Issue Brief #2:

Building SIF Subgrantee 

Capacity for Scale, 

Evidence, and Impact

A product of the National Assessment of 

the Social Innovation Fund (SIF)

September 2015
Issue Brief #2: 

Building SIF Subgrantee Capacity for Scale, Evidence, and Impact 

September 2015 

Authors 

Lara Malakoff, M.U.R.P. 

Janet Pershing, Ph.D. 

Janet Griffith, Ph.D. 

Prepared For 

Lily Zandniapour, Ph.D. 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

This document is a product of the National Assessment of the SIF, which seeks to document and capture the impact the 

SIF has on key program stakeholders. Its findings will provide evidence and tell the story of the SIF as well as identify 

lessons learned. The National Assessment is sponsored by the Corporation for National and Community Service’s Social 

Innovation Fund, designed and managed by CNCS Office of Research and Evaluation, and conducted by ICF 

International. 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Upon request, this 

material will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. 
nationalservice.gov/research 1 

1. Introduction

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) leverages public and private 

resources to grow community solutions based on evidence of 

results. The National Assessment of the SIF seeks to document 

and capture the impact the SIF has on key program 

stakeholders. Findings from this multi-component 

independent assessment, conducted by ICF International, 

will tell the story of the SIF and identify lessons learned. The SIF makes grants to experienced grantmaking organizations, which identify promising programs within communities through an open and 

competitive process and distribute funds to high-performing nonprofit organizations that implement 

them, and match the federal funds dollar-for-dollar. SIF subgrantees also match the funding they 

receive dollar-for-dollar. All SIF-funded interventions undergo rigorous, independent evaluations to 

advance the base of evidence for the funded intervention. 

This issue brief shares lessons about how the SIF builds capacity within its stakeholder organizations in 

order to strengthen them and enhance their impact. It provides action-oriented recommendations for 

current, incoming, and prospective SIF grantees, private and nonprofit organizations that might 

implement a SIF model, and policy makers. This brief is informed by insights from five SIF “Classic” 1

grantees, five subgrantees (one supported by each of the five grantees), and a partner engaged by one of 

the grantees to provide capacity building assistance to subgrantees. 

Through the SIF, CNCS identifies promising programs with at least preliminary evidence of effectiveness, 

and provides grantees with tools, resources, skills, and knowledge to strengthen the programs further. 

Grantees, in turn, provide extensive capacity-building services to their subgrantees, and in many cases 

hire expert technical assistance providers to further augment 

subgrantee support. This capacity building took a variety of 

forms, and varied depending on factors such as the size of the 

grant, the project design, and the subgrantee’s level of 

sophistication. Together, these multi-level and multi-layered 

capacity-building efforts help enhance SIF projects’ effectiveness. 

With time, they may well help increase grantee and subgrantee 

capacity to implement non-SIF programs as well. 

2. CNCS Support for Grantees

SIF grantees are high-performing organizations—they can demonstrate at least preliminary evidence that 

their programs work, and they already have extensive capacity to support their subgrantees. To further 

augment that capacity and, ultimately, to strengthen the capacity of the subgrantees running evidencebased programs across the country, CNCS provides support to grantees by connecting them to one 

1 The SIF has two grant programs: Classic and Pay for Success (PFS). The Classic program unites public and private 

resources to evaluate and grow innovative community-based solutions that have evidence of results in low-income 

communities. PFS is an innovative contracting and financing model that leverages philanthropic and private dollars 

to fund services up front, with the government, or other entity, paying after they generate results. CNCS funds 

capacity-building support for testing this model. As part of both the 2014 and 2015 Congressional appropriations,

the SIF was given authority to use up to 20% of grant funds to implement a competition to test PFS approaches.

Key Research Question:

What kind of capacity building support 

do subgrantees receive as part of the 

SIF, and what makes capacity building 

efforts most effective?

Capacity Building with the SIF

Capacity building includes providing 

tools, resources, skills, and knowledge 

to enhance the ways grantees and 

subgrantees engage in successful, 

evidence-based programs.
nationalservice.gov/research 2 

another; providing opportunities for grantees to share their strengths and learn from the strengths of 

others; and providing other types of supports. In a 2015 National Assessment survey, SIF grantees 

identified CNCS supports such as federal compliance training and assistance, evaluation planning 

support, networking opportunities, general support by the SIF program office, annual convenings, 

support from external contractors, and other outside training and resources as particularly helpful. 

