WEAVING SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS When Funders,
POWERFUL FUNDEREWEAVING SUCCESSFULPARTNERSHIPSWhen Funders, Evaluators, and Intermediaries Work TogetherFIG
The aim of this report is to contributeto field dialogue and learning about howto structure complex systems changestrategies involving multiple partners.
I. INTRODUCTIONFunders who have ambitious goals to change large systems often createpartnerships with intermediaries and evaluators to help realize their visions.But what does it take to effectively weave these partners together andposition them for shared success?Funders regularly partner with intermediariesto extend their reach and impact. Intermediaryorganizations bring reputations and relationshipsthat can enhance their ability to work with grantees.They commonly play a re-granting role—identifying,assessing, and providing grants to nonprofits. Beyondhandling grantmaking mechanics, they play roles inprogram design and management, fiscal sponsorship,capacity building, and convening and coordination ofa field.1 Such partnerships can be complicated, anddifferent models exist ranging from transactional tomore strategic relationships.2Funders also partner with evaluators to assess theeffectiveness and impact of their investments.Historically, evaluators have applied social sciencemethods to help funders answer questions about theimpact of their programmatic investments. The role ofevaluators in philanthropy has evolved, however, withmany now supporting funder and grantee learning andinforming program strategy. As a result, evaluatorshave developed new competencies and techniques thatgo well beyond traditional social science.3But what happens when a funder embarks on amulti-year initiative involving an intermediary andan evaluator? The James Irvine Foundation founditself pondering that question as it embarked on amulti-year initiative involving both types of partners.While the funder, intermediary, and evaluator broughtexpertise relevant to supporting the success of theinitiative, the partnership raised interesting dilemmasregarding roles and relationships, along with questionsabout how best to weave and integrate the expertiseof partners.While these three-way partnerships are commonin the social sector, our initial scan of the literaturemostly revealed substantive resources on twoway relationships—how funders can partner withintermediaries, and how they can partner withevaluators. However, very few resources spoke tofunder partnerships involving intermediariesand evaluators.It is in this context, and in a spirit of continuouslearning, that the Irvine Foundation commissionedthis Reflections report. The aim of this report is tocontribute to field dialogue and learning about how tostructure complex systems change strategies involvingmultiple partners.We inform this report with a review of the literature onpartnership structures, trust building, and developinga culture of learning, as well as case studies ofthree different initiatives involving this partnershiptriad, including one of the Irvine Foundation’s owninvestments. Finally, we draw on the experience andobservations of the funder and authors of this paper,all of whom have engaged in initiatives involving thisconstellation of relationships. We have designed thisreflection to inform a variety of audiences, includingstakeholders leading or participating in complexchange strategies involving multiple partners, funders,intermediaries, and evaluators.David, T. (2007). Partnering with Intermediaries. Prepared for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2013). Smarter Relationships, Better Results: Making the most of grantmakers' work with intermediaries [slide deck].3Coffman, J. (2016). Oh, for the Love of Sticky Notes! The Changing Role of Evaluators Who Work with Foundations [blog post]1 2
II. OPTIMIZING PARTNERSHIP TRIADSComplex change strategies can benefit from the expertise of funders, intermediaries,and evaluators, in addition to community partners. But harnessing this collectiveexpertise requires navigating and overcoming common partnership tensions.QUESTION FOR EXPLORATION:What are common tensions in funder-intermediary-evaluator partnerships, and howcan we overcome these tensions to harness collective expertise to advance complexchange strategies?The scale and complexity of today’s social problemshave resulted in a shift away from supports forsingle organizations and toward strategies focusedon improving outcomes for entire communities.The nature of this work involves coordination andcollaboration among stakeholders representingdiverse communities, sectors, and priorities.2Weaving Successful PartnershipsFunders supporting complex change strategies oftencreate partnerships with intermediaries and evaluatorsto support the work of community stakeholders.Each of these partners holds primary responsibilitiesin such initiatives, though roles may overlap or becollaboratively shared.
