nnf - a conversation on network weaving with roberto cremonini
TRANSCRIPT
Network Weaving
A discussion with Roberto Cremonini about his experiences at the Barr Foundation supporting network
weaving and assessing impact. January 14, 2011
The Barr Foundation
• Anonymous, private Family Founda4on
• Created in 1997/staffed in 2000
• Distribu4on: $45-‐$50m
• Geographic scope: Boston
• 2 Trustees and 12 staff
• No open applica4on
• Focus: Arts & Culture, Educa4on, Environment
2 01.14.11 Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience
Why did the Barr Foundation start the work?
• Between 35 and 50% of children in Boston participate in some form of after school sports program, but programs vary in terms of focus, quality, and intensity
• A strong body of evidence links involvement in organized sports activities to academic achievement and positive youth development, especially for disadvantaged youth
• There are clear gaps in the system, both neighborhood-based (e.g., Roxbury, Mattapan, Allston-Brighton) and gender/ethnicity (e.g., girls, Hispanic and Asian youth)
• Lack of information sharing and coordination hinders quality, scale and sustainability of field
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 3 01.14.11
Source: Don Siegel, Re-conceptualizing and Recreating Youth Sports in Boston, Barr Foundation, 2002 http://www.barrfoundation.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=239284
Why networks? • Improving outcomes for youth requires systemic change in
addition to incremental change within individual organizations
• Policy change is difficult and non-adaptive and not powerful enough on its own to achieve long-term, sustainable change
• Solutions for many existing challenges exist, but require a cross-disciplinary approach to bring them to life
• Building and strengthening social capital is critical to sustainable change
• Networks are a source of adaptive capacity for the sector, and key to quality, scale, and sustainability of service delivery
• Supporting network building is a highly-leveraged investment that yields a strong cost-benefit ratio
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 4 01.14.11
Increased Connectivity = Stronger Programs and Positive Outcomes for Children
How did Barr start the work?
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 5 01.14.11
Hired a weaver!
To encourage, strengthen, and build network connections across youth sports programs, intermediaries, and funders in order to improve • information sharing, • program quality, • the scale of youth sports
offerings, and • sustainability of youth
sports in the out-of-school sector.
The theory and practice of the weaver initiative followed a “learn as we go” approach
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 6 01.14.11
2004 - 2006 2007 - 2009 2010 - present
Taxiing
Take Off
Cruising
Total Barr Foundation Investment: • Weaver Position & Infrastructure: $1M • Grants to Sector/Capacity Building: $1.16M
Goal: Understand the structure and needs of the sector Activities: • Foster emergent, “bottom up” activity • Improve knowledge sharing • Catalyze and facilitate relationships development • Serve as capacity builder for intermediaries
1. Understand network needs, and formulate strategy
2. Use a portfolio of tools/ actions to build connections and improve quality, scale, and sustainability of programs
3. Enable “virtuous cycle,” starting with stronger network
Build/strengthen infrastructure
(e.g., intermediaries)
Report on learnings and coordinate joint-response
Convene/organize forums & foster direct connections
Broker connections to resources - financial and not
Stronger network
Stronger, more collaborative sector
More effective organizations
Conduct learning/ needs assessment
We used the network building process as organizing framework
Taxiing
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 7 01.14.11
A key learning during “taxiing” was the need to shift mindset and approach to make weaving more effective
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 8 01.14.11
From • Coordinating/creating
• Focus on trying to find solutions to sector problems
• Broad scale/seeking the “one size fits all” projects
• Focus on intra-sector links
• Developing standalone “initiatives”
• Impact as concrete, visible change
To • Catalyzing/facilitating
• Focus on connecting players to resources and to one another to help them find answers/solutions
• More small-group connections and/or initiatives
• Looking for links between sector-specific players and intermediaries, other OST players
• Leveraging initiatives for ongoing connectivity
• Impact as connections among players, leading to longer-term change
1. Understand network needs, map connectivity, and build relationships with key players
2. Use a portfolio of tools/ actions to build connections among network players and strengthen network structure
3. Enable “virtuous cycle,” starting with stronger network
Build/strengthen
infrastructure (e.g., intermediaries)
Improve information flow & spread of best practices
Foster direct connections & facilitate group convenings
Broker connections to resources (financial and not)
Stronger network
Stronger, more collaborative sector
More effective organizations
Map network structure and connectivity
Conduct learning/ needs assessment
We used the network building process as organizing framework
Take Off
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 9 01.14.11
Sports network: before and after (Spring 2006)
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 10 01.14.11
• Efficiency = 3.84
• Resilience = 7.97%
• Approximately 450 nodes
• Efficiency* = 4.67
• Resilience* = 8.19%
• Goal for efficiency is 3; for resilience is close to 20%; balance between the two is important
Engaging key individuals with higher than average connectivity was critical to network resilience
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 11 01.14.11
Sports “high awareness” individuals
A caveat on measuring network impact
“When measuring a decentralized network, it’s better, as the saying goes, to be vaguely right than precisely wrong.”