Grantees noted that CNCS’s annual in-person SIF convenings helped them further develop key technical 

skills, internalize the SIF approach, become inspired with stories of what their colleagues do, and 

establish meaningful peer-to-peer relationships. Participants especially appreciated the opportunity to 

start their programs on the right foot with detailed compliance training, to gain insights on cutting edge 

topics such as effective storytelling, and to establish peer networking connections. 

CNCS staff helped grantees expand their skills and knowledge between convenings in a variety of ways. 

They presented webinars on topics such as evaluation, subgrantee monitoring, and compliance with 

federal requirements. They hosted the SIF Knowledge Network, which houses tutorials, tools, checklists, 

and other CNCS-developed resources, and gave grantees the opportunity to share their own experiences, 

tools, and resources online. They provided resources and logistical support for SIF grantee workgroups, 

in which grantees engage in discussions with their peers 

around the SIF priority areas and issues related to 

evidence and evaluation. And they supported the SIF 

Knowledge Initiative to document and share best 

practices related to the grantees’ programs.

The diverse array of supports CNCS provides to 

continuously improve grantee capacity is part of a 

tiered capacity-building strategy, intended to build 

grantee capacity, in order to ensure even stronger 

support for subgrantees and their programs over time. 

Grantees noted that Program Officers – proactive 

partners, who engage deeply with their grantees – and 

other knowledgeable CNCS technical staff were 

instrumental in providing timely support, guidance, 

and answers to questions. 

3. Grantee Support for Subgrantees

SIF grantees provide capacity building support to their subgrantees on a variety of topics, including 

federal compliance and grant management, business planning, scaling, evidence, sustainability, 

evaluation, data collection, storytelling and communication, workflow and processes, and monitoring. 

Results of the 2015 National Assessment survey showed that SIF grantees have grown considerably in 

their ability to provide capacity building support over the course of their SIF grants, and indicate that 

they provide more subgrantee support than other nonprofits. For example, they were more likely to 

provide training or technical assistance to help subgrantees conduct rigorous evaluation or to support 

effective program implementation, and to provide funding to conduct effective evaluations or to hire an 

external evaluator. Grantees made their support effective by being transparent with subgrantees about 

needs and expectations, offering multi-stage experiential learning opportunities, providing tailored 

support, engaging in data-focused capacity building, creating and supporting peer learning, and building 

subgrantee capacity to build capacity. 

“...as early as it begins, start thinking about 

the end, because you want to ensure that you 

use the time period that you're in the SIF to 

really build the critical capacity, that you do it 

swiftly, that you don't waste the opportunity to 

be in the SIF and to learn from your grantee, 

and to use the financial resources 

thoughtfully, and benefit from all the source of 

technical assistance that might be 

there...Then also, be thoughtful about the fact 

that it is about capacity-building for a period 

time, and...being thoughtful from the 

beginning, about how you will sustain it.”

--Tiffany Cooper Gueye, SIF Subgrantee, 

BELL
nationalservice.gov/research 3 

3.1 Transparency about Needs and Expectations 

To reach maximum effectiveness, capacity building requires transparency between funders and program 

implementation staff. Without it, subgrantees may fail to communicate their needs to the SIF grantees 

that fund their programs, and SIF grantees may fail to make their capacity building plans and 

expectations clear. 

Subgrantees sometimes try to “put their best foot forward” so 

as not to raise funder concerns and risk losing their grants. 

Other times, subgrantees might believe that capacity building 

is reserved for “struggling programs,” or they may lack 

insight into their own capacity building needs. To overcome 

these barriers, grantees worked to foster open relationships 

and partner with their subgrantees by initiating frequent 

communication, encouraging candid conversation about 

roadblocks, reacting to stated challenges as a supporter and 

problem solver, functioning as a thought partner, and actively 

working to identify ways capacity building efforts might 

enhance performance – even for high-performing subgrantees. 

The Champlain Housing Trust was one subgrantee that appreciated having confidence that it could 

communicate openly with its grantor, Capital Impact Partners, without fear of negative consequences. 

The subgrantee attributed this positive dynamic to its portfolio manager’s ability to listen well, respond 

with problem-solving ideas rather than blame, and adjust based on subgrantee feedback. As a SIF 

grantee, the John A. Hartford Foundation tackled the 

issue of subgrantee trust and confidence by engaging 

the Advancing Integrated Mental Health Solutions 

(AIMS) Center at the University of Washington (AIMS 

Center), a technical assistance provider, to help 

subgrantees identify needs and to provide technical 

support, training, coaching, and assistance. By creating 

a confidential relationship between the technical 

assistance provider and the subgrantee, the John A. 