COMMON RESPONSIBILITIES OF INITIATIVE FUNDERS, INTERMEDIARIES, AND EVALUATORSFUNDERS Define a vision for success Design and manage the funding strategy Ensure grantees have resources neededto achieve impactINTE R ME DIARIES Support design and implementation of initiative Provide technical assistance, advocacy,re-granting, and/or backbone support forgrantee and initiative success Communicate implementation learnings back tofunders to inform strategy adjustments and providethought partnershipEVALUATOR S Gather information to understand initiative process,effectiveness, and impact Elevate learnings and provide thought partnershipwith potential to accelerate progress anddeepen impactDefining these responsibilities, however, doesnot ensure that partnerships will be seamless andfully operational from the beginning. Because ofthe often-collaborative intent of partnerships andoverlap in roles, there is potential for confusion.Ambiguity of responsibilities can arise in relation tohow information is shared and used to support andrefine strategy, inform the work of grantees, finetune technical assistance, and even shape current andfuture grantmaking and financial support. Attentionto addressing and reducing ambiguity reducesduplication and promotes effectiveness and learning.Looking across the literature, case examples, andour own experiences with this partner triad dynamic,five common tensions arose:» Who holds power?» That’s my role!» Can I really trust you?» Wait, how do we communicate?» Impact it’s on the way!Weaving Successful Partnerships3
tension #1Tension #1: Who Holds Power?Power dynamics are nothing new in philanthropy;funders control resources and therefore hold power.They decide who gets funded, for how much, andwith what level of autonomy. As such, they typicallyhold the greatest power in funder-intermediaryevaluator partnerships.But evaluators hold power as well. They gatherinformation, and through analysis make judgmentsabout what works and what challenges are emerging.They are positioned as an independent arbiterexercising influence over how success, and the factorsthat drive it, are viewed.Intermediaries may hold the least power in suchrelationships, and often are concerned aboutjudgments funders and evaluators are making abouttheir work. However, intermediaries can use theircontent and service expertise, as well as their on-theground knowledge of grantees and communities, togarner authority and influence within the partnership.In some instances, the power that intermediaries holdin implementing the initiative can be quite strong,especially if they control the regranting“purse-strings.”In the end, the structure of intermediary relationshipscan significantly shape power dynamics. A fundermay provide resources to all parties (Powerful FunderScenario), retaining a high degree of influence in theserelationships. Alternatively, a funder may delegateevaluator selection and management, as well as regranting to the intermediary (Powerful IntermediaryScenario), positioning the intermediary to have greaterinfluence over these parties. Finally, a funder maychoose to hold the resource management role witheither the evaluator or the grantees (Shared PowerScenarios), positioning the intermediary to have moreinfluence over one of those parties, but not both.Optimization: Think Ahead about the Best FitFunders must consider different configurations of howresources will flow to choose the best scenario for agiven funding strategy. Considerations may include:» The funder’s level of experience with a particularintermediary or evaluator;» Each party’s expertise in handling different roles;The nature and focus of the evaluation learning» agenda; andThe degree of separation desired between grantee» funding and grantee capacity building.4Weaving Successful Partnerships
PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE CAN INFLUENCE POWER DYNAMICS AMONG FUNDERS,INTERMEDIARIES, AND EVALUATORSThese four scenarios depict the flow of resources among initiative partners:POWERFUL FUNDERSHARED POWER 1EEFSHARED POWER 2IFGEIGF FundersPOWERFUL INTERMEDIARYI IntermediariesFEIFGE EvaluatorsIGG GranteesEach scenario has different implications for power dynamics and relationships among partners:F P OWERFUL FUNDER:The funder holds a high level of influenceover all parties.EI S HARED POWER 1:The funder holds a high level of influence overthe intermediary and evaluator. The intermediaryholds greater influence over grantees. S HARED POWER 2:The funder holds a high level of influence over theintermediary and grantees. The intermediary holdsmore influence over the evaluator. OWERFUL INTERMEDIARY: PIn this scenario, the intermediary holds a high levelof influence over the evaluator and grantees.GWeaving Successful Partnerships5
EThere is no one right way to structureintermediary relationships.IFThere is no one right way to structure suchintermediary relationships. However, it is importantto consider and discuss among partners how theflow of resources shapes who holds power and theimplications of that for working relationships andcollaboration. When funders or intermediaries selectand manage grantees and evaluators, they face twocritical choices:GSelecting or Managing Grantees1. When Tensions can arise when intermediaries hold dualroles as funders and capacity-builders of grantees.In some situations, intermediaries can play bothroles effectively, for example if they know thefield well, are aware of potential challenges, andhave a clear division between staff who addressfunding and compliance and those who supportcapacity building. In other cases, funders may wishto separate these roles—either by managing thegrant process themselves or introducing anotherintermediary partner.6Weaving Successful PartnershipsF2. When Selecting or Managing EvaluatorsEvaluators are typically more aligned with theinformation and learning needs of those who fundand manage them. If an intermediary is drivinga learning and evaluation agenda for a particularinitiative, having them hire and manage theevaluator is a wise choice. Alternatively, a fundermay prefer to select an evaluation partner who canprovide an independent assessment of initiativeeffectiveness and strategic thought partnership.In this scenario, it is best for the funder to hire andmanage the evaluator.In Section 3, we examine three of the resource-flowscenarios (Shared Power 1, Shared Power 2, andPowerful Intermediary) through case examples thatshed light on how partners can address issues andweave effective partnerships. Regardless of scenario,it’s important to be aware of power dynamics, with thegoal of supporting open and balanced partnerships.
