4-5+Convening+--+Digging+Deeper+A-1

=== **//Taking Risks with Networks: How and when to catalyze networks? When don't networks work? Two stories of how a network approach enhanced the ability to set ambitious goals and what factors influenced success and failure. (relationship between purpose, planning, governance, accountability). These two networks are California based and are working on out of school time. (Stephanie McAuliffe and Arron Jiron from Packard)//** ===

Pre-read document with information about the two case studies:

Discussion Notes:
 * It’s important to bring individuals and organizations that work on common causes together, overtime, so that when the political opportunity arises they can act / react.
 * However, is the guiding expectation for very diverse members of very broad groups (e.g., nonprofits in education) to “gel” realistic?
 * Funders need to be more conscious of the size / constituency of the network: //are interests too diverse for the network to work together?//
 * There needs to be network buy-in. For instance, part of the appeal of the Water Cooler Discussion, a collaborative effort to advance early care and learning for California’s children ages 0 to 5, was tied to a shared feeling of frustration and loneliness by advocates of early education; collegiality was strong “glue” for the network.
 * Funders face an important question surrounding where to place their money, e.g., in an organization vs. an intermediary vs. a coalition.
 * Invest in a coalition, but in a sector / geography where there are already signs of strong leadership emerging. For example, in the Water Cooler Discussion, LA had at least one leader who was ready to take on responsibility.
 * Take a “portfolio approach,” examining all grantees funded and networks in which they are involved to help make the decision of who / what / where to fund.
 * //Do all networks need to be sustainable?//
 * //What outcomes for the network – or structure for the network – would we ultimately be happy with as funders?//
 * //Can networks do ad-hoc work, e.g., re-organize how resources are made available, and then go away?//
 * Sometimes, it may be better to “go where the people are,” e.g., by working through Facebook, as opposed to starting a new network).
 * Money can hamper the organic evolution of networks.
 * Networks often result in unanticipated successes.
 * For example, one of the successes of the League of CA After-school Providers was that one assembly member became the state superintendant, a position which gives him the potential to influence afterschool programs.
 * Preschool advocates were able to come together and have a voice as members of the short-lived League of CA After-school Providers. A smaller, more tightly knit advocacy alliance formed, with the ED as facilitator. This may have helped to jumpstart a state-formed Early Learning Advisory Council.
 * It’s important to be transparent about the fact that the success of an initiative may have nothing to do with originally-intended outcomes.
 * There needs to be room for creativity and flexibility to change the focus of an initiative, so as to support unanticipated outcomes as they arise.
 * While we’re adopting the language or networks, we are still in the process of adapting to it; we are still driven by outcomes and whether they measure up to our vision for social change.
 * One way to act on unanticipated successes is to assess impact more frequently, or in an ongoing way.
 * It’s important to pay attention to the periphery of the network. We need to make it an explicit goal.
 * Leadership comes in many flavors.
 * Advisory groups do not necessarily constitute a leadership structure. They are there to give feedback, whether informally or formally.
 * It’s important to examine the relation of leaders to the people they lead (e.g., grantees, network members, colleagues). Do they help surface topics that are important to the network, or follow their own agenda?
 * Some leaders need more explicit recognition from the funder (i.e., beyond the grant).
 * Network weaver need to have a balance of specialized knowledge (to be credible) and skill-set capacity.
 * For the Water Cooler Discussion, Packard looked for a weaver who was respected within the K-12 community.
 * This person needs to delegate work and do as little on the execution front as possible, which takes a different kind of mindset.
 * There needs to be a way to hold the weaver accountable.
 * The weaver needs to spend a substantial amount of time managing personalities, which can seem exasperating and frustrating, but is necessary to build trust / reciprocity. He or she needs to value that type of work, and to have sufficient time to manage personalities.
 * It’s important for funders to have an intentional process around weaving the network itself, for example:
 * Discussing the theory of change right away
 * Developing a grantmaking strategy (e.g., deciding what kinds of relationships are needed to make progress on the TOC)
 * Working with the group to set realistic expectations…

Go back to April 5-6 Convening Notes.