Hartford Foundation fostered an environment where 

fear of losing funding would not interfere with honest 

communication about needs. 

Greater Twin Cities United Way pointed out that 

transparency needs to be a two-way street: SIF 

grantees need to make clear from the outset what 

capacity building activities their subgrantees will be 

strongly encouraged to engage in. They also noted that 

this is harder than it sounds. Greater Twin Cities told subgrantees early-on that all were encouraged to 

participate in capacity building opportunities regardless of their experience level or whether they 

experienced problems. But the idea of continuous capacity building for even high-performing 

subgrantees did not seem to ‘click’ until interactive group sessions around some challenging topics 

uncovered areas for growth among subgrantees at all levels, setting the stage for more experienced and 

high-functioning grantees to seek further capacity building opportunities. 

“Communication is huge. Flexibility within 

certain parameters is huge...Listening to 

your subgrantees and being open to 

feedback. Just that approach to being

supportive to saying we’re in this together 

and these are the goals that we’re trying 

to accomplish. What do you need to do 

that? How can we help you?”

--Emily Higgins, SIF Subgrantee, 

Champlain Housing Trust

Bright Idea!

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation 

(EMCF) engaged business planning partner, 

The Bridgespan Group, to develop

organizational ‘road maps’ to guide 

subgrantees as they planned their SIF 

investments and grew their programs. 

Bridgespan and EMCF found the key time for 

developing a road map was after subgrantee 

selection but before EMCF had specified the 

investment amount. The road map included 

scenario plans for staffing, market analysis, 

and sustainability. The act of developing the 

plans helped subgrantees look at their

intended accomplishments, identify whether 

more in-depth business planning was required, 

and consider at what point additional planning 

should take place.
nationalservice.gov/research 4 



Recommendations for Being Transparent about Needs and Expectations: 

Establish an open environment where subgrantees feel safe communicating their challenges, and 

where grantees and subgrantees exchange constructive feedback in both directions. 

 Act as a thought partner and problem solver, cooperating with subgrantees to provide the 

support they need without micromanaging. 

 Communicate to subgrantees that they are all strongly encouraged to engage in capacity 

building, find opportunities to uncover areas for growth, and work toward continuous 

improvement – even among the highest-performing subgrantees. 

3.2 Multi-Stage Experiential Learning Opportunities 

Grantees used a wide range of multi-stage experiential learning approaches, all aimed at helping 

subgrantees master and apply new concepts through iterative steps that gradually deepen and solidify 

learning. Many grantees offered a succession of activities in which each activity was built on the 

knowledge and experience gained in the previous activities. Activities included homework assignments 

to immerse in a topic; in-person or virtual presentations by subject matter experts; interactive convenings 

to discuss and solidify baseline knowledge; in-person working groups to allow for further engagement 

with peers or TA providers on a topic; opportunities for subgrantees to implement new strategies; followup discussions to share and learn from experiences; and exercises that guided subgrantees through 

developing strategies based on knowledge gained. When it came to developing tools and resources, 

grantees surveyed subgrantees about their capacity-building needs on a given topic, prepared resources 

based on the results; shared resources at in-person 

trainings; and provided one-on-one guidance during 

implementation of the tools. 

Capital Impact Partners (CIP) made financial 

management training for subgrantees very concrete by 

first asking subgrantees to provide information about 

revenue and expenses. Subgrantee staff then had the 

opportunity to meet one-on-one with a technical 

assistance provider to delve deeper into their own 

organization’s financial information. With a clear 

understanding of their own organization's financial 

fundamentals, subgrantees were able to participate 

more fully in a group training session related to 

sustainability. CIP subgrantee The Champlain Housing Trust reported that layering these experiential 

learning opportunities helped reinforce key messages and solidify new skills. 

Grantees found that subgrantees retained knowledge best when capacity building was timed to 

correspond with their need to apply the information, and focused on topics of immediate interest. Some 

grantees planned out the timing and content of their capacity building activities very early in the 

program. But grantees also recognized the need to adjust and adapt to circumstances over time. Three 

examples help illustrate the diverse ways this can be accomplished. 

