Thanks Lori for highlighting the thoughtful approaches that Babcock and KCF have taken as they support collaboratives and less formal networks. While I wholeheartedly agree that foundations need to be mindful of power imbalances when interacting with grantees, my experience working with Babcock has shown that it’s also valuable for foundation staff bring their intelligence and critical thinking into the conversation—so long as the foundation has the staff and the culture to support this sort of intervention. Babcock’s network officers do a certain level of advising and prodding with members of funded networks, but only after building a strong relationship. Moreover, network officers bring highly developed inter-personal skills, deep content expertise and humility (see “Bulding the Capacity of Networks to Achieve Systems Change” published by Foundation Review in 2012 http://mrbf.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/foundation_review_2012_pdf.pdf).
In addition, Babcock’s experience with CAN demonstrated that a foundation can engage in more direct and pointed exchanges with networks and collaboratives as the work evolves. My case study of CAN’s experience with collective impact yielded 5 stages of development that networks go through, each of which calls for a distinct form of support from the foundation. The sort of advising that Babcock’s network officer does is particularly valuable when in Stage 3, when a network explores the possibility of moving beyond information-sharing and begins to think seriously about developing a collective strategy, with all the attendant implications for each organization’s mission, identity and strategy. (See “Getting to Collective Impact: How Funders can Contribute over the Life Course of the Work,” published by Foundation Review in 2013. http://mrbf.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/easterling_-_getting_to_collective_impact.pdf )
Finally, I would like to emphasize the recriprocal nature of this work. CAN has benefited in a variety of ways from the support they have received by Babcock, Ford, Benedon, Kellogg, ARC and others over the past two decades. At the same time, these funders have gained a more sophisticated understanding of the Central Appalachian region and the actors at work in the region, and thus have been able to refine and improve their own strategies for promoting community and economic development. This co-learning process is continuing explicitly under the auspices of the Appalachia Funders Network.
Thanks for this; it reaffirms the work of building a grantee community, a trusted community of grant makers and organizations that can work together collectively. I will share with colleagues who may need a bit of guidance on the topic.
COMMENTS
BY Doug Easterling
ON August 18, 2014 09:19 AM
Thanks Lori for highlighting the thoughtful approaches that Babcock and KCF have taken as they support collaboratives and less formal networks. While I wholeheartedly agree that foundations need to be mindful of power imbalances when interacting with grantees, my experience working with Babcock has shown that it’s also valuable for foundation staff bring their intelligence and critical thinking into the conversation—so long as the foundation has the staff and the culture to support this sort of intervention. Babcock’s network officers do a certain level of advising and prodding with members of funded networks, but only after building a strong relationship. Moreover, network officers bring highly developed inter-personal skills, deep content expertise and humility (see “Bulding the Capacity of Networks to Achieve Systems Change” published by Foundation Review in 2012 http://mrbf.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/foundation_review_2012_pdf.pdf).
In addition, Babcock’s experience with CAN demonstrated that a foundation can engage in more direct and pointed exchanges with networks and collaboratives as the work evolves. My case study of CAN’s experience with collective impact yielded 5 stages of development that networks go through, each of which calls for a distinct form of support from the foundation. The sort of advising that Babcock’s network officer does is particularly valuable when in Stage 3, when a network explores the possibility of moving beyond information-sharing and begins to think seriously about developing a collective strategy, with all the attendant implications for each organization’s mission, identity and strategy. (See “Getting to Collective Impact: How Funders can Contribute over the Life Course of the Work,” published by Foundation Review in 2013. http://mrbf.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/easterling_-_getting_to_collective_impact.pdf )
Finally, I would like to emphasize the recriprocal nature of this work. CAN has benefited in a variety of ways from the support they have received by Babcock, Ford, Benedon, Kellogg, ARC and others over the past two decades. At the same time, these funders have gained a more sophisticated understanding of the Central Appalachian region and the actors at work in the region, and thus have been able to refine and improve their own strategies for promoting community and economic development. This co-learning process is continuing explicitly under the auspices of the Appalachia Funders Network.
BY Monique Brunson Jones
ON August 21, 2014 09:11 PM
Thanks for this; it reaffirms the work of building a grantee community, a trusted community of grant makers and organizations that can work together collectively. I will share with colleagues who may need a bit of guidance on the topic.