their knowledge about
capacity building in general, the non-profit sector, their knowledge about the Miami-
Dade community, and their ability to assess strengths and weaknesses of their
50
organization. On each of these components of capacity (and the cumulative score),
participants rated their knowledge above the mid-point of the scale, suggesting that
their level of knowledge (from their perspective) was between neutral and strong. In
regard to capacity building activities of their organization, organizational assessment
instruments, and instruments used in the measurement of capacity building,
participants maintained neutral estimates of their knowledge, as mean scores on
these items failed to differ from the mid-point of the scale. However, most of the
capacity knowledge components that did not differ from the mid-point were related
to knowledge of assessment instruments, indicating lack of knowledge of
organizational practice skills. The analysis suggests that the items that were more
analytical and organizational based were neutral but the items that were outside the
organization were relatively high, suggesting lower organizational practice levels
and critical thinking.
51
Table 1
Sample Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Knowledge Components and Single-
Sample t-test Results
Knowledge Component M SD Range t(29)
Capacity building in general 3.40 1.07 3.00–3.80 2.05*
Capacity building activities of org. 3.30 1.31 2.81–3.79 1.25
Non-profit sector 4.00 .91 3.66–4.34 6.02***
Miami-Dade community 3.90 1.02 3.52–4.28 4.79***
Organizational assessment instruments 3.10 1.02 2.72–3.48 .53
Capacity building assessment instruments 2.83 1.11 2.42–3.25 -.82
Ability to assess strengths/weaknesses 3.50 1.13 3.08–3.92 2.41*
Cumulative 3.43 .72 2.29–4.71 3.31**
Note. Likert scale anchors ranged from 1 (very weak) to 5 (very strong). Test value
= 3.00.
N = 30.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Capacity building knowledge components were also examined with respect to
the Trust initiatives and position roles. A series of one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests were employed to determine whether or not the capacity building
knowledge levels differed across the initiatives and position roles. As shown in
Table 2, the initiatives differed only with respect to capacity knowledge associated
with Miami-Dade. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the single significant test was
driven only by the difference between the Project RISE and Youth Transitioning to
52
Adulthood initiatives, which showed that Project RISE key informants reported less
capacity building knowledge for Miami-Dade than did Youth Transitioning to
Adulthood key informants, t(25) = 3.15, p < .05. Initiative means by capacity
knowledge components were also compared with the sample means of each
component using a series of single-sample t-tests. Only one difference was found;
key informants associated with the Youth Transitioning to Adulthood initiative
reported a significantly greater capacity building knowledge for Miami-Dade (M =
4.50, SD = .55) than did the sample as a whole (M = 3.90, SD = 1.02), t(5) = 2.68, p
< .05. No other differences between the initiatives, or between an initiative mean on
a capacity component and the component’s sample mean, were found. Thus, the five
Trust initiatives were statistically equal on all of the other components of capacity
knowledge.
53
Table 2
Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Knowledge Components by Initiative and One-Way ANOVA Results
Initiative
211H PR SRN HC YTA
Knowledge Component M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F(4, 25)
Capacity building in general 3.67 1.03 3.50 .83 4.17 .75 3.00 1.09 2.67 1.21 2.05
Capacity building activities of org. 3.50 1.23 3.33 1.03 3.83 1.47 2.83 1.72 3.00 1.26 .51
Non-profit sector 4.17 .75 4.33 .81 4.33 .51 3.33 1.21 3.83 .98 1.38
Miami-Dade community 4.17 .75 2.83 1.17 4.00 .63 4.00 1.26 4.50 .54 2.82*
Organizational assessment instruments 3.17 .98 4.00 .89 2.83 .75 3.17 1.17 2.33 .81 2.53
Capacity building assessment instr. 2.50 .83 3.67 1.37 3.00 .89 3.00 .89 2.00 1.10 2.17
Ability to assess strengths/weaknesses 3.33 1.21 4.17 .75 3.67 1.03 3.83 1.17 2.50 1.05 2.17
Cumulative 3.50 .75 3.69 .68 3.69 .54 3.30 .91 2.97 .63 1.06
Note. 211H = 211 Helpline; PR = Project RISE; SRN = Safety Resource Network; HC = Health Connect; YTA = Youth
Transitioning Adulthood. Likert scale anchors ranged from 1 (very weak) to 5 (very strong).
N = 30 (n = 6 in each initiative).
*p < .05.
54
Table 3
Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Knowledge Components by Position Role and One-Way ANOVA Results
Position Role
Management
a
Direct Service
b
Employee
c
Community
d
Knowledge Component M SD M SD M SD M SD F(3, 26)
Capacity building in general 3.36 .92 3.50 1.41 3.80 .48 3.00 1.26 .51
Capacity building activities of org. 3.73 1.19 3.50 1.19 3.20 1.09 2.33 1.63 1.64
Non-profit sector 4.00 .89 3.75 1.16 4.20 .84 4.17 .75 .33
Miami-Dade community 3.36 1.30 3.88 .64 4.40 .55 4.50 .84 2.36
Organizational assessment instruments 3.36 1.12 2.88 1.25 2.60 .55 3.33 .82 .85
Capacity building assessment instr. 3.00 1.26 2.75 1.30 2.60 .89 2.83 .98 .15
Ability to assess strengths/weaknesses 4.09 .94 3.25 1.16 3.20 1.30 3.00 1.09 1.75
Cumulative 3.31 .99 3.32 .99 3.42 .99 3.41 .99 .18
Note. Likert scale anchors ranged from 1 (very weak) to 5 (very strong).
a
n = 11.
b
n = 8.
c
n = 5.
d
n = 6.
*p < .05.
55
As shown in Table 3 none of the capacity building components differed with
respect to position role. As was computed for initiatives, project roles means were
tested against the sample means on each of the capacity building initiatives.
However, capacity building knowledge means by component and position role were
statistically equivalent to sample capacity knowledge means as none of these single-
sample t-tests were statistically significant. Thus, as with respect to initiatives n
general, position roles did not differ across capacity knowledge components, nor did
separate position role means differ from the sample as a whole.
McKinsey Capacity Assessment Categories and Elements
To answer the second research question, whether the five comprehensive
community initiatives show similar levels of capacity, a modified version of the
McKinsey Capacity Assessment (McKinsey & Company, 2001) was employed.
This version consisted of 32 element items divided into six categories of capacity: 1)
aspirations, strategy, and planning; 2) program design and evaluation; 3) community
engagement and collaboration; 4) CEO/executive director leadership; 5) financial
management; and 6) board leadership.
Similar to the analyses conducted for capacity knowledge components,
capacity assessment elements of the modified McKinsey Capacity Assessment were
examined through a series of single-sample t-tests and one-way ANOVAs with
respect to the Trust initiatives and position roles. The test value for the single-
sample t-tests was the midpoint of the response scales of the modified McKinsey
Capacity Assessment items (i.e., 2.50). As shown in Table 4, the only general
56
capacity category to differ significantly from the statistical neutral point was the
program design and evaluation category; suggesting that program design and
evaluation was judged, on average, as being more closely associated with the
moderate level of placement than the basic level. However, the performance
analysis and program adjustment element was found to be significantly smaller than
the mid-point value. Although aspirations, strategy and planning category scores, in
general, did not differ from the scale mid-point, the mission element was found to be
significantly greater than the mid-point, whereas the overarching goals and
performance targets elements were found to be significantly smaller than the mid-
point value. A similar pattern was fond for the community engagement and
collaboration category. These scores, in general, did not differ from the scale mid-
point, yet, the assess community needs and agency environment element was found
to be significantly greater than the mid-point, whereas the influence on policy
making element was found to be significantly smaller than the mid-point value. No
other capacity categories or elements revealed differences from the mid-point of the
scale. Thus, a majority of the capacity categories and elements were judged as being
mid-way between being in place at the basic level and the moderate level. On the
other hand, there were some exceptions to this tendency.
57
Table 4
Sample Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Categories and Elements and Single-
Sample t-test Results
Capacity Category/Element M SD Range t(29)
Aspirations/strategy/planning 2.57 .62 2.33–2.80 .58
Mission 2.83 .87 2.51–3.16 2.09*
Clarity of vision 2.40 1.03 2.01–2.79 -.53
Overarching goals 2.07 .98 1.70–2.43 -2.42*
Overall strategy 2.13 1.19 1.69–2.58 -1.68
Strategic planning 2.30 .98 1.93–2.67 -1.11
Performance targets 2.10 1.06 1.70–2.50 -2.06*
Operational planning 2.40 .85 2.08–2.72 -.64
Monitoring of landscape 2.47 .90 2.13–2.80 -.20
Program design/evaluation 2.80 .48 2.62–2.98 3.39**
Performance measurement 2.33 .80 2.03–2.63 -1.14
Perform. Analysis/program adjustment 2.07 .94 1.71–2.42 -2.51*
Program relevance/integration 2.30 1.08 1.89–2.71 -1.01
Program growth/replication 2.33 1.24 1.87–2.80 -.74
New program development 2.13 1.16 1.70–2.57 -1.72
Community engagement/collaboration 2.47 .73 2.19–2.74 -.25
Assess comm. needs/agency environ. 3.17 .64 2.92–3.41 5.64***
Local community presence/involvement 2.63 .85 2.32–2.95 .86
External relationship building 2.83 1.05 2.44–3.23 1.73
Communications/outreach effectiveness 2.47 1.04 2.08–2.86 -.18
58
Table 4, Continued
Communications strategy 2.33 1.12 1.91–2.75 -.81
Influence on policy making 2.03 .66 1.78–2.28 -3.82**
CEO/executive director leadership 2.37 .71 2.62–2.98 -1.02
Experience/standing 2.67 1.06 2.27–3.06 .86
Personal/interpersonal effectiveness 2.83 .91 2.49–3.17 2.00
Passion/vision 2.83 1.02 2.45–3.21 1.79
People/org. leadership/effectiveness 2.67 .75 2.38–2.95 1.20
Impact orientation 2.57 .81 2.26–2.87 .45
Analytical/strategic thinking 2.77 .97 2.37–3.10 1.30
Financial judgment 2.63 .80 2.33–2.94 .90
Financial management 2.50 .73 2.23–2.77 .00
Financial planning/budgeting 2.50 .82 2.19–2.81 .00
Financial operations management 2.60 .89 2.27–2.93 .61
Board leadership 2.50 .77 2.21–2.79 .00
Board governance 2.20 .99 1.83–2.57 -1.65
Board involvement/support 2.20 1.12 1.78–2.62 -1.46
Board involve./particip. in fund raising 2.10 1.18 1.66–2.54 -1.85
Board composition/commitment 2.30 1.11 1.88–2.73 -.98
Note. Likert scale following anchors included: 1 (clear need for increased capacity);
2 (basic level of capacity in place); 3 (moderate level of capacity in place); and 4
(high level of capacity in place). Test value = 2.50.
N = 30.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
59
Capacity building categories were further examined with respect to the Trust
initiatives and position roles. A series of one-way ANOVA tests were employed to
determine whether or not the capacity building categories differed across the
initiatives and position roles. As displayed in Table 5, differences between the Trust
initiatives were found only with regard to the CEO/executive director leadership and
board leadership capacity building categories.
For the CEO/executive director leadership capacity building category, post-
hoc analysis revealed that participants associated with the Youth Transitioning
Adulthood initiative reported significantly lower CEO/executive director leadership
scores than participants associated with the 211 Helpline initiative (t(25) = -3.96, p <
.01), the Project RISE initiative (t(25) = -4.53, p < .01), Safety Resource Network
initiative (t(25) = -3.96, p < .01), and the Health Connect initiative (t(25) = -5.10, p <
.01). Post-hoc analyses did not reveal any additional differences between the
initiatives with respect to the CEO/executive director leadership capacity building
category.