 The John A. Hartford Foundation’s technical assistance provider organized capacity building 

around pre-established stages, based on the knowledge and skills subgrantees were expected to 

“Taking a lot of the input and tools that the peers 

were sharing on that call, I started to think about 

what would be the right timing to introduce this 

subject with the sub-grantees. What kind of 

support or materials would I want to bring to a 

convening? Then how would we coordinate or 

facilitate either a training or informal sharing 

opportunity for the subgrantees to start thinking 

about their own strategy for sharing findings? 

Not just sharing findings, but actually improving 

programming based on those findings.”

--Naomi Zuk-Fisher, SIF Grantee, Greater Twin 

Cities United Way
nationalservice.gov/research 5 

need at various points in their programs. Pre-launch, subgrantees attended an in-person skills 

building session to learn about the model they were to implement; launch activities during the 

early months of the program involved key staff in weekly skill-building sessions drawing on 

their implementation experiences; and later in the project, after subgrantees had time to gather 

information about costs and revenue streams, post-launch activities focused on long-term 

financial sustainability planning. 

 Rather than coming to the program with pre-established stages, Capital Impact Partners (CIP) 

conducted a comprehensive assessment of subgrantee practices prior to making SIF subgrant 

awards and developed a technical assistance work plan to address identified needs. CIP ran into 

challenges, though, when some subgrantees’ organizational priorities did not align with the 

results of the assessment. CIP worked collaboratively with the subgrantees to incorporate 

subgrantees’ input, and offer “just-in-time” delivery of knowledge and skills to meet the 

immediate needs agreed upon by CIP and the subgrantees. 

 Greater Twin Cities United Way, in contrast, prioritized targeted responses to identified needs. 

For example, when a peer-to-peer subgrantee exchange identified the need for skills in the area of 

communicating evaluation findings, Greater Twin Cities drew on several resources to rapidly 

develop an approach for meeting the newly-identified need. They connected with fellow SIF 

grantee the GreenLight Fund to gather their insights; received tips from the GreenLight Fund’s 

evaluation TA provider about useful materials and topics of discussion for developing training; 

drew inspiration and knowledge from materials available on the CNCS Knowledge Network; 

and obtained guidance from a technical assistance provider, providing timely support to their 

subgrantees on a topic the subgrantees were eager to hear about and use. 

The Community Health Center of Central Wyoming 

(CHCCW) emphasized one key reason that multi-stage 

capacity building is important: at the outset, subgrantees 

may not know what they do not know. It took subgrantee 

CHCCW multiple interactions with The John A. Hartford 

Foundation and its technical assistance provider to 

understand how different the SIF model was from 

CHCCW’s traditional service delivery method. CHCCW 

first had to learn from experience that they needed to build 

new skills; only then was the team ready to move on to getting capacity building support. 



Recommendations for Offering Multi-Stage Experiential Learning: 

Reinforce key ideas by pairing opportunities to receive content with opportunities for 

experiential learning. 

 Use multiple formats and approaches to suit learners with different learning styles and 

preferences (e.g., “homework,” webinars and phone calls, in-person working groups, peer 

learning, interactive trainings, one-on-one mentoring, and opportunities for real-world 

implementation). 

 Offer capacity building that is relevant to the activities subgrantees are engaged in, at a point 

where they have the context and framework needed to understand and apply what they learn. 

“...the lesson we learned from The John A. 

Hartford Foundation and this experience is 

that they are providing this fantastic road 

map. All we have to do is plug it in. There's 

some culture changes, but they've built this 

system many times over and it worked. ”

--Ryan Bair, SIF Subgrantee, Community 

Health Center of Central Wyoming
nationalservice.gov/research 6 

 Plan capacity building at the outset of the grant based on anticipated subgrantee needs, but adapt 

as needed to allow for “just-in-time” delivery of knowledge and skills to address needs that arise.

3.3 Tailored Support 

Grantees found that general training, resources, and tools have their place in the spectrum of capacity 

building activities, but learned that finding ways to provide tailored support was essential for maximum 

impact. This held true in both group and individual settings. 

Although tailored support was particularly challenging in the context of group activities, grantees found 

that techniques such as individualized role plays, opportunities for participants to practice applying what 

they learned to their own situations, and peer-to-peer learning opportunities that focused on addressing 

individual subgrantee challenges could all be effective. These approaches provided the double bonus of 

discovering tailored solutions to individual issues, while simultaneously allowing for peer learning and 

building supportive peer communities. 

