2. July 2015
Regarding Copyright
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus in ipsum dui. Etiam lacus quam, ultrices in
cursus nec, volutpat vel velit. Sed porta dolor a posuere rutrum. For further information please contact us:
canadianprograms@worldvision.ca
3. 3July 2015
N
onprofit and voluntary sector literature pro-
vides solid evidence of the unique challeng-
es faced by nonprofits in evaluating their ef-
fectiveness, building their capacity, and planning for
change in a competitive environment, amidst other
challenges related to achieving their individual man-
dates (e.g., Cornforth & Mordaunt, 2011; Hall et al.,
2003; Wing, 2004). Effective and innovative respons-
es to these challenges are required in order to ensure
that the sector remains sustainable and socially sig-
nificant (Cornforth, 2012). While research has shown
that use of performance measures in nonprofit orga-
nizations is linked to effectiveness at strategic deci-
sion making (LeRoux and Wright, 2010), nonprofits
often struggle with identifying appropriate perfor-
mance standards and using these ‘benchmarks’ to
inform strategy, ultimately impacting their ability
to build their organizational capacity (Wing, 2004).
Given this struggle, effective capacity building tools
are needed to increase accountability to funders and
build sustainable programs and services (Millesen,
Carman, & Bies, 2010; Minzner, Klerman, Markovitz,
& Fink, 2014).
Organizational capacity is a multidimensional con-
cept that involves resources, structures, processes,
and strategies (Christensen & Gazley, 2008). Mack-
ay, Horton, Dupleich, and Andersen (2002) state that
“capacity refers to both the organizational arrange-
ments and the technical capabilities that permit or-
ganizations to carry out their primary functions and
thereby accomplish their development goals” (p.
122). Capacity-based inquiries allow organizations
to self-define the attributes that are most critical to
their individual mandates rather than being defined
by externally imposed standards (e.g., membership
growth, amount of philanthropic support, etc). Sig-
nificant advancements have been made in the non-
profit capacity literature, and various frameworks and
processes have been proposed (e.g., Connolly & York,
2002; De Vita, Fleming, & Twombly, 2001; Glickman
& Servon, 1998; Hall et al., 2003; McKinsey & Compa-
ny, 2001; Lusthaus, Adrien, & Pertinger, 1999; Schuh
& Leviton, 2006; Sowa, Selden, & Sandfort, 2004).
They have identified several common dimensions of
capacity including leadership, infrastructure, strate-
gy, human and financial resources, and interorgani-
zational relationships (Doherty, Misener, & Cuskelly,
2014). However, despite these common themes, the
capacity assessment process and resulting link to ca-
pacity building appear to vary extensively and as a
result, there may be tension as organizations recon-
cile the purported dimensions of capacity with their
own particular values, resources, and methods of as-
sessment. This is not surprising given that relatively
few capacity frameworks have distinguished between
capacity attributes of particular types and/or sizes
of organizations and are generally more descriptive
than action-oriented. Eisinger (2002), Doherty et al.
(2014), and Anderson et al. (2008) are exceptions,
which outline specific capacity considerations for food
banks, community sport clubs, and regional health
authorities respectively. These few studies provide
evidence of unique capacity strengths and challenges
that emerge when context-specific investigations and
frameworks are advanced.
Abstract
Small nonprofit organizations offer a wide scope of vital activities in the community yet there is a relative absence
of discussion in the nonprofit sector literature about how best to understand their capacity. In this article, we pres-
ent a new framework of organizational capacity assessment developed to reflect a more nuanced understanding
of small nonprofits and the integration between capacity attributes and the capacity building processes. The paper
includes four main sections: an overview of the existing literature and theoretical foundations related to defining
and assessing capacity; a review and profile of small nonprofit organizations and their unique capacity attributes;
a new framework to assess organizational capacity in small nonprofit organizations with a comparative analysis of
existing nonprofit literature, and several recommendations for further empirical analysis. The paper also highlights
the utility of a participatory approach to capacity assessment.
4. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits4
Understanding the organizational capacity of small
nonprofit organizations is critical to the health of the
sector-at-large given the wide scope of activities and
opportunities they offer such as involvement in places
of worship, sport and recreation, environmental pro-
tection, and social services (Gumulka, Hay, & Lasby,
2006). Small nonprofits, with up to four full-time em-
ployees (Gumulka et al., 2006), make up the vast ma-
jorityofnonprofitorganizationsandengagethemajor-
ity of the sector’s volunteers (Roberts, 2001; Trzcinski
& Sobeck, 2008). In a large Canadian study, Gumulka
et al. (2006) note that small nonprofits “touch virtu-
ally every aspect of Canadian life and engage millions
of Canadians in the work of building stronger com-
munities” (p. 1). Despite their prevalence and touted
importance, small, community-based organizations
that employ few or no staff have been neglected or
unobserved within the nonprofit research landscape
(Roberts, 2001; Smith, 2000). These organizations
would benefit from research and initiatives focused
on capacity building strategies that address their
unique challenges rather than those derived from sec-
tor-wide data (Cornforth & Mordaunt, 2011). This is
particularly critical given their vulnerability to external
influences due to the degree of scarce resources and
resulting lack of infrastructure they face (Schneider,
2003; Scott, 2003). Further, given that capacity assess-
ment and resulting capacity building requires signifi-
cant investment of time and resources and a “one size
fits all” approach is insufficient, new and refined mod-
els of capacity are needed that reflect more nuanced
understandings of the integration between capacity
attributes and capacity building processes.
The purpose of the following conceptual paper is to
present a new framework of organizational capacity
assessment developed within and for the grassroots
level of the nonprofit sector. In order to contextualize
the model’s potential contribution, the paper includes
four main sections: First, we provide an overview of
the existing literature and theoretical foundations re-
lated to defining and assessing capacity; second, we
provide a review and profile of small nonprofit orga-
nizations and their unique capacity attributes; third,
we propose a new framework to assess organizational
capacity in small nonprofit organizations with a com-
parative analysis of existing nonprofit literature. This
section also highlights the particular utility of a par-
ticipatory approach to capacity assessment involving
multiple stakeholders. Lastly, we provide several di-
rections for future empirical analysis and recommen-
dations for using the FreeForm model in practice.