With regard to the board leadership capacity building category, post-hoc
analysis revealed that participants associated with the Health Connect initiative
reported significantly lower board leadership scores than participants associated with
the Project RISE initiative (t(25) = -3.62, p < .01) and the Youth Transitioning
Adulthood initiative (t(25) = -3.62, p < .01). Post-hoc analyses failed to reveal any
additional differences between the initiatives with respect to the board leadership
capacity building category.
60
Table 5
Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Categories by Initiative and One-Way ANOVA Results
Initiative
211H PR SRN HC YTA
Capacity Category M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F(4, 25)
Aspirations/strategy/planning 2.33 .52 2.83 .41 2.50 .84 2.17 .75 3.00 .00 2.11
Program design/evaluation 2.50 .84 3.00 .00 2.67 .52 3.00 .00 2.83 .41 1.25
Community engagement/collaboration 2.33 .82 2.83 .41 2.83 .41 2.00 .89 2.33 .82 1.59
CEO/executive director leadership 2.50 .55 2.67 .52 2.50 .55 2.83 .41 1.33 .52 8.14**
Financial management 2.50 .84 2.33 .82 2.33 .82 3.00 .00 2.33 .82 .93
Board leadership 2.33 .82 3.00 .00 2.50 .84 1.67 .82 3.00 .00 4.51*
Note. 211H = 211 Helpline; PR = Project RISE; SRN = Safety Resource Network; HC = Health Connect; YTA = Youth
Transitioning Adulthood. Likert scale following anchors included: 1 (clear need for increased capacity); 2 (basic level of capacity
in place); 3 (moderate level of capacity in place); and 4 (high level of capacity in place).
*p < .01. **p < .001.
61
Table 6
Mean Ratings of Capacity Building Categories by Position Role and One-Way ANOVA Results
Position Role
Management
a
Direct Service
b
Employee
c
Community
d
Capacity Category M SD M SD M SD M SD F(3, 26)
Aspirations/strategy/planning 2.64 .51 2.75 .46 2.80 .45 2.00 .89 2.47
Program design/evaluation 2.82 .41 3.00 .00 3.00 .00 2.33 .82 3.19*
Community engagement/collaboration 2.36 .81 2.75 .46 2.60 .89 2.17 .75 .85
CEO/executive director leadership 2.45 .69 2.25 .89 2.20 .84 2.50 .55 .26
Financial management 2.55 .69 2.63 .74 2.20 .84 2.50 .84 .35
Board leadership 2.64 .67 2.63 .74 2.40 .89 2.17 .98 .55
Note. Likert scale following anchors included: 1 (clear need for increased capacity); 2 (basic level of capacity in
place); 3 (moderate level of capacity in place); and 4 (high level of capacity in place).
a
n = 11.
b
n = 8.
c
n = 5.
d
n = 6.
*p < .05.
62
Results of the examination of the capacity building categories with respect to
position role are displayed in Table 6. As displayed in the table, differences between
the four position roles were only observed for the program design and evaluation
category. Post-hoc analysis showed that the direct services group of participants
reported a greater program design and evaluation than the community member group
of participants, t(26) = 2.83, p < .05.
Summary of Quantitative Findings
Research questions 1 and 2 were examined through analysis of the
quantitative data provided by the key participants. As a sample, participants reported
only moderate levels of capacity building knowledge components, categories and
elements. This was evidenced by only a few variables reaching levels beyond the
mid-point of the response scales. With respect to the sheer number of statistical tests
computed, there is very little evidence to suggest that Trust initiative representatives
differ in their capacity building knowledge components and their capacity building
categories and elements with respect to the initiative that they are associated with,
nor is there much evidence that they differ across these variables with respect to their
position role. Essentially, the capacity building knowledge and capacity building
evaluations (i.e., categories and elements) of the Trust initiatives that participants are
associated are generally equivalent across initiatives and position roles.
Qualitative Analysis
Interviews with the participants allowed them to elaborate on their
perceptions of the subject matters integral to the current research study questions
63
being investigated. Following individual interviews with only the researcher,
transcriptions of the interviews provided the basis for a content analysis that was
used to identify themes, interpretations and conclusions relevant to these questions.
The data analysis involved responses from all 30 participants of the five initiatives.
The analysis allowed findings to be reported for the total sample and for each of the
five initiatives when applicable. The data were examined for consistent themes and
responses, as well as network relationships, and compared across Trust initiatives.
Responses that addressed similar issues, or appeared to be related, were matched;
patterns that emerged from this analysis are presented in the findings that follow.
These findings provide useful information and insights into the points of view of
these participants regarding the capacity of their initiatives.
Capacity Implementation Processes
The first question that this research explored is: What are the processes
involved in the implementation of the initiatives and do the initiatives demonstrate
similar processes? Responses to this general question were organized into themes as
follows: 1) funding from The Children's Trust; 2) previously established
infrastructure; 3) operational planning and timing; and 4) internal staff knowledge
about the program. For example, almost all the participants described receiving
funding (n = 26, 86%) as the most important process tied to the implementation of
the initiative, and these answers were coded under theme 1. Having a previously
established infrastructure (n = 8, 27%) was identified as important by a small
percentage of the participants, and this became theme 2. Another process involved
64
with the implementation was having the right operational plan and timing (n = 12,
40%), which became theme 3. More participants (n = 13, 46%) indicated that staff
knowledge about the program was part of the process that assisted with the
implementation of the initiative, so this was coded as theme 4. Process themes by
Trust initiatives are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7
Process Themes Reported by Initiative
Initiative
211H PR SRN HC YTA
Thematic Area n % n % n % n % n % Total n
Funding from 6 20 4 13 6 20 6 20 4 13 26
Children’s Trust
Previously establ. 3 10 0 0 2 6 1 3 2 6 8
infrastructure
Operational 5 16 3 10 3 10 1 3 0 0 12
planning and timing
Staff knowledge 4 13 3 10 2 6 3 10 1 3 13
about the program
Cumulative % 59 33 42 36 22
Note. 211H = 211 Helpline; PR = Project RISE; SRN = Safety Resource Network;
HC = Health Connect; YTA = Youth Transitioning Adulthood.
Funding from The Children’s Trust
Of the thirty participants, 26 identified funding as one of the core processes.
The funding theme was the most robust finding across all five of the initiatives,
65
identified as an important process in all of them. Responses focused primarily on
funding, money, and financial support. Many participants went on to describe
funding and various reasons for its importance (e.g., funding for programs, helped to
build capacity, provided administrative support, etc). Examples of responses
included:
“Funding from The Trust was very important to the implementation
of this initiative because it gave us a chance to move it forward like
we didn’t have before.”
“I think that the most significant process was the money that we
received from The Children’s Trust, it helped us to get started.”
“The financial support that we got from The Children’s Trust was one
reason that the initiative got the backing that it needed to make it in
this community. Without the funding we would not have gotten to
serve half of the children and families that we are able to today.”
On the other hand, one initiative member described funding as associated with
operational/strategic planning:
“Since taking the funds offered by The Children’s Trust we were
able to use the funds to hire a strategic planner who could assist us
on moving the initiative’s goals forward.”
Previously Established Infrastructure
Eight participants described the importance of the previously established
infrastructure as a process theme. Four of the five initiatives described having an
66
infrastructure as a significant part of the process and provided the most information
on this theme. Specific aspects of infrastructure described by participants included
collaboration and planning. Examples of statements about infrastructure processes
included:
“It saved us a tremendous amount of time already having an
infrastructure in place. We were able to have a running start and not
have to do a lot of planning. Without all the planning time we went
right to developing and implementing services.”
A participant associated with a different initiative described established
infrastructure in a more collaborative way:
“We had previously established organizations that were doing the
same work with the same population, we just had to bring everyone
together to collaborate on some joint processes. So I believe that we
were working with an already established infrastructure.”
Operational Planning and Timing
Having the right operational plan and timing was considered vital to twelve
of the participants. This theme was described as being critical because it provided
the initiative the right conditions in which to thrive. The following were statements
used to describe the importance of operational planning and timing:
“Timing was critical to this initiative being ready and able to get the
right people, with the right funding at the right time, which made it
67
infinitely easier for us to accomplish the goals that we set out to
accomplish.”
“It seems like others in the community were ready to make a
collaborative effort in this direction and it just so happened that The
Trust was there at the right time to make it happen.”
“Having an operational plan was one process that helped our
implementation move forward and gave us a direction to follow.”
Staff Knowledge about Program
Staff knowledge about the program was a theme that was identified by almost
half of the participants as part of the process that assisted with the implementation of
the initiative. Most of the participants indicated that getting staff to “buy-in to” the
initiative from the beginning was cited as one of the reasons why the initiative was
successful. In addition, they described the staff’s ability to share information with
the initiative’s participants as key in getting the participants to continue to participate
in the initiative. A statement from one of the participants is illustrates this notion:
“If we didn’t get the staff to buy in to the mission and purpose of the
initiative I don’t think that it would have been as successful as it
was. Only when we saw that everyone on the staff was on the same
page and believed in what we were doing did the initiative take off
and the community began to believe in what we were doing. More
and more community members saw the initiative as a partner in what
they were doing and started to participate more.
68
Process Themes by Initiative
A summary of the results of the question regarding the processes involved
with the implementation are displayed by initiative in Table 7. The 211 Helpline
initiative displayed the most of its descriptions in the thematic areas in this order:
funding (20%); infrastructure (10%); planning (16%); and staff knowledge (13%).
The Safety Resource Network and Health Connect initiatives followed as the second
and third highest in descriptions in the same thematic areas. However, the Project
RISE and Youth Transitioning to Adulthood initiatives only had a high number of
descriptors in the area of funding (13%, N = 4) from The Children’s Trust. The
cumulative frequency of the 211 Helpline initiative was the highest at 59%, followed
by the Safety Resource Network initiative at 42% indicating that these two initiatives
were aware of and described similar processes involved with the implementation of
their initiatives.
Most Influential Process Themes
Research participants were also asked to describe the factors that most
influence the processes. Several themes to this general question emerged. The most
influential factors across the five initiatives and are organized as follows: 1)
community leaders/engagement of community members; 2) The Children’s Trust; 3)
champions within the initiative; 4) CEO Leadership; and 5) collaboration. Roughly
half the participants (n = 14, 46%) identified community leaders and the engagement
of community members as the most influential factor. While only some participants
cited champions within the initiative (N = 12, 40%) as the most influential factor,
69
several more described how The Children’s Trust (N = 20, 66%) influenced the
implementation of the initiative. Additionally, CEO leadership (N = 16, 53%) was
named as an important factor across initiatives. Finally, collaboration (N = 17, 56%)
and collaborative processes were similarly described across initiatives as the most
influential factor.
Community Leaders and Engagement of Community Members
Community leaders and the engagement of community members were
identified as one of the most influential factors. All five initiatives reported this as
important for this theme (community, leaders in the community, community
members, and stakeholders). While some described the process as positive others
described the community interaction as not so positive. Some of the responses that
described the importance of community leaders and engagement of community
members are illustrated here:
“Without the time and effort from all the stakeholders we would not
have been able to do as much as we did. Many leaders in the
community participated in the planning of this initiative and made
sure that the work got done. A lot of time was taken away from their
jobs to participate in establishing this effort.”
“The community was interested in making sure that this initiative
was successfully implemented.”
“We had to engage community members from the beginning because
it was for us the most important process getting them to buy in to the
70
concept of the initiative and we had to hear their point of view of the
way things should be implemented.”
An additional view of community was noted:
“When we went to the community there was a lot of confusion about
who was in charge of what and sometimes it felt like there were too
many opinions about what should be done with respect to many
other factors.”
“When we tried to engage the community they were not willing to
fully cooperate with the planning process and often asked us if they
could take over the process because they were more knowledgeable
about the process.”
The Children’s Trust – Funding
Again, funding was identified as one of the most influential processes
involved with implementing the initiative. Specifically, funding from The
Children’s Trust was a fundamental reason the initiatives were able to be
implemented. Participants from all five initiatives identified this as important with
more than half using descriptors like funding, money, financial support,
contributions of funding as noted in the statements below:
“One influencing part of the process for us was the contributions of
funding from the Trust, couldn’t have done it without them.”
