When Demand is Not the Problem

What running an internship pilot in Nigeria taught me about designing opportunity systems

A year ago, I was sitting in a Lagos café, talking through an idea with a dear friend.

What would it look like to create an internship program that matches young Nigerian women with paid internships at impact-focused organisations?

By November 2025, the pilot was complete thanks to the support of Fora Network for Change and Virgin Unite.

The Sisterly HQ Interns Program placed young women into eight-week internships, complemented by a weekly mentorship program focused on building soft skills. These women worked across education, artificial intelligence, development, and the arts, supporting work that led to real change.

For the interns, the program led to improved skills, increased confidence, increased income, and a return offer. For the host organisations, they received valuable contributions which advanced their organisation’s work.

For me, running the pilot meant sitting with trade-offs I hadn’t fully anticipated between access and sustainability, testing and scale.

The outcomes were positive, but they are not the most interesting part. This essay is about what the pilot revealed about demand, capacity, selection, and the quiet decisions that shape access.

Demand is not the issue; capacity is.

In four days, the programme received 1117 applications for five internship places. On the other hand, we saw interest from nearly 40 organisations willing to host interns. Unfortunately, we could only onboard so many, and we had to decline many incredible women and organisations.

This confirmed something I’ve seen repeatedly in grantmaking and programs: Access is not limited because people don’t want opportunity. They do. But many systems are not built to handle demand responsibly, whether intentionally or recklessly. 

Designing for scale without causing burnout is hard, for both applicants and operators. We could have said yes to more women or more organisations, but it wasn’t the right time nor the purpose of the pilot. It was tough, but it was essential for the future we are creating. 

Selection is a design decision

When demand far exceeded capacity, I had to shorten application timelines, tighten criteria (even more than before), and make hard calls quickly. Misaligned applications were the first to go.

For example, we received applications from candidates with up to five years of experience, even though we stated that the program was for women in their final year of university or 1-2 years post-graduation.

In highly competitive processes, alignment becomes a first filter, not because talent is absent but because capacity is finite.

Good intentions collapse without clear communication

During the program, one of the most important operational decisions was clear communication channels between interns, host organisations, and Sisterly HQ.

For the interns, mentorship calls were not just about soft skills. They were also a chance to catch up, share lessons from the previous week, share wins with the cohort, share concerns or challenges that arose during the week, and feel seen, heard, and supported.

What this pilot reminded me is simple but uncomfortable: opportunity alone is not enough. Without structure, feedback and honest limits, access can do more harm than good. Systems that care about people must be designed to hold them, not just invite them.

Mentorship works when paired with real responsibility

Mentorship for women has received a lot of flak in recent years. But I really believe there’s still a place for mentorship in today’s professional world, when done right.

Every week, the interns attended sessions covering topics including professional communications, remote work, leadership, mental health, and personal branding. It was practical, grounded and sometimes even fun.

But it worked because the interns were doing real work, testing everything they were learning every week at host organisations. They were not learning theories that wouldn’t apply to real life; they were showing up and applying their lessons in real time. This pairing of responsibility and reflection is what turned learning into confidence.

The system worked because it was small, honest and iterative

I didn’t try to build a perfect program. My goal was to build a testable one. Every choice, from creating an interest form (which actually backfired because we ended up receiving X5 of the initial interest) to mentorship cadence, required trade-offs.

And every trade-off taught me something about what the opportunity ecosystem can and cannot absorb at once. These lessons will inform scale.

Good design isn’t about starting big. It is about testing honestly, building capacity, creating clear communication channels, and integrating feedback. That is what turns opportunity into real impact.

If you work in funding, social entrepreneurship, or social impact, I’ll be sharing more reflections every two weeks.

In the meantime, if you’re looking for daily reads from me, I post practical insights and reflections from my work as a grantmaker and social entrepreneur on LinkedIn.