5-17+Network+Support+Funders+Guide

=The "Ask"=
 * //We'd love your thoughts / reflections on the preliminary outline of the guide, specifically://**
 * 1) General reactions: what works? what didn't?
 * 2) What’s missing?
 * 3) What's not needed / what can we drop?
 * 4) What additional examples / experiences from your work or others might we include to illustrate ideas?

= **INVESTOR** =

//The Investor looks across her portfolio and sees opportunity for the whole to add up to more than the sum of its parts. She has a bird’s eye view of the field and it’s clear that players are not talking to one another, let alone coordinating action. Perhaps by creating the spaces for connection, learning and better information flows there will be less fragmentation and duplication of effort. The Investor knows she’s in a powerful position. If she asks, leaders will come to table. She wants to thoughtfully embrace her influence and nurture more and stronger ties in the field. But she doesn’t want to remain in the middle too long. She wants to be mindful about the impact of money on cultivating network ties and foster sustainability.//

//The Investor’s colleagues think her approach to supporting networks makes sense –in theory. Less fragmentation would, no doubt, benefit the field. But it’s all so abstract and experimental. How does money for socializing –food, travel, convening space, communications infrastructure, facilitation, etc—add up to meaningful impact in the field? Plus, the foundation’s systems simply aren’t set up to do this kind of grantmaking. How do you approach due diligence? Where does the money go if there’s no central 501c3? And, what about measuring impact?//

__**//Why invest in networks and why is it hard?//**__
As we’ve discussed, there are ample reasons to invest in networks: weaving community, accessing new perspectives, building knowledge, mobilizing engagement, coordinating resources and action, and above all scaling impact.

Grantmakers, large and small, are in a special position to be the spark that catalyzes networks for good—to connect leaders in a field, catalyze action, and strengthen existing social webs. They have a view of activity across their field, they typically have a corresponding social network, and their influence as a funder incents people to come to the table. Initiating network activity is a natural fit for many foundations, but its not always easy. The challenges associated with investing in networks typically circle around two broad issues: the funder’s role and adapting standard grantmaking practices to working with networks.

Most funders don’t see themselves as full participants in the networks they catalyze or support. They want to broker connections but they don’t want to be at the center of the network. They want to invest in networks in a way that fosters sustainability, not dependence. Yet, investing in networks often demands a more hands-on approach, which can require time consuming participation in the network and result in greater dependence on the funder, at least in the short term. Furthermore, standard grantmaking practices are set up to serve standalone organizations, rather than messy, dynamic groups of people and organizations who may not even have a 501c3. This means developing new approaches toward due diligence, figuring out where the money can go and the types of resources needed in a given situation, and reframing expectations around expectations and measuring impact. There has been progress on overcoming these challenges and developing grantmaking practices that can truly catalyze network impact. Step one is to let go of the old dominant model: organizations, and frame your work with knowledge and sensitivity to the network context. In the following chapter, we start by looking at how networks evolve, as a frame for understanding network needs. Then we look at number of ways funders can catalyze networks for good.

//__ **How Do Networks Grow and Change Over Time** __//
//[fn -// Sources: Adapted from iScale, with input from the work of June Holley and Valdis Krebs] Networks are the relationships –formal and informal—all around us, which can take a variety of forms: formal and tight inter-organizational coalitions and alliances, broader groups linked together through multiple hubs, people who are loosely connected together through a common platform and cause. The model below illustrates the range of forms networks can come in with varying degrees of centralization and formality.



Just as networks come in all shapes and sizes, how they change and evolve is similarly diverse. However, there are some clear patterns to network lifecycles, captured in the model below,

[we’ll use network images to illustrate each phase]

How can foundations support networks? Below are number of things funders can do and invest in to foster networks for good. Many of them require funding infrastructure and individuals, in addition to common grantmaking domains like program support and organizational capacity building. To do this well, you need a sensitivity to network dynamics and an ability to work with a network mindset, since traditional and organization-centric models of effectiveness may not be applicable to the network context.

The funding opportunities are organized around what might be particularly helpful at different stages in a network’s lifecycle. Since networks are continuously changing and evolving, many of the investment opportunities mentioned for one stage will continue to be relevant in later stages of evolution as well.

