Category: Event Takeaways

On June 11, NationSwell convened a braintrust for members to dig into some of the most important currents shaping team and role structure and some of the organizational models that can help to support and sustain impact work.

Some of the key insights from the event appear below:

Key takeaways

Structure and reporting lines vary widely based on organizational strategy and maturity. Where impact teams report can depend on the maturity and strategic goals of the program, and reporting lines may need to evolve over time. Social impact and sustainability are often separate functions, reporting into different parts of the company (e.g., COO, operations, HR, or marketing). Placement of the function (e.g., under CLO, HR, or comms) often depends on program maturity and whether the organization is people-first, compliance-driven, or brand-focused. Several leaders reflected that reporting into HR, for example, enabled more access to talent systems, while legal provided early structural rigor.

Team composition trends toward generalists with both strategic and operational skills. Many teams are small, averaging around 8 to 10 people, and rely on generalists. Leaders expect individuals to handle a full range of activities: strategy, partnerships, metrics, and implementation. There’s a strong emphasis on hiring people who are both strategic thinkers and capable of hands-on work (e.g., activating events). 

Embedding impact within business strategy strengthens staying power. Teams that align their work with core business priorities, such as talent, compliance, or innovation, are better positioned to access resources and avoid being viewed as a cost center. One leader noted aligning with workforce development helped justify programming.

Use cross-functional councils to build shared ownership. Internal councils are an effective tool for grounding impact goals across the organization. These groups are organized around key strategic pillars and bring together employees from a range of departments who touch the work in different ways. Participation is encouraged to contribute insights, share progress, and help connect the dots across business units. 

“Do more with less:” empower local champions to scale impact. Explore models that extend reach without growing headcount. Consider activating employee “ambassadors” or “champions” to lead local efforts, particularly in geographies where dedicated impact staff are not present. These roles are typically voluntary but treated as extensions of the core team. To support them, some organizations create toolkits with pre-vetted nonprofit partners, templated event ideas, and communications materials. Others align local efforts with broader impact pillars, encouraging flexibility while maintaining cohesion. 

Community-centered approaches are replacing top-down models. In terms of programming, local activation and place-based work is increasingly common, accompanying a shift from models that “swoop in with solutions” toward ones that listen to and co-create with communities. Companies often prioritize impact in communities where they operate, reinforcing brand values while allowing tailored, responsive programming. 

Metrics and measurement are growing priorities, but still a challenge. There was wide agreement that impact teams are increasingly expected to deliver meaningful metrics, not just stories. Yet many leaders indicated that capacity or clarity around measurement remains uneven.

From early childhood to early career, every life stage presents a critical window to shape opportunity, dignity, and outcomes. And yet, too often, interventions remain fragmented, siloed, or under-resourced—especially for those most impacted by structural inequities.

At a pivotal political moment, NationSwell convened a group of experienced leaders to connect on the community-rooted solutions, place-based approaches, public-private partnerships, and system-level strategies that are demonstrably delivering results for young people and families across the country.

Some of the insights that surfaced appear below:

Insights

Neutral, community-led backbones are essential to the work. Rather than imposing top-down directives, showing up as a non-threatening backbone convener of disparate groups, including school districts and local nonprofits, fosters a neutrality that helps avoid competition and power struggles that can derail collaborative work.

Start narrow and build momentum. Trying to address the full cradle-to-career continuum at once is often overwhelming and counterproductive. Instead, start with a specific issue — like early childhood, youth opportunity, or workforce entry — where there is both community will and a clear gap. Achieving visible progress in one area helps generate trust and alignment that can then be expanded to broader outcomes, and also allows for iterative learning and increased credibility with partners and funders.

Success hinges on more than education. While many cradle-to-career efforts focus on educational benchmarks, external factors like housing instability, transportation, healthcare, and access to social services all dramatically influence a young person’s ability to succeed, and therefore must be integrated into any serious strategy aimed at improving life outcomes. Communities that only measure progress through school-based indicators risk overlooking the real barriers families face; a systems-level view that connects education to broader quality-of-life supports is essential.

Corporate partners need to engage authentically and early. It’s critical to be aware of the ways a corporate presence can spark suspicion or resentment due to lack of transparency and community engagement. By involving communities as co-designers of your programs, forging early bonds, and listening humbly, impact leaders can establish trust and credibility.

Philanthropies must balance catalytic investment with humility. While philanthropy plays a vital role in getting cradle-to-career work off the ground, overstepping or trying to “own” the work — particularly when insufficient community input or trust has been established — can unravel progress. 