Theoretical Foundations
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
Organizational capacity is a dynamic term broadly
reflecting the ability of an organization to draw on
various assets and resources to achieve its mandate
and goals (Doherty et al., 2014). As such, capacity is
a nonprofit organization’s ability to deploy various
forms of capital including physical resources, intel-
lectual capital, and other intangible assets (e.g., in-
fluence and reputation), and translate these into an
outcome related to the organization’s mission (Hall et
al., 2003). Capacity is also defined by how it can be
built or developed through an organizational learn-
ing process that focuses on assessing a situation,
planning a response, and monitoring and evaluating
implementation, in order to help maintain organiza-
tional viability and improve operations (Mackay et
al., 2002). In other words, capacity building acts as
a tool to identify goals and ways of achieving those
goals (Hall et al., 2003). Crisp, Swerissen, & Duckett
(2000) identified that capacity building often occurs
in four ways: (i) a top-down organizational approach
(e.g., changing organizational policy); (ii) a bottom-up
approach (e.g., training staff); (iii) a partnerships ap-
proach (e.g., building relationships between commu-
nity organizations); and (iv) a community organizing
approach (e.g., merging existing organizations or cre-
ating new ones in order to meet community needs)
(p. 100). While not the focus of this review, the vari-
ety of capacity frameworks proposed in the nonprof-
it literature can be mapped according to these ap-
proaches, each with merit and distinguishing features
related to the particular focus and philosophy of the
framework (e.g., Connolly & York, 2002; De Vita et
al., 2001; Glickman & Servon, 1998; Hall et al., 2003;
5. 5July 2015
McKinsey & Company, 2001; Lusthaus et al., 1999;
Schuh & Leviton, 2006; Sowa et al., 2004).
Some definitions of organizational capacity have fo-
cused on equating capacity with effectiveness, as
they are both organizational-level measures. This is
problematic given the lack of a clear definition of ef-
fectiveness in the nonprofit sector (Kapucu, Healy, &
Arslan, 2007; Lecy, Schmitz, & Swedlund, 2011). This
paper considers a distinction between these concepts
as the notion of capacity includes the temporal ele-
ment of sustainability, where the time horizon select-
ed for achieving and sustaining a particular goal will
influence the types of capacity building approaches
and indicators of success that can be used (De Vita
et al., 2001). Eisinger (2002) further clarifies that be-
cause capacity attributes are latent until mobilized, an
effective organization is one which has a broad array
of capacity attributes and is able to actually use that
capacity to fulfill its mission.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
In addition to particular models and requirements for
building capacity, specific external and internal fac-
tors that can influence organizational capacity have
also been identified. These include flexibility through
responsiveness (e.g., changing according to environ-
ment), and resilience (e.g., continuing to pursue a
mandate after a setback) (Borris, 2001; Glickman and
Servon; 1998; Joffres et al., 2004; Robertson, 2005).
An organization’s ability to be responsive also relies
heavily on the relationships the organization has with
the community through partnerships, shared vision,
and civic engagement opportunities (Robertson,
2005). Further, community realities, such as assets,
notable issues, history, and diversity, will strongly in-
fluence the relevance of the organization and its work
in the community (Robertson, 2005). Social capital, or
the “features of social organization such as networks,
norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and
cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995; p.
67) may also have an important influence on organiza-
tional capacity. As Schneider (2009) notes, “relation-
ships based in patterns of enforceable trust [enable]
people and institutions to gain access to resources like
social services, volunteers, or funding” (p. 644).
Creativity and innovation can also have an important
positive impact on capacity (DiLiello, & Houghton,
2006; Jaskyte, Byerly, Bryant, & Koksarova, 2010). Cre-
ativity can help organizations come up with strategies
to help maximize resources, which is an area in which
many nonprofits struggle (Jaskyte et al., 2010). Simi-
larly, a well-articulated and motivating organizational
mission can encourage a culture of innovation in an
organization (McDonald, 2007). Thomas et al. (2005)
claim that in order to be innovative, an organization
must have clear structure and governance, employees
must be encouraged to learn at all levels of the orga-
nization, leadership must be participative and carried
out by different levels of employees, the timing must
be right for an organization to make change, and im-
plementation should be done by external facilitators
that give space for learning and reflection.
In contrast to the factors that may influence and en-
hance capacity, barriers to capacity building also exist
such as political reform and decreasing community
support (Joffres et al., 2004). The interrelationship
between nonprofits, government, and business may
also act as a barrier to capacity building due to diffi-
culty negotiating economic/market conditions, socio-
economic and demographic factors, values and social
norms, and political factors (De Vita et al., 2001).
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
Definitions of organizational capacity are intricately
linked with explanations of how organizational ca-
pacity can be measured or assessed. Hall et al. (2003)
notes that “assessments of capacity are primarily as-
sessments of the ability of organizations to undertake
their work and of the factors that serve to constrain or
impair the ability of organizations to fulfill their mis-
sions” (p. 3). Further, the relationship between assess-
ment and capacity building is central, as assessment
is an information gathering process that determines
specific attributes and requirements often based on a
given model of capacity, that will influence a larger ca-
pacity building process. Specific capacity dimensions
6. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits6
or areas must be assessed independently, while rec-
ognizing their impact and interdependence with oth-
er dimensions (Hall et al., 2003; Misener & Doherty,
2009). Measurement of particular outcomes linked to
a given dimension forms the basis for the majority of
capacity assessments. For example, Selden and Sowa
(2004) use indicators of program capacity such as di-
versity of services, education of leaders, and quality
of facilities to predict performance-related outcomes.
Sobeck and Agius (2007) proposed that nonprofits
can benefit from a longitudinal assessment strategy
using both internal and external stakeholders. It is
through such a process of assessment that organiza-
tions may accrue the following benefits: clarified roles
and responsibilities, recognizing the importance of
planning, enhancing management and administrative
skills, identifying gaps in the organization, and learn-
ing about resources (Sobeck & Agius, 2007). Recently,
Minzner et al. (2014) demonstrated the impact of ca-
pacity building in federally funded programs on five
capacity areas (organizational development, program
development, revenue development, leadership de-
velopment, and community engagement). Their ran-
domized assessment of capacity showed significant
improvements in each capacity area for those orga-
nizations engaged in the capacity-building program
vs. the control group. Their study provides important
evidence of the effectiveness of capacity-building pro-
grams within the sector more broadly. Further, analy-
sis based on organizational size revealed differences
on some measures but no identifiable pattern, which
may reflect a lack of differentiation within their mea-
surement tool for desirable capacity attributes among
different organizational sizes (Minzner et al., 2014).