“Getting the money from The Children’s Trust and the other
partners, but mostly The Trust was a big part of the process.”
71
“Funding from The Children’s Trust was the most important part of
the process in the development of the initiative. It was by far the
most important process because without it we would not have
started.”
“The Children’s Trust funding helped the initiative move further
along in the process but was not the only thing that helped.”
Champions within the Initiative
Having champions within the initiative was considered one of the most
influential factors by almost half the participants. Participants from each initiative
described this phenomenon using various descriptors. While the participants were
eager to talk about the champions within the initiative, they usually did it within the
context of describing other factors as detailed in one description:
“The next one was time, time was saved because the initiative and
the infrastructure was already here, the fact that there was already an
organization and staff expertise, and all the programs in place to
deliver the service, to understand the needs of the clients who
basically in the past were disconnected. The expertise of the agency
was a major contribution; it was critical and saved a great amount of
time to have people support and move forward the initiative.”
CEO Leadership
Participants from four out of the five initiatives described CEO Leadership as
an important influential factor. Just over half of the participants identified having a
72
strong CEO with strong leadership skills as being essential, while a few of these also
indicated that the CEO’s influence in the community played a role in the initiative
being implemented. The following statements are examples of responses:
“The leadership of our CEO was an integral part of making sure that
we were able to move our initiative forward.”
“Our CEO was the one person that believed and shared his vision
with the rest of the initiative and without this there would not be an
initiative to talk about. I believe that the most significant process
was a leadership that was contagious and he brought others to be
around that would facilitate the existence of the goals set forth in the
mission.”
A more qualified comment about the CEO Leadership indicated the following:
“Our CEO was not so much an influence for the process of capacity
building as they were instrumental in making sure that there were
others in the right place to make the initiative happen.”
Collaboration
Collaboration and collaborative processes were described as an influential
factor by more than half of the participants, including some from all five initiatives.
At the foundation of many of the initiatives was a collaborative process of bringing
community members and leaders together. This theme would appear to go hand in
hand with the themes previously described. However, a few participants saw having
73
forced collaboration as an impediment to the process. Examples of responses
included:
“Part of the important processes involved with the implementation of
the initiative was the fact that there was already a database of a
massive collection of resources in one place. Without that database
there are no services.”
“Other major agencies like schools and the health department
participated in making this initiative happen. We needed the
participation of all the partners, and their collaborative resources.”
“Collaboration was a significant process in the development of how
this initiative would look and all the stakeholders that would be
involved.”
However, a minority of participants felt differently as indicated by the following
response:
“Being forced to collaborate did not work well for our agency. We
had already been preparing as a lead to implement the initiative and
now we were being asked to include others who weren’t part of the
process from the beginning.”
Influential Factor Themes by Initiative
A summary of the responses to the question, “what were the most influential
factors involved with the implementation,” are reported by initiative in Table 8. As
in the responses to the question regarding processes, the 211 Help initiative
74
displayed the most descriptors In the thematic areas of community leaders (13%),
The Children’s Trust (16%), champions within the initiative (10%), CEO leadership
(20%), and collaboration (13%). The Safety Resource Network and Health Connect
initiatives again followed as the second and third highest in having descriptions
within the differing thematic areas with cumulative totals of 55% and 49% each. In
addition, Project Rise and Youth Transitioning to Adulthood initiatives were still the
lowest in number of shared descriptors in the differing thematic areas. The
cumulative frequency of initiative 1 was the highest at 72% indicating that the 211
Helpline initiative has awareness of the most important themes in implementing their
initiative.
75
Table 8
Most Influential Process Themes by Initiative
Initiative
211H PR SRN HC YTA
Thematic Area n % n % n % n % n % Total n
Community leaders/ 4 13 3 10 2 6 3 10 2 6 14
engagement of
comm. members
Children’s Trust 5 16 4 13 4 13 4 13 3 10 20
infrastructure
Champions with 3 10 1 3 2 6 3 10 3 10 12
initiative
CEO leadership 6 20 2 6 6 20 2 6 0 0 16
Collaboration 4 13 3 10 3 10 3 10 4 13 17
Cumulative % 72 42 55 49 39
Note. 211H = 211 Helpline; PR = Project RISE; SRN = Safety Resource Network;
HC = Health Connect; YTA = Youth Transitioning Adulthood.
Lessons Learned
Participants were also was asked to identify the lessons they learned as a
result of the implementation of the capacity building projects. All of the participants
(100%) from the five initiatives gave descriptions related to capacity building. Three
thematic answers to this general question were revealed and are organized as
follows: (1) program growth; (2) assessing the community needs; and (3) marketing
& communicating the initiative’s mission/vision. Program growth was identified by
76
more than half of the participants (n = 19, 63%). Some participants revealed the
importance of fully assessing the community needs (n = 13, 43%) as a step that
should not be missed. Finally, marketing and communicating the mission and vision
was described by others (n = 11, 36%) as an important lesson learned.
Program Growth – Need for Increases in Staff
Of all the lessons learned shared by participants, program growth was
identified by 63% (N = 19) of the participants. Across all five initiatives,
participants indicated that the initiative grew as a result of funding which increased
the need for more resources especially in the area of staffing to handle the increased
growth. The program growth theme was reflected in descriptions of hiring more
staff and administrators, agency growth, and initiative expansion. However,
program growth was also described as overwhelming to the initiative. Examples of
program growth descriptions included:
“One of the lessons that we learned quickly from the beginning was
the need to hire more staff. Since we received the funding from The
Children’s Trust we increased the numbers of clients that we could
serve and therefore needed to increase the numbers of staff that we
needed to serve those clients. Program growth was part of our
capacity building efforts.”
“I was amazed by the fact that this funding could help us grow so
much. We actually needed to hire more staff to help us manage not
only more clients but more administrative work as well. The
77
initiative was able to grow quicker with the funding and we could
create bigger plans than we had originally designed.”
“We had to redefine our operational plan and figure out how to
account for the growth in our ability to take care of our clients. As
the program grew we saw the initiative growing. It was great to see
that The Children’s Trust was also growing at a high speed.”
Assessing the Community Needs
The need to adequately assess the community needs was identified by many
of the participants as an important lesson learned. In fact, the participants felt
strongly about assessing the community needs as a first step to developing the
initiative. The statements below provide examples of the perceptions regarding the
assessment of community needs:
“We had to assess the community needs before designing the
programs for this initiative. That was a significant lesson that I
would share with anyone wanting to design a program that will be
used by the community. It is important not to design a program
around what you want the program to be but what the community
needs.”
“One important lesson that we learned is the need to gain knowledge
about the other agencies that do similar work to yours in the
community. If you create a program that is similar to another
already established program in the community then you will have to
78
compete against that agency for clients, opportunities and other
funding. This is why you need to assess the community’s need for
your program or initiative.”
“A lesson that we learned right away was to assess the needs of the
community where you will establish your program. Our program
was already successful and established in another community, but
when we wanted to expand to another community it wasn’t as easy
breaking into that community as we expected. We thought if we had
a good program they would come. It wasn’t until later that we
learned that we should have assessed the community needs.”
“Finding out the needs of the community is a very vital step in the
whole process of developing your initiative and was something that
we did right away. We wanted to know what they wanted and
develop the program around basic needs.”
Marketing and Communicating Mission/Vision
Another important lesson that was learned was the value of both marketing
and communicating the mission and visions of the initiative. Some of the participants
indicated that this lesson was vital for anyone who planned on implementing
initiatives in the future. Marketing tools were described in differing variations as a
resource to communicate the mission of the initiative. Examples of the statements
are provided below:
79
“A big part of getting the word out about who you are is marketing
and sharing your vision about the role you want to be in the
community. We learned that this is very key in terms of making sure
that people use your services.”
“A lesson that we learned was communicating our mission and
vision using lots of marketing tools. This is what caused our
increase in capacity and increase in clients.”
“Communicating the essential elements of the goals and mission of
your agency is sometimes not easy, but it was something that we
needed to do to ensure the success of the initiative. When we had to
change our focus, we had to communicate that to everyone in the
community.”
Barriers to Capacity Building
The final question asked participants to identify barriers related to building
capacity in these initiatives. A majority of the participants (n = 28, 93%) identified
four commonly experienced barriers. The thematic answers to this general question
are organized as follows: 1) communication issues (n = 17, 56%) were considered a
major issue and participants felt strongly about expressing their thoughts about this
barrier; 2) more than half the participants (n = 18, 60%) acknowledged financial
management issues as a barrier; 3) relatively fewer participants (n = 7, 23%)
identified lack of board involvement as a barrier to implementation; and 4)
80
expressing strong opinions, other participants (n = 8, 26%) identified a CEO with
little management experience/skills as a barrier.
Communication Issues
As a major barrier to the implementation and continued success of the
initiative, communication was described in a variety of ways including
communication with The Children’s Trust, the community, other collaborators, and
internal communication. Below are examples of statements about the
communication with The Children’s Trust:
“I would say that the biggest barrier was the challenge of
communicating with the staff at The Children’s Trust. It was
something that we just couldn’t seem to get on the same page.”
“Our communication with The Children’s Trust was one of the most
significant barriers as well as a strength. What I mean is that there
were times that we were in close contact with our program manager
and other times it felt like the ball was dropped in terms of getting
information from our program manager.”
“Sometimes information was lacking from The Trust and it was hard
to communicate with them in terms of knowing who to talk to, our
program manager or the contract manager, which made it difficult to
make decisions that we needed to make.”
81
Financial Management Issues
Financial management issues were considered as a barrier by many of the
participants. Although financial management issues included misuse of funds, most
statements were related to not being able to spend all the funding provided to the
initiative. Participants were surprised that spending the funding would be difficult.
Statements regarding the inability to spend all funding are listed below:
“It was one thing that we were not expecting, of course when you set
your budget you’re expecting to spend all the money that you ask for
and probably more. But, we found that when we looked at what we
said we would spend and the real figures about what we did spend
we found that we were under. No one had an explanation for this but
when we finally looked at the number of clients we expected to serve
we were not able to reach those numbers.”
“We were not able to spend all the money that was awarded to us by
The Trust during our planning stage and we were thinking that we
would need and spend all the money.”
Lack of Board Involvement
A few participants identified lack of board involvement as a barrier to
implementation. Some participants described that the board’s function was central to
the accomplishment of the aims and goals of the initiative. Below are examples of
statements regarding the lack of board involvement:
82
“Our board is not really involved with the agency in any way that
really helps us reach our goals. Since there is not a lot of board
involvement, we tend to rely a lot on our CEO.”
“We need help to make our board want to be involved. What things
can we do that will make them want to be more involved? We have
tried to have retreats and to encourage them to take a more active
role, this seemed to make them want to be more involved
CEO with Little Management Experience/Skills
Only a few of the participants identified a CEO with little management
experience/skills as a barrier. However, this finding is worth mentioning as the
participants in three of the initiatives who identified this issue expressed strong
feelings about this barrier. Some examples of the statements are identified below:
“The problem with our agency is the little experience of our
management team, which is growing in terms of their ability but it is
not the running start that other initiatives have had in a start up
position. What I mean is, other initiatives have had an opportunity
to advance themselves in terms of furthering the agency’s chances to
gain more funding, more opportunities for growth. It seems that we
could be growing at a quicker rate.”
“I like our CEO however he doesn’t have the amount and breadth of
experience that someone in his position should have.”
83
Summary of Qualitative Findings
The results of the qualitative question of: What are the processes involved in
the implementation of the initiatives and do the initiatives demonstrate similar
processes? Responses yielded answers that were not only about process but also
included themes about organizational capability. The most significant process was
receiving funding from The Children's Trust. The initiatives did demonstrate
similar processes in that funding and staff knowledge about the program seemed to
be important recognized forces by the initiatives. Participants were also was asked
to identify the unique lessons they learned as a result of the implementation of the
capacity building projects. Program growth was a very important issue that seemed
to surprise the participants as a lesson learned as they were not expecting such rapid
growth. Finally, in terms of barriers to capacity building participants shared that
financial management is an area of concern for most initiatives. In terms of
financial management issues included not only misuse of funds but not being able to
spend all the funding provided to the initiative.