Rural communities are facing unique workforce tensions. Unlike urban areas, many rural regions lack the job infrastructure to retain skilled youth, creating a disconnect between education and opportunity. This raises critical questions about whether cradle-to-career efforts should focus on helping young people thrive where they are — or prepare them to leave. For truly inclusive economic mobility, rural models must address not only education and training, but also long-term job creation and community vitality.

Policy and systems change must follow practice. While programs and partnerships can drive localized change, real, lasting impact requires policy alignment. Even amid federal dysfunction, local and state policy wins are possible — and crucial. Translating data and outcomes into legislative or regulatory reform ensures that success isn’t limited to a single program or grant cycle.

Non-profit leaders are navigating mounting challenges — from funding freezes to attacks on the language they use and the communities they serve — and the need for space to regroup and strategize has never been more urgent.

On May 28, NationSwell convened a group of peer leaders for a candid discussion about how we can be nimble and effective in a swiftly evolving landscape.

Some key insights from the discussion appear below:

Key takeaways:

• Adopt short-term pragmatism while planning for long-term resilience. Rather than framing strategy around long-term organizational sustainability, several leaders are focusing on short-term adaptability, emphasizing nimble pivots, warm lead cultivation, and realistic budgeting. 
• Bridge the gap between funder caution and nonprofit urgency. A disconnect persists between what nonprofits need (e.g. more capital, more flexibility) and what funders are offering (e.g. deliberate, slower-moving strategies). Bridging this chasm requires coordinated field-wide messaging, funder education, and intermediaries that can facilitate solution-oriented discussion. 
• Prioritize transparency and grounded leadership. Executives emphasized the importance of open, honest communication, both within leadership circles and with staff. Being clear about what is known and unknown, while modeling vulnerability, has helped maintain trust, particularly in moments of organizational or funding instability.
• Normalize nonprofit consolidations and shared infrastructure. In a financially constrained and uncertain landscape, nonprofit leaders are proactively exploring mergers, acquisitions, and structural partnerships. This moment presents an opportunity for funders to support responsible consolidation efforts and shared services that streamline operations and extend impact. 
• Rethink donor engagement strategies. Leaders are seeing success with listening tours, reframing proposals in response to donor constraints, and rebalancing toward more place-based, community-anchored approaches. These methods help preserve key relationships and open doors for new partnerships.
• Invest in leadership development as a resilience mechanism. The field is confronting a dual crisis: external funding threats and leadership fatigue. Now is a critical time to support succession planning and mentorship across generations, particularly for rising leaders managing back-to-back shocks early in their careers.
• Use values alignment as a stabilizing force. Organizations are returning to their core values to navigate ambiguity, realign priorities, and avoid mission drift. Reaffirming organizational identity, especially when facing funding restrictions on identity-centered language, anchors staff morale.
• Recognize and respond to the emotional toll of continuous crisis. Nonprofit leaders likened the current environment to the early pandemic, marked by confusion, fatigue, and emotional overload. Strategies like all-staff transparency briefings, mental health weeks, and permission to “tap out” reflect an emerging ethos: institutional survival depends on tending to human needs

Many workforce programs focus on training individuals, often with powerful results for participants. But given the complexities of workforce development — an interplay of stakeholders, evolving needs, access, and policy – investments that target the individual often come up short in terms of their durability and scalability.

In the second installment of our Impact X Talent event series, cohosted with the International Youth Foundation, leaders set out to explore how companies are leveraging cross-sector collaboration, policy engagement, and new models to drive scale and sustainability.

Some of the most salient insights that emerged from the discussion appear below:

Key takeaways

Trust local partners to adapt programs for context and relevance. Scaling successfully often requires decentralizing control and placing trust in local implementing partners. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model, impactful programs empower grantees and on-the-ground leaders to adapt and design approaches that meet specific community needs. 

Pilot locally to build scalable, system-ready solutions. Scalable programs often begin with focused pilots that expose ground-level challenges, like limited access to prep time for teachers or infrastructure deficits in public schools. These pilots provide valuable insight into institutional realities and learner behavior, such as gender-based disparities in classroom engagement. Using this intelligence, programs can design more inclusive and effective strategies before expanding across regions or countries.

Encourage policy reform to modernize curriculum approval processes. Rigid compliance and outdated approval mechanisms in public education systems often delay or block the integration of relevant, skills-based content. There is a need for joint advocacy to streamline these processes, noting that long curriculum approval timelines can render programs obsolete by the time they’re approved. Cross-sector collaboration is important for unlocking more responsive, future-ready learning systems.

Ensure curriculum is agile enough to keep pace with industry. In fields like IT, the pace of technological change outstrips traditional curriculum cycles. Successful programs update content quarterly and maintain alignment with industry certifications. Because formal education systems may take years to approve new curricula, programs can work around this by focusing on enduring protocols rather than transient tools. 