This highlights the need for a capacity assessment in-
strument developed to specifically reflect the nature
and nuance of small nonprofit capacity.
Organizational Capacity and
Small Nonprofits
While the International Classification of Nonprofit Or-
ganizations provides categorization based on type of
organizational activity, no agreed upon definition of
“small” nonprofits exists within the sector and data is
often difficult to compare given that these organiza-
tions may fall under any of the three structural forms
of nonprofit organizations: unincorporated, incorpo-
rated, or charitable status (Roberts, 2001). Human
and financial resources are central attributes of dif-
ferentiation between varying sizes of nonprofits that,
when considered together, provide a clearer picture
of the characteristics of this particular sub-sector.
One report based on the NSNVO in Canada (Nation-
al Survey of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations)
notes that organizations with less than 100 employ-
ees represent 98.6% of all charitable and non-profit
organizations in Canada (Gumulka et al., 2006). Orga-
nizations with no paid staff account for 54% of all or-
ganizations, and those with 1-20 employees represent
39% of organizations (Gumulka et al., 2006). This lat-
ter group represents an important sub-group within
the sector as they face many of the same challeng-
es as ‘grassroots organizations’ (Smith, 2000), in that
they are often locally based and rely extensively on
volunteers, yet they differ from grassroots organiza-
tions that are essentially membership-based groups
that use the “associational form of organization and,
thus, have exclusive memberships of volunteers who
perform most, and often all, of the work/activity done
in and by these nonprofits” (Smith, 2000, p. 1). The
term ‘small nonprofits’ is therefore a broader term
that may encompass grassroots organizations but
may also include other structures such as nonprofit
agencies with ongoing infrastructure costs (Roberts,
2001). While discrepancy in revenue ranges exists, for
the purpose of this paper, small nonprofits with 1-20
employees may have corresponding revenue of up to
one million dollars. These organizations typically rely
on earned income from private donors and nongov-
ernmental agencies as well as grants, membership,
and other fees (Hall et al., 2005).
While larger nonprofit organizations may be able to
utilize organizational capacity models from the busi-
ness and consulting arenas, smaller nonprofits may
lack the infrastructure to assess and implement these
models (Mara, 2000; Schneider, 2003; Smith, 2000;
Wing, 2004), thus requiring a tailored approach that
7. 7July 2015
recognizes these limitations and builds on the exist-
ing resources and capacity within each organization
(Mara, 2000). It is therefore important to identify the
characteristics of small nonprofits in order to contex-
tualize an organization development process such as
capacity assessment within the structural confines of
this sub-sector and ensure appropriate uptake.
One characteristic of smaller nonprofit organizations
is that they are affected by short term funding to a
greater extent than larger organizations (Scott, 2003).
This translates into a focus on immediate needs rath-
er than considering the organization’s overall objec-
tives and long- term vision. In addition, smaller or-
ganizations often require collaborations with other
community partners in order to achieve their goals
(Misener & Doherty, 2013). However, despite the
need to collaborate, research has shown that more
mature organizations with greater access to resourc-
es are more likely to have the capacity to actually
develop formal types of collaborative activities than
smaller organizations who may have ‘less to share’
and be less appealing as partners (Foster & Mein-
hard, 2002; Guo & Acar, 2005). Small nonprofits also
have distinctive challenges in developing and main-
taining effective Boards of Directors (Roberts, 2001)
as these organizations often emerge to fulfill needs in
the community, resulting in less formalized governing
structures and greater reliance on overworked vol-
unteers (Hall et al., 2003; Misener & Doherty, 2009;
Trzcinski & Sobeck, 2008). Informal, voluntary struc-
tures may limit organizational growth as self-interest
and personal agendas can compromise effective lead-
ership (Misener, Harman, & Doherty, 2013).
Smaller nonprofits also possess several unique
strengths that can be leveraged into further capacity
development. For example, passion and dedication of
volunteers is a defining characteristic of these orga-
nizations (Doherty et al., 2014). Small nonprofits also
have the ability to be more responsive to specific local
needs rather than providing generic services (Roberts,
2001). The result of a focus on local needs is a strong
commitment to service provision and resulting repu-
tation for acting as a safety net in communities that
lack resources and power (Eisinger, 2002; Trzcinski &
Sobeck, 2008). They may also be more flexible and
adaptable due to their lack of bureaucracy, enabling
them to respond quickly in a crisis (Roberts, 2001).
Smaller organizations may also have a significant con-
centration of staff or volunteers with experience and
expertise on the ‘frontline’ (i.e., participant-facing),
thus characterizing these organizations as ‘pitch-in’
environments where capacity building is optimized
through a transparent and accessible framework, with
significant stakeholder buy-in, and mutually desirable
outcomes.
The article now turns to an overview of a specific ca-
pacity framework developed with and for small non-
profits and provides an overview of the background,
philosophy, and elements that serve as a foundation
for the framework. The process-based framework
provides a new contribution to the literature as it is
uniquely positioned to support small nonprofits in
measuring and building their capacity, which has not
been articulated to date in the nonprofit research.
The following section also outlines the utility of a par-
ticipatory approach for capacity-based assessments.
8. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits8
FreeForm Capacity Model
The life of a non-profit organization is built on the
teamwork, listening, learning, and leading that is
also required to play great jazz. Both are journeys of
the heart that start with a spark of inspiration that
moves you to take action. Truly soulful sound emerges
from the combination of improvization (freedom) and
sound theory (form).
BACKGROUND AND PHILOSOPHY
The FreeForm model was created through a partner-
ship between World Vision Canada (WVC) and over
90 small nonprofits since 2005, in five major cities
across Canada. Organizational capacity is a central
theme within WVC as it invests in urban nonprofits
in order to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate
projects and organizations that support the well-be-
ing of children in communities limited by poverty. Di-
rectors of nonprofit organizations that partner with
WVC in providing front-line services in these commu-
nities were invited to contribute to the development
of workshops to enhance their organization’s ability
to achieve its mandate. Over the past 10 years, these
nonprofit leaders have worked alongside WVC staff
to refine the model based on their own experienc-
es of nonprofit capacity and consultation with other
models identified in the nonprofit capacity literature
(e.g., Hall et al., 2003; McKinsey & Company, 2001).