**Know the network:**
Social change makers, their constituencies, opponents and allies are all embedded in webs of connections. A first step in catalyzing networks is to better “know the network”—the relationships that exist, centers of power, intersecting issues and levers for change. Better knowing the network means pausing to understand the context—what relationships already exist and might be tapped? Who are the influential players? Who ought to be involved but currently is not? Simply put, know the system into which you’re intervening and look for connections and efforts already underway that you might amplify.

To better “know the network” grantmakers can invest in:

> > Other tools like systems mapping, emergent learning maps and power analyses are also helpful for “knowing” networks. The Garfield Foundation invested in a year-long systems mapping exercise to understand Midwest energy issues. Twelve nonprofits and seven foundations participated. The result was alignment on a shared goal-- “to reduce regional global warming emissions by 80%-- strategies for getting here, and the formation of the RE-AMP network. The Franklin College Community Network paused to reflect on a picture of their network after it was already established. They developed an “emergent learning map” – a visual representation of what the network already knows—when it was two years old. The map revealed how much the group had accomplished with relatively limited resources and bolstered their commitment. > >
 * __Network mapping and visualization.__ Visualize and develop a deeper understanding of relationships within the network and the context in which it’s embedded. This can be done by mapping the network through a variety of methods, like social-network mapping (see “How Can Foundations Use Social Network Mapping and Analysis?” p.), systems diagramming and mapping funding flows. Network and systems maps can reveal the current and potential network resources, providing important insight into how a project might be organized to maximize these assets. For example, the Community Foundation for Monterey County is using social network mapping to visualize existing relationships in several local communities from leaders in the small town of Greenfield to environmental organizations across the county. The maps are then being used to provoke discussion (and related action) about how the groups might better connect and coordinate.
 * __Assessment using network-specific criteria__. If a network with some degree of formality already exists (e.g. a name, recognition that are people are part of it), then assessing the network’s health is crucial to knowing the network. Assessing network health requires a shift away from typical due diligence considerations. Consider dimensions like: Is the information flowing through the network? Are diverse perspectives present? Can new participants easily enter and become productive? (See the “Questions for Consideration When Investing in Network-Centric Project” tool on p._.)

**Knit and organize the network:**
Once there’s an understanding of who’s in the network, who ought to be, and how the players, power, and potential inter-relate, you can act on this knowledge and begin to “knit” together the parts and set-up organizing structures as needed.

Things can get complicated if there is no clear network hub or 501c3 intermediary that can receive, manage and distribute funds and other resources. If there isn’t one, seek out a neutral trusted entity. Also, when working with relatively loose or informal groups, be sensitive to the effects of money and structure and start small.

Specifically, funders can provide support for:
 * __Creation and maintenance of spaces for weaving the network.__ This might be a physical space, like the building where Making Connections Louisville (one of the localities supported in Annie E. Casey’s Making Connections initiative) holds its monthly “Network Nights” that bring together residents over food and conversation. Or, it could be a custom built online space like goodWORKSconnect.org. Or, a standard social networking platform, like the “Ning” that was built out for use by Hawaii’s Schools of the Future Community of Learners. In each of these cases, establishing environments where network connections can flourish requires investing in infrastructure.
 * RWJF is creating network spaces through the development of program strategies that “aggregate contributions of many” versus replicating an isolated model or approach. For example, with PreventObesity.net they’re connecting together a nation-wide advocacy network by providing the tools and services they need to fight for obesity prevention. They recently launched State Refor(u)m which aggregates the expertise of practitioners through a platform for connecting state health officials with their peers so their can share resources and experience with implementing the Affordable Care Act. As Chief Technology and Information Officer, Steve Downs, said, they’re recognizing that “increasingly value is created in a decentralized ways. How do we produce things in a way that others can then take further and grow?”
 * __Dedicated network leadership:__ To fulfill their potential, networks need dedicated capacity for weaving connections, coordinating participation and mobilizing action. These roles might be done by one person or multiple people. And, in some cases, foundation staff may play these roles. (See FAQ: What roles can foundations play in networks?)
 * //The weaver is a// person or a group of people whose job it is to weave the network by introducing people to one another, encouraging new people to join the network, brokering connections across differences, and helping participants identify and act on opportunities. (See FAQ: What is network weaving and how to support it?)
 * //The coordinator// keeps the network productive and moving forward. Coordinators design and run processes to coordinate participation, engage people and synthesize their input. They’re most critical for networks with formal structure, like RE-AMP.
 * __Network “glue.”__ At this stage, modest funds are needed to make things happen. Kathy Reich at the Packard Foundation says that, “Grantees often tell us how difficult it can be to raise money to work in and through networks, because they feel under pressure to demonstrate their individual organizations' impact.” Sometimes what is most needed is a little bit of “glue money” – funds to support the little things that allow people to participate and the knitting to happen, like food, transportation and childcare.