-- The Starfish and the Spider
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 12 01.14.11
That things are happening beyond a weaver’s view or control (and thus not measurable) is a good indicator that the weaver is doing his/her job well … the network taking on a life of its own is sign of success
Beyond data, several qualitative outcomes observed
13
New collaborations form or grow
Information flow improves
New hubs/new weavers stronger intermediaries
New resources (crossing boundaries)
“Best practices” spread/ innovations emerge
• e.g., SPARK in place at CLCs
Specific needs identified and met
• e.g., Training provided on key topics such as fundraising, or scholarships provided for arts supply membership or youth development training
• e.g., Newsletters help increase awareness of network happenings; ideas and information shared through “getting to know you” visits; some sharing of ideas across newly-connected players
• e.g., Networking for Outcomes group has “gelled” well and beginning to self-organize; stakeholders coming together to pursue alternative space ideas for the arts
• e.g., Investment in strengthening GoodSports; identifying and planning to convene “high awareness” individuals
• e.g., BU tied into sports network for coaches training; increased awareness of available resources
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 13 01.14.11
Key lessons about effective weaving
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 14 01.14.11
• It’s about networks, not network
• Understanding organizations/individuals self-interest
• Weaving requires a mix of tools and approaches, and these will evolve over time
• Identifying and convening key “leaders” to spread the weaving
• Weavers don’t need to use network language when talking to the field
• Traning/support is critical for weavers, e.g., on facilitation, managing collaboration
• Mapping tools should be used early and on an ongoing basis
• Need to develop peer group, mentor(s), sounding board
• Location and affiliation do matter
• Clear expectations (and metrics) for weaving are critical
• Sector map • New connections
• Between weaver and network members
• Among network members
• Boundary spanning connections
• Synthesis of needs and ideas for projects to meet them
• Convenings of diverse participants
• Projects facilitated by weavers in process
• New resources brought into the network
• New/stronger intermediaries
Outputs Weaver activities
Network level outcomes
Sector-level outcomes
Network Building Metrics
• Identify needs, assets and existing networks
• Share knowledge and ideas
• Make individual connections
• Convene diverse groups to stimulate new thinking and connectivity
• Connect network members to potential resources
• Spot new ideas and leaders and support their growth/spread
• Build capacity of intermediaries
• Higher quality programs delivered to youth
• More children served
• Underserved groups better served
• More integrated delivery (tied to higher quality)
• Greater capacity of sector to respond to/survive change
• Statistical network strength measures :
• Awareness • Influence • Diversity • Resilience • Integration
• Observations of other “smart network” indicators
• Innovations emerge and spread across network
• Natural collaboration increases
• Intermediaries stable and playing valuable roles
• More voices get to table for issues with sector-level impact
Measured by inflow
Observed by weavers/SML
Measurement TBD
Key lessons about the value added by weavers
Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 16 01.14.11
• Understanding what is going on in the sector. A different, deeper sense of honesty -“we’re not talking to a foundation”
• Making the sector feel “There’s someone here to help me”
• Breaking down market inefficiencies (there are resources out there, but people cannot access them)
• Making it easy for organizations to work on small collaborations in a fragmented field
• Building/supporting infrastructure bottom-up, from what already exists in an emergent way
• Creating relationships that are more sustainable and will lead to new projects
It takes time to get the big impact and less if one recognizes that the “small things” are valuable even if “small things” are difficult to track