Further partnerships with nonprofit scholars have
also aided in the critical refinement of the frame-
work, representing another perspective in the frame-
work-building process.
The name “FreeForm” is a metaphor that reflects the
combination of improvisation (freedom) and sound
theory (form) for nonprofit organizational capacity
development. This metaphor acts as an entry point
for nonprofit practitioners in the capacity assessment
process as they continually improvize by responding
to changing community contexts in which they serve,
creating innovative solutions to complex challenges,
and meeting increasing demand for support in neigh-
borhoods across Canada. Yet, true improvisation isn’t
just responding ‘in the moment’; instead, the ability
to improvise effectively requires a significant amount
of structure, form, and practice to support a success-
ful ‘performance’ and guide decision-making. Just as
a jazz trio’s improvisation can be enhanced through a
deeper understanding of music theory, the nonprof-
it practitioner must use capacity building tools such
as tested models, best practices, policies, and part-
nership arrangements for fluid improvisation. The
FreeForm philosophy seeks to honour both freedom
and form.
FreeForm defines capacity as the ability to assess the
situation, design the response, implement and moni-
tor the plan, and to evaluate the results. This approach
builds on other process-based models of capacity that
determine the needs and assets of the community,
identify infrastructure that can help build capacity,
select appropriate capacity-building strategies, and
encourage ongoing evaluation (cf. De Vita et al., 2001;
Preskill & Boyle, 2008).
FREEFORM FRAMEWORK
Figure 1 provides a diagram of the FreeForm model in-
cluding the capacity areas and stages of organization-
al development described in the following sections.
CAPACITY
MODEL
Replicate · Advocate · Re-vision
D
e
m
onstrate · Accountable · Interdepend
ent
Write · Endorse · Align
Assess · Explore · Discern
Resp
onsive · Intuitive · Innov
ative
INFLUENCE
PERFORM
ARTICULATE
REFLECT
IMPROVISE
LEADERSHIP TEAM
FINANCIAL
HU
M
AN
RESOURCE
RESOURCEDEVELO
PM
ENT
PROGRAM
STRATEGY
Fig 1. FreeForm Capacity Model
9. 9July 2015
Table 1. Foundations of FreeForm Capacity Areas and Comparative Literature
Human Resources Capacity
The ability to plan and coach staff, volunteer and board contributions.
Alignment with Nonprofit Capacity-based Literature FreeForm Foundations and Core Competencies
Human Resources
Capacity
(Doherty et al.,
2014; Hall et al.,
2003; McKinsey &
Company, 2001)
Management
capacity (Selden &
Sowa, 2004)
This capacity area has been well established
in the nonprofit literature as central to all
other aspects of organizational capacity
and generally reflects the deployment of
human capital in the form of volunteers, paid
staff, and board members. Hall et al. (2003)
note that access to human resources (i.e.,
having the right number and appropriately
skilled individuals) are central issues, which
demand focus on recruitment, retention,
and training. Similarly, McKinsey et al. (2001)
note the centrality and difficulty of attracting
and managing talent, and the tendency to
undervalue human resources, despite their
central role as the lifeblood of nonprofit
organizations. In addition, Doherty et al.
(2014) found that the enthusiasm, common
focus, and succession of volunteerss are also
imperative. Selden and Sowa (2004) further
include perceptual measures of training,
feedback, and satisfaction with salary as
important components of human resources
capacity.
Small nonprofits face challenges in recruiting and
retaining qualified and experienced paid staff,
as remuneration lags significantly behind larger
nonprofits as well as the for-profit sector. In
addition, small nonprofits often place emphasis
upon recruiting and coaching volunteers to
fulfill key roles in the organization. Given the
complexity of volunteer turnover and shifting
organizational priorities, human resource
development and planning is imperative, as it is
generally accepted that ‘people’ are the greatest
asset of small nonprofits.
Core Competencies of Human Resource Capacity:
• Staff Recruitment & Performance
• Staff Compensation and Benefits
• Volunteer Management
• Human Resource Development Planning
Capacity areas
The FreeForm assessment captures current organiza-
tional development in six capacity areas: Leadership
team capacity, strategic capacity, human resource
capacity, financial capacity, resource development
capacity, and program capacity. It is an asset-based
developmental model, documenting organizational
strengths and pointing toward areas of growth. Table
1 provides an overview of the capacity areas and their
defining characteristics with comparative literature.
Core competencies within each area are also noted
using language that is intentionally accessible to non-
profit leaders.
10. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits10
Leadership Team Capacity
The ability to collaborate, as organizational leaders, to maximize results.
Alignment with Nonprofit Capacity-based Literature FreeForm Foundations and Core Competencies
Organizational
leadership
capacity (DiLiello &
Houghton, 2006)
Leadership capacity
(Anderson et al.,
2008; Connolly &
York, 2003; De Vita
et al., 2001)
Management
capacity (Selden &
Sowa, 2004)
This capacity area has been well-established
in the literature noting that a strong
foundation of leadership is critical to an
organization’s ability to achieve it’s full
potential or mission (Anderson et al., 2008;
De Vita et al., 2001). Leadership capacity
commonly includes visioning, decision
making, directing, and modeling (Connolly
& York, 2003) and is intricately linked
with human resources capacity given the
important link between the competencies
and attitudes of those in leadership positions
and the ability to set mission, vision, systems,
and policies to accomplish organizational
objectives (Anderson et al., 2008; Selden &
Sowa, 2004). DiLiello and Houghton (2006)
also suggest that self-leadership is essential
for organizational leadership capacity and
resulting creativity.
While passionate and skilled individuals are
imperative within any nonprofit, the FreeForm
Model points to the importance of shared
leadership among a team in a small nonprofit
in addition to human resource-based capacities
related to specific individual traits. Staff, board
members, and key volunteers may not have
formal expertise in nonprofit management,
and thus, a team approach enables greater
collaboration and accountability in decision-
making and intra-team communication. Further,
a team approach mitigates the loss of expertise
and influence when key staff, board members,
and volunteers transition from the organization.