**Grow the network:**
When growing the network, focus on supporting efforts to spread responsibility and leadership and, thereby, foster sustainability.


 * __Establish innovation funds.__ Make available modest amounts of funding for projects led by network participants who want to get together and collaborate on a project. Lawrence Community Works (LCW), a community development corporation in Massachusetts that is approaching community organizing with a network lens, provides funds for “resonance testing.” Rather than setting up a permanent program with a multi-year strategy, LCW makes small amounts of money available to resident leaders who want to test an idea, like a new approach to engaging teens in the community. The idea is tested on a provisional basis, and if there’s “resonance” with the community, it will be resourced further.
 * __Leadership development for the network.__ Rather than focusing on strengthening isolated individuals, foster leadership in and across networks. Peer learning in one effective model for developing leadership in networks. For example, the Community Foundation for Monterey County has been facilitating a community of practice for network weavers throughout the county. Participants have the opportunity reflect on their individual challenges, work on projects with colleagues and connect with other networks in Monterey County. [other good examples of fostering leadership in and across networks?]
 * __Keep up with the network.__ If something is urgent at the community level, move at the same pace. Experiment with special rapid grant cycles that can provide just-in-time support when necessary. Be ready to act when the network is ready. [ example of just in time funding?]

**Transition the Network**
Networks are ever changing. Success is not the creation of a group and infrastructure that will exist in perpetuity (that’s an organization). Nor is success always about growth. Success is continuous evolution and adaptation to the needs of participants. A temporary collaboration may be all that’s needed. Or, as is often the case, multiple sub-networks may emerge and spin off into separate projects. As the network nears a transition point, invest in:


 * __Reflection/evaluation and strategy development.__ When Wikimedia undertook their movement wide global strategy process, they were nearing an inflection point. In less than a decade, the Wikimedia movement had grown to include 400 million visitors per month, 95,000 active contributors, and over 700 projects. While its reach was still growing rapidly, WMF was aware of flagging contribution numbers and a lack of diversity among the contributors. At the same time, the Wikimedia Foundation—a nonprofit dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of content from wiki-based projects free of charge—was experiencing growing pains, having grown rapidly from an 11-person $2.4M organization to a 50-person $16M organization. It was a natural moment to pause and clarify a path forward for the Wikimedia movement and Foundation. [other good examples of networks in transition?]

**Build the field’s ability to support networks for good**
In addition to supporting the work of individual networks, there is also a need for investment in field building—spreading knowledge of what networks are and their social impact potential, building the capacity of capacity builders who serve and hope to serve networks, and developing mechanisms to allow funders to more easily support groups that are loosely connected. Specifically, funders can invest in:

> >
 * __Building the capacity of the capacity builders to support networks.__ Oftentimes there is a lack of understanding of networks on the part the network participants / leaders and the consultants. The common impulse is to apply what is known about organizational effectiveness to the network context, resulting, potentially, in more harm than good. There’s a need for more capacity building capacity for networks. To address this the Barr Foundation and Interaction Associates for Social Change (IISC) have been been convening a group of network consultants to share insights from their respective practices, collaborate on small network strategy consulting projects, and thereby build the capacity of the capacity builders.
 * __Developing mechanisms for supporting individuals and informal networks.__ Working through networks typically means working through informal structures. Funders can experiment with approaches that don’t assume organizational infrastructure. Support for individuals to weave network connections and distribute resources is one way to do this. Longer-term there may be opportunities to overcome and/or expand the currently regulatory limitations that often limit funders to investing only in 501(c)3s.

__ ** FAQs About Investing in Networks ** __

 * What is network weaving and how to support it? (See page ___.)__
 * What roles can foundations play in networks? (See page _.)
 * How to manage power differentials when funders enter or catalyze networks? (See page _.)
 * What skills and characteristics are needed to invest in catalyzing networks? (See page _.)

__ ** Additional Resources ** __
[ tbd]

Go to 5-17 Draft Funders Guide TOC