Co-design by Design: Capacity Building from the Start
/by Ali Miller and Qiana Davis
When done well, capacity building can be a critical component in the health and sustainability of organizations. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations defines capacity building as “the funding and technical assistance to help nonprofits increase specific capacities to deliver strong programs, take risks, build connections, innovate and iterate.” Building capacity might look like: investing in training, supporting alignment with best practices, or hiring “experts.” And, what if there’s another way? What might we make possible by co-designing a peer-driven capacity-building approach that fosters inclusion and network building?
Two years ago, The TK Foundation, a small family foundation supporting nonprofit youth programs, contracted Engage R+D to design and implement a capacity-building program for 11 grantees across the country focused on youth-driven systems change. The Foundation was investing in something new - in addition to providing funding, they were offering programming to strengthen grantees’ systems- and policy-change work. At Engage R+D, we’ve learned a lot over the years from evaluating capacity-building models and delivering capacity-building supports, including the risks and harms associated with models that make assumptions about how “effectiveness” and “success” are defined. With this collective experience in mind, we realized we didn’t have to look at other capacity-building programs as the standard or model; we could do something different and more intentionally center equity by using a co-design model.
In addition to our role at Engage R+D as evaluators, both of us are social workers. We believe in the importance of relationships, mutual respect, humility, and thoughtful collaboration. A good social worker is continuously assessing the needs of their clients, fully embraces what clients are experiencing and feeling, and knows when to step back when things are outside of their area of expertise and competency. By tapping into our social work training and the profession’s core values, we were able to implement a co-design approach that centered grantees as thought partners and co-learners. Here are our notes on what worked and what we learned about co-designing this capacity-building effort:
Create an inclusive program model
Co-design requires the willingness to be flexible, adaptive, and inclusive. Unlike other capacity-building programs that only engage executive leaders, we were able to open participation to a broader group of staff as well as youth leaders. Starting with who would participate in the capacity-building program, it was critical that the process wasn’t rigid:
We asked who grantees wanted to include in the program - leading to a diverse cohort of program staff, executives, and youth leaders.
We asked participants what their capacity-building priorities were - revealing distinct practice areas like intergenerational organizing, asset framing, and shared leadership.
We offered multiple opportunities for engagement - the program offered large and small group sessions, technical assistance, and the implementation of a capacity-building assessment, with emails, phone calls, and surveys throughout.
We created space for grantees to volunteer as co-designers - grantees helped design, plan, and co-lead sessions based on their areas of interest and availability.
We treated each opportunity as one for reciprocal capacity building and learning - our first instinct was to robustly design a perfect capacity-building program, but our approach evolved - we would offer grantees ideas and thoughts but hold off on fleshing out details until we had their input and buy-in.
Center rapport and trust in service of participant-ownership
Building trust and rapport became easier over time, not just because participants have known us for longer, but because we worked at it. We started our engagement with discovery calls where we worked on getting to know the individuals leading the work in each organization. We asked about their capacity-building goals, learned about their unique strengths, inquired about their previous experience with capacity-building programs, and explored what would and would not work for them in this experience. In addition to asking each grantee what they wanted to “get” out of this opportunity, we asked what they wanted to offer or “give.” Based on what we learned through those conversations, we were able to determine who and how to engage the strengths of grantees, as well as build trust and a sense of ownership among the group. For example, early on, participants led us all in mindfulness moments, bringing their deep knowledge and skills related to being present, connecting, and engaging in virtual spaces.
Over time, we continued to listen to grantees and held space for new ideas to surface. We named our missteps and the limitations of our expertise. As our rapport and relationship with grantees strengthened, their willingness to hold more of the space and a larger portion of the agenda expanded.
Share power and honor participant expertise
Although we were tasked with designing and facilitating the program, we knew that we shouldn’t be the only ones with the power to determine topics of discussion. One way we centered equity in our co-design approach was to honor the expertise of the group (and those most proximate to the issue) and their ability to determine what they need. For example, intergenerational organizing as a systems and policy change strategy was not on our radar, but it came up as a fascinating model that grantees wanted to explore. Without grantee input, it was not something we would have offered. We leveraged the expertise of grantees who specialize in intergenerational work to design a participant-owned session.
In addition to determining session topics, sharing power meant listening to how co-designers wanted to be included in the process. As consultants, we strive to make magic behind the scenes and not burden participants with the nitty-gritty details. Through this experience, we learned to check our assumptions about how much detail co-designers wanted and needed to fully participate in the work. For example, we are used to creating our own internal facilitator’s agenda and then sharing a sparse agenda with co-designers and session participants. What we learned is that, while people aren’t interested in spending hours mulling over details behind the scenes, sharing access to all of the information with our session co-designers created space for them to be fully engaged and have shared ownership of the full session. We shifted to Google Docs so that co-designers had access to the internal agenda and editing privileges. In partnership with our co-designers, we would edit, adjust, and create the approach for each session. We held multiple meetings for communication, ideation, and iteration - this co-owned process ensured less was behind the curtain.
A Note on Engaging Youth
We have been doing this for over a year now and, with six months left, we know there is still more to learn. In addition to the insights explored above, we want to underscore how much we have learned from the organizations and the youth leaders that are the co-designers at the heart of this work. One of the most exciting aspects of this work has been creating a capacity-building program that includes youth leaders alongside nonprofit staff. As we learned from our session on intergenerational organizing, when people across age groups work in tandem, “it increases the collective capacity, rather than the capability of just one part of the community.”
Our youth participants brought a breadth of experience from within and outside their respective organizations and pushed our team to critically reflect on how to show up and what norms to lead with as we built this capacity-building program. Through this process, we became more attuned to specific practices to keep in mind when engaging youth as co-designers. For example, some youth leaders requested to see the list of invitees in advance of sessions so they could feel prepared and be aware of who would be in the room when they were speaking or sharing personal experiences. Another youth leader emphasized the importance of having time to debrief after sessions to process their experiences, focusing on “glows” (what went well) and “grows” (opportunities for improvement). Lastly, we also learned the importance of modeling and explicitly naming to youth that perfection is not the expectation. Youth leaders were often fitting this work into existing schedules that involve school, work, and extracurriculars; so it was important to name that their presence and engagement did not have to look one way.
To learn more about the TK Foundation and the grantee organizations contributing to this work, explore the links below.