Alternating group and individual support was another popular approach to tailoring subgrantee learning 

experiences. The Mayor’s Fund, for example, demonstrated the value of combining group information 

sharing with tailored support through its dissemination of a financial tracking tool. The tool was initially 

shared with all grantees to provide an efficient mechanism to facilitate financial tracking and reporting. 

But once the tool was disseminated, The Mayor’s Fund met individually with subgrantees to ensure they 

understood how and why to use the tool, knew how it fit with their internal tracking systems, and 

answered questions about how to use the tool efficiently in their individual situations. After individual 

follow-up was complete, the Mayor’s Fund assessed trends, reported them back to the group, and 

encouraged subgrantees to discuss their challenges with one another and provide peer-to-peer technical 

assistance. 

Capital Impact Partners (CIP) sought a hybrid approach by 

combining some full-group activities with more targeted 

subgroups. In preparation for a subgroup session on workflow 

management, CIP convened all subgrantees through a webinar 

to assess and learn about subgrantees’ use of paper or online 

home purchase applications. During the working group, select 

participants mapped their workflows, presented them to the 

group, received feedback from peers, and worked with a 

technical assistance provider to improve their workflows and 

develop online application forms. CIP used the learnings from 

the working group and the information about which 

subgrantees used each type of application to offer separate follow-up activities for groups that were 

already using online applications and groups interested in implementing online applications. 

At the individual level, several subgrantees spoke glowingly of the support they received from portfolio 

managers or technical assistance providers who knew their programs well and therefore could dig deep 

and ask penetrating questions. Subgrantees that experienced this ‘Socratic Method’ of providing 

individual support noted how helpful it was – not only for solving immediate problems, but also for 

developing the skills needed to ask the same types of insightful questions of themselves the next time. 

Subgrantee BELL, for example, noted that a general tool to help develop a communication framework 

might have been helpful but could not have had nearly the value of their portfolio manager’s insightful, 

“[The grantee program officer] actually 

asks questions that help us think about 

ways we can do our work better. I think 

that, in itself, is capacity building, 

because framing questions right is 

much better than getting a lot of free 

advice that doesn't necessarily fit with 

where a subgrantee would be.”

--Karen Woodward, SIF Subgrantee, 

Saint Paul Public Schools Foundation
nationalservice.gov/research 7 

probing questions. Grantee portfolio managers also recognized the importance of asking questions, and 

viewed themselves as bringing value to the process through their roles as sounding boards, helping 

subgrantees think through strategic issues, seek solutions to stumbling blocks, and decide when to call in 

experts for help. Grantee portfolio managers also mentioned a potential pitfall here: asking questions in a 

‘gotcha’ frame of mind will quickly shut down a subgrantee’s willingness to engage in constructive 

discussion. This means that top-notch capacity building requires both asking probing analytic questions, 

and supporting a problem-solving process, without criticism or blame. 

Recommendations for Providing Tailored Support: 

 Find ways to tailor group capacity building activities, e.g., by incorporating individualized role 

plays, opportunities to apply what was learned to individual situations, and peer-to-peer 

learning opportunities that focus on addressing individual challenges. 

 Group subgrantees by level of experience to provide more tailored capacity building 

opportunities. 

 Ask probing questions to help subgrantees refine the way they apply critical thinking skills to 

their work. 

 Create a problem-solving environment that consciously avoids engaging in criticism or blame. 

3.4 Data-Focused Capacity Building 

The SIF emphasizes supporting what works, so it is no 

surprise that grantees and their technical assistance 

providers focused on helping subgrantees use data to 

enhance their programs by establishing appropriate 

metrics, collecting data efficiently, analyzing it effectively, 

and adapting programs accordingly. Capacity building 

strategies included establishing regular reporting 

mechanisms to consistently collect needed data, and 

building subgrantees’ ability to translate the data into actionable steps to improve their programs. 

Subgrantee Per Scholas, for example, had a well-established job placement program in place before 

participating in the SIF. However, The Mayor’s Fund helped build Per Scholas’ capacity to think more 

holistically about long-term outcomes, identify new metrics to gauge long-term program success more 

meaningfully, establish more effective data reporting systems, and structure reporting to focus on key 

metrics. Through this process, Per Scholas identified career advancement as an important longer-term 

goal, identified wage increases after job placement as an appropriate metric, and incorporated this metric 

into a new career advancement tracking system. Focusing on the data led Per Scholas to a significant 

adjustment to its program structure: adding career coaches to help clients continue their growth trajectory 

after graduation. 

