6-6+Draft+Supporting+Networks

=SUPPORTING NETWORKS=

Why investing in networks is challenging and important?
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.

Investing and initiating network activity is a natural fit for many foundations, but its not always easy. 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 what type of support is needed, and reframing expectations around measuring impact. It also means coming up with creative strategies for engaging boards accustomed to program outcomes and balanced budgets. The good news is that investing in networks is not uncharted territory. Grantmakers large and small have experience with supporting networks and a set of practices that work are emerging.

(adapted from the work of iScale and June Holley and Valdis Krebs)

How can foundations support networks?
Below are number of things funders can do and invest in to foster social networks for social change. 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, start by letting go of the old dominant model--organizations—and frame your work with knowledge and sensitivity 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 existing network connections might be tapped? Who are the influential players? Who ought to be involved but currently is not? Gayle Williams, Executive Director of Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation says, “Don’t create new networks. Start with existing groups… Invest in networks that are naturally occurring and on the verge of making important strategic connections. ” 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:


 * 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 for all stakeholders 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.
 * 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 percent—strategies achieving this goal 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.
 * 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 “What Should be Considered When Investing in Networks” diagnostic 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 start with small easily absorbed grants.

Specifically, funders can provide support for:

> > Robert Wood Johnson is creating network spaces through the development of program strategies that “aggregate contributions of many” versus replicating an isolated model or approach. For example, 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, the foundation is 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?” > > > 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, 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. Coordinators design and run processes to coordinate participation, engage members and synthesize their input. They’re most critical for networks with formal structure, like RE-AMP Energy Network. > >
 * 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.
 * Dedicated network leadership: To fulfill their potential, networks need dedicated capacity for weaving connections and coordinating participation. These roles might be done by one or multiple people. And, in some cases, foundation staff may play these roles. (See Sidebar “What roles can foundations play in networks?” p.)
 * 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. Think of investments at this stage as akin to “mezzanine funding” in venture capital parlance. This was the role the Jim Joseph Foundation played when they invested in the Reboot Network, six years after it was started, by providing support for getting the infrastructure and systems in place needed to evolve the network to the next level.

>
 * Establish innovation funds. Make available modest amounts of funding for projects led by network participants who want to get together and collaborate on projects. Lawrence Community Works, 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, Lawrence Community Works 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 is 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 to reflect on their individual challenges, work on projects with colleagues and connect with other networks in Monterey County. Similarly, Reboot brings together teams of Rebooters around projects that the network has decided to pursue (10Q, Sabbath Manifesto, etc). This allows the network to build leadership that doesn’t originate in a face to face social gatherings. Instead the network produces changing teams of Rebooters who assume leadership over one piece of the network’s work. Obviously happy to expound more on this.

__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 the Wikimedia Foundation-- a nonprofit dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of content from wiki-based projects free of charge—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, the foundation was aware of flagging contribution numbers and a lack of diversity among the contributors. At the same time, they were 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.

__Build the field’s ability to support networks for good__

In addition to supporting the work of discrete 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 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.



What Should be Considered When Investing in Networks?
What are the characteristics of a healthy network or a network-centric project? Just as the meaning of “healthy” differs for people depending on factors like age, gender and genetics, there’s no universal picture of network health. However, as with people, there is some consensus about what healthy tends to be, and conversely, what unhealthy looks like for networks. Here are important attributes of healthy networks, followed by several related questions to consider when you’re assessing what a network needs.


 * 1. VALUE**. Effective networks offer multiple doors of entry – a range of value propositions that will resonate with diverse motives for participation. They also outline clearly for participants what can be expected from the network and what will be expected of the participant in return.
 * How broad versus targeted does the purpose need to be?
 * Is there a range of value propositions available?
 * What value do members get? What do they give? Is the exchange clear?


 * 2. PARTICIPATION**. Participants in healthy networks are connecting with others and engaging in network activities. There is an environment of trust and reciprocity nurtured through distributed leadership, and an established and enforced code of conduct.
 * Is there ample trust and reciprocity? Are there systems, practices, capacity in place for nurturing trust and reciprocity?
 * What stakeholder groups are present? Are some groups more heavily engaged than others? Who is not participating who ought to be?
 * How porous are the boundaries? What are the relationships with other networks?
 * How big does the network need to be?


 * 3. FORM**. The network form should reflect the purpose. For example, if the purpose is innovation there should be a large “periphery” – individuals who are loosely connected around the edges of the network and who bring in fresh ideas.
 * What form is needed at different stages in the network’s life cycle? What is the ideal network form in one year? Three years? Five years?
 * How tight or how loose is the network structure? What's the balance needed?
 * How important are strong versus weak ties? Do some relationships need to be strengthened? Do new connections need to be added to the network?
 * What’s the role of the periphery, if any? Is it being optimized?
 * What’s role of the center, or hub, if any? Is information and action flowing through the hub(s)? Is there a bottleneck?


 * 4. LEADERSHIP**. Leadership in healthy networks is shared and distributed widely. Ideally there are many participants exercising leadership, by weaving connections, bridging differences and inspiring participants to recognize and work toward shared goals.
 * What are the leadership roles needed in the network? Who convenes it? Facilitates it? Weaves it? Coordinates it? Champions it? Is there ample leadership capacity?
 * How is responsibility shared across the network?
 * How are decisions made?


 * 5. CONNECTION**. Connectivity throughout the network should be dense enough that if highly connected participants leave the network remains strong. Ample well-designed space, online and in person, and effective use of social media can facilitate these connections.
 * What are the spaces for network connection? When and where does the network meet?
 * What infrastructure is needed to maintain and/or strengthen connection?
 * Are there multiple venues for making connections? How are online and in-person opportunities for connection integrated?
 * How open versus closed should the spaces for network connection be?


 * 6. THE CAPACITY TO TAP THE NETWORK’S ASSETS**. Healthy networks operate on the premise that the assets they need are resident within the network. They have systems and habits in place for revealing capacity – like talent, resources and time – and tapping that capacity.
 * Can the network find and tap network assets (e.g., money, relationships, talent)?
 * How quickly does information about network assets flow through the network?


 * 7. FEEDBACK LOOPS AND ADAPTATION**. Networks are dynamic; what is needed and works today may be different tomorrow. Healthy networks have feedback loops in place that enable continuous learning about what works and what’s needed, with input from across the network. Then they adapt and act based on their new knowledge.
 * How does the network know if it’s working or not, and how does it make needed adjustments?
 * How does the network listen to its participants?

Go back to 6-7 Draft Funders Guide TOC