How a National Nonprofit Trains a Workforce It Doesn't Employ
The Backstory
The Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund has a training problem most nonprofits will recognize, at a size most of them won't. Launched in 2012, it works to improve the financial stability of low and moderate income households by embedding financial empowerment strategies into local government. Its best-known product is the Financial Empowerment Center — free, professional, one-on-one financial counseling offered as a municipal service. The CFE Fund reports working in more than 150 cities, and says nearly three dozen local governments are now deploying more than 150 trained financial counselors on banking, credit, debt, savings, and legacy planning. Here's the structural problem that creates. The CFE Fund employs almost none of those counselors. They work for a city agency, or for a local nonprofit the city contracts with. What the CFE Fund owns is the standard — its FEC Counselor Training Standards, and a Code of Ethics and Professional Practices — and the job of getting every counselor trained to it.
What Was Getting in the Way
- The people being trained work for dozens of different employers, so there's no single directory, HR system, or staff list to enroll them from
- Training has to be free at the point of use — these are public-service counselors, not customers, and nobody is paying tuition
- Access has to be controlled anyway: courses are built for specific roles, so the CFE Fund needs to choose who gets in rather than opening a public sales page
- Counselors turn over on their employers' schedules. Work email addresses get reassigned to the next hire, which quietly breaks the previous person's account
- Program funders and external evaluators ask for evidence of who was trained and what they produced, so the training data has to come back out again
What They Were Hoping For
- Run a single national training library that any approved counselor, at any partner organization, can be invited into
- Keep every course free while still controlling who can enroll
- Teach to the Standards — including the experiential learning the Standards call for, not just content delivery
- Capture counselor work in a form the team can review and export
- Let a small in-house training team run all of it without an IT department behind them
How Ruzuku Fit In
What Clicked
The CFE Fund has been on Ruzuku Pro for more than seven years, running its training library on its own domain at courses.cfefundtrainings.org. Two things about the platform matter more here than they would for a typical course business. The first is that free and invitation-only is a first-class setup rather than a workaround. The team publishes a course, invites the specific counselors whose role calls for it, and never builds a paywall it doesn't want. In their own words: all of our courses are free, and we send invitations via email for folks to enroll. The second is that the whole operation is run by program staff. Every CFE Fund person who has written to Ruzuku support in the past two years works in training, operations, or research — the Director of Training and Technical Assistance, the managers who run Financial Empowerment Center operations and innovations, the Chief of Research and Evaluation. Not one engineer. That's what makes a national training program runnable by a team this size.
What They Built
The library is organized around the counseling model itself — role-specific curricula that roll out to partner sites as cities adopt new practice areas. Enrollment runs on email invitations, sent individually or in batches of up to a thousand, with the team resending, re-linking, and occasionally rebuilding an account when a counselor's work address changes hands. Inside the courses, the team goes past reading and clicking, which matters because the Standards explicitly call for experiential learning. In one course, counselors record video and audio responses directly in the lesson — practice reps, captured in the platform, which the team later mines for teaching examples to use with the next group. Discussion prompts sit at the end of modules, and both discussion answers and assessment responses export to spreadsheets. When a staff member who built a course becomes inactive, the team reassigns the course owner rather than copying the course, so enrollment history stays intact.
The Tools That Helped Most
What Changed
Seven years in, the CFE Fund runs a national counselor training library that its own program staff maintain, on a platform its own program staff can operate. Counselors employed by city agencies and local nonprofit partners are invited into role-specific courses, complete them at no cost, and leave behind written and recorded work the training team can review. The CFE Fund has never treated the platform as finished. In early 2024, after years of use, the Director of Training wrote to say the courses were feeling a bit stale and that he was unclear whether they were using Ruzuku to its fullest potential — then asked for a demo and training session so the team could build more dynamic asynchronous and hybrid learning. Everything since has been in that vein: exporting discussion responses for analysis, pulling video submissions into a highlights reel for future cohorts, and reporting on who has accepted an invitation. They also asked whether enrollment and progress could surface inside Salesforce. The answer is not directly — Ruzuku has no native CRM integration, and that connection runs through Zapier.
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Training Reach | Counselors trained employer by employer | One national library, invitation-based, any partner site |
| Cost to the Learner | Depends on an employer's training budget | Free — every course, every counselor |
| Counselor Work Product | Attendance and completion | Written reflections, recorded practice, exportable responses |
| Course Ownership | Tied to the staffer who built it | Reassignable, with enrollment history intact |
Timeline: On Ruzuku Pro for more than seven years, with the training library on the CFE Fund's own domain. Courses are added and rolled out as partner cities adopt new practice areas.
"Our organization has been using Ruzuku for several years, to build asynchronous and hybrid learning experiences for our partners."
Lessons Worth Sharing
When your learners work for someone else, invitation-based enrollment is the whole architecture — you can't pull a staff list, so the platform has to let you choose exactly who gets in, course by course
Free doesn't have to mean public. Keeping courses free while keeping enrollment closed is a specific requirement, and worth checking a platform can do both before you commit
Work email addresses get reassigned to the next hire. If your learners are employed elsewhere, that single fact will generate more support work than any feature gap
If your training standard calls for experiential learning, make learners produce something. Recorded practice gives you material to review, examples to teach with, and evidence an attendance log can't provide
A national program can run on a small team when the tool is operable by trainers rather than engineers — worth testing with your actual program staff, not your most technical colleague
Running a Training Program at Your Nonprofit?
Talk with us about your programs, your funders' reporting needs, and your budget cycle. We'll tell you honestly whether Ruzuku fits.
30% off annual plans · Lifetime option for grant funding · 0% transaction fees