1. Chesapeake Bay Funders Network Capacity Building Initiative

2. Development of Capacity Building Initiative (CBI)  Rauch Foundation – Chairs CBFN Capacity Building Workgroup  River Network – Conducted research, prepared white paper  CBFN Workgroup – Developed key goals and objectives  TCC Group & Trust – Finalizing Initiative details

3. Capacity Building Models  Charles Stewart Mott Foundation  Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation  Pfizer Foundation Southern HIV/AIDS Prevention Initiative  Peninsula Community Foundation Organizational Capacity Grants Initiative

4. Capacity Building Initiative Process Targeted General Operating Grants Large Capacity Building Grants Customized Assistance Networking /training Opportunities for Capacity Building Networking Opportunities for Watershed Issues Organizational Assessment Process Eligible Watershed Organizations’ Applications Selection Process Tier 3 Organizations Tier 2 Organizations Tier 1 Organizations Smaller gen. ops Grants Smaller Capacity Building Grants Customized Assistance

5. Region Y1 - Y3 Goal: To strengthen/ build core organizational capacities of watershed organizations Capacity Building Initiative: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Watershed Groups Watershed Organizations Watershed Organizations Region Communities Programs Network Collective Impact

6. Capacity Building Initiative: Strengthening the Ecological Health of Communities Region Y3 Goal: To improve the quality of education/outreach, restoration/ protection projects and advocacy activities to impact communities Watershed Organizations Watershed Organizations Communities Programs Network Collective Impact

7. Capacity Building Initiative: Establishing and Sustaining a Regional Network and Greater Collective Impact Region Watershed Organizations Watershed Organizations Communities Programs Y3 Goal: To have a functioning Chesapeake Bay regional network of watershed organizations and supporters and to continue to enhance the network’s effectiveness and their collective impact Network Collective Impact

8. Nonprofit Capacity Building Needs  4 Core Capacities: –Adaptive (6) –Leadership (5) –Management (11) –Technical (11) + Organizational Culture  Adaptive and Leadership Capacity: –Crucial for nonprofits and vital at every life cycle stage, but often overlooked Adaptive Technical Management Leadership

9. External Environment Resources Organization Political and Regulatory Forces Social and Demographic Forces Economic Forces Technological Forces Adaptive Capacity Monitoring, assessing, and responding to internal and external changes Networking/collaboratingEvaluating programs and services Assessing organizational effectiveness Planning Organizational Culture History Structure Rituals Beliefs Language Values Technical Capacity “Doing” the work of the organization, delivering programs and services Technology Accounting Budgeting Fundraising Facilities development and maintenance Marketing/communications Evaluation/research Key Resources the one or more critically needed resources that most directly support programs and services Legal Finances/ Funding Program Design and Model TimeTechnology Facilities Human Resources Management Capacity Ensuring effective and efficient use of organizational resources Leadership Capacity Visioning Inspiring Directing Innovating PrioritizingModeling Decision Making TCC’s Four Core Capacities Model

10. Self-Assessment Survey  4 Core Capacities + Organizational Culture  36 Sub-Capacities  146 Total Questions, averaging 4 questions for each sub-capacity CCAT Participation  Minimum of 3 organizational leaders must take the survey  Anonymous survey with answers reported in aggregate – no weighting CCAT Results  On-line system with instant access, analysis and reporting  PDF files (summary and details) for download to share with stakeholders  Highlights strengths and provides recommendations on areas of challenge Core Capacity Assessment Tool (CCAT)

11. Core Capacity Example 6 Sub-Capacities for Adaptive Capacity –Decision Making Tools –Environmental Learning –Organizational Learning –Organizational Resource Sustainability –Program Resource Sustainability –Programmatic Learning ~30 Total Questions, averaging 5 questions each Adaptive Sub-Capacity Example Decision Making Tools –Our organization’s constituents/clients are actively recruited to provide input and feedback on how programs/services should be provided –Our organization has a written strategic plan that includes a clear, specific, and measurable set of goals and objectives that will ensure success –Our organization informally evaluates our programs by engaging staff to document and/or share stories and anecdotes Core Capacity Assessment Tool (CCAT)

