Peer Networking and Community Change - The Annie E. Casey Foundation

pee r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e t -wo rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e twococommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e rne two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing compee r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingg commun i t y change p e e r ne two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change

Experiences of the Annie E. Casey Foundation

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Peer Networking and Community Changecommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r

Author:Thomas E. Backer, PhDHuman Interaction Research Institute

© 2008 The Annie E. Casey Foundation. A PDF of the full report and of its executive summary may be downloaded free of chargefrom the Foundation’s website, www.aecf.org

PEER NETWORKING

AND

COMMUNITY CHANGE


Thomas E. Backer, PhDHuman Interaction Research Institute

Peer Networking and Community Change: Experiences of the Annie E. Casey Foundation

Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... Page 3

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................Page 7

Overview............................................................................................................................................................ Page 9

Examples of Peer Networking in Action........................................................................................................ Page 9

Peer Networking and Transformational Change......................................................................................... Page 12

Casey’s History with Peer Networking......................................................................................................... Page 13

Defining Peer Networking ............................................................................................................................. Page 15

Study Data Sources, Analysis and Limitations........................................................................................... Page 18

Study Learnings .............................................................................................................................................. Page 19

Audiences for Study Results ...........................................................................................................................Page 22

Next Steps in Evaluating the Impact of Peer Networking .........................................................................Page 23

Defining Casey’s Peer Networking Activities .............................................................................................Page 23

More on Good Practices and Challenges of Peer Networking ...................................................................Page 25

Peer Networking in the Business Sector ....................................................................................................... Page 34

Transformational Change in the Business Sector ..........................................................................................Page 35

Transformational Change in Philanthropy ....................................................................................................Page 36

Expanding and Enhancing Casey’s Peer Networking Activities................................................................. Page 40

References .........................................................................................................................................................Page 49

AppendicesA. Study Interviewees .....................................................................................................................................Page 51B. Background on Peer Networking at the Annie E. Casey Foundation .................................................. Page 52

Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................................................Page 68

About the Human Interaction Research Institute ........................................................................................Page 69


2


3

Executive Summary

PEER NETWORKING AND COMMUNITY CHANGE


Thomas E. Backer, PhD, Human Interaction Research Institute

Peer networking is a problem-solving anddecision-making approach built on interaction,both structured and informal, among two or morepeople defined as “equals” by their similar goalsand interests, job roles or place in a community.Peers come together to exchange information,disseminate good practices, and build leadershipstructure for work they do together, such as acommunity change initiative.

A two-year study of the Annie E. CaseyFoundation’s peer networking activities focusedon how they support the Foundation’s interests incommunity change and improving philanthropicpractice. Results include both good practices andchallenges of peer networking, and how thesemight be applied by Casey and other grantmakers.

How Peer Networking Evolved at the Annie E. Casey Foundation

Systematic use of peer networking approachesemerged from Casey’s system reform workbeginning in the 1990's. As part of this work,multi-site initiatives were shaped by numerousconvenings of philanthropic and communitypeers. Activities expanded in the mid-1990s, asCasey developed a five-year plan and strategicframework, then obtained diverse input aboutthem through “consultative sessions” involvingnearly 600 stakeholders. The success of theseapproaches led to an organizational philosophythat “conversation matters” in the process ofchange, and that peer networking is a usefulstrategy for encouraging conversation.

The early success of Casey’s Children and FamilyFellowship Alumni Network gave it a high profilein the Foundation. Coupled with extensive use ofpeer networking in Casey’s multi-site MakingConnections initiative, this success encouragedwider application of the peer networkingapproaches examined in this study.

Peer Networking Activities Studied

A total of 19 peer networking activities werestudied (see list at end). They included 13 thatwere funded and coordinated directly by Casey.Participants in these activities included Caseystaff, staff of other foundations, and a variety ofcommunity leaders. Six other peer networkingactivities were examined in which Casey was aparticipant along with other foundations.

To learn about these activities, interviews werecombined with document review. Intervieweesincluded Casey staff, other philanthropic andcommunity participants in the peer networkingactivities, and thought leaders in philanthropy.

An Example of Casey’s Peer Networking

At each of about four meetings a year of the UrbanChild Welfare Leaders Group, approximately 20commissioners or directors (and their deputies) ofchild welfare agencies in big American cities cometogether to talk about the unique challenges theyface. They discuss frankly the many challenges ofrunning a complex child welfare system in anurban setting, and they listen to experts who talkabout topics like older youth aging out of care, or


4

court reform. The goal is to lift up specificproblems a member wants the group’s help tosolve, and also to “move the field” towardssystems change, including but not limited to thekinds of change the Annie E. Casey Foundation ispromoting for vulnerable kids and families.

The Group’s members pay their own way (Caseycovers hotel and meeting expenses), and they settheir own agenda (with support from Casey staff).One meeting a year is planned in collaborationwith the Pew Commission on Child Welfare. TheCommission helped fund a recent meeting oncourt reform, which included a strategic sessionon the regional level with court personnel andadvocates. The Group now is operated by theAnnie E. Casey Foundation in collaboration withCasey Family Programs.

Though small, this peer network represents morethan 50 percent of all “kids in care” in the UnitedStates. Thus it can have significant impact on howchild welfare services are organized anddelivered, and offer leadership for manycommunities not represented at its meetings.

Ten Good Practices of Peer Networking

Study results indicate that internal and externalpeer networking activities of the Annie E. CaseyFoundation were seen as successful because they:

• Provide a safe, trustful place for participants tointeract on topics important to them

• Encourage personal as well as professionalinteractions among participants

• Customize the peer networking structure tomeet specific participant needs

• Promote opportunities for the participants andtheir organizations to collaborate

• Encourage participant feedback about thestrengths and challenges of peer networking

• Build the activity’s initial success beforebroadening its range of participants

• Offer resources for participants to translate ideasinto action

• Create sub-groups within the peer networkingactivity to focus on particular topics of interest

• Shape the activity by analyzing the successes ofother peer networking activities

• Level the playing field by sharing basicinformation about the focal area of peernetworking

In addition, the peer networking activities studiedreflected, to varying degrees, a dynamic balancebetween structure and informality – defined byPeters & Waterman in their 1987 book In Search ofExcellence as “simultaneous loose-tightproperties.” They were structured enough topromote continuity and follow-through. But theyalso were informal enough to encourage candidconversation and adaptability to whatever theparticipants thought should be discussed.

Ten Challenges of Peer Networking

The research also identified several drawbacks orlimitations of Casey’s peer networking activities,along with operating strategies that are importantbut difficult to implement:

• Peer networking is costly in both time andmoney

• Participants in peer networking may find itdifficult to take action on good ideas they’vedeveloped

• The goals of peer networking may be difficult toidentify and to share with others

• Peer networking may be difficult to integratewith other activities of its sponsor


5

• It may be challenging to balance equality withexpertise in selecting peer networking participants

• Organizational complexity and culture of a peernetworking sponsor may limit chances for success

• It may be challenging to develop a good exitstrategy for a peer networking activity

• Replicating peer networking activities may bedifficult

• Participant turnover may limit the success ofpeer networking

• Individual and group psychological factors maylimit the success of peer networking

Key Questions for Creating or Enhancing Peer Networks

Learnings from the 19 peer networks studied inthis research inspired questions that might beused as a checklist for those who are decidingwhether to create a peer network, how toimplement it, or how to evaluate/enhance itsoperations:

• Who comes to the table as a peer? (e.g., are peersat the right levels in their organizations orcommunities?)

• Who facilitates the peer network? (e.g., itsfunder or a third party)

• What process and structure are needed for peernetwork meetings?

• What can be done to facilitate additionalnetworking outside of peer network meetings?

• What resources are needed to operate the peernetwork?

• What policy needs to be developed for peercommunications, both inside and outside?

• What relationships can be established with otherpeer networking activities?

• What measures of success are possible, and howcan these be used to improve the peer network?

• What relationship does the peer network have toother organizational or community activities?

• What kind of exit strategy is needed, and howwill network members know when to implementit?

Key Questions for Creating or EnhancingPeer Matching Systems

Although only one peer matching system (TARC)was examined in this study, considerable data areavailable from other research about its operationand successes, leading to another set of keyquestions that might be used by those planning,implementing, or enhancing/evaluating a peermatching activity:

• What are the specific purposes of the peermatching? (what is needed, not just what iswanted)

• Who needs to be present from both sides of thepeer match?

• How will each side benefit from participatingfrom the peer match?

• Who facilitates the peer matching?

• What resources are needed for peer matching?

• What measures of success are possible, and howcan these be used to improve the peer matchingactivity?

• What relationship does the peer match have toother organizational or community activities?


6

• What kinds of follow-up to the peer matchingare needed?

The good practices and challenges identified bythis study might also be used alongside the twosets of key questions presented here, to guidebrainstorming about peer networks and peermatching at any stage of their life cycles.

Acting on the Study’s Results

Study findings suggest six ways in which theAnnie E. Casey Foundation might expand andenhance its use of peer networking strategies:

(1) Integrate these peer networking strategiesinternally with the Foundation’s philanthropicstrategy;

(2) Disseminate learnings about peer networkingthrough Casey’s internal Knowledge Managementsystem;

(3) Hold a Casey “consultative session” tosynthesize and advance knowledge on peernetworking;

(4) Promote links of Casey peer networks to othernetworks in philanthropy and community change,both internal and external;

(5) Explore refinements in peer networking, suchas low-cost approaches (many of the activitiesstudied here are relatively costly to implement)and improved methods for including communityresidents; and

(6) Evaluate more rigorously the impact of Casey’speer networking activities.

The study report also discusses how to place peernetworking in the larger context of transformationalchange for foundations – how foundations re-shapetheir philanthropic strategy and their overallapproaches to dealing with change, usingapproaches like peer networking. Casey has used

peer networking activities to increase activeinvolvement of stakeholders in its initiatives, andto promote Casey’s greater involvement in peerlearning with other foundations. This representsa significant change in the Foundation’sphilanthropic strategy.