84
CHAPTER 5– DISCUSSION
A review of the quantitative and qualitative data from five comprehensive
community initiatives, funded by The Children's Trust, yielded interesting results
regarding the capacity knowledge of the participants, the capacity elements in place,
the implementation processes and process influences as well as perceived lessons
learned and barriers by participants. The data were assessed with regard to the entire
sample, by initiative, and by the participant's role within the initiative. This
discussion will follow a format of answering each research question.
Research Question 1. What is the overall level of capacity building
knowledge at each of the five CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust (and with respect
to the initiatives and their positions in the organizations)?
First, the data revealed the level of capacity building knowledge of the entire
sample was highest in the areas of knowledge of the non-profit sector, Miami-Dade
community, and their ability to assess initiative strengths and weakness, and lowest
on organizational assessment instruments and capacity building assessment
instruments. A comparison of the levels of capacity building knowledge at each of
the five comprehensive community initiatives appeared to suggest that the Project
RISE initiative and the Safety Resource Network initiative appeared to have
participants with more capacity building knowledge overall while less capacity
knowledge was found in Transition to Adulthood initiative. However, very little
statistical evid analysis was conducted to compare the seven item capacity building
means across the roles of management, direct service, Trust employee and
85
community members, those in management roles appeared to have moderate
knowledge on all seven capacity items.
Research Question 2. How are capacity building perspectives of key
informants of the five CCIs, funded by The Children’s Trust, similar or distinct (and
with respect to the initiatives and their positions in the organizations)?
The literature review regarding Comprehensive Community Initiatives
(CCIs) indicated the top three purposes for their development are: 1) fostering
relationships among families, neighborhood organizations, and service providers
(collaboration); 2) involving community members in needs assessment and
evaluation of existing services (empowerment evaluation); and 3) promoting
communication among communities and service providers to develop accessible and
relevant programs (program development). This appears to be consistent with the
findings from the current study. The data exposed similar levels of capacity in place
from the total sample of 30 key participants indicating strong levels of capacity in
place amongst the sample in the areas of agency mission, assessing community
needs, and external relationship building. When the 32 items were reduced to six
main categories, the sample results found Aspirations, Strategy Planning and
Program Design revealed above average levels of capacity in place. Similar results
were found in the comparison of the five initiatives funded by The Trust. The
findings suggest initiatives that focus on program design and strategic planning may
lead to increased capacity levels in other areas that are needed like leadership,
community engagement and financial management.
86
Research Question 3. What are the processes involved in the implementation
of the five CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust? In other words, do the initiatives
demonstrate similar processes and which factors most influenced the processes?
There were several processes identified as being involved with the
implementation of the initiatives and the initiatives did demonstrate some similar
processes. The most influential processes included: funding from The Children's
Trust, having an established infrastructure, the operational planning and timing in the
initiative development and internal staff knowledge about the program. The process
of receiving funding from The Children’s Trust was identified not only as a process
but also as one of the most influential in impacting the capacity building activities of
the organization. It is interesting to note that the influence was considered both as a
positive and a negative factor in capacity building. This researcher believes that
funding as an influence is related to what types of activities and how many activities
can be accomplished in the implementation process. Also, the 211 Helpline, Safety
Resource Network and the Health Connect initiatives demonstrated some similar
processes as related to those listed above. This may have been due to several factors
including some of the participants having had previously been exposed to comments
regarding processes in meetings held individually or at The Children's Trust.
Research Question 4. What are the unique lessons learned from the five
CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust?
Two of the three main lessons learned from the five initiatives comprehensive
community initiatives were identified as focused on program growth and assessing
87
community needs. Again the findings revealed consistent themes related to the
capacity building literature around the purpose of comprehensive community
initiatives, specifically around programmatic issues like program growth and
assessment of community needs. Participants demonstrated very strong views about
these areas being communicated as their lessons learned and that they would share
these lessons with new initiatives being formed or energized by The Children's Trust.
While these lessons learned are important they also document the limited nature of
focus on programmatic functions when the term capacity building lessons are
thought of by the participants.
Research Question 5. What barriers to capacity building are perceived by
key informants of the five CCIs funded by The Children’s Trust?
Information that addresses these questions may help to identify additional
questions that could be addressed in future research on this topic.
Participants perceived of barriers to capacity as communication issues
internally and externally, financial management issues, and having a CEO with little
management experience/skills. The barriers identified by the participants are related
to capacity building and were also elements of the McKinsey capacity assessment.
When compared with the quantitative findings for all five initiatives which
substantiate the literature that suggests more attention is spent on the program design
and evaluation and less time is spent on other areas of capacity building like CEO
leadership and financial management. Having a CEO with little management
experience/skills can be considered as a huge barrier because it can be related to the
88
other barriers identified since without good management skills communication issues
are likely to occur as well as financial management issues. Participants claimed that
these barriers needed to be addressed to advance the objectives of the initiative.
These findings and the accompanying explanations should be taken with caution,
considering the study’s limitations which are outlined below.
Limitations
There are some important limitations that should be noted to qualify the
implications of this study. For the quantitative data the study sample was relatively
small consisting of only 30 participants. The data for the quantitative part of the
study was collected through self-assessment/self-report. Theses facts alone inherit
power and validity concerns. However, in terms of the qualitative data a small
sample helps to create an accurate and detailed account of the participant’s
perspectives, which was used in this study to create an accurate picture of the
processes involved in their implementation. An additional limitation could be
considered from the data derived from the qualitative interviews. The data were
coded for similarities by only one researcher, which can be a source of bias. While
this bias can be inherent to qualitative studies this research reviewed each theme
before coding it as a theme. All these limitations do contribute to our the ability to
generalize the findings to any other group. Indeed, the limitations can also be
construed to limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn about this
research.
89
First, having a small sample and the type of data collected inhibited the use of
sophisticated or higher level statistical analysis. Several steps were taken to reduce
the bias of self assessment and the use of the McKinsey Capacity Assessment
(McKinsey & Company, 2001) instrument was one of them. It should be noted that
other capacity assessment instruments reviewed tended to be simple lists with check
boxes, or use numerical rating scales without common definitions of what each
numerical level means. The McKinsey Capacity Assessment, when compared to
other self-assessments, minimizes subjectivity in several ways. The survey uses a
defined rating scale with detailed definitions describing how an organization at each
level of capacity looks like. This method helps but does not guarantee that
individuals within an organization will be clear about what is being measured. The
hope is that this aligns their ratings with some consistency. The accuracy for
comparing scores across organizations was increased with the method used to engage
at least five to six people from each initiative in the self-assessment process. Thus
the research considered multiple sources of information (i.e., multiple informants) on
each question. In accordance with a previous study where an additional method to
reduce bias was adopted was having multiple people at different capacities within the
organization completing the self-assessment process (Guthrie & Preston, 2005).
Further, given the self-reported nature of the data collected, it was more appropriate
to focus across all the capacity elements in order to observe the perceptions of their
relative strengths and weaknesses. Scores on any single item were not viewed as an
objective measure of an initiative's capacity along that capacity dimension. Finally,
90
data derived from the qualitative interviews required constant comparison and were
reviewed for similarities in terms of context and the nature of the statements. The
strength of this approach means that there is a richness of data that can be gained
from the participants. However, this type of analysis can be difficult to replicate in a
subsequent study because it is subject to the sole researcher’s bias. It is also labor
and time intensive.
It is important to note the context of this type of assessment because of the
small number of participants; the challenges of self-assessment; the complexity of
the concepts that the assessment instrument attempts to assess; and the level of
sensitivity of the assessment instrument, it can be unrealistic to expect that it will
pick up all potential capacity issues and perceptions of the sample. Despite these
limitations, there are implications for using comprehensive community initiatives to
build community, to combat challenges faced by child welfare agencies and for
further study.
Implications
Policy. Policy makers who review this research should find the results of this
dissertation encouraging in the development of funding agencies whose aim is to
increase capacity building. Of special interest will be the lessons learned and
perceptions to barriers to capacity building because they help to identify the specific
areas to develop and strengthen based on the capacity building needs. From this
research we find that it is important to inform agencies about the potential for their
substantial growth after receiving funding from public agencies. Participants in this
91
study describe this phenomenon as something that they were not expecting. In
addition, child welfare agencies can use the concepts surrounding community
capacity initiatives to increase the awareness of the areas in which they are
effectively meeting the needs of families or where they can do more to be effective
with the initiatives that provide services to families. Specifically, child welfare
agencies can have more CCIs assessing community needs before planning the
services for a particular community instead of designing services and then waiting to
see if the community will respond.
Practice. The results have implications for social work practice with
comprehensive community initiatives, child welfare services and for further study in
several different ways. The three main implications developed from the results are:
1) there is a need for increasing organizational practices and training around the area
of critical thinking. Many of the participants of this study only had a moderate level
of knowledge regarding capacity building components and their capacity building
categories. 2) Initiatives are focused primarily on program development. When is
was described by participants they also tended not to focus on areas of leadership
development and strategic planning. 3) More attention should be focused on the
development of a strategic plan using those efforts more in the implementation of the
initiative. Participants did not seem to have an awareness of the importance of
strategic planning.
Research. The modified version of the McKinsey Capacity Assessment can
provide a strong initial portrait of capacity in the initiative. The data provided
92
information regarding the capacity levels at the initiatives and help to create a
portrait of the capacity building needs of the agency. In addition, this data can also
provide a baseline against which the field can be measured yearly.
Future Research
It is this researcher’s contention that increased attention may need to be paid
to capacity building elements by first having initiatives complete an assessment of
their own capacity building needs followed by a creation of a capacity building plan
which could include a consultant evaluation, one to one technical assistance and
possible training as necessary. The Children's Trust must also continue to provide
additional guidance and support to initiatives on capacity building issues.
Furthermore, these findings should not be taken to imply that Trust funded
community capacity building initiatives were not actually successful in achieving
their goals. On the contrary, from the perspective of the participants and this
researcher, most of the proposed goals of the initiatives were achieved and a few of
the initiatives were successful at building capacity in their communities at various
levels.
Future research should include more detailed efforts that go beyond those in
this study to examine the similarities and differences of the individuals involved in
the initiative and their perspectives regarding processes of implementation. It
appears from this exploratory study that there is value in examining multiple
perspectives and that any study that includes the perspectives from direct service
staff and the community will be rich in the diversity of responses. Future research
93
questions/studies could include a focus on at least three issues: 1) broadening
investigative efforts to include perspectives from all the possible identified roles
(clients or other people) involved in the initiative; 2) determining whether or not
similar processes and barriers are being experienced across initiatives from other
funders (indicating whether problems exist within the initiative or the funding
agency, or somewhere between the two); and 3) conducting longitudinal studies to
track capacity building processes over time and not just at the point of
implementation.
94
References
Armstrong, K. H., Massey, O. T., Boroughs, M., Bailey, R., & Lajoie, D. (2003).
Safe schools/healthy students initiative: Pinellas County, Florida. Psychology
in the Schools, 40, 489-501.
Austin, S. (2005). Community-building principles: Implications for professional
development. Child Welfare, 84, 105-122.
Barter, K. (2001). Building community: A conceptual framework for child
protection. Child Abuse Review, 10, 262-278.
Bartle, E. E., Couchonnal, G., Canda, E.R., & Staker, M.D. (2002). Empowerment as
a dynamically developing concept for practice: Lessons learned from
organizational ethnography. Social Work, 47, 32-43.
Berlin, L. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Aber, J. L. (2001). Promoting early childhood
development through comprehensive community initiatives. Children’s
Services: Social Policy, Research and Practice, 4,1-24.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Briar-Lawson, K., Lawson, H. A., Collier, C., & Joseph, A. (1997). School-linked
comprehensive services: Promising beginnings, lessons learned, and future
challenges. Social Work in Education, 19, 136-148.
