Context & Challenge
The civic tech and public sector design community has a knowledge-transfer problem. While there's growing interest in government design work—driven by initiatives like 18F, USDS, and state digital services teams—there are few structured pathways for emerging practitioners to learn the unique skills required for this work. General design bootcamps and university programs rarely cover procurement, accessibility compliance, stakeholder management in bureaucratic contexts, or the ethical dimensions of designing for vulnerable populations.
At the same time, experienced practitioners were struggling with isolation. Government design work can feel lonely—you might be the only designer in your agency, or part of a small team with limited peer support. Many senior practitioners wanted to give back and support the next generation but lacked formal channels to do so.
The challenge was to create a program that served both groups: helping emerging designers build civic design competency while giving experienced practitioners meaningful ways to share knowledge and build community. The program needed to be sustainable (we had no budget), inclusive (accessible to people with different backgrounds and circumstances), and genuinely useful (not just networking for its own sake).
Quarterly gatherings bring mentors and mentees together for skill-sharing workshops, peer support, and community building beyond individual pairings.
Role & Responsibilities
As Founder and Program Director, I shaped every aspect of the program—from initial vision through operational details. This included curriculum design, mentor recruitment and training, participant matching, program facilitation, and ongoing iteration based on feedback.
Key Responsibilities
- Vision & Program Design: Defined program structure, learning goals, matching criteria, and success metrics
- Mentor Recruitment & Training: Recruited experienced practitioners, developed mentor training curriculum, facilitated mentor cohort sessions
- Participant Matching: Designed matching process balancing skills, goals, communication styles, and availability
- Curriculum Development: Created discussion guides, resource libraries, and workshop content for mentor-mentee pairs
- Community Facilitation: Organized quarterly gatherings, managed online community space, created peer connection opportunities
- Program Operations: Managed applications, coordinated schedules, tracked participation, gathered feedback
- Evaluation & Iteration: Conducted mid-program check-ins and post-program surveys, adjusted program based on learning
I worked with the AIGA Portland board to secure organizational support and collaborated with PDX Digital Corps to reach underrepresented communities in Portland's tech ecosystem. This partnership approach ensured the program served diverse participants and had institutional backing for sustainability.
Approach & Process
My approach prioritized structure with flexibility. I learned from other mentorship programs that too much structure feels burdensome (mentors and mentees stop participating) while too little structure leads to relationships fizzling out. The challenge was finding the right balance—providing enough scaffolding to keep relationships productive while allowing space for organic connection.
Program Structure
The program runs in 6-month cohorts with monthly mentor-mentee meetings, quarterly all-cohort gatherings, and ongoing peer support through a community Slack workspace. Each cohort includes:
- Orientation (Month 1): Kickoff event introducing participants, setting expectations, providing conversation starters and goal-setting tools
- Core Program (Months 2-5): Monthly one-on-one mentor-mentee meetings guided by discussion prompts and skill-building themes; quarterly skill-sharing workshops open to full cohort
- Reflection & Transition (Month 6): Closing retrospective, celebration event, pathway to continued connection beyond formal program
Matching Process
Matching proved critical to program success. Rather than algorithmic matching, I conducted brief interviews with each mentee to understand their goals, current challenges, learning style, and what they needed from a mentor. I reviewed mentor profiles (which included areas of expertise, communication preferences, and what they hoped to gain from mentoring) and made thoughtful pairings based on fit, not just surface-level criteria.
This hands-on matching took significant time but resulted in stronger relationships—95% of matched pairs completed the full program, compared to typical mentorship program completion rates of 50-60%.
Creating Space for Vulnerability
One insight that shaped the program was that both mentees and mentors needed permission to be vulnerable. Mentees often felt pressure to appear competent and didn't want to "waste" their mentor's time with basic questions. Mentors sometimes felt impostor syndrome—worried they didn't have enough expertise or that their experiences wouldn't transfer to others' contexts.
I addressed this by normalizing uncertainty and struggle in program communications. Orientation materials explicitly stated that not knowing things is the point of mentorship, and that good mentors don't have all the answers—they help mentees develop their own judgment. Mentor training included sessions on creating psychological safety and asking generative questions rather than prescribing solutions.
This framing made a significant difference. Post-program surveys consistently highlighted "feeling safe to ask questions" and "authentic conversations about challenges" as program strengths. Mentees reported asking questions they'd been holding for months or years, and mentors described the relationships as unexpectedly mutual—they learned as much from mentees as they shared.
Program Evolution
The program evolved significantly from cohort to cohort based on participant feedback:
Year 1: Foundation
Initial cohort of 10 mentee-mentor pairs. Focused on proving the concept and understanding what participants needed. Learned that rigid meeting schedules didn't work—people had different availability and some pairs wanted to meet more frequently while others needed more flexibility.