FreeForm also emphasizes the critical role of
leadership team meeting culture in leveraging
the contributions of human resources and overall
goal attainment and sustainability.
Core Competencies of Leadership Team Capacity:
• Leadership Team Accountability
• Implementation of Decisions
• Leadership Team Meetings
Strategy Capacity
The ability to align organizational performance with the shared mandate (values, mission, and vision).
Alignment with Nonprofit Capacity-based Literature FreeForm Foundations and Core Competencies
Strategic planning
(Freeland, 2002)
Structural capacity
(Hall et al., 2003)
Vision and mission
(De Vita et al., 2001)
Aspirations and
strategy (McKinsey
et al., 2001)
Planning and
development
capacity (Doherty et
al., 2014)
This capacity area builds on Freeland
(2002) who notes that defining objectives
and exposing needs through strategic
planning is central to effectively pursuing
an organizational vision. Hall et al. (2003)
also embed strategy within a broader
notion of structural capacity that also
includes relationship and network, policy,
and planning capacities. De Vita et al.’s
(2001) centre their framework for capacity
building around vision and mission as pivotal
elements of long-range strategy. McKinsey
et al. (2001) also claim that aspirations are
the basis of strategy, and drive all efforts for
social impact. Doherty et al. (2014) position
strategic planning as one aspect of broader
planning and development, which considers
creativity and implementation of both short
and long-term plans.
A primary focus of small nonprofits is to articulate
a clear expression of organizational mandate.
Once this is established, the roles of the Board
and Executive Director are often dynamic. Board
members have operational as well as strategic
planning responsibilities that are navigated
and renegotiated as the nonprofit grows. The
strategy dimension of the FreeForm framework
goes beyond the documentation of objectives
and plans and includes effective harnessing of
partnerships to accomplish their strategies, in
alignment with their mandate.
Core Competencies of Strategy Capacity:
• Shared Mandate: Values, Mission and Vision
• Strategic Planning
• Board Governance
• Partnership Development and Management
11. 11July 2015
Financial Capacity
The ability to steward resources for short and long term sustainability.
Alignment with Nonprofit Capacity-based Literature FreeForm Foundations and Core Competencies
Financial capacity
(Bowman, 2011;
Chikoto & Neely,
2014; Doherty et
al., 2014; Hall et al.,
2003)
Financial
management
(McAlpine & Temple,
2011)
This dimension builds on Bowman’s (2011)
conceptualization of financial capacity as
resources that give an organization the
ability to seize opportunities and respond
to threats and involves both long and
short-term considerations. It also includes
stable revenues and expenses, and fiscal
responsibility (Doherty et al., 2014; Hall
et al., 2003). The difficulty of short term
and project funding for infrastructure,
administration, and other organizational
supports has also been noted (Hall et
al., 2003). Challenges related to financial
management capacity and sustainability
through standards, processes, transparency,
and training have also been noted (McAlpine
& Temple, 2011). Overall, this dimension is
consistently challenging across the sector
(Hall et al., 2003)
A particular challenge for small nonprofits it
navigating increasing public and regulatory
demand for transparency in finances generally,
and expenditure allocation in particular. Small
nonprofits require clear financial systems and
procedures to ensure that stakeholders access
accurate information. Pecuniary interests are one,
but important focus within a nonprofit’s overall
risk management approach is also critical.
Core Competencies of Financial Capacity:
• Financial Management
• Financial Transparency
• Risk Management
• Expenditure Allocation
Resource Development Capacity
The ability to fundraise in support of the organization’s strategy.
Alignment with Nonprofit Capacity-based Literature FreeForm Foundations and Core Competencies
Resource capacity
(De Vita et al., 2001;
Glickman & Servon,
1998)
Revenue Generation
(McAlpine & Temple,
2011)
Financial capacity
(Chikoto & Neely,
2014)
In the FreeForm model, this dimension is
consistent with Glickman & Servon’s (1998)
definition of resource capacity as attracting,
managing, and maintaining funding. Similarly,
De Vita et al. (2001) consider finances as
primary “resources”, but they emphasize
that organizations need to use what they
have and further develop their resources
in order to demonstrate capacity in this
area. McAlpine and Temple (2011) suggest
that generating new revenue through social
enterprise may present new opportunities
for resource development. The research
provides mixed evidence on the impact of
revenue diversification as Hall et al. (2003)
and Doherty et al. (2014) found that having
alternate sources of revenue was deemed a
positive attribute of capacity, while Chikoto
and Neely (2014) found that implementing
a revenue concentration strategy was
beneficial for growth in a nonprofit’s total
revenue.
Small nonprofits are often heavily reliant on
single revenue sources (e.g. government grant,
major donor, membership fees), which can
impact the overall health and sustainability of
the nonprofit when donor priorities, membership
numbers, or government requirements shift.
While expanding their dominant revenue
source is important, expanding and diversifying
a donor base is also critical and requires
intentional planning. For small organizations,
resource development effort often centres upon
implementing signature fundraising events as a
way of increasing community profile and meeting
program financial commitments.
Core Competencies of Resource Development
Capacity:
• Resource Development Planning
• Fund Diversification
• Fundraising Events
12. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits12
Program Capacity
The ability to work in the community in support of the organization’s mission.
Alignment with Nonprofit Capacity-based Literature FreeForm Foundations and Core Competencies
Program capacity
(Selden & Sowa,
2004)
Programmatic
capacity (Glickman &
Servon, 1998)
Management and
program capacity
(Hetling & Botein,
2010; Packard, 2010)
Technical capacity
(Connolly & York,
2003)
The core idea of program capacity is well
documented within the non-profit capacity
literature as a multi-faceted dimension
reflecting operational and technical
attributes of an organization’s ability to
develop, support, and deliver programs and
services (Connolly & York, 2003). Glickman
and Servon (1998) further outline a skill-
based concept related to the program area
(e.g., housing, commercial development,
economic development) and skills that apply
across all programs (e.g., responsiveness
to changing community concerns). In
modeling organizational performance, Selden
and Sowa (2004) note the importance of
measuring perceptions of program/service
quality. Similarly, Hetling and Botein (2010)
discuss how programs are developed and
refined in a circular way through interactions
with those directly in the programs or
communities that are served. Packard (2010)
includes service intensity or ‘dosage’, yet
also includes a vast array of other resources
within program capacity rather than
distinguishing these into separate capacity
domains.
