9-Mar,+Group+A,+11am+PST+Case+Meeting

=March 9 Webinar: RE-AMP Case Study and Peer Assist=


 * Pre-read**: RE-AMP case study: @http://t.co/sSBAbhu

media type="custom" key="8656794"
 * Presentation Material:**
 * Conversation Highlights:**

// Context on Garfield and RE-AMP //
 * **__ The Problem __** : The Garfield Foundation is a small private foundation that gives out ~$4MM / year. As a small funder, the foundation was having difficulty getting a sense of the bigger picture of what it was giving money to. This made it extremely difficult for foundation staff to discern between proposals –potential grantees that did similar work looked equally appealing because there was no sense of how either one fit into the larger system.
 * **__ Initiative __** : RE-AMP did not begin as an intentional effort to weave a “network” but rather as a donor-led initiative to use systems mapping to align efforts across foundations and NGOs. The Garfield Foundation embarked on a nation-wide search for an area in the country where people were already collaborating and open to taking a systems approach. The initiative was a five-year, $500K / year commitment from the Garfield Foundation.
 * **__ The System __** : The Garfield Foundation decided to lend their support to a group of foundations and NGOs that focused on renewable energy in the upper Midwest. While there was some informal communication / collaboration between organizations – some of which were located less than three miles from each other – there was no communications strategy or formal dialogue structures in place for NGO advocates to align.
 * **__ Theory of Change __** : The Foundation believed that alignment between stakeholders is necessary in order to scale / accelerate any initiative. Moreover, they believed that analytic tools (systems analysis and mapping) could be used to understand the system, and that the knowledge gained from this analysis could be used to identify places for the Foundation to intervene and to align the efforts of stakeholders.

// The Process //
 * ** Beginning the Mapping Process ** : The Garfield Foundation interviewed different foundations across six states in the Midwest, inquiring whether they would participate in a mapping process. Based on these interviews, they identified two highly regarded NGO leaders from each state.
 * Each of these 12 NGO leaders were approached by The Garfield Foundation with a proposition: the Foundation would sponsor a year-long systems mapping process if they agreed to align their program and grantmaking work with the insights they gained from the mapping process.
 * ** Results of the Mapping Process ** : Despite a few false starts, the systems analysis actually delivered—stakeholders were able to agree on a goal for their collective efforts. Interestingly, their goal was not actually about promoting renewable energy (as they initially thought), but rather about climate change and global warming. The mapping exercise also revealed four areas for the group to focus on in order to achieve their goal: two were focused on coal, two concerned energy efficiency / renewable energy.
 * The results of the mapping exercise were //motivating//. They made the problem seem more manageable by describing the solution in terms of four interrelated levers. They also made it clear that, in order to adequately address all four levers, NGOs and funders would have to work together
 * ** Acting on the Results ** : 20 organizations (12 NGOs, two from each state; a few foundations; and a few government organizations) all agreed to //act// on the results of the mapping exercise.
 * Garfield created Planning Grants, which were given to one leader in each of the 4 areas to build their “dream team” of folks who would draft a plan to address their specific area (e.g., blocking new coal plants). These leaders had emerged through the mapping process; meanwhile, their dream teams expanded the network from an initial 20 to 30 NGOs.
 * Garfield also convened integration teams (I-Teams), which comprised of a representative of the Garfield Foundation and three consultants, to determine what kind of organization would be needed to support the efforts of the network. The I-Team decided not to build a centralized organization, which could be perceived as a threat by NGOs on the ground that would have to compete with it for resources. This was where the network idea emerged.