Comparisons also are made in the report withpeer networking and transformational changeapproaches of other foundations, and with use ofthese methods in the private sector. Thesediscussions raise additional issues that Casey andother foundations may consider in contemplatingfuture uses of peer networking – as a strategy forpromoting community change and for improvingphilanthropic practice.

PEER NETWORKING ACTIVITIES STUDIED

Casey-Coordinated Peer NetworkingChild Welfare Training Directors GroupChildren and Family Fellows Alumni NetworkCommunity Foundation ExchangeFamily Strengthening AwardsLanguage Access NetworkLeadership in Action ProgramMaking Connections Local Coordinators NetworkMaking Connections Resident Leadership NetworkMaking Connections Social Network National Partners NetworkTARC Peer MatchingUnited Way Training ProgramUrban Child Welfare Leaders Group

Externally-Coordinated Peer Networking Casey/CSSP Alliance for Race Equity in Child WelfareLead Program Executives GroupLeadership Development Funder Affinity NetworkLong-Term Funders ExchangeNational Rural Funders CollaborativePRI Makers Network

© 2008 The Annie E. Casey Foundation. A PDF of thefull report and of this executive summary may bedownloaded free of charge from the Foundation’swebsite, www.aecf.org


7

FOREWORD

Ralph SmithExecutive Vice President


“Learn by doing. Learn while doing. Learn together.” While not yet a mantra, this linked admonition isproving a core marker of how the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Casey) approaches its work and itsrelationships with staff, grantees, consultants, partners and co-investors.

Like many in philanthropy, we work at the edges of what we know in order to test the hypotheses thatembody our hopes. We often are challenged to figure out how to braid the knowledge garnered fromdiscipline research with the knowledge distilled from practice, and that earned through lived experience.That braiding happens best and matters most when achieved in the crucible of practice as an intentionalproduct of people determined to learn what they need to know.

The nineteen activities captured in this report provide a window onto one path to learning. As this studyshows, over the past decade plus, what we know now as peer networking evolved from an episodic andinformal subset of gatherings to a prevalent, if not yet standard, practice at Casey. In many instances, we arethe promoter. In others, a participant. And in some cases, both. While far from uniform in operation, thesepeer networks all reflect the common sense assumption that creating space and providing support for role-alikes to meet regularly around common issues and concerns would contribute to improved outcomes. And,it has.

This study was commissioned to test three suspicions - that peer networks work; that the ad hoc “let athousand flowers bloom” approach yielded some good practices and some better practices; and that a morestrategic approach to peer networking could yield additional value to the varied participants and to Casey.Through his patient listening and careful probing, Tom Backer helps to respond in the affirmative to all three.


8


9

“You’re pulling back the curtain and revealing the process of how you’ve challenged an issue.”- an Annie E. Casey Foundation staffer, on why peer networking is powerful

Overview

In The Foundation, Joel Fleishman arguespersuasively for the importance of “specificdecision-making processes and progress-checkingsystems that foundations need to employ if theywish to increase the impact of their charitablemoney” (2007, p. xv). The strategy explored inthis study is peer networking – a problem-solvingand decision-making approach built on interaction,both structured and informal, among two or morepeople defined as “equals” by their similar goalsand interests, job roles or place in a community.

Peers come together in networking activities toexchange information, disseminate good practices,and build leadership structure for work they dotogether, such as a community change initiative.Peer networking stimulates the transformativepower of ideas, promoting conversation that helpsreveal possibilities for change, and confirms thenecessity of doing so.

The peer networking activities examined here arethose of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, whichhas a central focus on community change andpublic systems reform to improve quality of lifefor vulnerable children and their families. Peernetworking has helped Casey* undertakesignificant, sometimes transformational change,by increasing input from stakeholders in shapingits community and systems change initiatives.Some of these activities are involved directly withCasey’s work in communities, some with nationalnonprofit or government leaders concerned withchildren and families, and some with foundationleaders having interests similar to Casey’s.

____

* Note: “Casey” as used throughout this reportrefers to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, one ofthe Casey family of philanthropic organizations.

Results from the study are organized into fourmajor areas of learning:

• An approach to peer networking thatemphasizes a balance between structure andinformality – defined by Peters & Waterman(1982) as simultaneous loose-tight properties.

• Ten good practices of peer networking thatemerged from an analysis of 19 Casey peernetworking activities.

• Ten challenges of peer networking identified inthe analysis of Casey’s 19 activities, providing aframework of cautions and limitations.

• An approach to understanding these challenges,most of which are unintended consequences ofpeer networking, and so not easy to disentanglefrom what makes it work.

Questions relevant to starting or improving a peernetworking activity also emerged from the study,as did some recommendations for how peernetworking at the Annie E. Casey Foundation canmove to its next level of development for theFoundation as a whole. The study’s larger frameis that of transformational change in foundations– how foundations re-shape their basicphilanthropic strategy and their overallapproaches to dealing with change, usingactivities like peer networking.

Examples of Peer Networking in Action

At each of about four meetings a year of the UrbanChild Welfare Leaders Group (one of the 19 peernetworking activities examined in this study),approximately 20 commissioners or directors (andtheir deputies) of child welfare agencies in bigAmerican cities come together to talk about theunique challenges they face. They discuss frankly


10

the many challenges of running a complex childwelfare system in an urban setting, and they listento experts who talk about topics like older youthaging out of care, or court reform. The goal is tolift up specific problems a member wants thegroup’s help to solve, but also to “move the field”towards systems change, including but not limitedto changes the Annie E. Casey Foundation ispromoting for vulnerable kids and families.

The first part of each meeting highlightsknowledge on a topic of interest to the Group. Forinstance, the February 2006 meeting focused onhow child welfare data can help with reform;researchers from Chapin Hall, BrookingsInstitution and other institutions helped organizethe meeting. After the researchers or policyexperts speak, they and any other invited guestsleave, and just the Group members remain (alongwith Casey staff helping to coordinate the Group,one of whom is a former commissioner).

This peer network’s history is entwined with thatof the Annie E. Casey Foundation – while he wasa senior associate with the Foundation, JohnMattingly started the Group. Its first conveningbrought together leaders from the cities that werepartners in Casey’s Family to Family reforminitiative. Now Mattingly is New York City’scommissioner of child welfare, and an activeGroup member.

The Group members pay their own way (Caseycovers hotel and meeting expenses), and they settheir own agenda (with Casey staff providingoperational support). One meeting a year isplanned in collaboration with the PewCommission on Child Welfare, and Pew helpedfund a recent meeting on court reform, whichincluded a strategic session on the regional levelwith court personnel and advocates. Anothermeeting was convened in collaboration with theNational Center on State Courts, with judgesinvited from each “member city” (and the Groupmembers were insistent that even the judges leaveat a certain point so they could have their owntime together, to talk about their own issues in

private). The Group now is operated by the AnnieE. Casey Foundation in collaboration with CaseyFamily Programs.

Though small, this peer network represents morethan 50 percent of all “kids in care” in the UnitedStates. Thus it is in a position to have significantimpact on how child welfare services areorganized and delivered, and to offer leadershipfor many communities not actually represented atits meetings (the Group’s history and activitiesalso are described in Appendix B).

Making Connections is Casey’s 10-year effort toimprove the lives and prospects of families andchildren living in some of America’s toughestneighborhoods. The 10-community initiative isbased on the premise that children do well whentheir families are strong, and families do betterwhen they live in supportive communities. Fromits inception, Making Connections has used peernetworking approaches extensively to strengthenits community interventions through an overalllearning agenda, following principles such as theimportance of active participation of those doingthe work on the ground, and providing ongoingcapacity building as opposed to one-time, “drive-by TA.”

Three peer networks illustrate the use of peernetworking in this initiative:

• Making Connections Local CoordinatorsNetwork The members of this network are Caseyconsultants who work on the ground in each ofthe initiative’s community sites.

• Making Connections Resident LeadershipNetwork This network enhances the capacity oflocal residents at community sites to participate inMaking Connections.

• Making Connections Social Network Thisnetwork assists the Making Connections initiativein promoting healthy growth of social networks atcommunity sites.


11

In addition, the TARC Peer Matching systembrings together people from Making Connectionssites for targeted, mutual exploration and problemsolving.

Each of these peer networking activities isdescribed in more detail later in this report.Making Connections also includes less structuredpeer networking for several other groups ofpeople who support the community sites, such asthe diarists who record the activities and processat each site, the site team leaders (Casey staffresponsible for each site), Family EconomicSuccess coaches and local learning partners. Someof these groups, like the diarists, meet regularly totalk about common issues; others, like the FEScoaches, meet only when a specific topic needsdiscussion. Making Connections cross-sitemeetings, of which there are typically 5-8 a year,provide opportunities for these other contributorsto the overall initiative to come together around aparticular topic (e.g., workforce development).

From the beginnings of Making Connections in2000, peer networking has been used to buildcoherence across the sites, to build esprit de corps,and to create a shared agenda and motivation toact. Peer networking also supports active co-design of this community initiative by residentsand others “on the ground of change,” along withCasey staff and consultants.

Such an approach is crucial in an area where thereis not already a “well-worn path” to makingchange, and where there are many gifted people ata site whose input and support are needed.Unequal power relationships and culturaldifferences, often problematic in a changeinitiative created by a national funder, are alsomore readily addressable where this type ofnetworking activity flourishes at the ground level.Peer networking helps all involved to deal morehonestly with power differentials, build trustamong people who are operating from differentcultural assumptions, and create ongoingrelationships to help with both communicationand problem-solving.

The Making Connections peer networkingactivities (both formal and informal) collectivelyfall into four types:

• Type A - Peer networks that share generallearnings and problem-solving approaches acrosssites through regular interactions, such as theResident Leadership Network; the goals of thesepeer networks are, in priority order: learning/skilldevelopment, mobilization to take action, andmotivational support.

• Type B - Peer networks that involve muchsmaller-scale attempts to get role-alike typestogether for more informal interactions; forexample, the Family Economic Success coaches ateach site used to meet occasionally in person, andhave continued to meet by phone (their goals are,in priority order, learning/skill development,motivational support and mobilization for action).