Carten, A., & Goodman, H. (2005). An educational model for child welfare practice
with English-speaking Caribbean families. Child Welfare, 84, 771-789.
Chahine, Z., & van Straaten, J. (2005). Serving immigrant families and children in
New York City’s child welfare system. Child Welfare, 84, 713-723.
Chahine, Z., van Straaten, J., & Williams-Isom, A. (2005). The New York City
neighborhood-based services strategy. Child Welfare, 84, 141-152.
Chaskin, R.J. (1992). The Ford Foundation’s neighborhood and family initiative:
Toward a model of comprehensive, neighborhood-based development.
Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Chaskin, R. J. (1997). Perspectives on neighborhood and community: A review of
the literature. Social Service Review, 7, 521-547.
95
Chaskin R.J., Chipenda-Dansokho, S. & Toler, A. (2000). Moving Beyond the
Neighborhood and Family Initiative: The Final Phase and Lessons Learned.
http://www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/ProjectsGuide/Documentation.html
Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (1995). The Ford Foundation’s Neighborhood
and Family Initiative: Moving toward implementation. Chicago: The Chapin
Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Chaskin, R. J., Joseph, M. L., & Chipenda-Dansokho, S. (1997). Implementing
comprehensive community development: Possibilities and limitations. Social
Work, 42, 435-444.
Child Welfare Services Review Report. (2001). Retrieved on February 2, 2006 from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/age03.ht
ml
Connolly, P., & Lukas, C. (2002) Strengthening non-profit performance: A Funder’s
guide to capacity building. Saint Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Dade Community Foundation. (2002). Retrieved from the web January 12, 2005.
http://www.dadecommunityfoundation.org/Site/docs/nonprofreport.pdf
Dodge, K. A., Berlin, L. J., Epstein, M., Spitz-Roth, A., O’Donnell, K., Kaufman,
M., Amaya-Jackson, L., Rosch, J., & Christopoulos, C. (2004). The Durham
Family Initiative: A preventive system of care. Child Welfare, 83, 109-128.
Eade, D. (1997). Capacity-building: An approach to people-centered development.
Oxford, UK: Oxfam.
Ewalt, P. L. (1997). The revitalization of impoverished communities. Social Work,
42, 413-414.
Eyler, A.A., Mayer, J., Rafii, R. & King, A.C. (1999). Key informant surveys as a
tool to implement and evaluate physical activity interventions in the
community. Health Education Research. Apr;14(2):289-98.
Foster, E. M., Qaseem, A., & Connor, T. (2004). Can better mental health services
reduce the risk of juvenile justice system involvement? American Journal of
Public Health, 94, 859-865.
96
Guthrie, K., & Preston, A. (with Hemmings, E., Walker, C., Siqueiros, S., Friedman,
E., & Ko, K. L.). (2005). Building capacity while assessing it: Three
foundations' experiences using the McKinsey Capacity Assessment Grid. In
A funder's guide to organizational assessment. Saint Paul, MN: Fieldstone
Alliance.
Guthrie, K., Preston, A. & Bernholz, L. (2003). Transforming philanthropic
transactions: An evaluation of the first five years of Social Venture Partners
Seattle. San Francisco: Blueprint Research & Design.
Holden, E. W., De Carolis, G., & Huff, B. (2002). Policy implications of the national
evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for
Children and Their Families Program. Children’s Services: Social Policy,
Research, and Practice, 5, 57-65.
Kubisch, A. C. (2005). Comprehensive community building initiatives—ten years
later: What we have learned about the principles guiding the work. New
Directions for Youth Development, 106, 17-26.
Lambert, S. F., & Black, M. M. (2001). Comprehensive community initiatives:
Expanded role for developmental scientists. Children’s Services: Social
Policy, Research, and Practice, 4, 25-29.
Linnell, D. (2003). Evaluation of capacity building: Lessons from the field.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Nonprofit Management.
Littell, J. H., Smoot, D. & Chaskin, R.J.(1993). The Neighborhood and Family
Initiative: Findings from the Survey of Residents in Two Neighborhoods.
Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative
observation and analysis, 3
rd
ed. Washington: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
McKinsey & Company. (2001, August) Effective capacity building in nonprofit
organizations. Retrieved July 21, 2006, from www.vppartners.org
Mederos, F. & Woldeguiorguis, I. (2003). Beyond cultural competence: What child
protection managers need to know and do. Child Welfare, 82, 125-142.
Miami-Dade, Alliance for Human Services Comprehensive Health and Social
Services Master Plan. (2001-2004). Retrieved January 11, 2005 from
http://www.alliance4hs.org/master_plan.htm
97
Mitchell, L. B., Barth, R. P., Green, R., Wall, A., Biemer, P., Berrick, J. D., & Webb,
M. B. (2005). Child welfare reform in the United States: Findings from a
local agency survey. Child Welfare, 84, 5-24.
Mizrahi, T. (1999). Strategies for effective collaboration in the human services:
Building stronger coalitions in the age of downsizing. Social Policy, 29, 5-20.
Mulroy, E.A. (1997). Building a neighborhood network: inter-organizational
collaboration to prevent child abuse and neglect. Social Work, 42(3):255-264.
Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Nissen, L. B., Merrigan, D. M., & Kraft, M. K. (2005). Moving mountains together:
Strategic community leadership and systems change. Child Welfare, 84, 123-
140.
Robertson, T. (2005). Building Capacity, Granting for Impact: Research Report.
Ontario Trillium Foundation.
Ouellette, P. M., Briscoe, R., & Tyson, C. (2004). Parent-school and community
partnerships in children’s mental health: Networking challenges, dilemmas,
and solutions. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 295-308.
Pan, R. J., Littlefield, D., Valladolid, S. G., Tapping, P. J., & West, D. C. (2005).
Building healthier communities for children and families: Applying asset-
based community development to community pediatrics. Pediatrics, 115,
1185-1187.
Patton, M .Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paulsell, D. (2002). Understanding implementation in Early Head Start Programs:
Implications for policy and practice. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 14-
35.
Pumariega, A. J., Nace, D., England, M .J., Diamond, J., Fallon, T., Hanson, G.,
Lourie, I., Marx, L., Solnit, A., Grimes, C., Thurber, D., & Graham, M.
(1997). Community-based system approaches to children’s managed mental
health services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 149-164.
98
Rivera, H. P. (2002). Developing collaborations between child welfare agencies and
Latino communities. Child Welfare, 81, 371-384.
Roditti, M. G. (2005). Understanding communities of neglectful parents: Child
caregiving networks and child neglect. Child Welfare, 84, 277-298.
Romero, D., Chavkin, W., & Wise, P. H. (2000). The impact of welfare reform
policies on child protective services: A national study. Journal of Social
Issues, 56, 799-810.
Shields, C. (1995). Improving the life prospects of children: A community systems
approach. Child Welfare, 74, 605-618.
Trust Report. (2003). Retrieved January 11, 2005 from
http://www.thechildrenstrust.org/images/content/documents/2003NeedsAsses
sment.pdf
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2001). 2000 Census of Population and Housing
Summary. File 3. Washington, DC.
Venkatesh, S. A. (1997). An Invisible Community: Inside Chicago’s Public Housing.
American Prospect. 34:35-40.
Venture Philanthropy Partners. (2001). Retrieved June 13, 2006 from
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/nonprofit/ourwork/pdf/Capacity_Bui
lding_Report.pdf
Webb, M. B. & Harden, B. J. (2003). Beyond child protection: Promoting mental
health for children and families in the child welfare system. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorder, 11, 49-58.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
99
Appendix A
The Children’s Trust Initiative Descriptions
Initiative
Switchboard/ 211
Project Rise
Safety Resource
Network
Transition To
Adulthood
Health Connect
Established
July 2005
May 2005
May 2005
June 2005
September 2005
Initiative
Mission
“To positively affect
the quality of life of
residents of Miami-
Dade County by
providing
confidential, high-
quality services 24
hours a day, 7 days a
week, 365 days a
year.” Services are
offered free of charge
to the entire
community
regardless of age,
gender, race,
ethnicity, income
level, religious
background, or
sexual orientation.
No one is ever turned
away.
The Quality
Improvement Initiative
for Out-of-School is a
program to support all
Trust funded out-of-
school providers to
improve and enhance
quality care for school-
age youth in Miami-
Dade County. The
ultimate goal is to raise
the quality of care in
ways that enhance
youth academic and
learning success,
social and emotional
development, health
and safety, and
community awareness
and involvement.
To reduce the injury
(physical and
psychological) and
violence (physical
and nonphysical)
experienced,
perpetrated and
witnessed by
children and youth
in Miami Dade
County.
To create a cohesive
and comprehensive
system to ensure
that youth moving
from foster care,
detention,
homelessness or
with emotional
and/or behavioral
challenges have all
the supports and
skills to become
productive,
contributing
citizens. The goal
is to remove
barriers to services.
For public schools
in Miami-Dade to
have a standard set
of school
health services for
physical and
mental/behavioral
health, provided
by a team of
school health
professionals.
Website
Address
http://www.switchbo
ardmiami.org/2-1-
1childrens-trust-
helpline.html
http://www.thechildren
strust.org/InitiativesPr
ojectRISE.asp
http://www.thechild
renstrust.org/Initiati
vesResourceNet.asp
http://www.thechild
renstrust.org/Initiati
vesTransition.asp
http://www.thechil
drenstrust.org/Initi
ativesHealth.asp
Total Trust
Amount
Funded
$316,433
$576,500
$160,000
$1,000,000
$10,000,000
100
Appendix B
Initial Survey Instrument
Key Informant Demographics:
Code: _____________________
Sex: M F
Age: 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60>
Highest level of schooling that you completed:
____ University w/o degree
____ BA/BS
____ Masters
____ Ph.D.
Key informant role in organization:
____ Management (Board Member, Executive Director, Senior Manager, Program Manager)
____ Employee (Program/project coordinator, Program staff, Support staff, Parent leader, Intern)
____ Trust staff (Trust employee)
____ Other _______________________
Indicate time period you have been involved with the initiative.
____0-3 mo. ____4-6mo. ____7mo.-1 year ____ 2 > years
On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is very weak and 5 is very strong, how would you
describe your awareness or knowledge of:
Capacity building in general
1 2 3 4 5 ____ Don’t know anything about it
If very high, what is the length of time capacity building in general?
Additional comments:
Capacity building activities of your initiative
1 2 3 4 5 ____ Don’t know anything about it
101
If very high, what is the length of time capacity building within the initiative?
Additional comments:
The non-profit sector
1 2 3 4 5 ____ Don’t know anything about it
Additional comments:
The Miami-Dade community
1 2 3 4 5 ____ Don’t know anything about it
Additional comments:
Organizational assessment instruments
1 2 3 4 5 ____ Don’t know anything about it
Additional comments:
Assessment instruments used in measuring capacity building
1 2 3 4 5 ____ Don’t know anything about it
Additional comments:
Your ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of your initiative
1 2 3 4 5 ____ Don’t know anything about it
Additional comments:
102
Appendix C
McKinsey Capacity Framework
103
Appendix D
Modified Version of the McKinsey Capacity Assessment Used in the Current Study
Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool*
Introduction
The Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool is a self-assessment instrument that helps nonprofits identify capacity strengths and
challenges and establish capacity building goals. As such, it is primarily a diagnostic and learning tool. In addition, the Assessment
provides a useful framework for measuring growth in organizational capacity over time.
Who Should Complete the Tool?
The Assessment is intended for self-guided use by nonprofit organizations. Three to five participants from various levels of the
organization (e.g., staff, Executive Director, Board President) should be invited to complete the Assessment individually.
Instructions
This workbook contains six survey worksheets (numbered 1 through 6):
Agency Data: Contact information and financial data (for Executive Director only)
Other survey respondents fill in your code in section 2.