Programming is at the core of how small
nonprofits live out their mission in the
community. Without intentional effort to
establish and measure program (and specific
project) outcomes, stakeholder reporting
and program planning is often superficially
engaged. This is exacerbated when pressing
budget constraints impact retention of staff
members with design, monitoring, and evaluation
experience. Overall accountability of program
impact to the community and to donors may
be difficult to assess and communicate, thus
appropriate and attainable mechanisms are
required to ensure ongoing involvement of
community members and insightful reporting and
evaluation.
Core Competencies of Program Capacity:
• Program and Project Design, Monitoring,
Evaluation
• Community Participation
• Program and Project Reporting
• Program and Project Planning
Stages of organizational development
The FreeForm framework and capacity assessment
tool is unique as it enables organizations to evaluate
their capacity in each area and work towards growth
by progressing through five stages of organizational
development (improvise, reflect, articulate, perform,
influence). Within each capacity area (e.g., leadership
team capacity), indicators are provided in the form of
asset-based statements that correspond with each
stage of development. This approach to assessment
is consistent with Christensen and Gazley’s (2008) ob-
servation that in order to understand capacity, schol-
ars and practitioners must not only “identify those
measures most appropriate for a particular context
but also frequently create objective measures from
subjective data” (p. 266). Through a participatory pro-
cess of assessment described below, an organization’s
stakeholders come to a consensus about their organi-
zation’s current stage of development in each capacity
area. Clarity about current capacity supports effective
planning for future capacity growth. The indicators
are fluid and intra-dependent as each stage builds on
the previous stage. For example, indicators that rep-
resent the stages of development within Human Re-
source Capacity are outlined in Table 2.
13. 13July 2015
Table 2. Progressive Indicators of Human Resource Capacity
4.1 Staff Recruitment & Performance
Improvise We hire whoever is capable and provide on-the-job training
Reflect We seek to connect each staff member to a position that reflects his/her skills and passion
Articulate We create written staff development plans as part of an annual performance review
Perform We invest in our staff’s development, providing them with new opportunities for growth as well as
positioning our organization for the future
Influence We can point to innovative examples of our staff coaching and mentoring others in our sector
4.2 Staff Compensation and Benefits
Improvise Staff salaries are based on availability of funds
Reflect We assess the impact of our salary and benefit scale on meeting our program goals
Articulate We have a written staff salary and benefit policy that is aligned with the values of our organization
Perform We formally ensure that our salary and benefit grid is competitive with organizations of comparable
size in our sector
Influence Our salary grid serves as a benchmark for others in our sector
4.3 Volunteer Management
Improvise We recruit people we personally know as volunteers
Reflect We have a volunteer recruitment checklist and policies for the selection and training of volunteers
Articulate Our volunteer manual outlines our policies and procedures including recruitment, screening, orien-
tation, training, performance evaluation and recognition of volunteers
Perform Our volunteer coordinator (part-time or full-time) manages our volunteer strategy and documents
compliance with our policies and procedures
Influence We share our innovative approaches to volunteer management with other organizations in our
sector
4.4 Human Resource Development Planning
Improvise We address our human resource requirements as opportunities arise
Reflect We have a volunteer recruitment checklist and policies for the selection and training of volunteers
Articulate We have a written, Board-endorsed 2-3 year ‘ human resource development’ plan which supports
our organizational strategy
Perform We have met our human resource development goals for the past 3 or more years
Influence We research non-profit human resource management trends and legal developments to advocate
for others in our sector
IMPROVISE
This descriptor represents the first stage where lead-
ers of small nonprofits (whether staff, volunteers,
or board members) intuitively implement a variety
of responses to new or recurring situations. At this
stage, individuals join with a passionate leader to re-
spond to an immediate community need. This is gen-
erally a ‘pitch-in’ environment where team members
intuitively meet needs through innovation. For exam-
ple, a donor requests a report on the impact of their
support, but no reporting template exists. Another
common example is a staff person requesting a raise
while the organization has yet to establish a salary
grid. Key challenges of this phase include staff and
volunteer burnout, questioning of the organization’s
overall purpose, coordinating activities, managing
the risks of new initiatives, and meeting day-to-day
resource challenges.
14. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits14
REFLECT
Atthisstage,smallnonprofitsmovetowardconsensus
about “where we should go” and “how things should
be done”. Leaders initiate a process of stepping-back
to assess the current situation, explore next steps,
and discern how to focus the organization’s direction.
For example, a common folder of reporting to donors
is created and leaders identify what is working and
what is not, or a committee researches the salary grid
of similar small nonprofits and interviews the Execu-
tive Director about the impact of their current remu-
neration practices. The key challenges of this stage
include balancing available resources with desired
impact, deciding appropriate leadership responsi-
bilities, evaluating competing ideas, and carving out
time for reflection.
ARTICULATE
Leaders of small nonprofits (Board and Senior Staff)
establish, align, and endorse the organization’s writ-
ten mandate, strategy, policies and procedures. The
organization crafts a written mandate that includes
the mission, vision and values of the organization and
is owned and endorsed by the governing Board. Se-
nior Staff assure the alignment of organizational strat-
egies and operations under this mandate. For exam-
ple, specific expectations (e.g. templates, timelines,
and follow-up procedures) in response to donations
are clearly articulated and disseminated, or the Board
of Directors endorses a new salary grid and allocates
budget accordingly. Notable challenges of this stage
include keeping staff invested in the ‘articulation’ pro-
cess, ceasing non-aligned activities, re-equipping and
transitioning staff, and engaging the Board.
PERFORM
During the fourth stage, small nonprofits are ac-
countable for the successful implementation of
their mandate, strategy, policies and procedures.
Staff, volunteers, and board members collaborate
in demonstrating organizational results. The orga-
nization demonstrates efficient processes toward
achieving measurable results and all are account-
able for working interdependently in accomplishing
the mission, pursuing the vision and living out the
values of the organization. At this stage, an organiza-
tion might produce quarterly reports on the impact
of their donor reporting products, and all staff re-
muneration is aligned with the requirements of the
approved organizational salary grid. Key challeng-
es include ensuring the organization has the right
structure, the right team, and the right skill-sets to
achieve its targeted goals, capturing data and ‘tell-
ing the story’ of results to stakeholders and address-
ing examples of a ‘silo’ mentality, balancing the de-
mands of organizational growth.