The John A. Hartford Foundation’s technical assistance provider used a data-supported approach to 

build subgrantees’ ability to use data to identify program improvements. They analyzed data from an 

online management registry and presented findings to the subgrantees, including The Community 

Health Center of Central Wyoming (CHCCW), on a monthly basis. This ongoing analysis process built 

subgrantee capacity to use data to identify problems, develop hypotheses about causes, and generate 

“Well, it was kind of the feeling of being on the 

same boat. I think that was always very helpful 

in understanding that other clinics have similar 

problems and similar successes. Learning from 

each other, I think that was very helpful.” 

--Alicja Iznerowicz, SIF Subgrantee, 

Community Health Center of Central Wyoming
nationalservice.gov/research 8 

solutions – allowing CHCCW to educate its staff and adjust its internal processes in real time to 

continuously improve performance on key metrics. The technical assistance provider gradually began 

asking subgrantees to do the analysis and lead the discussion, based on the process that had been 

modeled. CHCCW reports that the process was so valuable that it intends to apply its new skills to 

improve systems of care for its non-SIF programs. 

Recommendations for Engaging in Data-Focused Capacity Building: 

 Build a ‘data culture’ by 

demonstrating how data can 

provide the foundation for 

program planning and 

improvement. 

 Provide the skills needed to set up 

data metrics, interpret data, use 

results to make programmatic 

changes, and encourage thinking 

about how the new insights can be 

applied to programs outside of the 

SIF. 

3.5 Creating and Supporting Peer 

Learning 

When grantees found subgrantees 

grappling with similar challenges, they 

often arranged for formal peer learning 

opportunities through in-person convenings, webinars, or conference calls to rapidly build capacity 

across the cohort. Grantees whose subgrantees implemented a single program model had a great deal of 

common ground to work with. For example, The John A. Hartford Foundation’s technical assistance 

provider worked intensively with the foundation’s subgrantees, all of which were implementing the 

same integrated mental health clinical model, to cultivate peer learning opportunities in a group setting. 

This effort included regular sessions in which 

subgrantees described challenging cases they were 

confronting, and engaged in role playing exercises 

with their colleagues. Subgrantee Community 

Health Center of Central Wyoming (CHCCW) 

highlighted the value of these peer learning sessions, 

and noted that they intend to continue peer learning 

even after their participation in the SIF ends. 

Even when subgrantee program models differed, 

however, grantees were able to identify common 

challenges around topics such as compliance with 

federal regulations and organizational management. 

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF), for 

example, worked with subgrantees who were 

Spotlight On: Relationship Building

Several grantees mentioned the importance of helping 

subgrantees develop relationships that would support their 

work in the longer term as key to their capacity building 

strategies. 

 Peers. Grantees recognized the importance of helping 

subgrantees develop supportive relationships with their 

peers, and found creative ways to create these dynamics. 

For example, Capital Impact Partners hosted a “fail fest” 

where subgrantees told stories of struggles and shared 

solutions, building a culture of sharing and trust.

 Funders. Grantees also focused on helping subgrantees 

develop relationships to help ensure sustainability after 

the SIF. The Mayor’s Fund, for example, replicated their 

program in cities where they had local contacts. This 

allowed them to convene meetings and encourage new 

relationships between subgrantees and potential new 

funders. 

Bright Idea!

The Mayor’s Fund used learnings from the SIF and 

other partners to offer a professional development 

course in partnership with the City University of New 

York (CUNY). The curriculum’s seven competencies

included data management, staff management, 

communications, and partnership development. The 

program is a forum for Mayor’s Fund subgrantees 

and other Mayor’s Fund programs to learn from each 

other, enhance their leadership skills, be intentional 

about the skills they need to develop their programs, 

and continue to improve in those areas. Through 

course participation, a staff member from subgrantee 

Per Scholas engaged in ongoing and meaningful 

discussions of effective models and shared solutions 

with peers engaged in similar work.
nationalservice.gov/research 9 

implementing a variety of youth development and 

education programs. EMCF observed common 

subgrantee needs around topics such as establishing 

effective management structures, expanding 

programs, reporting, fundraising, and compliance 

with federal requirements. EMCF used one-on-one 

and group training approaches, but also 

emphasized bringing subgrantees together for inperson convenings or conference calls that drew on peers to share best practices, proven or promising 

methods, and solutions to common challenges. 