Worksheet 1: Aspirations, Strategy & Planning
Worksheet 2: Program Design & Evaluation
Worksheet 3: Community Engagement & Collaboration
Worksheet 4: CEO/Executive Director Leadership
Worksheet 5: Financial Management
Worksheet 6: Board Leadership
You should see the various worksheet tabs at the bottom of the screen; click on the tabs to view each worksheet.
For each capacity element, identify the description that best describes your organization's status or performance. You are likely to
discover that, with some elements, your organization will not fully match any of the descriptions; in these instances, simply identify the
description that is most suitable or accurate for your organization.
To input your selections, select the yellow cell to the right of each capacity element. Then select the down arrow and choose from the
list that appears. If a capacity element does not apply to your organization, select "N/A". Please provide a capacity rating (or select
"N/A") for each capacity element, as failing to do so will impact your summary scores.
A section for comments is included at the bottom of each capacity worksheet.
On the Summary Table worksheet, you will notice a "priority" column. Use this column to indicate whether each area of
organizational capacity is a low, medium, or high priority for your organization.
To print multiple worksheets at once, press and hold the CTRL key while clicking on each of the worksheet tabs at the bottom of the
screen. After you have selected the worksheets you want to print, press CTRL-P or select the printer icon. When finished, right-click
on any one of the selected worksheet tabs, and select "Ungroup Sheets".
Please proceed to the Respondent Information Worksheet to begin.
*The original version of the Capacity Assessment Tool was created by McKinsey and Company for Venture Philanthropy Partners
(www.vppartners.org), and published in Effective Capacity Building in Nonprofit Organizations (2001). It was modified and assembled in electronic
format by Blueprint Research and Design, Inc. (www.blueprintrd.com) for Social Venture Partners Seattle (www.svpseattle.org), and was further
adapted for use by The Children's Trust. This assessment is used with permission from Venture Philanthropy Partners.
104
LEVEL ONE:
Clear need
for increased capacity
LEVEL TWO:
Basic level
of capacity in place
LEVEL THREE:
Moderate level
of capacity in place
LEVEL FOUR:
High level
of capacity in place
Input
capacity
rating in
this column
1.01 Mission No written mission or limited
expression of the
organization’s reason for
existence; lacks clarity or
specificity; either held by very
few in organization or rarely
referred to
Some expression of
organization’s reason for
existence that reflects its
values and purpose, but may
lack clarity; held by only a
few; lacks broad agreement
or rarely referred to
Clear expression of
organization’s reason for
existence which reflects its
values and purpose; held by
many within organization and
often referred to
Clear expression of
organization’s reason for
existence which describes an
enduring reality that reflects
its values and purpose;
broadly held within
organization and frequently
referred to
1.02 Clarity of Vision Little shared understanding of
what organization aspires to
become or achieve beyond
the stated mission
Somewhat clear or specific
understanding of what
organization aspires to
become or achieve; held by
only a few; or “on the wall,”
but rarely used to direct
actions or set priorities
Clear and specific
understanding of what
organization aspires to
become or achieve; held by
many within the organization
and often used to direct
actions and set priorities
Clear, specific, and
compelling understanding of
what organization aspires to
become or achieve; broadly
held within organization and
consistently used to direct
actions and set priorities
1.03 Overarching
Goals
Vision (if it exists) not
explicitly translated into small
set of concrete goals, though
there may be general (but
inconsistent and imprecise)
knowledge within organization
of overarching goals and what
it aims to achieve
Vision translated into a
concrete set of goals; goals
lack at least two of following
four attributes: clarity,
boldness, associated metrics,
or time frame for measuring
attainment; goals known by
only a few, or only
occasionally used to direct
actions or set priorities
Vision translated into small
set of concrete goals, but
goals lack at most two of
following four attributes:
clarity, boldness, associated
metrics, or time frame for
measuring attainment; goals
are known by many within
organization and often used
by them to direct actions and
set priorities
Vision translated into clear,
bold set of (up to three) goals
that organization aims to
achieve, specified by concrete
to measure success for each
criterion, and by well-defined
time frames for attaining
goals; goals are broadly
known within organization and
consistently used to direct
actions and set priorities
1.04 Overall Strategy Strategy is either non-
existent, unclear, or
incoherent (largely set of
scattered initiatives); strategy
has no influence over day-to-
day behavior
Strategy exists but is either
not clearly linked to mission,
vision, and overarching goals,
or lacks coherence, or is not
easily actionable; strategy is
not broadly known and has
limited influence over day-to-
day behavior
Coherent strategy has been
developed and is linked to
mission and vision but is not
fully ready to be acted upon;
strategy is mostly known and
day-to-day behavior is partly
driven by it
Organization has clear,
coherent medium- to long-
term strategy that is both
actionable and linked to
overall mission, vision, and
overarching goals; strategy is
broadly known and
consistently helps drive day-to-
day behavior at all levels of
organization
1.05 Strategic
Planning
Limited ability and tendency
to develop strategic plan,
either internally or via external
assistance; if strategic plan
exists, it is not used
Some ability and tendency to
develop high-level strategic
plan either internally or via
external assistance; strategic
plan roughly directs
management decisions
Ability and tendency to
develop and refine concrete,
realistic strategic plan; some
internal expertise in strategic
planning or access to relevant
external assistance; strategic
planning carried out on a near-
regular basis; strategic plan
used to guide management
decisions
Ability to develop and refine
concrete, realistic and
detailed strategic plan; critical
mass of internal expertise in
strategic planning, or efficient
use of external, sustainable,
highly qualified resources;
strategic planning exercise
carried out regularly; strategic
plan used extensively to guide
management decisions
1.06 Goals /
Performance
Targets
Targets are non-existent or
few; targets are vague, or
confusing, or either too easy
or impossible to achieve; not
clearly linked to aspirations
and strategy, and may
change from year to year;
targets largely unknown or
ignored by staff
Realistic targets exist in some
key areas, and are mostly
aligned with aspirations and
strategy; may lack
aggressiveness, or be short-
term, lack milestones, or
mostly focused on “inputs”
(things to do right), or often
renegotiated; staff may or
may not know and adopt
targets
Quantified, aggressive targets
in most areas; linked to
aspirations and strategy;
mainly focused on
“outputs/outcomes” (results of
doing things right) with some
“inputs”; typically multiyear
targets, though may lack
milestones; targets are known
and adopted by most staff
who usually use them to
broadly guide work
Limited set of quantified,
genuinely demanding
performance targets in all
areas; targets are tightly
linked to aspirations and
strategy, output/outcome-
focused (i.e., results of doing
things right, as opposed to
inputs, things to do right),
have annual milestones, and
are long-term nature; staff
consistently adopts targets
and works diligently to
achieve them
1.07 Operational
Planning
Organization runs operations
purely on day-to-day basis
with no short- or longer-term
planning activities; no
experience in operational
planning
Some ability and tendency to
develop high-level operational
plan either internally or via
external assistance;
operational plan loosely or not
linked to strategic planning
activities and used roughly to
guide operations
Ability and tendency to
develop and refine concrete,
realistic operational plan;
some internal expertise in
operational planning or
access to relevant external
assistance; operational
planning carried out on a near-
regular basis; operational plan
linked to strategic planning
activities and used to guide
operations
Organization develops and
refines concrete, realistic, and
detailed operational plan; has
critical mass of internal
expertise in operational
planning, or efficiently uses
external, sustainable, highly
qualified resources;
operational planning exercise
carried out regularly;
operational plan tightly linked
to strategic planning activities
and systematically used to
direct operations
1.08 Monitoring of
Landscape
Minimal knowledge and
understanding of other
players and alternative
models in program area
Basic knowledge of players
and alternative models in
program area but limited
ability to adapt behavior
based on acquired
understanding
Solid knowledge of players
and alternative models in
program area; good ability to
adapt behavior based on
acquired understanding, but
only occasionally carried out
Extensive knowledge of
players and alternative
models in program area;
refined ability and systematic
tendency to adapt behavior
based on understanding
1. ASPIRATIONS, STRATEGY & PLANNING
Capacity Elements
105
LEVEL ONE:
Clear need
for increased capacity
LEVEL TWO:
Basic level
of capacity in place
LEVEL THREE:
Moderate level
of capacity in place
LEVEL FOUR:
High level
of capacity in place
Input
capacity
rating in
this column
2.01 Performance
Measurement
Very limited measurement
and tracking of performance;
all or most evaluation based
on anecdotal evidence;
organization collects some
data on program activities and
outputs (e.g., number of
children served) but has no
social impact measurement
(measurement of social
outcomes, e.g., drop-out rate
lowered)
Performance partially
measured and progress
partially tracked; organization
regularly collects solid data on
program activities and outputs
(e.g., number of children
served) but lacks data-driven,
externally validated social
impact measurement
Performance measured and
progress tracked in multiple
ways, several times a year,
considering social, financial,
and organizational impact of
program and activities;
multiplicity of performance
indicators; social impact
measured, but control group,
longitudinal (i.e., long-term) or
third-party nature of
evaluation is missing
Well-developed
comprehensive, integrated
system (e.g., balanced
scorecard) used for
measuring organization’s
performance and progress on
continual basis, including
social, financial, and
organizational impact of
program and activities; small
number of clear, measurable,
and meaningful key
performance indicators; social
impact measured based on
longitudinal studies with
control groups, and performed
or supervised by third-party
experts
2.02 Performance
Analysis &
Program
Adjustments
Few external performance
comparisons made; internal
performance data rarely used
to improve program and
organization
Some efforts made to
benchmark activities and
outcomes against outside
world; internal performance
data used occasionally to
improve organization
Effective internal and external
benchmarking occurs but
driven largely by top
management and/or confined
to selected areas; learnings
distributed throughout
organization, and often used
to make adjustments and
improvements
Comprehensive internal and
external benchmarking part of
the culture and used by staff
in target-setting and daily
operations; high awareness of
how all activities rate against
internal and external best-in-
class benchmarks; systematic
practice of making
adjustments and
improvements on basis of
benchmarking
2.03 Program
Relevance &
Integration
Core programs and services
vaguely defined and lack
clear alignment with mission
and goals; programs seem
scattered and largely
unrelated to each other
Most programs and services
well defined and can be
solidly linked with mission and
goals; program offerings may
be somewhat scattered and
not fully integrated into clear
strategy
Core programs and services
well defined and aligned with
mission and goals; program
offerings fit together well as
part of clear strategy
All programs and services
well defined and fully aligned
with mission and goals;
program offering are clearly
linked to one another and to
overall strategy; synergies
across programs are captured
2.04 Program Growth
& Replication
No assessment of possibility
of scaling up existing
programs; limited ability to
scale up or replicate existing
programs
Limited assessment of
possibility of scaling up
existing programs and, even
when judged appropriate, little
or limited action taken; some
ability either to scale up or
replicate existing programs
Occasional assessment of
possibility of scaling up
existing programs and when
judged appropriate, action
occasionally taken; able to
scale up or replicate existing
programs
Frequent assessment of
possibility of scaling up
existing programs and when
judged appropriate, action
always taken; efficiently and
effectively able to grow
existing programs to meet
needs of potential service
recipients in local area or
other geographies
2.05 New Program
Development
No assessment of gaps in
ability of current program to
meet recipient needs; limited
ability to create new
programs; new programs
created largely in response to
funding availability
Limited assessment of gaps
in ability of existing program
to meet recipient needs, with
little or limited action taken;
some ability to modify existing
programs and create new
programs
Occasional assessment of
gaps in ability of existing
program to meet recipient
needs, with some
adjustments made;
demonstrated ability to modify
and fine-tune existing
programs and create new
programs
Continual assessment of gaps
in ability of existing programs
to meet recipient needs and
adjustment always made;
ability and tendency efficiently
and effectively to create new,
truly innovative programs to
the needs of potential service
recipients in local area or
other geographies;
continuous pipeline of new
ideas
2. PROGRAM DESIGN & EVALUATION
Capacity Elements
106
LEVEL ONE:
Clear need
for increased capacity
LEVEL TWO:
Basic level
of capacity in place
LEVEL THREE:
Moderate level
of capacity in place
LEVEL FOUR:
High level
of capacity in place
Input
capacity
rating in
this column
3.01 Assessment of
Community
Needs &
Agency
Environment
Planning is not supported by
systematically collected data
about community needs or
agency's external
opportunities and threats;
