By Nicole Jennings, MzN International

How has the capacity building landscape changed over the past five years? What do NGOs and civil society organisations need now that they may not have needed before? And are training providers, consultants and learning partners adapting quickly enough to meet that need?

In 2024, almost 46% of Schengen visa applications from Nigeria were refused. Applicants from Senegal faced a similar rate, at almost 47%. The adult application fee is now €90 and is not returned if the answer is no. Across the system, the global Schengen refusal rate was much lower, at around 15%.

For a sector that has long delivered much of its learning by flying people to London, Brussels, Geneva and other Global North hubs, this is not a small inconvenience. It is a structural barrier to who gets to learn, who gets seen, and who is able to participate in the rooms where knowledge, networks and opportunity are shared.

And visas are only one part of the story.

Capacity building has never mattered more to civil society. Yet much of it is still designed for the sector as it looked in 2018, not the one organisations actually work in today. The question is not whether capacity building is important. It is whether we are still building the right thing.

The Ground Has Shifted

Seven years ago, demand for in-person training in proposal writing, financial management, project management and evaluation was relatively steady. Organisations sent staff to courses in Nairobi, London, Brussels and Geneva. Training providers filled rooms. Participants travelled. The model was familiar. Then came a series of disruptions that no plan had fully accounted for.

The pandemic changed how people learn and work. Funding came under sustained pressure. UK aid is being reduced to 0.3% of gross national income by 2027/28. The dismantling of USAID and the termination of most of its programmes sent shockwaves through the development and humanitarian sectors. Visa regimes made it harder for Global South participants to reach Global North venues. Artificial intelligence arrived as both a practical tool and a governance challenge for every organisation in the sector.

Each of these changes would have required adaptation on its own. Together, they have redrawn the capacity building landscape. At MzN, this has pushed us to ask a more honest question about our own work: what is the real impact of a capacity building engagement beyond the few days of training itself? We know that budgets have shifted, needs have changed and organisations are under pressure to do more with less. But we also know that the need for practical, relevant and high-quality support has not disappeared. If anything, it has become more urgent.

The challenge now is to understand the sector as it is today, not as it was, and to design learning that meets organisations where they are: financially, geographically, technologically and operationally.

Four Pivots That Can No Longer Wait

From format to flexibility

The useful question is no longer how to move an in-person course online. It is what format is right for this audience, this content and this moment.

For leadership retreats, strategy work and complex organisational change, being in the same room can still earn its cost. But for practical skills building, peer exchange and wider access, well-designed online learning can close gaps that geography, time, cost and visas would otherwise widen.

When almost half of applicants from some African countries are refused the visa that a residential course depends on, the format is not just a delivery choice. It decides who can learn. The strongest providers are not choosing between online and in-person learning. They are matching the format to the purpose.

From standard curricula to contextual relevance

A proposal writing course built for 2018 is not the course the sector needs in 2026. The clearest example is artificial intelligence. More than nine in ten nonprofits now report using AI in some form, yet only a small minority have dedicated AI training budgets, and many still have no AI policy. The sector has adopted technology faster than it has learned how to use it well.

At the same time, the funding landscape has changed. Alongside traditional grants, organisations are being asked to understand blended finance, impact investing, results-based financing, social outcomes contracts and other models that older training curricula often never mentioned.

Capacity building that still teaches only donor language, logframes and compliance is drifting away from the organisations it is meant to serve. This does not mean abandoning the basics. Proposal writing, financial management, reporting and monitoring still matter. But they need to be taught in a way that reflects today’s funding realities, today’s tools and today’s risks

From volume to bespoke support

Public courses that individuals can sign up to still have a place, especially when they are practical, affordable and accessible. But the balance is shifting toward support shaped around an organisation’s own context, capacity and funding reality.

The localisation agenda shows why this matters. The sector committed in 2016 to channel more funding to local and national actors. Yet, direct funding to those actors remains far below the ambition. Local organisations do not need generic syllabuses designed elsewhere. They need support built around the work in front of them: the funders they are approaching, the systems they are trying to strengthen, the partnerships they are negotiating, and the risks they are carrying. This requires moving beyond isolated learning experiences toward the final, most critical shift the sector must make.

From training events to sustained impact

As I mentioned earlier in this article, this is the shift that matters most, and the one the sector often resists hardest. We are good at measuring the event. We count participants, collect satisfaction scores and report attendance. We are far weaker at measuring what changed afterwards.

Did the proposal writer win more funding? Did the board make sharper decisions? Did the organisation manage risk more confidently? Did the team change how it uses AI? Did the training lead to better systems, stronger partnerships or more resilient organisations? Too often, we cannot say, because we do not systematically ask.

When budgets tighten, work that cannot show what it changed is the first to be cut. Measuring impact is no longer only a courtesy to funders. It is how capacity building proves its value.

What This Means for Providers

The organisations that will still be useful in five years are the ones willing to keep asking harder questions. What does the sector need now, rather than what are we already set up to deliver? Which skills are becoming urgent? Which formats widen access rather than narrow it? What support is needed beyond the workshop? And how will we know whether any of it made a difference?

Flexible formats, tiered offerings, updated curricula and honest impact tracking are no longer extras. They are the foundation of credible capacity building work.

A Sector Worth Strengthening

Before designing the next course, a provider should be able to answer one question about the last one: What did the organisation do differently because of it? And if it becomes difficult to find the answer, please do get in touch with me by all means – Nicole@mzninternational.com.

Nicole Jennings works at the intersection of training, capacity building and organisational development, with a focus on NGOs and civil society organisations across Africa, Europe and beyond.

Online Course – AI-Powered Proposal Writing for NGOs

How to Get Donor Mapping Right: Mastering Donor Mapping for Fundraising Success