// The RE-AMP Network //
 * **__ Structure __** : RE-AMP consists of several working and ad-hoc groups and steering committees. The design principle that is common to them all is that NGO and foundation leaders work alongside each other—some even collaboratively manage several-million dollar funds! ** [slide #2] **
 * __ Working groups __ : At the heart of RE-AMP are working groups, five of which are issue-based and one Foundation working group. Most participants work with at least one working group. They meet remotely for monthly conference calls and in person for a yearly network-wide conference.
 * __ Ad-hoc groups __ : Collaboration also takes place in Ad-Hoc Groups, which have special emphases (e.g., rural issues, youth, and national environmental organizations). The Garfield Foundation pays for part-time staff person for each ad-hoc group, to help the groups inject their thinking into the network more broadly. Ad-hoc group members can also participate in the working groups.
 * __ Steering committee __ : Working groups e-elect leaders to sit on the Steering Committee—shoulder-to-shoulder with foundation representatives. The steering committee manages a $750K budget, ½ of which goes toward supporting staff and the activities of working groups, and the other half of which goes toward supporting the annual meting, the media center (which has managed to raise a separate budget), etc.
 * __ Global Warming Strategic Action Fund __ : Since RE-AMP began, an additional Global Warming Strategic Action Fund developed—it has a pooled fund of $3-4M / year, raised from 5 foundations. It is managed by elected working group leaders working alongside contributing donors.
 * **__ Infrastructure __** : While there is shared understanding that RE-AMP will never be able to have more money / resources than the opposition, there is belief that the network can get smarter over time by sharing resources more effectively. The network infrastructure helps make this possible.
 * __ Media Center __ : Staff of media professionals who provide training and practical support to all members of RE-AMP. The media center is highly rated by RE-AMP’s members—even those that have sophisticated media shops themselves!
 * In order to get buy- in on common communications, the Garfield Foundation drew on media shop of one of the network participants (Action Media).
 * Action Media helped RE-AMP reframe its campaign in terms of shared values (i.e., not working for “80% reduction in Greenhouse gas emissions,” but rather for a “safe, efficient, clean system for Midwest”)
 * __ Online Commons __ : Online web-based suite of collaborative tools that were developed for RE-AMP
 * __ Learning & Progress System __ : Instead of reporting to foundations, NGOs submit reports into a monitoring & progress system; these are reviewed by an analyst, who extracts information that would be useful to the network to promote sharing best – and worst – practices. The reports address questions such as, //what have grantees learned from media and messaging? What’s the opposition doing? What allies have they enlisted / would like to enlist?//
 * This **//requires a shift in mindset//**: Reports function as a way to enable learning, rather than ensure accountability.
 * It also **//requires follow-through//** on the information that is collected. For example, at the annual meeting, a network member that indicated he or she is looking for international partners would be introduced to those who have been successful in seeking out international partners.

// Peer Assist [Slide #4] //
 * **__ Problem __** : What RE-AMP learns through the Primetime Survey stops with the Global Warming Strategic Action Fund steering committee. Likewise, the learning (due diligence and evaluation) that individual foundations are doing stays at their respective organizations.
 * **// Share bite-sized insights //** : “Push” bite-sized learnings rather than to produce a lengthy report.
 * **// Ask the network //** : Ask the network for suggestions on how to share collective knowledge.
 * **// Turn to local funders //** : Share insights with local funders’ groups (e.g., public funding agencies and public and community foundations)
 * **// Share with the Council on Foundations //**
 * **// Shared Data Center //** : In the past, one barrier to sharing results among funders has been access to data. It may be possible to create a shared data center that improves that quantity and quality of research that’s informing the collective effort for RE-AMP
 * **// Highlight to participants RE-AMP’s successes to date to build trust and help participants grasp their collective potential. //**

// Parting Thoughts // // Q&A //
 * The Garfield Foundation made a substantial 5-year commitment to an initiative without knowing whether it would pan out. Even after the first 18 months, when 40% of the funding (~$1MM) had been spent on process, e.g., on consultants, a meeting place, etc., there was no way for the Foundation to know that their effort would produce the kinds of results we see today. **//Foundations need to see investing in process and shared analytic thinking as an important and smart kind of investment, knowing that like any venture capital investment, it may not always pay off.//**
 * When you initially surveyed foundation and NGO leaders, did they understand the notion of systems mapping? If not, how did you explain your initiative to them?
 * // “The Garfield Foundation explained the notion of systems mapping very generally to NGO and foundation leaders, and they had a Systems Analysis 101 course where they went over the main concepts. While they may not have understood the approach entirely, they did comprehend the value proposition of the approach: gaining alignment on goals.” //
 * To what extent do you think RE-AMP’s members’ alignment around the systems map was rationale vs. emotional?
 * // “I believe the very motivation for alignment was based on frustration that the current system wasn’t delivering for people. They were emotionally attracted to trying something different. You cannot do something like this and enroll people if they don’t feel a sense of frustration.” //
 * // ”The insight that the maps gave us, once we actually saw them, seemed so obvious! It didn’t seem brilliant at all – rather, no one before had said it quite in that way. The strength of the map was that it made complete common sense. This may not have been true had we chosen a more complicated system, like food networks.” //