• Type C - Peer networks that have a morestraightforward professional development goal,such as the Local Coordinators Network (Casey’sLeadership Development unit was a part of thiseffort).

• Type D - Peer matching, which brings togethertwo or more sites for mutual exploration andproblem solving, usually at one of the communitysites, to enhance learning.

In some cases, these peer networking activitieswere very labor-intense and expensive in the earlyyears of the initiative, but now have simpler goalsand may involve fewer meetings or telephonerather than in-person interactions. At present, theMaking Connections initiative is moving into itsnext phase with a deliberate transfer to localmanagement, in order to promote sustainability ofthe community activities past the ten-year periodof Casey’s support. The peer networking activitiesjust described will likely play a favorable role inthis evolution.


12

Peer Networking and Transformational Change

This study emerged out of discussions in 2004about how American foundations make majorchanges in philanthropic strategy. Change thatgoes beyond the procedural, to affect underlyingphilosophies as well as basic operations, is oftencalled "transformational change." As is true in thebusiness sector, there are many challenges toimplementing this kind of significant change, andsuccess is often elusive –– or at least a long time incoming. Much can be learned from looking at howtransformational change is designed and carriedout in various settings (examples from both thebusiness and philanthropic sectors are describedlater).

These discussions evolved from a comparativeanalysis of transformational change in a numberof foundations, to a focus on one element of majorchange that has been happening at the Annie E.Casey Foundation. For more than 10 years, Caseyhas increasingly used peer networking as a criticalelement in an overall re-shaping of itsphilanthropic strategy –– to implementcommunity initiatives, to build communityleadership for them, to help understand how wellthese interventions function, and to identify waysto improve them. As described in the next section,peer networking provides a platform for sharingideas that can help to structure and guide a newinitiative.

The transformational change that has resultedengages stakeholders more fully than was the casein some previous Casey initiatives, as set forth inThe Path of Most Resistance, the Foundation's 1995analysis of what it learned from that previousexperience. Indeed, peer networking now plays asignificant role in Casey’s efforts to learn from itsown activities, and to share what's learned withthe field of philanthropy.

The underlying purpose is to promote continuousimprovement of the Foundation's work in

communities or with other funders, and especiallyto surface knowledge, skills and experiences thatcan help in that process. As one interviewee in thisstudy put it, "our peer networks provide a way ofcapturing insight, of generating actionableknowledge."

Casey also is beginning to address questionsdriven by its commitment to knowledgemanagement over the past five years: “What havewe learned?” “How did we learn it?” “How canwe share what we’ve learned?” The peernetworking activities described here can helpCasey as it responds to these questions through aknowledge management initiative the Foundationhas implemented.

This study was guided by two underlyingassumptions:

(1) Transformation is less likely to happen ifchange is introduced from the outside. Yet in thefoundation world and elsewhere (as discussedlater in the section that briefly reviews theliterature on transformational change from thebusiness sector), the tendency has been to lookoutside for innovation. It is difficult to transplantapproaches from elsewhere into one’s ownenvironment, especially given all the uniquecircumstances that helped an approach succeedelsewhere.

The more relevant and useful place to look isinside. Within organizations and communities arethe seeds of transformation. They include strongunderstanding of what has worked and how, andthe commitment to change of staff, consultantsand others based both on prior successes andcoping with previous difficulties. The challenge ishow to identify these resources and apply them ina new arena.

(2) Continuous improvement (a term used in thebusiness sector) is not likely to happen as asolitary activity or in an organizational "silo."Organizations of all types do best when there is anopen sharing of ideas (and feelings) across all


13

parts of the organization, and with relevantexternal stakeholders too. This open sharing helpssort out the torrent of irrelevant ideas from therelevant ones –– one of the key challenges of theInternet age.

It is that kind of goal-focused, moderately-structured sharing at which peer networking"shines."

Peer networking fosters patterns of humaninteraction that can lead to significant change.And in that process it also shapes organizationalculture and builds leadership skills. Peernetworking approaches also help build feltownership and empowerment, especially amongthe disenfranchised populations that are keystakeholders in the philanthropic work of theAnnie E. Casey Foundation.

However, it is also a resource-intensive process,and unless done right can fail to achieve muchimpact. It is to these "pros and cons" of peernetworking for foundations in general, and Caseyin particular, that this study is addressed.

Casey’s History with Peer Networking

Peer networking came about through an informalevolution and over time became part of the cultureat Casey. In fact, the term “peer networking”wasn’t much used by those charged withdeveloping most of the activities described here.The underlying notion is that “conversationmatters”: pulling people together for “learning,deciding, sharing, exploring and problem-solving”can make a difference in the success of theactivities to which this input is supplied, asmeasured both by learning and by ultimateresults.

One set of these activities is “Casey-Coordinated”;that is, the peer networking is funded by Caseyand managed by its staff and consultants (thoughoften with co-design by network participants).The network’s activities are focused on a

particular foundation objective (bringing togethercommunity foundations, child welfare directors)or initiative (Making Connections). The multi-siteMaking Connections initiative has a number of peernetworking activities, including three peernetworks, the TARC Peer Matching system, andother less formal efforts.

A second set of peer networking activitiesinvolves Casey with other foundations that sharea particular set of interests. In these “Externally-Coordinated” networks, the members arefoundations, and although Casey may have had arole in starting up the network, it is also a “peer.”Some of the value for Casey in belonging comesfrom the strength of all peer networks – the chanceto interact with others who “look like you” andhave similar responsibilities and challenges (inthis case, other foundation leaders).

Whether labeled so or not, use of peer networkingapproaches emerged from Casey’s system reformwork beginning in the mid-1990's. This workreflected a major shift in the Foundation’s overallphilanthropic strategy, towards higher levels ofcommunity involvement in creating and runningits initiatives. This shift is described in more detailin a case study presented in Anheier & Leat (2006).

In particular, setting up the initial structure ofmulti-site initiatives like the ten-year MakingConnections program was shaped by manyconvenings. These “consultative sessions”brought together people from diversebackgrounds to offer candid input about howCasey could best work in community sites, andavoid approaches that had proved problematic inthe past (such as the Foundation’s difficulties withits New Futures program, well-documented inCasey’s 1995 report The Path of Most Resistance).

The two-day sessions began with an eveningreception that helped develop relationshipsamong the diverse participants and Foundationstaff. The next day’s discussion began with anoverview of the Making Connections core premises,principles and desired outcomes. Participant


14

reactions were asked for on these and also onthree key questions: “Are we headed in the rightdirection?” “Are we on the right track?” and“What’s missing?” A major goal was to promotemore inclusive decision-making about Casey’swork, by getting legitimate stakeholders involvedfrom all parts of the community (Backer, Smith &Barbell, 2005).

These approaches expanded as Casey developeda five-year plan and strategic framework, andobtained diverse input about them through“consultative sessions” involving nearly 600stakeholders. The success of this approach led tothe organizational philosophy that “conversationmatters.”

That philosophy helped encourage thedevelopment of peer networking activities by theFoundation, beginning with the Children andFamily Fellows Alumni Network in 1992. Eachactivity arose partly out of a specific Caseyobjective, and in some cases its first meeting wasmostly advisory to the Foundation, and may haveborne some resemblance to a consultative session.The emphasis always was on meeting a largerobjective by getting peers together and creating anetwork to support their interaction.

For example, the peer networking activitiescreated as part of Casey’s Making Connectionsinitiative, already discussed, were framed in thelarger context of the four-component frameworkused to create the initiative:

(1) looking within Casey at previous and currentinitiatives;

(2) holding consultative sessions with stakeholders(the beginnings of internal peer networking);

(3) reviewing similar initiatives of otherfoundations (sometimes leading to external peernetworking); and

(4) undertaking design development based onthese first three steps.

Making Connections has been implemented incommunity sites with a heavy reliance ontechnical assistance. Building on the success ofpeer networking strategies at the design stage, theTA process for implementation, and now for thecreation of local operation and sustainability of thecommunity sites, also is heavily peer-driven (thecomplexities of this process are beyond the scopeof the present study, and will not be furtherdiscussed here). As already discussed, the successof peer networking in the Making Connectionsinitiative has helped to promote wider applicationwithin the Foundation.

The success of one of Casey’s other peernetworking activities, the Children & FamilyFellows Alumni Network, gave it a high profile inthe Foundation, also encouraging wider use ofpeer networking approaches at Casey. Today peernetworking is or has been part of much of Casey’swork in communities, and with its own peers inphilanthropy.

Collectively, these peer networking efforts haverequired a considerable investment of time andfinancial resources by the Foundation. Evidencefrom at least two evaluations Caseycommissioned, plus some qualitative datagathered both internally from Foundation staffand from communities, all suggest that peernetworking has had positive impact.

But outside of the particular programmatic areasin which they have operated, peer networking asa concept has been a kind of “stealth” strategychange at Casey, with the two major exceptionsjust noted. By all reports, these activities appear tobe well-regarded and to have had some realimpact. As individual enterprises, they werecreated and implemented quite intentionally bythose directly involved with them.

However, they have operated collectivelysomewhat under the radar of the Foundation’soverall philanthropic strategy. Many of theseactivities have been little documented or discussedacross Casey as an organization. Even fewer have


15

been presented in publications or convenings thatshare how the strategies have worked with othergrantmakers or the nonprofit sector. So far, onlytwo of the 19 activities reported here have beenevaluated systematically (the Children and FamilyFellowship Alumni Network and the TARC PeerMatching system). In the interviews conducted for this study, internalinterviewees often did not know about Casey’speer networking activities beyond the ones withwhich they had personal experience. Externalinterviewees, though typically knowledgeableabout Casey’s overall work, often did not knowanything about the Foundation’s peer networkingefforts. In fact, many external interviewees saidthey thought about peer networking amongfoundations in terms of traditional affinity groupsof the Council on Foundations, and their meetingseither independently or at Council conferences,which fit few of the parameters of peernetworking as defined here.

