Resources+-+Case+Studies+-+Barr+Foundation—Supporting+Afterschool+Sports+Programs

//Overview://
The Barr Foundation, a Boston-based private foundation, observed that the quality of afterschool programs in Boston varied widely and that most of the weak programs were located in poor neighborhoods. At the same time, while a high percentage (35-50%) of Boston’s children participated in afterschool sports, certain demographic groups (e.g. girls, Hispanics, and Asians) did not. Given evidence linking involvement with sports activities to positive youth development, especially for disadvantaged youth, the foundation decided to invest in Boston’s afterschool sports sector.

Rather than funding individual organizations, Barr channeled its resources toward building and supporting networks. Barr’s theory of change was that increasing connectivity in the Boston’s afterschool sports sector would lead to stronger programs and positive outcomes for kids in a more cost-effective way. What the foundation did:
 * Found and funded a network weaver. His role was to catalyze and facilitate relationship development between youth sports programs, intermediaries, and funders, to improve knowledge sharing, foster emergent collaborations, and build capacity of intermediaries.
 * Gave the weaver access to funds ($1.6M over four years) that he could allocate toward specific network strategies (see below).
 * Supported the weaver by hiring network consultants to map the network and facilitate learning sessions to capture lessons learned, think through challenges, brainstorm new ways of approaching challenges, and track indicators of network growth / impact.

//**What the network weaver did:**//

 * First, the weaver focused on scanning the Boston’s after-school system to understand its overall structure, assets, and needs. He met with people, attended people’s meetings and programs, asked questions, read their documentation, and shared back his findings with network members. Through these preliminary activities, the weaver got to know the network, built trust, and became a key resource for knowledge, ideas, and connections.
 * Next, the weaver identified ways to build the network and meet sector needs by focusing on and funding four key strategies:
 * 1) 1. //Communication & information distribution//, e.g., by publishing a monthly e-newsletter, creating a Youth Sports Directory, and convening diverse groups to stimulate new thinking, joint-goal setting, and collaboration (funding allocation: 15%)
 * 2) 2. //Bringing in new resources//, e.g., equipment, programs, curricula, and research (funding allocation: 10%)
 * 3) 3. //Identifying, encouraging, and strengthening small clusters//, e.g., Networking for Outcomes to create better program logic models and increase fundraising skills; Boston Team Works, to share office space, administrative costs, best practices, and collectively promote the positive benefits of sports; and FirstHoops Network, to offer high quality programming that uses basketball to promote youth development (funding allocation: 15%)
 * 4) 4. //Building sustainable intermediaries//, e.g., training and organizing such as Boston University Institute for Athletic Coaching Education, Wheelock College, Institute of Sport Coaching, Sport in Society (funding allocation: 60%)
 * Then, the weaver started to focus on making the network more self-sustaining, for example, by distributing network weaving responsibilities to participating organizations and getting other funders involved.

//**Results:**//

 * Increased awareness of programs and opportunities and better understanding of what is going on in the sector.
 * Established sector perception that “there is someone out there to help”.
 * Decreased sector inefficiencies by brokering connections between organizations with needs and external available resources.
 * Catalyzed small collaborations between under-resourced organizations in a fragmented field.
 * Built a support infrastructure from the bottom-up, i.e., from what already exist, as opposed to top-down.
 * Network weaving capacity spread and intermediaries were strengthened.

//Lessons Learned://

 * Supporting a network requires a fundamental shift in the mindset of a foundation, i.e., investing money to build relationships that (may or may not) lead to programmatic opportunities later down the road.
 * At first, weaving may result in a network that is less resilient, because the weaver is at its center. One way to overcome this is to spread network weaving capacity.
 * //Language and identity://
 * Weavers don’t need to use network language when talking to the field. They can give themselves a commonly understood title, like “coordinator,” and use simple visuals (e.g., network maps) to explain how the sector is connected / fragmented.
 * Having an identity (e.g., belonging to an organization) can help weavers maneuver through the network. Barr’s afterschool sports weaver gave his work a name and a logo: Boston Youth Sports Initiative. Meanwhile, affiliating and housing the weaver at the foundation may lead to the misperception that he or she is a program officer.
 * //Weaver support systems://
 * Training / coaching support is critical for weavers (e.g., on facilitation and managing collaboration).
 * Weavers, particularly those with no formal affiliation to a foundation / grantees, can benefit from the support of peer groups, mentor(s), and sounding boards, as long as these do not create a power structure (e.g., steering committee of “usual suspects”) around the weaver.
 * //Tactics for successful network weaving://
 * Focus on facilitating / connecting rather than doing, e.g., avoid creating and managing new programs.
 * Balance direct impact on organizations and programs with building network capacity.
 * Organizations / individuals join networks for their own self interest. The weaver needs to understand these needs in order to do work of weaving and it is often easier to understand the needs of an individual organization vs. trying to find solutions that can meet the needs of multiple organizations / the sector at once.
 * Mapping tools should be used early (to create a baseline) and on an ongoing basis, to bring clarity as to steps to take, network ties to build, gaps to fill, and to monitor progress.

//Questions addressed://

 * //How to invest in network weaving?//
 * //What are characteristics of effective network weavers?//
 * //How to nurture sustainable networks?//
 * //When / how to use SNA?//

//Sources://

 * Barr Foundation Website
 * “NNF – A Conversation on network weaving with Roberto Cremonini,” //Slideshare//, Feb 2011
 * Notes from 14 Jan 2011 discussion with Roberto Cremonini and Chris Lynch
 * “Building the Field of Dreams,” Stephanie Lowell, 2006