Grantees also found opportunities to pair individual subgrantees with peer organizations facing similar 

challenges. For example, Capital Impact Partners’ technical assistance provider connected Champlain 

Housing Trust in Vermont with another subgrantee in Seattle to discuss challenges and share insights 

about implementing effective policies for meeting the foreign language interpretation needs of its 

customers. Once connected, subgrantees can establish and sustain their own peer support networks. The 

project director for subgrantee Per Scholas, for example, connected with a colleague in another state who 

was managing a similar type of program. She found great value in sharing ideas through informal emails 

and phone conversations, without any formal grantee involvement. 

The Saint Paul Public Schools Foundation (SPPSF) 

also initiated peer learning by visiting a sister 

subgrantee organization. During the visit, they 

discussed common approaches used and impacts 

achieved among the students they work with. SPPSF 

then reported these shared learning experiences to the 

grantee, Greater Twin Cities United Way, which in 

turn brought key topics of discussion to a convening 

of all Greater Twin Cities subgrantees. Similarly, 

when one of the newly selected subgrantees of The John A. Hartford Foundation, a clinic located in Butte, 

Montana, learned that it was to receive SIF funding, staff traveled 100 miles to see firsthand how the 

program was being implemented in Missoula. In addition to sharing insights into how the program 

operated, the two clinics discovered another way to collaborate: they began sharing the services of a 

psychiatric consultant, a critically important role for each organization. Because the consultant was 

already familiar with the model from her work in Missoula, she brought significant expertise to the new 

Butte program. 

Peer-to-peer learning often relies on seasoned subgrantees to serve as resources for newer subgrantees. 

This can be one of the most effective capacity building mechanisms for new subgrantees, who benefit 

greatly from hearing from those who have on-the-ground experience. Seasoned subgrantees noted that 

this must be balanced with the need to provide skill-building opportunities for those grantees with more 

expertise so that all subgrantees are continuously improving their programs. 

Recommendations for Creating and Supporting Peer Learning: 

 Provide opportunities for subgrantees to convene and share best practices, proven or promising 

methods, and solutions to common challenges. 

“...the advice I'd give to myself if I were doing this 

again would be...really taking the opportunities to 

get to know the other sub-grantees who are working 

with the intermediary from day one and putting egos 

aside and [saying] here's what's really going wrong 

over here and let's figure it out together.”

--Kelly Richardson, SIF Subgrantee, Per Scholas

“The type of work that we're funding actually breaks 

down silos. It's revolutionary in many respects, and 

really forces organizations to enhance internal 

dialogue, internal communications and create very 

rigorous processes that cut across the disciplines...”

--Wally Patawaran, SIF Grantee, The John A. 

Hartford Foundation
nationalservice.gov/research 10

 Connect subgrantees that share similar program designs or challenges, and encourage them to 

form on-going support networks. 

 Provide opportunities to build community by sharing struggles, as well as successes. 

3.6 Building the Capacity to Build Capacity 

With regard to long-term capacity development, grantees and subgrantees noted the importance of 

planning for peer-to-peer learning within their own organizations to ensure that they will be able to pass 

learning on to their ‘next generation’ staff. This meant that capacity building efforts needed to go beyond 

skill transfer to current staff in particular roles; they also needed to focus on how current staff will 

identify back-up staff and successors, and teach those staff the new skills. 

Choosing the right staff for receiving the initial 

capacity building support was key to extending 

knowledge beyond the individual staff who received 

it and institutionalizing that knowledge across the 

organization. For example, The Mayor’s Fund’s 

technical assistance provider offered a webinar series 

about using motivational interviewing to evaluate a 

program. The training addressed not only the 

required skills, but also ways to pass the new knowledge on to colleagues who did not participate in the 

webinar. Subgrantee Per Scholas noted a similar process, in which a single staff member was originally 

trained in a new approach to supporting clients through multiple career development stages. When the 

approach proved successful, that staff member trained the rest of the team’s career development staff to 

function as career coaches. Per Scholas is now thinking ahead, to how new staff will acquire these same 

“...see one, do one, teach one...So we did the "see 

one." Now they're "doing." And they'll have that 

internal capacity and be able to "teach" other people 

at their organization, and hopefully, at other 

organizations, if they wanted to.