tension #2Tension #2: That's My Role!Clear roles are essential to the success of allpartnerships, not just those involving funders. Whenpeople work together, it helps to have agreement onwho holds what responsibilities. This is no less truewhen funders, intermediaries, and evaluators partnerwith one another. For these three partners, learningand strategy comprise two central areas of roledifferentiation and negotiation. L earningWithin the learning process, the roles of funders,intermediaries, and evaluators differ. Whilefunders are expected to learn from the work takingplace, intermediaries and evaluators may seethemselves as facilitating the learning of others.For example, intermediaries may be charged withcreating a grantee learning community or crosspollinating insights and lessons among grantees.Evaluators also strive to facilitate learning in theirwork, not just with funders and intermediaries, butwith the grantees and communities who contributedata to evaluative efforts. Tensions can emergeover how learning is organized and who is in thelead with what audience, be it the funder, grantees,or broader field. Strategy Who influences initiative strategy—the design andimplementation of the grantmaking approach—can also be contested within the context ofcomplex change initiatives. Funders typicallydevelop a strategy and are accountable for itssuccess within their foundation. At the same time,funders may share or delegate aspects of strategymanagement and refinement to their intermediarypartners. Evaluators, too, have influence in thisarena. They provide feedback on what works andwhat may need improvement. Those practicingdevelopmental evaluation are selected for theirexpertise and strategic thinking often specificallyto support strategy refinement.Optimization: Continually Calibrate RolesAt the outset of a triad engagement, a conversationamong partners can align expectations about roleswith regard to learning, strategy, and other anticipatedareas of ambiguity. However, while implementinga funding strategy and evaluation, overlap in rolesor questions about responsibilities may emerge aspartners fine-tune procedures, respond to needsat hand, and recognize new opportunities for (orchallenges with) collaboration. Routine check-ins onareas in question provide opportunities to recalibrate,make adjustments, and ease or prevent tensions.Weaving Successful Partnerships7
tension #3Tension #3: Can I Really Trust You!Optimization: Build Trust DeliberatelyTrust is a topic with a deep theoretical and researchhistory.4 Trust involves believing that someone hasyour best interests at heart. Without trust, it can bedifficult to forge effective partnerships and foster theopen dialogue needed to make complex strategieswork effectively in practice. For instance:Rather than assume partners share perspectives andgoals, a partnership will benefit from establishingcommon ground at the start of the engagement.Ideally through face-to-face communication,partners can speak about their experiences andexpectations, and listen to other members of thetriad. Early conversations serve multiple purposes:setting a tone and precedent of open dialogue,bridging understanding of each player’s strengthsand viewpoints, and identifying opportunities forcollaboration and needs for clear roles and boundaries. I ntermediaries may hesitate to fully discussthe challenges they encounter in working withgrantees, due to concerns about repercussions totheir funding and reputational standing. valuators may express concern about sharing Efindings (or are ethically bound not to share) thatmay compromise the trust they have developedwith evaluation stakeholders. Funders need time to develop relationships andassess how assertive they can be in providingfeedback and guidance, and in discussing internalpressures relevant to the initiative.Trust takes time to develop, and time isoften a precious commodity when workingin this partnership structure.Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090-1112.4 8Weaving Successful Partnerships
tension #4POWERFUL FUNDERSHARED POWER 1SHARED POWER 2EEETension #4: Wait, How Do We Communicate?FIFICommunication is vital to collaboration; in fact,regular communication supports the developmentof trust.5 Open dialogue among partners is essentialto collaboration, and takes time, commitment, andtrust to develop. Partners involved in complex changestrategies often have multiple individual touchpointswith one another:GG Intermediary communicates with funder,and vice versa Evaluator communicates with funder,and vice versa Intermediary communicates with evaluator,and vice versa All three parties interact with granteesFEIGThere are also collective touchpoints involvingconstellations of different partners.POWERFUL INTERMEDIARYEYet even when multiple touchpoints are in place,information flow can be difficult to manage, withpartners carrying out independent responsibilitiesthat may inadvertently affect the activities of another.Often, for example, partners seek to minimize burdenof time and effort on grantees, yet each requiresgrantee participation in capacity building efforts,grant reporting, and evaluation data collection.FIFGA coordinated and streamlined approach smoothsthe grantee experience, but demands that partnerscommunicate effectively and establish fullunderstanding of each others’ processes. Videoand phone conferences