Community-engaged research is increasingly central to philanthropic practice, yet funders rarely provide guidance for compensating community members who participate as co-researchers. This gap is especially pronounced for youth, who often face administrative, legal, and developmental constraints that complicate what “fair pay” looks like in practice. This article presents findings from a mixed-methods comparative case study of three youth participatory action-research projects involving 44 youth ages 16–24 across varied organizational settings. Data were collected through youth surveys, focus groups, staff interviews, financial analysis, and document review. Findings show that each model carries distinct trade-offs related to feasibility, transparency, and administrative capacity, with no single model well-suited to all youth engagement contexts. To support philanthropic organizations and their partners, the authors introduce practical tools including a compensation calculator, model agreements, and a compliance checklist, along with guidance for adapting compensation systems across organizational contexts.
Dominant Western ideology limits our understanding of and engagement with time, representing it as a linear two-dimensional arrow that moves forward in one direction from the past to the future. Viewing the past, present, and future as distinct and disconnected phases can hinder the growth and improvement of organizations working on building their evaluation capacity. In contrast to Western notions of time, Indigenous cultures of the Americas and Africa understand the interconnectedness of all aspects of being, that our experiences are more cyclical, where birth leads to death and death to rebirth. The Sankofa principle, rooted in Akan philosophy, states to go back and retrieve what has been lost. Time travel as a methodological practice to build evaluation capacity is a five-phased interconnected cycle grounded in the principle of Sankofa and inspired by Afrofuturism. In theory, it challenges organizations to move beyond linear time and to engage in cyclical, reflective, and transformative practices that build evaluation capacity. In practice, organizations successfully analyze themselves in their work, develop trust with fellow travelers (i.e., teammates), learn the impact of oppressive laws and practices on current social contexts, and ultimately develop a plan to transform their organizations from within.
This article argues that foundations must shift from acting as grantmakers alone to becoming active stewards of cross-sector collaborative networks. Drawing from more than two decades of field experience and research each, the authors outline a framework for moving from collaborative rhetoric to action, identifying four essential and interconnected actions: fueling trust, elevating purpose, nurturing networks, and strengthening stewardship. Through case examples, the article illustrates how authentic, trust-based relationships, shared goals, and relational network leadership can drive scalable, sustainable impact. The article offers both a compelling critique of traditional philanthropic approaches and a strategic road map for how foundations can evolve into catalysts, helping communities unlock their full potential.
This mixed-methods exploratory study investigates whether organizational readiness to implement change predicts capacity-building success more reliably than the level of perceived need. Using a six-factor readiness assessment measuring clear priorities, change management resources, time investment commitment, board engagement, systems infrastructure, and cash flow, data from 10 participating organizations reveal a significant correlation between readiness scores and early capacity-building outcomes. The findings challenge three common field assumptions: that the greatest capacity-building need should drive selection, that capacity-building works uniformly across developmental stages, and that dysfunction can be addressed through “standard” capacity-building programming.
Evaluation capacity building (ECB) in the philanthropic sector is often designed around a common set of assumptions: organizations need to be directed toward “correct” evaluation practices, compliance is the primary motivator for engagement, and funder-defined metrics are the most appropriate measure of success. This article challenges these assumptions by sharing insights from a multi-year ECB initiative funded by Houston Endowment called Harnessing the Power of Data. Drawing on surveys, interviews, and program participation data, the authors explore how co-creating learning goals in a strengths-based structure shifts the evaluation culture of an organization. Key lessons include: (1) how flexibility and alignment to partners’ values improve engagement; (2) how the benefits of ECB extend beyond grant reporting by connecting internal reflection to external impact; and (3) how stipends can spark initial engagement but may not sustain it. These findings illustrate how reframing ECB as a co-learning practice can build nonprofit capacity in ways more relevant to their needs. The authors reflect on how these learnings intersect with the field’s growing commitment to trust-based philanthropy, offering practical insights for balancing listening with structure.