--Diane Powers, Technical Assistance Provider, 

AIMS Center, University of Washington

Spotlight On: Building the Capacity to Share Lessons with the World

Because SIF programs will have greater long-term effect if their results, contributions, and lessons learned are 

shared, the SIF has focused on building grantee and subgrantee capacity to share their stories with the world.

The importance of communicating results effectively became clear to Capital Impact Partners (CIP) as the 

result of a SIF convening workshop about effective messaging. After the workshop, CIP staff first worked to build 

its Communications and Program staff’s understanding of how to tell their SIF story with data. CIP then worked 

with a consultant to transfer this concept to its subgrantees through storytelling training. CIP subgrantees have 

applied their new storytelling skills through blog posts; improved websites; and clearer explanations of their work, 

who it impacts, and why stakeholders should support them. Subgrantee Champlain Housing Trust also found 

the storytelling training inspiring. Since the training, Champlain has focused on featuring real people and their 

stories in its publications. It also has used storytelling concepts to help the team develop a concise “elevator 

speech” to effectively share its foundational message.

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF) and strategic evaluation partner MDRC recognized the 

importance of strong messaging to advance adoption of the evidence-based strategies demonstrated by its SIF 

programs. Long before any research results were obtained, EMCF and MDRC put communications protocols in 

place, and as each SIF program’s research work wrapped up, helped subgrantees develop strategies for 

effectively communicating their results – positive, negative, or mixed. Subgrantee BELL reported that the first 

communications step began early – with developing an organized, accurate, and accessible evaluation report. 

EMCF helped BELL engage a communications firm to train BELL’s staff to effectively tell their program’s story, 

share key learnings, and respond to questions after the findings were released. BELL found this training

instrumental in enhancing staff ability to communicate effectively with funders, other service providers, and 

stakeholders about BELL’s results and what it is learning from its work. 
nationalservice.gov/research 11

skills. SIF grantees and subgrantees also pointed out the importance of having staff throughout the 

organization come to understand the SIF model, and how various parts of the organization contribute to 

the program’s success. To do this, grantees suggested that staff must share information about what they 

do and how they do it with staff in other parts of the organization to break down silos and ensure a 

strong organization-wide understanding of the program and how each part of the organization can help 

achieve it. 

Recommendations for Building the Capacity to Build Capacity: 

 Emphasize the importance of transferring skills to others and provide strategies to do it well. 

 Encourage staff to think broadly across the organization, recognizing silos and initiating 

information-sharing to break them down. 

4. About This Issue Brief 

This issue brief was informed by input from the following people from SIF Classic recipient organizations 

and their subgrantees: 

 Teresa Power, Courtney O’Malley, and William Moon, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (2010 

SIF grantee) and Tiffany Cooper Gueye from subgrantee BELL (Building Educated Leaders for 

Life) 

 Sinead Keegan and Brigit Beyea, Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City/Center for Economic 

Opportunity (2010 SIF grantee) and Kelly Richardson, Linda Lopez, and Calinda Lewis, from 

subgrantee Per Scholas; 

 Jenee Kresge-Gaynor, Capital Impact Partners (2011 SIF grantee) and Emily Higgins and Kim 

Moran from subgrantee Champlain Housing Trust; 

 Naomi Zuk-Fisher and Elise Wiener, Greater Twin Cities United Way (2012 SIF grantee) and 

Karen Woodward from subgrantee Saint Paul Public Schools Foundation; and 

 Wally Patawaran, The John A. Hartford Foundation (2012 SIF grantee), Ryan Bair and Alicja 

Iznerowicz from subgrantee Community Health Center of Central Wyoming; and Diane Powers, 

from The John A. Hartford Foundation technical assistance provider the University of 

Washington AIMS Center. 

5. About The Social Innovation Fund 

The Social Innovation Fund, an initiative of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) 

under the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, is a new approach by the federal government to 

address urgent national challenges. The fund mobilizes public and private resources to grow the impact 

of promising, innovative community-based solutions that have evidence of compelling results in three 

areas of priority need: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development. 

The operating model of the SIF is distinguished by the following six elements: 

Innovation │ Evidence │ Scale │ Grantmakers │ Match │ Knowledge Sharing
Corporation for National and Community Service 

1201 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20525 

TEL: (202) 606-5000 

TTY: (202) 606-3472 

NationalService.gov