Casey is now at a moment when it is possible tomove from an informal, but prevalent practice intosomething more intentional and systemic innature. The study reported here can support theFoundation’s effort to make peer networking amore integrated and intentional part of itsphilanthropic strategy, and to establish clearerlinkages between what these activities are doingand Casey’s larger goals, which provide therationale for such peer networking to beundertaken.

The Foundation also is exploring the relevance ofrelated concepts such as Communities of Practice(Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Both peer networkingand Communities of Practice approaches werediscussed at a July 2006 Casey ManagementCommittee Meeting, including presentation ofpreliminary findings from this study (similaritiesbetween these two approaches are discussedfurther below).

Defining Peer NetworkingAs already defined here, peer networking is aproblem-solving and decision-making approachbuilt on interaction, both structured and informal,among two or more people defined as “equals” bytheir common goals or interests, similar job rolesor place in a community. Peer networkinginvolves these people exchanging information,disseminating good practices and buildingleadership skills, to achieve some commonly-valued purpose, such as community change.

What makes peer networking different than beingon an advisory committee or other traditionalways of promoting community involvement anddecision-making? As the term “peer” itselfdenotes, there is a heavy emphasis on equality,and as Casey has implemented these activities, oninclusive decision-making that is intended tofoster ownership of community initiatives, and ondevelopment of leadership for change through amore intensive, problem-solving approach.

From the sponsor’s perspective, peer networkingcan provide a continuous form of scanning theenvironment. Peer networking activities can helpa foundation like Casey look beyond its usualsources for new work, fresh ideas, and innovativeorganizations. It also can provide input to theshaping of a particular initiative (Grantcraft, 2006).

Peer networking takes two major forms. The firsttype involves establishing a peer network whichbrings together people with common interests asjust defined.

The peer network can be quite informal,interacting occasionally by phone or e-mail. Or itcan be well-structured, planning and holdingmeetings, fostering collaboration among groupmembers, and engaging in other activities thatmay involve pooling of resources. Eighteen of the19 activities studied here are peer networks.


16

The second type of peer networking involves apeer match between two individuals or groups, soone can learn about activities of the other (oftenthe process is reciprocal as well). Sometimes peermatching includes a site visit by one or moreleaders of an organization or community to thelocation of a successful change effort, so thatreplication or problem-solving can be based inpart on direct observation. Only one peermatching effort was studied here, but it involvesa large, well-developed system whose activitieshave many important implications for effectivepeer networking, and which has had considerablevalidation of its impact.

These are not new concepts. The Center for theStudy of Social Policy and the EZ/EC FoundationConsortium (2001) see peer networks and peermatches as two of five forms of peer assistance,which also includes professional developmentprograms, learning circles and peer-developedlearning products. Bringing together peers in anetworking process also is a sub-category of thebroader realm of social networking, the impact ofwhich has broad support from research in thesocial and behavioral sciences (Rogers, 2003).

Much knowledge about social networks comesfrom the community and economic developmentfield, based on both domestic and internationalexperience (e.g., Krebs & Holley, 2002). Conceptsand practices of social networks were reviewed byBailey (2005, 2004), in papers written for theMaking Connections Social Network, one of the 19Casey peer networking activities studied here.Although it is not the purpose of this study toreview the knowledge and practice base on socialnetworks, this intellectual material is a part of theplatform for the work reported here.

Just to give one major example, Rogers (2003), inhis seminal book on diffusion of innovations,notes that networking can have significant impacton the overall processes of innovation and change,and he cites a wealth of supporting research onthis subject. For instance, Rogers focuses on the“weak ties” in social networks (connections

between people who are not in the sameenvironment and didn’t already know each other)that have power because they bring people intocontact who are not from the same background orsetting, and thus each tend to know about newand different things. Plastrik & Taylor (2006) callsocial networks “systems of social ties that linkpeople to one another.” They examine some of thekey strengths of social networks (like resilienceand adaptive capacity), the key decisions involvedin organizing a network, and the tasks ofmanaging its development. Their paradigmdescribes well the peer networking activitiesstudied here.

They include an analysis of what happens whenfunders organize networks, as the Annie E. CaseyFoundation did for the peer networks examined inthis study. While acknowledging the value of afoundation (or other funder such as a governmentagency or a university) and its financial or otherassets in creating networks, Plastrik & Tayloridentify three dangers:

(1) the funder may overestimate the power of its valueproposition to attract others to a network (in plainEnglish, people or organizations may join thenetwork because they want access to thefoundation’s money, not because they believe inthe cause the foundation is espousing or the waythey’re going about achieving it through anetwork – and the foundation’s support for peernetworking may drive out consideration of otherapproaches that might work better for a particularpurpose – this danger also was identified byinterviewees for the present study);

(2) the funder may skip necessary steps in networkbuilding (especially those related to healthyalignment of goals and values, and healthyconnectivity based in trust); or

(3) the funder may hold on to the network’s reins tootightly, making it more difficult for peers to feelownership and remain invested in the networkover time.


17

These all are important cautions in understandingthe value and impact of the peer networkingactivities studied here. As will be seen in theanalysis following, Casey seems to have done agood job of avoiding the second and thirddangers. The first is more problematic, since itoften is not easy to get networking participants tobe open about their motivations for joining.

Peer networking as a specific activity also is thesubject of research and writing, summarized inworks such as Rhodes, Stokes and Hampton(2004). By the 1970's, peer networking strategiesalready were being used in fields like vocationalrehabilitation (Backer, 1985). An early examplesimilar to the peer matching activities studied hereis the “visiting project consultant project,” inwhich directors of a local rehabilitation projectwere sent off to a site in another region, to provideTA on how to implement the model in a newsetting (Butler, 1975).

Peer networking also has value in dealing with thecomplex situations most foundations encounterwhen working with communities on issues ofchange – there is a huge volume of informationthat must be sorted through, and a great deal ofuncertainty associated with taking action. In thewords of national security expert GregoryTreventon, these are problems that take the formof a “mystery,” rather than a “puzzle,” which hasa clearly-defined solution (Gladwell, 2007). Peernetworking has many natural advantages intaking action on community problems thatconstitute a “mystery,” such as how to changecomplex health behaviors, how to reducecommunity poverty, etc.

In Help on the Way, advantages of technicalassistance provided through peer networkingwere identified. They are repeated here asanother “viewing lens” for evaluating the impactof these activities (Center for the Study of SocialPolicy, 2005):

• It capitalizes on the strengths of communities,helping people to develop options for action

rather than looking for problems to fix (thisprocess in turn supports communityempowerment and the development of leadershipskills by residents, who then will carry on thework of change once the outside intervener, Caseyin this instance, has departed).

• It fits the way adults learn (as set forth inMalcolm Knowles’ adult learning theory, whichassumes that adults learn best when they areinvolved in diagnosing, planning, implementingand evaluating their own learning – withreadiness increased by the perceived relevance oflearning to task performance).

• It helps build new knowledge for the field aboutproblem-solving approaches for dealing withcomplex issues like poverty reduction, orincreasing the quality of services for vulnerablechildren and their families.

• It extends resources available to communitiesfor creating change strategies and implementingthem beyond those of professional consultants.

• It increases racial, ethnic and cultural diversityof the sources of assistance for the work of change– especially important in the disadvantagedcommunities where Casey focuses its work, whichtend to be diverse across all these lines.

Finally, peer networking activities include as amajor component opportunities for peer learning,a topic widely explored in education andmanagement sciences. One recent definition fromthe nonprofit sector is “the convening ofindividuals at similar stages of development toexchange knowledge in an effort to mutuallyenhance skills and capabilities” (CommunityPartners, 2006).

Thus, peer learning involves more than socialnetworking. It reflects the larger processes ofadult learning because it is a problem-centeredactivity organized around the learners’ social roles– qualities defined by the adult learning theoriesof Malcolm Knowles (1990), as already mentioned.


18

The extensive literature on this topic will not bereviewed here, but two concepts emerge from thepeer learning work of the Aspen Institute’s RuralDevelopment Philanthropy Learning Networkthat will be applied in analyzing the 19 Casey peernetworking activities. Aspen’s ten-year projectbrought together staff of community foundationsto increase the ability of their institutions toimprove community and economic developmentfor poor people in rural areas.

In this networking activity, peer learning sessionswere created by the participants in a process ofactive design. This began by Aspen staffinterviewing the participants to identify themes,instructive stories and “dirty laundry” that couldcontribute to the development of a learningagenda, and then working actively withparticipants to design that agenda and toimplement it (this co-design strategy also is seenin many of the Casey peer networking activities,particularly those associated with MakingConnections).

And the focus of the agenda was on whatparticipants actually could do to effect changesbased on the peer learning experience, in a processof active learning (following the principles ofadult learning theory, as already mentioned). This two-prong approach of “networking leadingto learning” now is being used in Casey’sStrengthening Rural Families Initiative.

Study Data Sources, Analysis and Limitations

Sources The study began with a literature review,involving internal documents supplied by Casey,literature in philanthropy, and literature frommanagement sciences, as well as publications onpeer-to-peer networks in computer technologyand on the human process of peer networking(plus social networking, peer learning and adultlearning). Casey documents describing some, butnot all, of the 19 peer networking activities were

part of the literature review, as were reports onthe two evaluations that have been conducted ofthe Children and Family Fellows Alumni Networkand the TARC Peer Matching system.

The heart of the study was a set of 21 interviewswith Casey senior staff (plus several long-timeCasey consultants and staff members from theCenter for the Study of Social Policy, whichoperates major programs for Casey) and 42interviews with thought leaders from a variety ofperspectives. Appendix A presents the completelist of interviewees, conducted between March2005 and March 2007.

Analysis A clinical content analysis was done bythe author to identify major themes, goodpractices and challenges related to peernetworking. Good practices and challenges werevalidated by specific examples as well asobservations from interviewees and the literaturereview. Two lists of questions and a set ofrecommendations for enhancing Casey’s peernetworking activities also emerged from thiscontent analysis. In addition, summarydescriptions of each peer networking activity wereprepared, along with a chart compressing basicdata about the 19 activities into a one-pageoverview.