Design flexible programs that meet learners where they are. Programs should serve learners across life stages and environments: high school students in rural areas, adults seeking career transitions, and employees needing upskilling in emerging fields like AI. A dual-delivery model, both formal (institution-based) and informal (open-access), helps learners access content at their own pace, regardless of setting or circumstance. 

Build trust through vendor neutrality and clear social value. Programs that teach universal skills, such as protocols over products, avoid being seen as commercial or self-serving. This neutrality opens doors to collaboration with public institutions and helps dispel concerns about ulterior motives. It also reassures skeptical educators and officials that the primary goal is talent development, not market capture. Clarity of mission and transparency of methods are foundational to long-term adoption. 

Empower educators to champion the program. Teachers are often the linchpin of success, especially in under-resourced environments. Programs can support them through ongoing training, easy access to help (e.g., real-time group messaging), and pathways to gain credentials that advance their careers. Their enthusiasm can drive both institutional buy-in and student participation.

Frame initiatives around shared value. Programs that serve a shared purpose for talent and business (e.g. equipping students for future jobs, providing employers with qualified talent, and enriching public education) are more resilient. Consider how a shared value approach can embed programs as integral to both business and workforce strategy. 

Track outcomes that matter, and use them to adapt. Effective programs go beyond measuring enrollment or access. They track engagement, course completion, and post-program outcomes such as employment or further education. Data can be used not just for reporting, but for real-time course correction, such as identifying when only certain student groups are engaging and intervening quickly.

The business case for social impact has traditionally leaned on external data and proof points to advance prioritization and resourcing.  But in today’s climate, executive leaders need more than generalized ROI studies — they need impact strategies that directly address their most pressing challenges. How can impact leaders shift the conversation from justification to integration, proving shared value in ways that truly move the business forward?

On May 15th, NationSwell convened leaders for a virtual Leader Roundtable on Creating Shared Value and a Better Business Case for Impact. Some of the most salient takeaways from the discussion appear below.

Takeaways:

Leverage your organization’s core assets to create impact. Programs that deliver both business and social returns often draw on unique corporate capabilities—such as expertise, data, technology, or logistics—to create value in the marketplace while also addressing societal needs. These asset-driven approaches tend to be more durable and scalable than philanthropic giving alone.Taking an asset-driven approach creates an important and inherent link between your impact and enterprise goals.

Speak the language of the business In making the case for your impact programs to key stakeholders and executives, it can be helpful to show how they do double duty in addressing the key challenges your business is seeking to address. Pivoting the language you use when addressing these stakeholders to include more of the metrics and terms they use in their day-to-day — (ie. how programs are creating volume growth, etc.) can also be helpful in making the business case for impact.

Don’t underestimate storytelling when seeking buy-in or equipping leaders to convey your impact. One leader shared that using a mix of ROI metrics and storytelling has been most effective in conveying impact to key stakeholders. Stories can help to personalize the work in a way that makes it easier to understand than the raw data, and also helps to provide executives with anecdotes that they can feel proud of and easily convey in forums or at speaking engagements with other leaders.

Hardwire your strategy and goals so they can “outlast the CEO”. In designing with legacy and longevity in mind, ensure that programs have shared ownership and accountability baked in so that no one leader or executive can “take the work with them.” Ensuring that your impact work is well-integrated with larger business goals from the beginning also helps to ensure that it will continue for the long term.

Co-create with the business, not for the business. Successful impact teams work closely with internal business units to design and execute programs. This involves building strong cross-functional relationships, adopting the same performance discipline as the core business, and ensuring shared ownership of outcomes and accountability.

Invest in strategies to engage middle management. Middle managers often control the day-to-day levers that enable or block employee engagement and program execution. Their buy-in is essential, yet frequently overlooked. Unlocking this layer can accelerate adoption and boost program credibility across the organization.

Don’t let perfection stand in the way of progress. Waiting for the ideal set of metrics or a fully formed theory of change can stall good ideas from taking hold. Leaders emphasized the importance of launching early, testing often, and using results to build momentum and iterate.

Anticipate how executives are thinking. Beyond ensuring credibility and demonstrating partnership, regularly engaging with and shadowing business leaders can help you to understand how they’re thinking in ways that allow you to be more intentional about the ways you design and measure your impact programs. Using the same discipline the business is using around operations reviews, setting long-term goals that are business-aligned, and understanding risk tolerance can all help to make the work more resilient. 

Embed your programs in your people strategy. Taking a personal approach to design that’s based on your team’s needs can help to drive employee engagement and create a sense of shared value and purpose. Creating more intentional upskilling or engagement opportunities can help to curb attrition rates, cultivate buy-in, and drive community impact.