12.  Review of CBI Proposals  CCAT Participation –On-line self-assessment tool, minimum of 3 participants per org –T1 Range: 6 to 16 survey respondents –T2 Range: 3 to 13 survey respondents –Strong board participation  Interviews –T1 100% in-person interviews –Grantee feedback on process/approach  Aggregate review and discussion with CBT CBI Assessment Process

13.  Tier 1 and 2 were comparable in strengths and challenges –High in Leadership and Management –High in Organizational Culture –Low in Technical capacities across the board  Opportunity for peer learning/mentoring  CBI participants noted the assessment as a “rare opportunity” Assessment Results

14.  Review of CBI proposal  CCAT results  Org Interview – Context/Life Cycle – Other CB efforts completed or under way  CBFN Capacity Building Workgroup  Budget From Needs to Recommendations “art and science”

15. Areas of Need (In order of “need”- * = omni-need)  Adaptive Management –Program Evaluation Training and coaching* –Strategic Assessment/Planning*  Leadership –Board Development through Consulting, Group Training & Follow-up*  Management –Assessing/managing Staff Performance  Consulting, Group Training & Follow-up  Technical –Marketing  Group Training & Follow-up –Fundraising  Group Training & Follow-up –Technology Skills  Assessments, Hard/Software & Training* Summary of Recommendations

16. Grant Awards & Group Assistance by Tiers and Type Grant Assistance Tier 1 (8 groups) Targeted General Operating $227,500 Targeted Capacity Building$104,500 Tier 2 (11 groups) Targeted General Operating$77,500 Targeted Capacity Building$73,000 Group Assistance Tier 1, 2, 3 (36 groups) Group Assistance$74,500 (Prog eval training, IT assist) TOTAL$557,000

17. Grants by Region/State Capitol Area MD$83,763 Central MD$175,447 Eastern Shore MD$77,342 Southern MD$35,842 MD TOTAL$372,394 VA TOTAL$199,605 MD avgT1= $50,400*T2 = $25,333* VA avgT1= $50,000 T2 = $15,000 *includes ex. capacity building grants

18. Preferred Service Providers 54 RFQ’s submitted 21 preferred Assessed using 3 Criteria 1.Knowledge and Track Record 2.Exp. With Env./watershed non-profit groups 3.Capacity/flexibility to deliver services needed

19.  Developed CBI Logic Model for planning and evaluation purposes  Developing core evaluation questions  Prioritizing evaluation components and indicators  Working individually with grantees to identify measures of success  Developing evaluation plan within context of evaluation goals and budget which will include multi-layered approach –Organizational –Programmatic –Regional/Network CBI Evaluation

20. Region Indicators:  capacities in leadership, strategic planning, board, fundraising, partnerships, technology, evaluation, etc. Data Sources: Organizational assessment, grantee interviews, grantee reports, etc. Capacity Building Initiative: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Watershed Groups Watershed Organizations Watershed Organizations Region Communities Programs Network Collective Impact

21. Capacity Building Initiative: Strengthening the Ecological Health of Communities Region Indicators:  ecological conditions,  numbers of volunteers,  diversity of funding,  competitiveness for existing grant funding (i.e. Trust, NFWF, KCF) Data Sources: Grantee interviews, grantee reports, etc. Watershed Organizations Watershed Organizations Communities Programs Network Collective Impact

22. Capacity Building Initiative: Establishing and Sustaining a Regional Network and Greater Collective Impact Region Watershed Organizations Watershed Organizations Communities Programs Indicators:  membership, quality meetings, # of collaborations, greater involvement in Bay-wide issues, greater use of existing/new technical tools (i.e., NEMO) Data Sources: Evaluations of network meetings, membership roster, interviews, etc. Network Collective Impact

23. Next Steps  Develop CBI action plan with Tier 1 and 2 groups (grant agreement)  Watershed Network Activities –Listening sessions with Jeff Lape, 5/30, 6/7 –CBI kickoff and network meeting, June 27,28 –2 nd Annual Watershed Forum, Oct. 12-14  Develop evaluation and tools  Next CBFN meeting – evaluation, CBI progress report