Limitations Since as noted later this was anexploratory, qualitative study and not anempirical evaluation, all of the findings presentedhere are tentative, and meant to inspire furtherdiscussion and debate. They have been validatedinformally by providing a copy of the draft reportfor review by all those interviewed; a number ofcorrections and expansions of the study resultsemerged from this review. Nonetheless, theprimary conclusions of the study are the author’s,based upon clinical analysis. Suggestions aremade later for how these preliminary findingscould be further validated and extended.

Also, the data analysis did not attempt to sort outthe impact of differences in the purpose, natureand specific functions of the 19 peer networking


19

activities studied. These differences include notonly the several categories identified (CaseyCoordinated vs. Externally- Coordinated, etc.), butothers that were not studied comparatively – inthe level of resources committed to an activity, thefield in which it was operating (e.g., child welfaredirectors, foundation chief program executives,and so forth), or the methods used for networking(in-person meetings, telephone calls, etc.). Thevalue of this exploratory study is primarily in thedescriptions it provides, along with speculationsabout what works and what doesn’t in peernetworkings, for future study and discussion.

Study Learnings

Four areas of learning were derived from theseinterviews and the initial document analysis. Inaddition, a set of key questions was framed forthose contemplating the start-up or improvementof a peer network or peer matching system. The19 peer networking activities are described brieflyin the body of this report, and analyzed in moredetail in Appendix B. Results from interviewswith thought leaders in philanthropy and theliterature review are framed under discussions oftransformational change and peer networkingboth for foundations and for the private sector.Finally, six suggestions are made for how theAnnie E. Casey Foundation might “move to thenext level” in integrating peer networking with itsoverall philanthropic strategy.

The study’s four main learnings are organized intofour sections, each discussed further below:

• An overall approach to peer networking thatemphasizes a balance between structure andinformality – defined by Peters & Waterman(1987) as simultaneous loose-tight properties.

An organizing principle that underlies all of thegood practices revealed by this research is thateffective peer networking approaches arecomplex, and operate best when organized with ablend of structure and informality. That’s what

Peters & Waterman (1987), in theirgroundbreaking book on the characteristics ofhigh-performing American companies, called“simultaneous loose-tight properties.” Theseelements co-exist in a dynamic balance where bothcontribute to organizational effectiveness, andindeed that also appears to be the case for the 19peer networking activities studied here.

For example, the Children and Family FellowsAlumni Network has an annual meeting,professional development activities, a small grantsprogram and a Network Coordinator – allelements of a well-developed professionalstructure. However, it also encourages informalinteractions among alumni on both their personaland professional agendas, and has included manyindividual actions undertaken by Fellows.

Thus, several Alumni Network Fellows traveledconsiderable distances to visit and supportanother Fellow who had been hospitalized. All ofthe peer networking activities studied here havedeveloped some variation of this structure-informality balance; in some cases, that balancehas shifted over time as the activity itself evolved.

This balance between structure and informalitycan be difficult to maintain. As one intervieweeput it, “There is sometimes a knowing-doing gap.We’re good at talking about problems but not sogood at going back and dealing with them.”Facilitation of a peer networking effort mustpermit spontaneous interaction, but also providethe structure for rigorous application ... and forrigorous definition of what knowledge andstrategies are there to be used.

• Ten good practices of peer networking thatemerged from an analysis of 19 Casey peernetworking activities.

The list below states what these good practicesare, followed by an examination of each one.


20

PEER NETWORKING AT THE ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION -GOOD PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES

Ten good practices of peer networking:

• Provide a safe, trustful place for participants to interact on topics important to them

• Encourage personal as well as professional interactions among participants

• Customize the peer networking structure to meet specific participant needs

• Promote opportunities for participants and their organizations to collaborate

• Encourage participant feedback about the strengths and challenges of peer networking

• Build the activity’s initial success before broadening its range of participants

• Offer resources for participants to translate ideas into action

• Create sub-groups within the peer networking activity to focus on particular topics of interest

• Shape the activity by analyzing the successes of other peer networking activities

• Level the playing field by sharing basic information about the focal area of peer networking

Ten challenges of peer networking:

• Peer networking is costly in both time and money

• Participants in peer networking may find it difficult to take action on good ideas they’ve developed

• The goals of peer networking may be difficult to identify and to share with others

• Peer networking may be difficult to integrate with other activities of its sponsor

• It may be challenging to balance equality with expertise in selecting peer networking participants

• Organizational complexity and culture of a peer networking sponsor may limit chances for success

• It may be challenging to develop a good exit strategy for a peer networking activity

• Replicating peer networking activities may be difficult

• Participant turnover may limit the success of peer networking

• Individual and group psychological factors may limit the success of peer networking


21

KEY QUESTIONS FOR CREATING OR ENHANCING PEER NETWORKING ACTIVITIES

Based on what was learned from this study, following are two sets of questions that may be asked eitherwhen a new peer networking activity is being created and implemented, or when an existing peer networkor peer matching system is being evaluated for possible improvements:

Key questions for creating or enhancing peer networks:

• Who comes to the table as a peer? (e.g., are peers at the right levels in their organizations/communities?)

• Who facilitates the peer network? (e.g., the funder or a third-party?)

• What process and structure are needed for peer network meetings?

• What can be done to facilitate additional networking outside of peer network meetings?

• What resources are needed to operate the peer network?

• What policy needs to be developed for peer communications, both inside and outside?

• What relationships can be established with other peer networking activities?

• What measures of success are possible, and how can these be used to improve the peer network activity?

• What relationship does the peer network have to other organizational or community activities?

• What kind of exit strategy is needed and how will network members know when to implement it?

Key questions for creating or enhancing peer matching systems:

• What are the specific purposes of the peer matching? (what is needed, not just what is wanted)

• Who needs to be present from both sides of the match?

• How will each side benefit from participating?

• Who facilitates the peer matching?

• What resources are needed for peer matching?

• What measures of success are possible, and how can these be used to improve the activity?

• What relationship does the peer match have to other organizational or community activities?

• What kinds of follow-up are needed?


22

• Ten challenges of peer networking identified inthe analysis of Casey’s 19 activities, providing aframework of cautions and limitations.

The same one-page list (above) presenting thegood practices that emerged from this study alsoidentifies challenges of peer networking, whichalso are discussed later in more detail.

• An overall approach to understanding thesechallenges, most of which are unintendedconsequences of peer networking, and so not easyto disentangle from what makes it work.

In medicine, it is a truism that all drugs having apowerful main effect also have significant sideeffects. Though these can be managed andminimized, the bottom line is that to get the drug’sbenefit the side effects have to be tolerated. Thisturns out to be true more broadly, as set forth inEdward Tenner’s book, Why Things Bite Back: TheRevenge of Unintended Consequences.

Most of the challenges identified here are to someextent natural by-products of the way in whichpeer networking is used in communities(including the philanthropic community), andshould be thought of as non-pathologicalproblems to be solved, or at least handled. Theycan’t be readily eliminated without altering whatthe energies and communication opportunitiesthat help make peer networking effective.

It is possible, of course, that in some instances thecosts or side effects of peer networking are sosubstantial that it would be better not to developthe activity in the first place. Peer networks andpeer matches are not the right solutions to allproblems in all settings, and a healthy process forexploring such activities includes asking thedifficult question about unintended consequences.

Other Learnings Study results also shaped a list ofkey questions (presented above) implementers canask if they are putting together a peer network orpeer matching system (or enhancing one that isalready in operation). Taken together, the good

practices and key questions lists can be used as“action checklists” when designing andimplementing a peer networking activity, orevaluating a currently-operating one to see how itmight be improved. The list of challenges can alsobe used prospectively to help develop a peernetworking effort that pays attention to thesecautions, or retrospectively as part of evaluation.

Finally, the study led to some recommendations forhow the Annie E. Casey Foundation might takepeer networking to the next level of developmentas a central part of its philanthropic strategy. Asmentioned, this approach has been widely usedwithin the Foundation for some years now, butmostly “below the radar screen.” Therecommendations provide a “road map” for howthe Foundation might learn more about its peernetworking efforts, develop a more intentionalpolicy about them, and integrate this activity morefully into their overall philanthropic strategy.

Audiences for Study Results

The main target audiences for the learningsderived from this two-year study are:

• Casey staff, for their use in continuouslyimproving the peer networking activities forwhich they have responsibility, and in startingnew ones – and to encourage peer networkingwithin the Foundation about the peer networkprocess itself;

• Casey grantees and communities, particularly atthe Making Connections sites (including Caseyconsultants in those communities); and

• the field of philanthropy and the largernonprofit sector, through this report and possiblewider dissemination of its findings, e.g., throughCasey’s Knowledge Management system, asrecommended in the report’s concluding section.

The report also recommends ways learnings canbe disseminated and used by these audiences.


23

Next Steps in Evaluating the Impact ofPeer Networking

Woven into all these learnings are someobservations about the impact of peer networkingactivities Casey has undertaken the last 15 years. As mentioned, this study was not an evaluation,so no effort was made to document outcomes,and in fact most of these peer networkingactivities have not been evaluated by anyone (withtwo exceptions, as noted and described furtherbelow).

However, the evaluation of peer networkingactivities to determine their impact – the resultsachieved set against costs and side effects – iscritical if this approach is to be used morestrategically at Casey, and recommended for useby other foundations or communities. Intuitivelythe concept of peer networking is persuasive, butthere actually is only modest evidence from theworks reviewed for this study that it is impactfuland cost-effective.

The frameworks presented here for understandingand categorizing peer networking approaches alsocould be used to help establish criteria forevaluation (how to do this is set forth in one of therecommendations for Casey’s possible futureefforts, as discussed below). More rigorousevaluation work needs to be done, which willrequire gathering of new evidence about theimpact of peer networking activities at Casey.However, gathering together information thatalready exists about the range of Casey’s peernetworking activities would be a good first step, aprocess begun by this study. Therecommendations section of this report lays outhow this might be done.