are helpful, but may notsuccessfully support deep relationship development,trust-building, and the surfacing and integration ofdiverse perspectives.Optimization: Plan and Mediate CommunicationsDuring the planning stages of an engagement, notonly do routine communication points need to bedetermined, but a partner designated to initiatethem. Intermediaries often play a role in mediatingcommunications, convening partners for projectdiscussions. Using such meetings to build anddeepen trust through open dialogue and listeningcan encourage partners to go beyond “comfortable”conversations to address concerns and settledifferences, ultimately creating a strong partnershipfabric that supports success. Starting with morefrequent touchpoints establishes good communicationpractices, with room to pull back on frequencyand formality as time goes on, balancing interactionneeds with time constraints as monitored by thedesignated mediator.Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations:A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.5 Weaving Successful Partnerships9IG
tension #5Tension #5: Impact It’s on the Way!Optimization: For Best Results, Be RealisticFunders often expect to see results at a pace that isinconsistent with the time needed to realize systemschange on the ground and the time it takes for suchchanges to manifest in measurable communityimprovements—matters of years rather than months.Funders’ program staff and intermediaries alikemay overstate potential impacts—or the timeline inwhich they can be achieved—to obtain or maintainsupport for a programmatic investment. Once fundinghas been secured, tactics quickly shift to managingexpectations for impact. This dynamic places pressureon all partners, including evaluators who may betasked with helping stakeholders such as foundationtrustees understand what impacts are reasonableto expect given funding investment levels and timehorizons. Rather than engaging in open and authenticconversations about the challenges of achievingpopulation-level change, partners may engage in aso-called “cat and mouse game,” in which impact, inconstant pursuit, is nearly captured but then escapes.Candid discussions about hopes and realisticexpectations within the timeframe of the investmentand data collection are not only essential forestablishing common understanding among partners,but can open the engagement to creativity andenhanced learning. All endeavors must operate withinfunding and time limitations. A partnership elevatesits chances for greater and more perceptible impactwhen all parties acknowledge those parameters andmaximize efforts within them. In other words, whenpartners avoid overpromising, they can establish amore trusting relationship, adjust implementationmilestone
Weaving Successful Partnerships 7 tension 2 Tension #2: That's My Role! Clear roles are essential to the success of all partnerships, not just those involving funders. When people work together, it helps to have agreement on who holds what responsibilities. This is no less true when funders,
realm of weaving.” The weaving curve for a k-factor of 1.0 essentially identified the limit of weaving length that resulted in weaving movements. Beyond these lengths, which depended upon weaving volume or flow rate, the section was believed to operate as a basic freeway section, with merging at one end and diverging at the other.
Dark Age Tablet Weaving for Viking and Anglo-Saxon re-enactors 1 Introduction Tablet weaving, also known as card weaving, is a method of using square tablets with holes in the corners to weave narrow decorative bands made of wool, linen or silk threads. Tablet weaving was widespread in E
Free Weaving Patterns from Eplore Techniques for nlay Plain Weave and uck Lace The Draft: How to Read Weaving Patterns P atterns for weaving are written in a form called a “draft.” The draft is a standardized short-hand way
1. LEA and Head Start Program Partnerships . 2. LEA and Early Learning Center Partnerships 3. In-district Charter School Partnerships . Informal Partnerships . Many LEAs, early learning centers, and Head Start pro- grams choose to establish informal partnerships prior to or instead of establishing formal partnerships. Informal
Weaving God’s Promises is: For children ages 3-11 and youth ages 12-14 A three-year program: year One: weaving Our faith year Two: weaving together the family of God year Three: weaving God’s beloved Community You get access to all three years with your annual purchase. Episcopal: wri
Weaving educational threads Weaving educational practice KAIRARANGA – VOLUME 13, ISSUE 1: 2012 7 A Māori Pedagogy: Weaving
6TH GRADE WHEEL PROJECTS 1-Name Puzzle Art -Drawing design with permanent markers and hide name in composition.2 - Mini Mat Weaving -Beginning loom weaving to create a pattern. 3 - Basket Weaving - Beginning weaving techniques using natural reeds. 4 - Pinch Pot -3/D Claystone clay sculpture learn basic steps in a process. 5 - Animal/Mammal -3/D claystone
Articles 500 and 505 of the National Electrical Code . The following are explanations of the two systems: Hazardous Location Coding System - NEC 500. Class I / II / III, Division 1 / 2 Type of Protection XP Explosionproof IS Intrinsically Safe Apparatus AIS Associated Apparatus with Intrinsically Safe Connections ANI Associated Nonincendive Field Wiring Circuit PX,PY,PZ Pressurized .