INFLUENCE
At the final stage, the performance of exceptional
small nonprofits serves as a benchmark within their
sectors. They anticipate and respond to emerging
trends, and their leaders shape dialogue and policies
at a city-wide level or beyond. The organization is a
benchmark for others and pursues replication of its
program models. It is a prophetic voice, advocating
for systemic change and re-visioning strategies to
help prepare its community for the future. Examples
of capacity at this stage could include a comprehen-
sive donor survey that reveals “very high” levels of
satisfaction with new reporting practises, or the or-
ganization’s remuneration conclusively supports their
human resource goals and becomes a benchmark
for others. Key challenges include managing the per-
ceived threat that replication can pose to an organiza-
tion’s core mission, discerning how to effectively and
responsibly advocate, re-visioning of organization’s
mandate, engaging in strategic risk and innovation.
Participatory Assessment Process
The FreeForm model draws on a participatory process
approach to capacity development which builds on
the strengths and existing investment of those with-
in a given community or organization (cf. Angeles &
Gurstein, 2000; Lusthaus et al., 1999). This approach
goes beyond a diagnostic checklist or “report card”
by bringing together staff, board members, and key
volunteers at different levels of the organization, a
variety of other key stakeholders, and trained exter-
nal facilitators. The facilitator’s role is to offer the
15. 15July 2015
FreeForm Capacity Model as a framework and to act
as a resource for the learning journey. The ensuing di-
alogue enables the skills and abilities of the organiza-
tion to emerge and empowers participants to assess
current (baseline) capacity and create a development
plan. The role of the external facilitator is thus sup-
portive rather than formative in the creation of the
plan for action. Others have recognized the value of
co-learning in the capacity building context whereby
facilitators have been shown to play an important role
in helping uncover issues and actively supporting the
implementation of change (Cornforth & Mordaunt,
2011; Kapucu et al., 2011). This approach also pro-
vides value for organizations beyond survey-based
measures of capacity through the intentional integra-
tion between the capacity areas and the assessment
process. For example, staff, volunteers, board mem-
bers, and other stakeholders are empowered to come
together ‘in person’ at multiple stages to assess ca-
pacity through ongoing dialogue, consensus building,
and discernment of next steps. This intimate process
further enhances the organization’s human resource,
leadership team, and strategy capacities. Lastly, the
dedication of time and financial resources to the pro-
cess can be viewed as a sign of organizational support,
which has been shown to be the strongest facilitator
of organizational change (Flaman, Nykiforuk, Plot-
nikoff, & Raine, 2010). A participatory process is crit-
ical for small nonprofits in particular, who may have
greater difficulty than larger nonprofits in accurately
assessing their current capacity in various domains
given their tendency to rely on informal processes and
less documentation (Trzcinkski & Sobeck, 2008). Thus,
having multiple stakeholders contribute to the assess-
ment increases accuracy and personal investment in
the process.
Future Directions
The FreeForm model provides a unique tool for small
nonprofits to ground their ongoing capacity develop-
ment journeys and closes the research-practice gap
within the sector by building on insights and revisions
grounded in over 10 years of use with small nonprof-
its, as well as the developments within the academ-
ic and theoretical domains related to organizational
capacity. As such, the model offers a unique spring-
board for future empirical analysis of the utility of the
framework and any potential gaps. Future research
could pursue specific examination of the interaction
between capacity elements in order enhance under-
standing of the most salient aspects of the model
and their relationship with specific outcomes. Other
research could examine the impact of a participatory
approach to capacity-building by developing specific
measures of the inputs and outcomes that may be as-
sociated with this type of approach. Lastly, it would
be advantageous to examine the longer-term effects
of using the FreeForm model for capacity building on
service delivery and mission-specific outcomes. This
may be germaine to addressing the evidence-gap
related to the impact of nonprofit capacity-building
investments articulated by Minzner et al. (2014) and
encouraging sustainable development amongst this
important sub-set of nonprofit organizations.
16. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits16
References
Anderson, D., Raine, K. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., Cook, K., Barrett, L., & Smith, C. (2008). Baseline assessment of organizational
capacity for health promotion within regional health authorities in Alberta, Canada. Promotion & Education, 15(2), 6-14.
Angeles, L., & Gurstein, P. (2000). Planning for participatory capacity development: The challenges of participation and
north-south partnership in capacity building projects. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 21(1), 31-62.
Bowman, W. (2011). Financial capacity and sustainability of ordinary nonprofits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership,
22(1), 37-51.
Chikoto, G., & Neely, D. (2014). Building non-profit financial capacity: The impact of revenue concentration and overhead
costs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 570-588.
Christensen, R. K., & Gazley, B. (2008). Capacity for public administration: Analysis of meaning and measurement. Public
Administration and Development, 28(4), 265-279.
Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1116-1135.
Cornforth, C., & Mordaunt, J. (2011). Organisational capacity building: Understanding the dilemmas for foundations
of intervening in small- and medium-size charities. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 22(3), 428-449.
Connolly, P., & York, P. (2002). Evaluating capacity-building efforts for nonprofit organizations. Organization Development
Practitioner, 34(4), 33-39.
Connolly, P., & York, P. (2003). Building the capacity of capacity builders. The Conservation Company. Retrieved from http://
www.tccgrp.com/pdfs/buildingthecapacityofcapacitybuilders.pdf
Crisp, B. R., Swerissen, H., & Duckett, S. J. (2000). Four approaches to capacity building in health: Consequences for
measurement and accountability. Health Promotion International, 15(2), 99-107.
De Vita, C. J., Fleming, C., & Twombly, E. C. (2001). Building nonprofit capacity: A framework for addressing the problem.
In C. De Vita & C. Fleming (Eds.), Building capacity in nonprofit organizations (pp. 5-32). Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for the future: Toward a model of self-
leadership, innovation and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 319-337.