Defining Casey’s Peer Networking Activities

Following are brief definitions of the 18 peernetworks and one peer matching system that were

examined in this study. They are organized intotwo categories, as already mentioned: the Casey-Coordinated peer networking activities are thosewhere Casey is the only funder of the activity, andhas an internal leadership role in all aspects of thepeer networking effort (even for those cases, suchas the TARC Peer Matching effort, where theactual activity is conducted by an outside thirdparty on contract to Casey). For the Externally-Coordinated peer networks, Casey may havestarted and/or be a primary supporter of theactivity, but these are all networks of funderswhere Casey is just one member.

Appendix B presents more detailed informationabout each of these 19 networking activities,including a summary chart comparing some oftheir significant characteristics (whetherparticipants were involved in their design, whattypes of active learning approaches were used, thenetwork’s life span, and some of its key activitiesand products).

The 19 peer networking activities studied here, inalphabetical order, are:

Casey-Coordinated Peer Networking Activities

• Child Welfare Training Directors Group Thispeer network focused on the role of staff trainingand development in systems reform for childwelfare agencies across the country, and on bestpractice approaches to staff training anddevelopment in these systems.

• Children and Family Fellows Alumni Network The Alumni Network brings together people whohave held Casey Child and Family Fellowships.

• Community Foundation Exchange This networkof community foundations held multiple meetingsover a two-year period, organized around thequestion: “What does it take to be an effectivecommunity foundation, especially aroundadvancing outcomes for vulnerable children andfamilies?”


24

• Family Strengthening Awards This network isrun as a joint venture with a dozen nationalnonprofits. Each uses their contacts to identifypotential recipients of an award for promotingcommunity-based approaches to familystrengthening. Network meetings both supervisethe awards and offer chances for members toshare and problem-solve on more general issues.

• Language Access Network This network isfocused on learning what would help limitedEnglish-proficient children and families havebetter access to high quality services, and on thespecific challenge of reducing the number ofchildren who serve as translators for their parents.

• Leadership in Action Program This is a networkcomposed of representatives from MakingConnections community sites (and sites of otherCasey programs), and is oriented to helpingcommunities and their leaders implement results-based leadership development programming.

• Making Connections Local CoordinatorsNetwork The local coordinators in this networkare Casey consultants who work with the MakingConnections sites on the ground.

• Making Connections Resident LeadershipNetwork This network enhances the capacity oflocal residents at the Making Connections sites (plusthe Atlanta civic site) to participate in thiscommunity change effort, with problem-solvingand leadership development opportunities.

• Making Connections Social Network Thisnetwork on social networks assists the MakingConnections initiative in promoting healthy growthof social networks at its community sites.

• National Partners Network This networkconsists of the CEOs of 11 national nonprofitorganizations. They meet to focus on promotingwider use of family strengthening approaches.

• TARC Peer Matching This peer matching systemoffers structured opportunities for teams of people

in two or more communities working on similarissues to exchange experiences and practicalknowledge. Their interaction is focused onchallenges that have been identified in advance.

• United Way Training Program This network isfocused on an executive education programdeveloped to get family strengthening approachesmore broadly understood and adopted amongUnited Ways across the country.

• Urban Child Welfare Leaders Group This peernetwork pulls together commissioners or directorsof child welfare large urban systems, to explorebest practices and challenges in their respectiveenvironments.

Externally-Coordinated Peer NetworkingActivities

• Casey/CSSP Alliance for Race Equity in ChildWelfare This peer network is focused on raceequity in child welfare systems, and its membersinclude the Center for the Study of Social Policy,four Casey philanthropies, and several othermembers.

• Lead Program Executives Group Composed offoundation executive vice-presidents (orequivalent job titles), including those from some ofAmerica’s largest foundations, this networkexplores unique leadership and operational issuesthese “chief program officers” face in their jobs.

• Leadership Development Funder AffinityNetwork This network brings together leaders ofabout 30 foundations having a funding interest inleadership development.

• Long-Term Funders Exchange This network’smembers are funders of long-term communitychange initiatives. They meet to discuss thespecial challenges of creating, operating andevaluating such initiatives.

• National Rural Funders Collaborative Thisnetwork consists of CEOs and program officers


25

from 12 national and regional foundations withfunding interests in rural communities.

• PRI Makers Network This network bringstogether funders interested in making ProgramRelated Investments, to share best practices andcoordinate their activities.

There are other Casey peer networking activitiesnot studied in this research. For example, Caseyhas for several years been coordinating anEmbedded Funders Group. This peer networkconsists of foundations that, like Casey, havemade long-term funding commitments to one ormore specific geographical areas (a city or aneighborhood within it), and have attempted towork closely (become “embedded”) in the life ofthese communities as part of their philanthropicstrategy.

At a November 2006 meeting of this peer network,participants decided they would like to continuesome activity even though the formal sponsorshipby Casey is coming to an end. The description ofMaking Connections earlier in this report alsomentions several peer networking activities withinthat initiative that are not further analyzed here.

More on Good Practices and Challengesof Peer Networking

Good Practices This study identified ten “goodpractice” approaches to creating and operatingpeer networking activities that appeared in someor all of the 19 activities studied here, and thatmay be relevant to shaping other peer networkingefforts (examples are given of each):

• Provide a safe, trustful place for participants tointeract Peer networking participants need a safeplace to talk about their work off-the-record withtrusted, experienced equals. This was identifiedas the most important benefit of membership in apeer network by many interviewees. As oneinterviewee stated, “Everybody is running, and

this is a chance to be peaceful and reflective withcolleagues who are knowledgeable and sharesimilar experiences.”

As another way of expressing it, one intervieweesaid: “The main benefit of peer networking is thecomfort and enjoyment of talking with peoplewho really know what you mean when you posea problem or a possible solution, but who don’twork with you day by day and thus don’t have thesame mindset. We’ve found the deepunderstanding of the problem to be in common,but we didn’t start from the same mindset orpremises or experiences, so there was a freshperspective, perhaps tilted 15 degrees either way.”

This is particularly important for Casey becausethe Foundation is oriented to risk-taking. Oneinterviewee referred to Casey as a “faith-basedorganization” because it has taken major risks bymoving in directions that have not yet beenvalidated by a lot of research or prior experience,either at the Foundation or elsewhere inphilanthropy. Where such risk-taking is involved,having a “trustful space” where fears andconcerns about the commitment to change, andpros and cons of certain approaches, can be talkedabout candidly is essential.

Trust in peer matching systems is generated inpart because the technical assistance typically istwo-way, reinforcing that the exchange is amongpeers. TARC Peer Matching devotes greatattention to figuring out who from eachcommunity ought to be included to maximize thechances for a good exchange and also for use ofwhat’s learned in taking later action.

Examples: The Leadership Development FundersAffinity Group has funders-only meetings, notaffiliated with the Council on Foundations orother philanthropic associations, where “deep andcandid conversations” happen in a “safe place forreflective practice”; the Urban Child WelfareLeaders Group has similar child welfare directors-only meetings. In the words of one interviewee,members seem to feel that this is “the one place I


26

could go where I felt I was truly among peers, andcould have a safe place to talk about thechallenges of running a complex child welfaresystem in an urban setting.”

Other peer network participants spoke in similarterms. For example, the youth developmentorganizations in the Family Strengthening Awardsnetwork compete with each other in other arenas,but the network offers a “non-compete”environment in which they can learn from eachother.

Observers of the Long Term Funders Exchangetalked about the “comfort level” inherent in adiscussion forum where all the others at the tableare not only funders, but also funders that havemade enduring commitments to funding atmultiple community sites. Similar commentswere made about almost all of the peernetworking activities examined in this study.

• Encourage personal as well as professionalinteractions among participants Peer networkingencourages relationships that cross boundaries oforganizational or system learning agendas,offering both emotional and personal problem-solving support. These personal relationshipsprovide incentives for participation in peernetworking activities, just as do the professionallearning and systems-oriented connections.

Examples: The Children & Family Fellows AlumniNetwork encourages spontaneously-offeredsupport from one member to another, rangingfrom personalized executive coaching, to supportthrough a personal crisis such as a health issue.Participants are motivated to do this because of“deep attachments to one another” that were builtover time, during both the structured andunstructured aspects of the Network’s operations,according to a study interviewee.

Several of the Making Connections peer networksinclude meetings conducted informally overmeals, which encourages more personal sharing ofproblems and informal advice about their

resolution. Lead Program Executive and UrbanChild Welfare Leaders Group network membersalso report informal telephone conversationsbetween meetings that have the same value.Whether dining, telephoning or e-mailing, thebulk of non-meeting connections reported forthese peer networks tended to have a moreinformal and personal element, sometimesaddressing sensitive emotional issues like dealingwith a crisis at work, succession planning, and soforth.

This more personal approach has even extendedto the conclusion of a network’s activity. Whenthe Child Welfare Training Directors Groupconcluded in 2006, its last event was a dinner thatcelebrated the group’s achievements, recognizedindividual members with a certificate, andprovided a healthy environment for sharing boththe successes of the group and some sadness overits end.

• Customize the peer networking structure to meetspecific participant needs Peer networkingrequires an ongoing investment of time andresources to develop activity customized to theinitiative it is supporting; it is not “one-size-fits-all.” As one interviewee stated: “There is nomagic in bringing people together, but rather inwhat they do when they are together. Conveningpeople for anything less intense, or with less up-front planning, is not worth doing. It matters howyou create the space and how you set theexpectations.”

Examples: The Community Foundation Exchangemade a major investment in bringing togethercommunity foundations to focus on building theireffectiveness in their communities, and activesharing with like-minded peers. In addition tosignificant travel expenses for convening a largegroup of community foundation staff, majorresources were invested in structuring thenetworking activities to reach certain goals of theExchange, facilitated by both the Coalition ofCommunity Foundations for Youth and ChapinHall.