Year 2: Scaling & Community
Grew to 25 pairs and introduced quarterly skill-sharing workshops. Added peer mentor circles (small groups of mentees meeting separately from their mentors) based on feedback that participants wanted both dedicated mentor time and peer support. Developed more comprehensive discussion guides and resource libraries.
Year 3: Sustainability & Alumni Network
Reached 50+ active participants. Created alumni network for past participants to stay connected. Developed mentor training program so experienced participants could become mentors in future cohorts. Established partnerships with local universities to reach students interested in civic design careers.
Deliverables
- Structured 6-month mentorship program curriculum with discussion guides and learning resources
- Mentor training program covering facilitation skills, psychological safety, and effective mentorship practices
- Matching framework and process documentation enabling program sustainability beyond founder
- Community Slack workspace connecting 75+ current and alumni participants
- Quarterly skill-building workshops covering topics like accessibility, service design, stakeholder management
- Alumni mentorship pathway enabling program graduates to become mentors in future cohorts
- Open-source program guide documenting model for other communities to adapt
"This program changed my career trajectory. My mentor helped me understand the nuances of government work that no bootcamp or job description could teach. Beyond the practical skills, I found a community of people who understood the unique challenges and rewards of civic design work. Three years later, I'm now a mentor myself, paying forward what I received."
Outcomes & Impact
Quantitative Results
- 50+ mentees participated across three cohorts, with 95% completion rate
- 25+ experienced practitioners served as mentors, many returning for multiple cohorts
- 88% of mentees reported increased confidence in civic design skills and knowledge
- 67% of mentees secured civic tech/government design roles within 12 months of program participation
- 75% of mentors reported gaining new perspectives on their own work through mentorship
- Program model adopted by 3 other AIGA chapters and civic tech organizations
Qualitative Impact
The program created a visible community around civic design work in Portland and beyond. Participants reported feeling less isolated, more confident in their career direction, and better equipped to navigate the unique challenges of government and nonprofit design work.
For mentors, the program provided a structured way to give back while developing their own leadership skills. Several mentors described how the experience clarified their own thinking about design practice and helped them become better managers and collaborators in their day jobs.
Perhaps most meaningfully, the program created lasting relationships that extended well beyond the formal six-month period. Many mentor-mentee pairs continued to meet informally, collaborate on projects, or support each other through career transitions. The alumni network became a persistent source of job referrals, peer review, and mutual aid.
The program also influenced organizational practice. Several participants reported bringing mentorship models back to their workplaces, and two agencies developed internal mentorship programs inspired by this model. This ripple effect extended the program's impact beyond direct participants.
Participant Stories
Reflections & Key Learnings
Building and running this program taught me lessons about community building, program design, and the nature of mentorship that continue to inform my work:
Key Takeaways
- Thoughtful matching matters more than scale: Resisting pressure to grow too quickly and maintaining hands-on matching resulted in stronger relationships and better outcomes. Quality over quantity was the right choice, even when it meant turning away applicants.
- Structure enables, doesn't constrain: Providing clear expectations, conversation prompts, and milestones gave participants confidence to engage meaningfully. Structure reduced anxiety about "doing it wrong" and created containers for authentic connection.
- Mentorship is mutual: Framing mentorship as bi-directional learning rather than one-way knowledge transfer made relationships richer and more sustainable. Mentors stayed engaged because they were genuinely learning, not just giving.
- Community compounds individual relationships: Connecting mentor-mentee pairs to a broader community (through quarterly gatherings, peer circles, and online space) created network effects—participants supported each other beyond their primary relationships.
- Sustainability requires systems, not heroics: For the program to outlast my direct involvement, I needed to document processes, train others to facilitate, and create pathways for participants to take leadership. Building that infrastructure took time but ensured longevity.
If I were starting over, I would invest earlier in measurement and evaluation systems—we had good qualitative feedback but limited quantitative tracking in early cohorts. I would also create more explicit pathways for mentees to engage as peer mentors or program coordinators earlier—we waited until Year 3 to formalize this, but participants were ready and willing earlier.
This work reinforced my belief that communities are built through intention, not just good intentions. The program succeeded because we made thoughtful design choices at every level—from matching criteria to discussion prompts to gathering format—and continually refined those choices based on participant experience. Like any design challenge, program design requires empathy, iteration, and attention to detail.
Most importantly, I learned that creating space for people to support each other is one of the highest-leverage interventions you can make. The program's impact far exceeded the hours I invested because it enabled 50+ people to support each other. That multiplicative effect is the power of well-designed community infrastructure.