Agency has very few
connections to community
members and opinion leaders
that could help clinic leaders
understand evolving
community needs
Agency uses some data about
community needs,
opportunities, or external
threats to inform planning
although collection is
haphazard; Agency has some
connections to community
members and opinion leaders
who inform clinic leaders
about evolving community
needs
Agency uses some data about
community needs and
agency's external
opportunities and threats to
inform planning; Data
collected and used
systematically to support
planning effort and improve it;
Agency has multiple
connections to community
members and opinion leaders
with whom clinic leaders
regularly communicate about
the evolving community needs
Agency has clear, formal
systems for assessing
community needs and external
opportunities and threats; Data
used systematically to support
planning and improve it;
Agency has many connections
to community members and
opinion leaders with whom
clinic leaders regularly
communicate about the
evolving community needs;
Communication is two way
(community leaders often
initiate communication)
3.02 Local
Community
Presence &
Involvement
Agency’s community presence
either not recognized or
generally not regarded as
positive; Few members of
local community (e.g.,
patients, business leaders,
other nonprofit leaders)
constructively involved in the
organization
Agency’s presence somewhat
recognized, and generally
regarded as positive within the
immediate community (e.g.,
potential patients); Some
members of larger community
(e.g., business, civic, and/or
other nonprofit leaders)
constructively involved with
the organization
Agency reasonably well-known
within community beyond just
potential patients, and
perceived as open and
responsive to community
needs; Members of larger
community (e.g., business,
civic, and/or other nonprofit
leaders) constructively
involved in organization
Agency widely known within
larger community, and
perceived as actively engaged
with and extremely responsive
to it; Many members of the
larger community (e.g.,
business, civic, and/or other
nonprofit leaders) actively and
constructively engaged with
organization (e.g., board, fund-
raising)
3.03 External
Relationship
Building
(partnerships &
collaboration)
Limited use of partnerships
and alliances; Some
coordination with other clinics
in areas such as resource
development, but few or no
formal relationships
Early stages of building
relationships and collaborating
with other stakeholders;
Coordinates primarily with
other agencies but also is
working to build relationships
with other community-based
organizations; Coordination
focused primarily on
influencing public policy and/or
resource development, but
also is beginning to discuss
coordinating things such as
client care, staff training, etc.;
May belong to consortium, but
activities focused primarily on
information sharing as
opposed to collaborative work
Effectively built and leveraged
some key relationships with
several types of relevant
parties (for-profit and nonprofit
sector entities); Belongs to a
consortium and actively
coordinates work with other
agencies; Coordination
happens in areas such as
business/operations, client
care, advocacy, and public
policy, understanding client
populations and issues;
Contributes to community data
to a collaborative; Recognized
for effective alliances
Built, leverages, and maintains
strong relationships with
variety of relevant parties
(local, state, and federal
government entities as well as
for-profit, other nonprofit, and
community agencies),
including membership in a
consortium and collaborative;
Relationships anchored in
stable, long-term, mutually
beneficial collaboration;
Integrates/shares some
business operations to take
advantage of economies of
scale Coordination exists
around understanding client
populations and improving
individual client care,
influencing public policy, and
resource development
3.04 Communication
s & Outreach
Effectiveness
Organization does not have
marketing materials; or
materials that it has are
outdated; organization is
strictly internally-focused and
does little to no outreach to
stakeholders; any materials
that exist are unprofessional
in their presentation
Organization has a loose
collection of materials it uses
for marketing; documents are
generic and not updated to
reflect new programs and
organizational results;
materials have a minimal
degree of professionalism or
consistent look and feel
Organization has a packet of
marketing materials that it
uses on a consistent basis;
information contained in the
materials is up to date and
reflects new programs,
activities and outcomes;
materials are reasonably
professional in presentation
and aligned with established
standards for font, color, logo
placement, etc.
Organization has a packet of
marketing materials that it
uses consistently and is easy
to update on a regular basis;
materials are extremely
professional in appearance
and appeal to a variety
stakeholders; materials
adhere to clear "branding"
standards for font, color, logo
placement, etc.
3.05 Communication
s Strategy
Organization does not have
any sort of communications
plan or articulated
communications strategy in
place; key messages are not
defined or articulated;
stakeholders are not
identified; information
messages about the
organization are inconsistent
Organization does not have
any sort of communications
plan or articulated
communications strategy in
place, but key messages are
defined and stakeholders are
identified; communications to
stakeholders are fairly
inconsistent
Organization has a
communications plan and
strategy in place; key
messages are defined and
stakeholders are identified;
communications to
stakeholders are generally
consistent and coordinated
Organization has a
communications plan and
strategy and updates it on a
frequent basis; knows not
only who its stakeholders are,
but what they value;
customizes communications
to each of those stakeholders;
communications always carry
a consistent and powerful
message
3.06 Influence on
Policy-making
Organization does not have
ability or is unaware of
possibilities for influencing
policy-making; never called in
on substantive policy
discussions
Organization is aware of its
possibilities in influencing
policy-making; some
readiness and skill to
participate in policy
discussion, but rarely invited
to substantive policy
discussions
Organization is fully aware of
its possibilities in influencing
policy-making and is one of
several organizations active in
policy discussions on state or
national level
Organization proactively and
reactively influences policy-
making, in a highly effective
manner, on state and national
levels; always ready for and
often called on to participate
in substantive policy
discussion and at times
initiates discussions
3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & COLLABORATION
Capacity Elements
107
LEVEL ONE:
Clear need
for increased capacity
LEVEL TWO:
Basic level
of capacity in place
LEVEL THREE:
Moderate level
of capacity in place
LEVEL FOUR:
High level
of capacity in place
Input
capacity
rating in
this column
4.01 Experience &
Standing
Limited experience in
nonprofit management and
few relevant capabilities from
other field(s); little evidence of
social entrepreneur-like
qualities; limited recognition in
the nonprofit community
Some relevant experience in
nonprofit management; some
relevant capabilities from
other field(s); emerging social
entrepreneur-like qualities;
some local recognition in the
nonprofit community
Significant experience in
nonprofit management; many
relevant capabilities from
other field(s); significant
evidence of social
entrepreneur-like qualities;
some national recognition as
a leader/shaper in particular
sector
Highly experienced in
nonprofit management; many
distinctive capabilities from
other field(s) (e.g., for-profit,
academia); exceptional
evidence of social
entrepreneur-like qualities;
possesses a comprehensive
and deep understanding of
the sector; recognized
nationally as a leader/shaper
in particular sector
4.02 Personal &
Interpersonal
Effectiveness
Fails to show respect for
others consistently, may be
openly judgmental or critical;
has difficulty influencing
without using power, limited
charisma or influence; limited
curiosity about new ideas and
experiences
Earns respect of others, takes
time to build relationships;
has presence, is able to
influence and build support
using limited communication
style; accepts learning and
personal development
opportunities that arise
Is respected and sought out
by others for advice and
counsel; has strong presence
and charisma; uses multiple
approaches to get buy-in,
appreciates the impact of
his/her words or actions;
seeks new learning and
personal development
opportunities
Is viewed as outstanding
“people person”; uses
diversity of communication
styles, including exceptional
charisma, to inspire others
and achieve impact;
continually self-aware,
actively works to better
oneself; outstanding track
record of learning and
personal development
4.03 Passion &
Vision
Low energy level and
commitment; little continued
attention to organizational
vision
Good energy level; visible
commitment to organization
and its vision
Inspiringly energetic; shows
constant, visible commitment
to organization and its vision;
excites others around vision
Contagiously energetic and
highly committed; lives the
organization’s vision;
compellingly articulates path
to achieving vision that
enables others to see where
they are going
4.04 People &
Organizational
Leadership /
Effectiveness
Has difficulty building trust
and rapport with others;
micromanages projects;
shares little of own
experiences as
developmental/coaching tool
Is responsive to opportunities
from others to work together;
expresses confidence in
others’ ability to be
successful; shares own
experience and expertise
Actively and easily builds
rapport and trust with others;
effectively encourages others
to succeed; gives others
freedom to work their own
way; gives people freedom to
try out ideas and grow
Constantly establishing
successful, win-win
relationships with others, both
within and outside the
organization; delivers
consistent, positive and
reinforcing messages to
motivate people; able to let
others make decisions and
take charge; finds or creates
special opportunities to
promote people’s
development
4.05 Impact
Orientation
Focused purely on social
impact; financials viewed as
an unfortunate constraint; fails
to deliver impact consistently;
delays decision making;
reluctant to change status
quo; mandates rather than
leads change
Focused on social impact with
some appreciation for cost-
effectiveness when possible;
constantly delivers
satisfactory impact given
resources; promptly
addresses issues;
understands implications and
impact of change on people
Sees financial soundness as
essential part of
organizational impact,
together with social impact;
focuses on ways to better use
existing resources to deliver
highest impact possible; has a
sense of urgency in
addressing issues and rapidly
moves from decision to
action; develops and
implements actions to
overcome resistance to
change
Guides organization to
succeed simultaneously in
dual mission of social impact
and optimal financial
efficiency; constantly seeks
and finds new opportunities to
improve impact; anticipates
possible problems; has sense
of urgency about upcoming
challenges; communicates
compelling need for change
that creates drive; aligns
entire organization to support
change effort
4.06 Analytical &
Strategic
Thinking
Is uncomfortable with
complexity and ambiguity and
does whatever possible to
reduce or avoid it; relies
mainly on intuition rather than
strategic analysis
Is able to cope with some
complexity and ambiguity;
able to analyze strategies but
does not yet generate
strategies
Quickly assimilates complex
information and able to distill
it to core issues; welcomes
ambiguity and is comfortable
dealing with the unknown;
develops robust strategies
Has keen and exceptional
ability to synthesize
complexity; makes informed
decisions in ambiguous,
uncertain situations; develops
strategic alternatives and
identifies associated rewards,
risks, and actions to lower
risks
4.07 Financial
Judgment
Has difficulty considering
financial implications of
decisions
Draws appropriate
conclusions after studying all
the facts; understands basic
financial concepts and drives
for financial impact of major
decisions
Has sound financial judgment;
consistently considers
financial implications of
decisions
Has exceptional financial
judgment; has keen, almost
intuitive sense for financial
implications of decisions
4. CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEADERSHIP
Capacity Elements
108
LEVEL ONE:
Clear need
for increased capacity
LEVEL TWO:
Basic level
of capacity in place
LEVEL THREE:
Moderate level
of capacity in place
LEVEL FOUR:
High level
of capacity in place
Input
capacity
rating in
this column
5.01 Financial
Planning /
Budgeting
No or very limited financial
planning; general budget
developed; only one budget
for entire central organization;
performance against budget
loosely or not monitored
Limited financial plans, ad hoc
update; budget utilized as
operational tool; used to
guide/assess financial
activities; some attempt to
isolate divisional (program or
geographical) budgets within
central budget; performance-
to-budget monitored
periodically
Solid financial plans, regularly
updated; budget integrated
into operations; reflects
organizational needs; solid
efforts made to isolate
divisional (program or
geographical) budgets within
central budget; performance-
to-budget monitored regularly
Very solid financial plans,
continuously updated; budget
integrated into full operations;
as strategic tool, it develops
from process that
incorporates and reflects
organizational needs and
objectives; well-understood
divisional (program or
geographical) budgets within
overall central budget;
performance-to-budget
closely and regularly
monitored
5.02 Financial
Operations
Management
Gifts and grants deposited
and acknowledged, bills paid,
supporting documentation
collected/retained
Financial activities
transparent, clearly and
consistently recorded and
documented, include
appropriate checks and
balances, and tracked to
approve budget
Formal internal controls
governing all financial
operations; fully tracked,
supported and reported,
annually audited fund flows
well managed; attention is
paid to cash flow
management
Robust systems and controls
in place governing all financial
operations and their
integration with budgeting,
decision making, and
organizational
objectives/strategic goals;
cash flow actively managed
5.03 Public Relations
& Marketing
Organization makes no or
limited use of PR/marketing;
general lack of PR/marketing
skills and expertise (either
internal or accessible
external)