27

The results included specific actions such as theMilwaukee Foundation refocusing theirengagement with the community around FamilyEconomic Strengthening, acting as a catalyst tobring together community leaders on this topic;and the Des Moines Community Foundationbecoming a leader in convening otherphilanthropic organizations in the region aroundsupporting improved services for vulnerablechildren and families. The customizing processalso identified some approaches that didn’t work– for instance, the Exchange’s meetings includedsome speakers who simply didn’t know enoughabout community foundations and the challengesthey face to be effective, so the meeting organizersbegan to look more for speakers with “ideas thatconnect to the real world rather than big names,”in the words of one interviewee.

Similarly, the multiple Making Connections peernetworks were re-shaped over time not only toreflect learnings about how the networkingprocess works best, but also to accommodateevolving needs. For example, as the thrust of theinitiative shifted over the last several years fromimplementation to sustainability (and the transferof operations to a community-based organizationat each site), the local coordinators realized theyneeded to reduce their time investment inplanning and participating in network meetings,so they asked to meet as a network only whenthey already were convening for some otherpurpose.

• Promote opportunities for participants andtheir organizations to collaborate Collaborationsincrease the chances for wide impact of aninitiative, and both informal and formal activitiesof peer networking provide chances forparticipants to get to know each other and toidentify areas in which collaborations would be ofmutual benefit ... without making a commitmentuntil there is reason to believe that a collaborationwould be effective! In the words of oneinterviewee, “you listen for someone whosemission and vision matches your own, and thengo forge a working relationship.”

Examples: Leadership Development FundersAffinity Group members are encouraged, boththrough the meetings of this peer network, andthrough contacts outside the more formalinteractions, to approach other members aboutpossible collaborations. Collaborativeopportunities are more likely to emerge amongthe 15 or so members of this group who come allthe time to its meetings. There are about another15-20 who come sporadically, and building thedeeper relationships of ongoing partnering ismore challenging for them.

Some networks exist in part to take collaborativeaction, such as the Language Access Network,Family Strengthening Awards and NationalPartners Network. They are brought together bya common agenda, and look systematically duringeach network meeting at how they can worktogether to make progress on that agenda.

In many other peer networks, informalcollaborations happen on a regular basis, often asan outgrowth of opportunities identified at groupmeetings. This is particularly true for the sixexternally-coordinated funder networks studiedhere. As already mentioned, the networkmeetings provide a safe space for funders tointeract, and that also encourages theidentification of collaborative prospects. In somecases, as with the Lead Program Executives Group(but true to considerable extent of all thesenetworks), part of the value of the meetings is thatit brings together extraordinarily busy people whomay find it difficult to schedule time to talk witheach other.

• Encourage participant feedback about peernetworking Peer networking activities can yieldinformal but very useful feedback forimprovement of an initiative that iscomplementary to more formal evaluation. Thisfeedback offers a platform for discussing andtaking action on evaluation findings.

Examples: The Children & Family Fellows AlumniNetwork has developed several informal feedback


28

channels that supplement what was learned froma more formal outside evaluation study conductedby the OMG Center. They have participated inwriting some stories about how the Fellows havebeen impacted by their participation in this peernetwork, which have become part of the largerprocess to document lessons learned from thisgroup, e.g., through a series of newsletters writtenby an outside consultant. They also allow time inthe network’s meetings to talk about what they’relearning and about how to improve its operations.

While these multiple feedback channels areexpensive, they also have provided a wealth ofdocumentation about what the Alumni Networkis doing and what kind of impact it is having.Such documentation is quite likely a factor in thepositive reputation it has developed within Casey,as a kind of “shining example” of what’s possiblethrough good peer networking.

Similarly, feedback loops have been establishedfor each of the Making Connections peer networks.In the case of the TARC Peer Matching system,feedback channels involve data gathered by anoutside evaluator, Community DevelopmentAssociates, including a report of 100 percentsatisfaction with the peer matching process bythose who participated in a round of theseactivities.

Most other peer networks encourage feedbackinformally at group meetings. This allows forcontinuous improvement of the networkingprocess over time.

• Build the activity’s initial success beforebroadening its range of participants A certainlevel of success in peer networking is neededbefore bringing in additional peers, especiallythose at a higher level of authority in thecommunity.

Examples: The Making Connections ResidentLeadership Network brought in mayors andUnited Way directors to peer networkingmeetings after the group was well-established and

had actually accomplished some things in thecommunity – they could then point to theseachievements of the group when engaging theselocal leaders. Moreover, this made it easier to getmajor institutions like United Way involved, butnot lose individual resident voices.

In other networks, both some expansion of thegroup and its very continuation were supportedbecause there was an appraisal (usually informal,at network meetings) of the network’s successafter a certain period of operation. And whenexperiences suggest that an expansion may not bein the best interest of the group, as happened withan effort to grow the number of participants in theLead Program Executives network, the groupprocess can then support making the harddecision not to grow.

• Offer resources for participants to translateideas into action Peer networking benefits fromhaving resources available to participants thatsupport translating ideas into action. Resourcesmay be needed to support specific activities orexperiences that can help meet the network’sdefined learning agenda, or they may be requiredto undertake projects that emerge out of either thedeliberations of the entire group or the ideas of aparticular member.

Examples: The Child and Family FellowshipAlumni Network has a small grant program towhich alumni can apply in order to fund projectsof their choosing. All applications are reviewedand selected by a committee of alumni peers.

Many other Casey networks make resourcesavailable to translate ideas into action that reflectthe group’s learning agenda, either related to theoverall group objective or particular issues thenetwork identifies as needing further exploration.The Urban Child Welfare Leaders Group, forinstance, brings in experts to make presentationsat network meetings, as do many of the othernetworks. Experiential exercises or other skilldevelopment activities may also require aninvestment of resources.


29

• Create sub-groups within the peer networkingactivity to focus on particular topics of interestPeer networks often form sub-groups to focus onspecific issues, thus keeping the networkingactivity practical and close to the ground.

Examples: The Making Connections LocalCoordinators Network convenes subgroups at itsregular meetings to permit more focused attentionon topics like workforce preparation. Sometimesthese subgroup meetings are conductedinformally over a meal. Several other networksregularly create informal subgroups to considertopics that may not be of equal interest to theentire network.

• Shape the activity by analyzing the successes ofother peer networking activities Peer networkingcan be enhanced by examining other successfulpeer networks or peer matching systems, to seehow they operate and what results they’veachieved.

Examples: The Social Network has looked atintermediaries, like the Oakland FamilyIndependence Institute, all of which are successfulat networking. Each of the intermediaries was sitevisited, providing input that could be used todevelop a framework for social network buildingthat Casey can use in Making Connections,identifying the essential elements that make forrobustness and ability to tie networking activitieswith an overall community change mission.

To the extent that Casey’s peer networkingactivities – especially those from early efforts suchas the Children and Family Fellows AlumniNetwork and the Making Connections networks –are visible to organizers of newer networks, therealso has been successful use of strategies andprinciples advanced by these “pioneering efforts.”This also has been true within the MakingConnections initiative, as it has created additionalpeer networks over the life of the initiative.

• Level the playing field by sharing basicinformation about the focal area of peer

networking Especially when the strategy orcommunity or systems change initiative on whichpeer networking is focused isn’t well known toparticipants, basic education about it is essential atthe beginning.

Examples: All peer networks have an informationalcomponent. They exist in part to share knowledgeabout the topical area of the network, and one ofthe attractions for participation is that groupmembers will have access to state-of-the-artknowledge in an area of great interest, presentedin a context where there is validation of thatknowledge by other members of the network.Some networks, such as the Language AccessNetwork and the Urban Child Welfare LeadersGroup, build the agenda of their meetings in partaround such knowledge-sharing.

Sometimes information-sharing can move beyondthe confines of the network itself. For instance,during the formation of the PRI Makers Network,it became clear that many Casey staff needed abetter understanding of social investments as ageneral concept, and of Program RelatedInvestments in particular. A set of publicationstermed “PRI 101” by one interviewee wascommissioned from an outside consultant. Theseserved as a backup for meetings oriented to basiceducation on this subject, including sessionsprovided for personnel involved with the MakingConnections and Civic sites.

Challenges The study also identified tenchallenges that were faced by some if not most ofthe 19 Casey peer networking activities studied,and which also appear to have some generality ofapplication for future peer networking by Caseyor others:

• Peer networking is costly in both time andmoney For most interviewees knowledgeableabout at least one of Casey’s peer networkingactivities, their appraisal was consistent: peernetworking appears to have impact, but it also iscostly to implement, and these cost factors need tobe weighed against the benefits achieved. While


30

interviewees typically could not cite specific costfigures, and indeed the costs of some of theseactivities are difficult to estimate because they areintertwined with other programmatic activities,and involve staff time that has a cost, but isn’tallocated to a specific peer networking budget.

In general, though, the supporting structure forpeer networking as it has been done by theFoundation typically costs a lot both to implementand maintain (though sometimes long-termmaintenance costs can be reduced, for instance, bymoving from in-person to telephone conferencecall meetings). Just getting people together isn’tenough (although for nationwide networkstransportation costs alone can be substantial);there also are costs for planning and coordinatingmeetings or field-based peer matches, creatingreports that document outcomes and make follow-up possible, and for creating communicationchannels, etc.

Cost factors apply at the individual level as well,particularly for community residents whoparticipate in a peer network. “Life gets in theway much more,” as one interviewee said. “If achild care provider doesn’t show up you can’t beat a meeting, ditto if the car breaks down.”

Moreover, participating residents tend to be thosemost deeply involved in advocacy work in theircommunities, so choosing to participate in aparticular peer network means that they can’tdevote those hours to some other cause. For allpeer networks, the costs of networking are not justin dollars, but also in the number of “person-hours” that are devoted to the network, whetherby Casey staff, consultants, other foundationexecutives, or community residents.

