nnf - a conversation on network weaving with roberto cremonini

[email protected]

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


Increased Connectivity = Stronger Programs and Positive Outcomes for Children

How did Barr start the work?


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


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


A key learning during “taxiing” was the need to shift mindset and approach to make weaving more effective


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


Sports network: before and after (Spring 2006)


•  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


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


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


Key lessons about effective weaving


•  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


•  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

nnf - a conversation on network weaving with roberto cremonini

Documents

barr foundation experience

barr foundation anonymous

network building

approach network weaving

network needs

youth sports programs

sustainability of youth

network connections