Doherty, A., Misener, K., & Cuskelly, G. (2014). Towards a multidimensional framework of capacity in community sport clubs.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 43(2S), 124S-142S, DOI: 10.1177/0899764013509892
Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 115-130.
Flaman, L. M., Nykiforuk, C. I., Plotnikoff, R. C., Raine, K. (2010). Exploring facilitators and barriers to individual and
organizational level capacity building: Outcomes of participation in a community priority setting workshop. Global
Health Promotion, 17(2), 34-43.
Foster, M. K., & Meinhard, A. G. (2002). A regression model explaining predisposition to collaborate. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), 549-564.
Freeland, C. (2002). Strategic planning: SRA’s approach. Journal of Research Administration, 33(2), 59-65.
Glickman, N. J., & Servon, L. J. (1998). More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community development corporation
capacity. In J. DeFilippis & Saegert (Eds.), The Community Development Reader (pp. 46-61). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gumulka, G., Hay, S., & Lasby, D. (2006). Building blocks for strong communities: A profile of small- and medium-sized
organizations in Canada. Toronto, ON: Imagine Canada.
Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency,
institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340-361.
Hall, M. H., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., de Wit, M., Embuldeniya, D., Jolin, … Vallaincourt, Y. (2003). The capacity to serve: A
qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s non-profit and voluntary organizations. Toronto, ON: Canadian
Centre for Philanthropy.
Hall, M. H., Barr, C. W., Easwaramoorthy, M., Sokolowski, S. W., Salamon, L. M. (2005). The Canadian nonprofit and voluntary
sector in comparative perspective. Toronto, ON: Imagine Canada.
17. 17July 2015
Hetling, A., & Botein, H. (2010). Positive and negative effects of external influences on program design. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 21(2), 177-194.
Jaskyte, K., Byerly, C., Bryant, A., & Koksarova, J. (2010). Transforming a nonprofit work environment for creativity: An
application of concept mapping. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(1), 77-92.
Joffres, C., Heath, S., Farquaharson, J., Barkhouse, K., Latter, C., & MacLean, D. R. (2004). Facilitators and challenges to
organizational capacity building in heart health promotion. Qualitative Health Research, 14(1), 39-60.
Kapucu, N., Healy, B. F., & Arslan, T. (2011). Survival of the fittest: Capacity building for small nonprofit organizations.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(3), 236-245.
Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2011). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A
modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434-457.
LeRoux, K., & Wright, N. S. (2010). Does performance measurement improve strategic decision making? Findings from a
national survey of nonprofit social service agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 571-587.
Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M., & Perstinger, M. (1999). Capacity development: Definitions, issues and implications for planning,
monitoring and evaluation. Universalie Occasional Paper, 35(1), 1-21.
Mackay, R., Horton, D., Dupleich, L., & Andersen, A. (2002). Evaluating organizational capacity development. The Canadian
Journal of Program Evaluation, 17(2), 121-150.
Mara, C. M. (2000). A strategic planning process for a small nonprofit organization: A hospice example. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 11(2), 211-223.
McAlpine, J., & Temple, J. (2011). Capacity building: Investing in not-for-profit effectiveness. PricewaterhourseCoopers
Canada Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/ca/en/foundation/capacity-building-report.jhtml
McDonald, R. E. (2007). An investigation of innovation in nonprofit organizations: The role of organizational mission.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256-281.
McKinsey and Company. (2001). Effective capacity building in nonprofit organizations. Washington, DC: Venture
Philanthropy Partners.
Millesen, J. L., Carman, J. G., & Bies, A. L. (2010). Why engage? Understanding the incentive to build nonprofit capacity.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(1), 5-20.
Minzner, A., Klerman, J., Markovitz, C., Fink, B. (2014). The impact of capacity-building programs on nonprofits: A random
assignment evaluation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 547-569.
Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2009). A case study of organizational capacity in nonprofit community sport. Journal of Sport
Management, 23(4), 457-482.
Misener, K., Doherty, A., (2013). In support of sport: Examining the relationship between community sport organizations and
sponsors. Sport Management Review, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.12.002
Misener. K., Harman, A., & Doherty, A. (2013). Understanding the local sports council as a mechanism for community sport
development. Managing Leisure, 18(4), 300-315.
Packard, T. (2010). Staff perceptions of variables affecting performance in human service organizations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 971-990.
Preskill, H., & Boyle, S. (2008). A multidisciplinary model of evaluation capacity building. American Journal of Evaluation,
29(4), 443-459.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Roberts, L. (2001). Caught in the middle: What small, non-profit organizations need to survive and flourish. Ottawa, ON:
Voluntary Sector Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.vsi-isbc.org/eng/knowledge/reports_caught/reports_caught_
doc3.cfm
Robertson, T. (2005). Building capacity, granting for impact: Research report. The Ontario Trillium Foundation. Retrieved
from http://www.otf.ca/en/knowledgeSharingCentre/resources/Final_FULL_English_WC.pdf
Schneider, J.A. (2003). Small, minority-based nonprofits in the information age. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
13(4), 383-399.
Schneider, J. A. (2009). Organizational social capital and nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 643-
662.
18. An Integrated Framework of Organizational Capacity in Small Nonprofits18
Schuh, R. G., & Leviton, L. C. (2006). A framework to assess the development and capacity of non-profit agencies. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 29(2), 171-179.
Scott, K. (2003). Funding matters: The impact of Canada’s new funding regime on non-profit and voluntary organizations.
Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development.
Selden, S. C., & Sowa, J. E. (2004). Testing a multi-dimensional model of organization performance: Prospects and problems.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 395-416.
Smith, D. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sobeck, J., & Agius, E. (2007). Organizational capacity building: Addressing a research and practice gap. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 30(3), 237-246.
Sowa, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Sandfort, J. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of non-
profit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 711-728.
Thomas, P., McDonnell, J., McCulloch, J., While, A., Bosanquet, N., & Ferlie, E. (2005). Increasing capacity for innovation in
bureaucratic primary care organizations: A whole system participatory action research project. The Annals of Family
Medicine, 3(4), 312-317.
Trzcinski, E., & Sobeck, J. (2008). The interrelationship between program development capacity and readiness for change
among small to mid-sized nonprofits. Journal of Community Practice, 16(1), 11-37.
Wing, K. T. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of capacity-building initiatives: Seven issues for the field. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 153-160.
