Foundations typically launch an Initiative at a time which they believe is right for them. They may have completed a new strategic plan or their potential payout may have increased due to successful investments. But the timing is rarely, if ever, ideal for their potential grantees. They may have lots of other business to deal with, and will likely be all over the map in terms of their readiness to fully participate in (and potentially benefit from) a CCI. Funders have gotten better over the years at assessing grantee readiness, but frequently grantees are chosen for other more important political reasons than their existing internal capacity. Consequently, capacity building is a significant and ongoing need in Comprehensive Community Initiatives. The new roles and relationships to be developed will require new capacities on everyone’s part.

Foundations themselves rarely spend much time assessing their own readiness to undertake a demanding, labor-intensive project like a CCI. It’s a radically different way of doing their business compared to responsive grantmaking. As a result, they often end up building their own capacity in the midst of implementation. They would be wise to first assess their own structure, leadership, staff roles, internal systems and culture.

The most successful CCIs have benefited from significant flexibility and risk taking on the part of their funders. How many foundations genuinely possess that kind of appetite for risk? Foundation Boards have also struggled with CCIs. Despite the best staff work, they can still harbor unrealistic expectations and favor timelines at odds with what is possible. Even though they may intellectually appreciate the need to invest in a more complex, cross-systems effort, they can still be frustrated by the lack of clear cut short-term outcomes. The extended length of an Initiative can also lead to an erosion of trustee support, particularly among those who have joined the Board midstream in the program and will not have shared in the initial enthusiasm for the venture.

Every CCI represented in this volume has confirmed the importance of an ongoing investment in capacity building, including training and technical assistance, convenings, and skill development. Ideally, organizations and individuals require flexible and responsive capacity building support geared to the pace at which they can navigate the different phases of the Initiative. Groups will vary significantly in the pace of their development, and funders need to be prepared for that reality. A particular challenge for funders is to anticipate the specific capacity that participants will need at each stage of the CCI and to provide those resources in advance. When community residents are engaged as direct participants in a CCI, one of the most important contributions funders can make is to build their skills and to invest in their capacity as leaders and advocates. That need does not diminish over the life of the Initiative.

Two areas of capacity that feature prominently in lessons learned by these CCIs are data and strategic communications. Both play an important role in galvanizing grassroots and public support for the enterprise. Both are also likely to require a significant investment on the part of the Initiative’s funders. The capacity of most community-based organizations to collect, analyze and utilize data is uneven at best. Often, their public sector peers are also lacking in systems to generate up-to-date information. Statistics often lag two to three years behind practice. Skill building in communications is also necessary not only to share data in a comprehensible fashion but also to tell the story of the Initiative and its communities and to encourage support by policy makers and other constituents.

Tom David