Organization takes
opportunities to engage in
PR/marketing as they arise;
some PR/marketing skills and
experience within staff or via
external assistance
Organization considers
PR/marketing to be useful,
and actively seeks
opportunities to engage in
these activities; critical mass
of internal expertise and
experience in PR/marketing
or access to relevant external
assistance
Organization fully aware of
power of PR/marketing
activities, and continually and
actively engages in them;
broad pool of nonprofit
PR/marketing expertise and
experience within
organization or efficient use
made of external, sustainable,
highly qualified resources
5. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Capacity Elements
109
LEVEL ONE:
Clear need
for increased capacity
LEVEL TWO:
Basic level
of capacity in place
LEVEL THREE:
Moderate level
of capacity in place
LEVEL FOUR:
High level
of capacity in place
Input
capacity
rating in
this column
6.01 Board
Governance
Board does not scrutinize
budgets or audits, does not
set performance targets and
hold CEO/ED accountable or
does not operate according to
formal procedures; executive,
treasury, and board functions
unclear
Roles of legal board, advisory
board and management are
clear; board functions
according to by-laws, reviews
budgets, and occasionally
sets organizational direction
and targets, but does not
regularly review CEO/ED
performance, monitor
potential conflicts of interest,
scrutinize auditors, or review
IRS and state filings
Roles of legal board, advisory
board, and managers are
clear and function well; board
reviews budgets, audits, IRS
and state filings; size of board
set for maximum
effectiveness with rigorous
nomination process; board co-
defines performance targets
and actively encourages
CEO/ED to meet targets;
annual review of CEO/ED’s
performance, but board not
prepared to hire or fire
CEO/ED
Legal board, advisory board
and managers work well
together from clear roles;
board fully understands and
fulfills fiduciary duties; size of
board set for maximum
effectiveness with rigorous
nomination process; board
actively defines performance
targets and holds CEO/ED
fully accountable; board
empowered and prepared to
hire or fire CEO/ED if
necessary; board periodically
evaluated
6.02 Board
Involvement &
Support
Provide little direction,
support, and accountability to
leadership; board not fully
informed about ‘material’ and
other major organizational
matters; largely “feel-good”
support
Provide occasional direction,
support and accountability to
leadership; informed about all
‘material’ matters in a timely
manner and
responses/decisions actively
solicited
Provide direction, support
and accountability to
programmatic leadership; fully
informed of all major matters,
input and responses actively
sought and valued; full
participant in major decisions
Provide strong direction,
support and accountability to
programmatic leadership and
engaged as a strategic
resource; communication
between board and
leadership reflects mutual
respect, appreciation for roles
and responsibilities, shared
commitment and valuing of
collective wisdom
6.03 Board
Involvement and
Participation in
Fund Raising
Most members do not
recognize fundraising as one
of the board's roles and
responsibilities; no goals or
plans for board-driven
fundraising activities exist;
board members donate
minimally to the organization
Members accept that the
board has some fundraising
responsibilities, but concerns
exist regarding ability of board
to be successful in this area;
one or two members have
made significant financial gifts
to the organization; board
fundraising activities not yet
underway
Many members embrace
fundraising as one of the
board's core roles and
responsibilities; core group of
board members consistently
participate in fundraising;
realistic and appropriate
board fundraising goals and
plans exist; fundraising
activities are underway
Majority of members embrace
fundraising as a core board
role and responsibility; each
board member has donated to
the organization financially;
realistic and appropriate
fundraising goals and plans
are in place; board is actively
fundraising and has achieved
measurable progress towards
goals
6.04 Board
Composition &
Commitment
Membership with limited
diversity of fields of practice
and expertise; drawn from a
narrow spectrum of
constituencies (from among
nonprofit, academia,
corporate, government, etc.);
little or no relevant
experience; low commitment
to organization’s success,
vision and mission; meetings
infrequent and/or poor
attendance
Some diversity in fields of
practice; membership
represents a few different
constituencies (from among
nonprofit, academia,
corporate, government, etc.);
moderate commitment to
organization’s success, vision
and mission; regular,
purposeful meetings are well-
planned and attendance is
good overall
Good diversity in fields of
practice and expertise;
membership represents most
constituencies (nonprofit,
academia, corporate,
government, etc.); good
commitment to organization’s
success, vision and mission,
and behavior to suit; regular,
purposeful meetings are well-
planned and attendance is
consistently good, occasional
subcommittee meetings
Membership with broad
variety of fields of practice
and expertise, and drawn
from the full spectrum of
constituencies (nonprofit,
academia, corporate,
government, etc.); includes
functional and program
content-related expertise, as
well as high-profile names;
high willingness and proven
track record of investing in
learning about the
organization and addressing
its issues; outstanding
commitment to the
organization’s success,
mission and vision; meet in
person regularly, good
attendance, frequent
meetings of focused
subcommittees
6. BOARD LEADERSHIP
Capacity Elements
110
Capacity
Rating
Capacity Area
Average
Capacity Area
Priority Rating
NOTE: A ZERO (0) SCORE
INDICATES A MISSING
RESPONSE
INDICATE WHETHER EACH AREA IS A
LOW, MEDIUM, OR HIGH PRIORITY FOR
YOUR ORG.
1.01 Mission 0
1.02 Clarity of Vision 0
1.03 Overarching Goals 0
1.04 Overall Strategy 0
1.05 Strategic Planning 0
1.06 Goals / Performance Targets 0
1.07 Operational Planning 0
1.08 Monitoring of Landscape 0
2.01 Performance Measurement 0
2.02 Performance Analysis & Program Adjustments 0
2.03 Program Relevance & Integration 0
2.04 Program Growth & Replication 0
2.05 New Program Development 0
3.01 Assessment of Community Needs & Agency Environment 0
3.02 Local Community Presence & Involvement 0
3.03 External Relationship Building (partnerships & collaboration) 0
3.04 Communications & Outreach Effectiveness 0
3.05 Communications Strategy 0
3.06 Influence on Policy-making 0
4.01 Experience & Standing 0
4.02 Personal & Interpersonal Effectiveness 0
4.03 Passion & Vision 0
4.04 People & Organizational Leadership / Effectiveness 0
4.05 Impact Orientation 0
4.06 Analytical & Strategic Thinking 0
4.07 Financial Judgment 0
5.01 Financial Planning / Budgeting 0
5.02 Financial Operations Management 0
6.01 Board Governance 0
6.02 Board Involvement & Support 0
6.03 Board Involvement and Participation in Fund Raising 0
6.04 Board Composition & Commitment 0
Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool Summary
Select any Capacity Element link below
to return to that section in the Assessment
1. ASPIRATIONS, STRATEGY & PLANNING
0.00
2. PROGRAM DESIGN & EVALUATION
0.00
3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & COLLABORATION
0.00
4. CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEADERSHIP
0.00
0.00
5. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
0.00
6. BOARD LEADERSHIP
111
Appendix E
Interview Protocol
The purpose of this study is to assess the capacity levels of 5 initiatives funded by
The Children’s Trust and to examine the processes involved in the implementation of
the initiatives.
During this interview I will be asking you some questions that will help me better
understand the processes of capacity building in your initiative. If you have any
questions during the interview or feel at any time that you would like me to slow
down or stop the interview just let me know. Let’s begin.
I would like to begin this series of questions to better understand your knowledge of
the processes involved with the implementation of the initiative.
• If you reflect on the processes involved with the implementation of the
initiative what were the contributions made?
• What stands out as the most significant contribution?
• What influence, if any were there to the implementation process?
• What has been the most relevant influence to the implementation process?
Next, I want to share the results of your McKinsey Capacity Assessment. If you
remember, the capacity framework on which the McKinsey Capacity Assessment is
based defines non-profit capacity through seven essential elements: aspirations,
strategy, organization skills, human resources, systems and infrastructure,
organizational structure and agency culture.
(Share the results of the on-line instrument that participant completed)
The elements that you considered your agency as having the highest capacity was in
____________.
Why did you believe this to be true?
112
Are there some examples that can you provide to describe this?
The elements that you considered your agency as having the lowest capacity was in
____________.
Why did you believe this to be true?
Are there some examples that can you provide to describe this?
Was there any additional information that you would like to share after you
completed the McKinsey Capacity Assessment?
What do you think is the initiative’s most pressing capacity building need since the
start of your relationship with The Trust?
Please prioritize the list of needs using the elements identified in the McKinsey
Capacity
Assessment
Aspirations ___
Strategy ___
Organization skills ___
Human resources ___
Systems and infrastructure ___
Organizational structure ___
Agency culture ___
Now I am interested in finding out if there were any unexpected aspects or lessons
learned from your initiative that you would like to share.
What aspects of your strengthened organizational capacity do you believe will have
the most impact on your initiative?
113
What barriers do you believe there are to capacity in your initiative?
What do you think is your organization’s most pressing barrier since the start of your
relationship with The Trust?
Is there anything else you would like to add?
Thank you very much for your time. If you think of anything else you would like to
add feel free to get in touch with me.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Community based services are viewed as a promising model for services in neighborhoods affected by several risk factors such as poverty, inadequate health care, inadequate housing and neighborhood disorganization. The current study explored the processes used in implementing initiatives funded by an organization and a community capacity building model developed in Miami-Dade County, Florida, namely The Children's Trust. To address the research questions, a case study format was used to describe five selected initiatives funded by The Trust. Using a mixed method design, this inquiry examined the capacity knowledge of the participants, the capacity elements in place, the implementation processes, and perceived lessons learned and barriers to success. All sources of data were examined for content and framing of key themes. The data were assessed with regard to the entire sample, by initiative, and by the participant's role within the initiative. The findings include: moderate levels of capacity building knowledge components, categories and elements among participants
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Promising practices for building leadership capacity: a community college case study
PDF
Delineating the processes and mechanisms of sustainment: understanding how evidence-based prevention initiatives are maintained after initial funding ends
PDF
Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study
PDF
Building personal wellness communities: meaningful play in the everyday life of a network society
PDF
Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies
PDF
Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students
PDF
Collaboration: is it worth it? The Magnolia Community Initiative from the perspective of initiative partner participants
PDF
Disruptive innovation’s impact on the staffing and recruitment industry: a case for capacity building for future technological adaptation
PDF
The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams
PDF
Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process
PDF
The impact of family violence on children: an exploratory study
PDF
Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools
PDF
Examining the benefits of senior nutrition programs as a cost savings to Medicare: a promising practice study
PDF
A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning
PDF
Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district
PDF
Examining the longitudinal influence of the physical and social environments on social isolation and cognitive health: contextualizing the role of technology
PDF
A multiple comparison case study of Los Angeles Public High Schools: LGBTQA+ policies and facilities, student advocacy, and change in policies and facilities over time
PDF
Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition
PDF
An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel
PDF
Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias research communication practices with minoritized racial and ethnic groups: a multiple case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
McGhee, Tisa M.
(author)
Core Title
Organizational and community capacity building efforts: a case study of initiatives funded by the Children's Trust
School
School of Social Work
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Social Work
Publication Date
07/25/2009
Defense Date
06/14/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Child welfare,community based service delivery,community capacity building,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational assessment,organizational development
Language
English
Advisor
Salcido, Ramon M. (
committee chair
), Ferguson, Kristin M. (
committee member
), Robertson, Peter John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
tmcghee@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m665
Unique identifier
UC1481084
Identifier
etd-McGhee-20070725 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-527564 (legacy record id),usctheses-m665 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-McGhee-20070725.pdf
Dmrecord
527564
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
McGhee, Tisa M.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
community based service delivery
community capacity building
organizational assessment
organizational development