As a result, while “peer networking adds value toso much of what the Foundation does, we need tobe clear about the purpose and the role. We needto staff and otherwise prepare for these activitiesappropriately. Nothing is more irritating thangoing to a peer network meeting and find that it isnot well-prepared, clear and structured,” as one

interviewee expressed it. The template of “Returnon Investment” must be applied to peernetworking as much as to any other foundation-funded activity, applying all available metrics todetermine whether the investment made has hadadequate payoff to justify the commitment to it byall parties.

Building a good peer network takes time, which isin short supply at a foundation like Casey, wherestaff schedules are filled with many priorities anddeadlines. As one interviewee expressed it,“There is a problem of fragmentation. We haven’tgiven ourselves the time and space to fully exploreour thinking on behalf of the Foundation and withour peers.”

The most significant payoffs from peernetworking may take a while to show up – andthis may test the patience of decision-makers whowant to see more immediate “Return onInvestment.” “There is a longitudinal power inpeer networking,” an interviewee stated. “Itsbenefits aren’t always seen even in the first five toten years – a foundation will reap rewards in thelonger term through this kind of process.” Whilesome may argue about the 5-10 year time framethis interviewee asserts, there was wide agreementthat a longitudinal view was helpful in looking atwhether peer networking really achievessignificant payoff.

• Participants in peer networking may find itdifficult to take action on the good ideas they’vedeveloped Peer networking can generate greatenthusiasm among participants, and sometimesthis energy is directed immediately into settingand executing an action agenda (and framing suchan agenda is often a specific element of the peernetworking activity). However, in other cases,according to some interviewees, there may be aneed to channel that energetic motivation intotaking action, both practical and productive.“Folks get very excited about what they see,” oneinterviewee said, “but the difficulty becomescontaining and channeling that enthusiasm.”


31

This reality can be addressed by what some see asone of the great strengths of the peer matchingprocess. “If there’s too much enthusiasm,” thisinterviewee asserted, peer matching can help“bring people back to reality. We can say, look athow long it took those people to solve theproblem, and with what resources.”

• The goals of peer networking may be difficult toidentify and to share with others Preciselybecause peer networks bring together people oflike mind and interest (even though they maycome from diverse parts of a community, theytend to share at least some central goals),whatever tensions may be involved in cominginternally to a shared vision about their goals canbe magnified when moving them outside thegroup. But interviewees emphasized that it isworth the extra time and effort to craft acommunication about network goals that can bereadily understood by “outsiders” to the group. Experience shows that, as one interviewee stated,“peer networks with a clear purpose are morelikely to be successful.” This is true both in theiroperation and the outcomes they achieve, theinterviewee went on to state.

However, large, well-resourced foundations likeCasey may choose to tolerate a certain amount ofambiguity in order to sort out how such anactivity can best function. They can, in the wordsof this interviewee, “afford it, because they are abig foundation!” But more importantly, allowingambiguity, especially early in the process ofshaping an initiative, can increase the contributionpeer networking makes to formulating acommunity change effort, because it gives people“comfortable space” to share divergent ideas thatmay not yet be well-formed in their own heads.

Peer networking activities may have difficulty ineffectively presenting a “public face” to share theirgoals and results, once they have been defined ina reasonably clear manner. As an example, theChildren & Family Fellows Alumni Network, inthe words of one interviewee, has been better at“serving the interests of members directly, and

less able to connect with the broader world” (e.g.,for purposes of public policy advocacy).

In truth, a “public face” has not been presented forany of the 19 peer networking activities studiedhere, and this has been both a matter of choice andnecessity. Peer networking by its nature has anelement of “private conversation,” so the choicesfor a more open sharing may be constrained, eventhough the goals of the group may be ones sharedat large in the community.

• Peer networking may be difficult to integratewith other activities of its sponsor As alreadystated, peer networking as a general strategy hasbeen hidden somewhat “under the radar” atCasey, both in its internal and external profile.This is true despite the importance and success ofsome early networking activities, such as in theMaking Connections initiative and the Children andFamily Fellows Alumni Network. Unless peernetworking is at least mentioned as a significantelement in the Foundation’s overall philanthropicstrategy, it will be difficult for its approaches andexperiences to be fully integrated across theFoundation’s many programs. Therecommendations section of this report suggestssome ways in which that broader integrationcould occur.

• It may be challenging to balance equality withexpertise in selecting peer participants If there istoo much emphasis on maintaining equalityamong the participants as “peers,” it may be moredifficult to identify and take advantage ofexpertise that some of the participants may have.As one interviewee remarked: “This is a challengeto the Foundation. Everybody at the table is equalin having thoughts or ideas, but sometimes wetake this to a fault.”

It also may be more difficult to bring outsideexperts into the group, to provide input on atemporary basis. Yet experts as members or asoutsiders may have real contributions to make tothe peer networking activity.


32

On the other hand, it is vital that all involved inthe peer networking activity pay careful attentionto power differentials of group members, andparticularly those between funders andcommunity residents (or other categories ofparticipants that have built-in, major powerdifferentials). Written philosophies, meetingrituals and periodic re-affirmations of equality allmay be necessary to minimize the impact of thesebuilt-in differentials.

• Organizational complexity and culture of asponsor may reduce the chances for success Peernetworking is meant to open up the process ofconversation, by which more input can beprovided to a national foundation like Caseyrelevant to shaping its programs and priorities.But the organizational silos of a relatively large,bureaucratically-complicated organization likeCasey, which has several hundred employees, canlimit the impact of that open process. This isreflected by the fact that Casey staff working onone peer network often did not know much aboutother networks operated by their colleagues, eventhough there may have been significant learningpotential in looking across networks for operatingprinciples and problem-solving.

Even the heavy emphasis of the Foundation onprocess (such as the process involved in creatingpeer networks, as discussed above), in general adesirable thing, can negatively affect the chancesfor success of peer networking. This is true evenwith efforts to get broad involvement in theprocess of designing and implementing afoundation initiative.

“We put people into boxes of process,” said oneinterviewee, with that process sometimes drivingthe interaction even when it is not the best methodfor promoting interaction. If this limits thewillingness of group members to participate, aswell as the payoffs for them from being part of thenetwork, its overall goals may suffer.

Also, as emphasized by one interviewee, thisbureaucratic complexity (as well as bad previous

history with other funders – whether foundation,corporation or government) can make communityparticipants concerned about the issue of “whoowns the peer networking activity.” Self-ownedpeer networks, for example, may represent a kindof community ideal, and funders may wish toconsider establishing networking activities withthis kind of independence, or at least movingtowards it over time, as the initial phase ofnetworking activity matures. Without suchexplicit attribution of ownership, communitymembers may be reluctant to commit time andenergy to the network.

The rules of etiquette in philanthropy also can getin the way of effective peer networking, if theymake it more difficult to have a candid exchange.Foundation staff sometimes are reluctant to speakplainly, or to encourage plain speaking amongstothers, which can lead to unhelpful exchanges.Interviewees in this study did not seem to feel thatCasey had great difficulty in this area, however,and in fact pointed to ways in which theFoundation has been rather bold in the realm ofcandid exchange, through such efforts aspublication of its pioneering self-critique The Pathof Most Resistance. But Casey is still a part of theAmerican foundation culture, and so its staff maystill need to work intentionally on promotingwithin-group candor, free of any such “culturalbarriers.”

• It may be challenging to develop a good exitstrategy for a peer networking activity Fromtheir inception, peer networking activities mustfocus on the challenges that will come in whenthey are “winding down,” as such efforts arerarely intended to be permanent. This means bothlearning how to detect when it is time for anactivity to wind down, and determining how toimplement such a decision once made.

The experiences of the Child Welfare TrainingDirectors Group are illustrative in that regard.This peer network moved towards its end in 2006,after a successful operation, in a very planful way.The final meeting included exercises designed to


33

“say goodbye,” and to wrap up the network’soperation in ways that encouraged follow-upwhere appropriate, and that provided symbols ofclosure.

• Replicating peer networking activities may bedifficult In many cases, people who are good atpeer networking are not good at helping toreplicate the model they’ve created (like therevolutionaries who win the war but then are nogood at governing the country!). At the least, theywill need assistance in developing a goodreplication strategy.

In particular, replication may be difficult becauseeffective peer networking is so dependent onleadership. As was said about the leader of one ofthe peer networks studied in this research: “ittakes somebody like this to keep it going; someonehas to drive it a little. The weakness then is thatthe networking success depends on that oneperson.”

• Participant turnover may limit the success ofpeer networking Over time, the membership ofpeer networks will change, and ways to addressthe resulting upheavals, major or minor, need tobe created in advance. Most of the networksstudied here reported some changes inrepresentation, and noted that there was a needfor orientation of new members representing aparticular organization or community, and thatthis needed to be included in the routineoperations of the network in order for it to happenin a timely way.

At the same time, periodically refreshing a peernetwork with some new members may help tosustain it (peer matching systems by their natureinvolve a constant flow of new participants). Asone interviewee noted, the level of interactionamong the Children and Family Fellows AlumniNetwork members “perked up” considerably aftera new group of Fellows joined in January 2007.

• Individual and group psychological factors maylimit the success of peer networking At some

point in their life cycles, most ongoing peernetworks will face some type of difficultyresulting from conflicts among members overgoals and strategies, or personality clashes thatcan be disruptive to the process of the network. For instance, power differentials amongsupposedly “equal” members can never beentirely eliminated, and often must be dealt withif the peer networking is to be successful.

Peer matching efforts can be hit by this kind ofdifficulty as well. Especially for ongoing peernetworks, setting up a system in advance bywhich conflicts will be handled is essential. Thisfollows one of the basic principles of conflictresolution, that the members of a group know inadvance what will happen if there is seriousconflict or disagreement, and what will triggerthese procedures to come into play.

Sometimes people are motivated to join a Caseypeer network simply to facilitate access to theFoundation and its financial resources. Inquiriesabout what a potential member feels they canbring to the group may help select participantswho are truly committed to the issues the peernetwork is addressing. The same may be true forpotential participants who are really looking morefor a personal support network than participationin an activity that’s issue- and outcome-focused.

As stated by one interviewee, “the basic questionmust always be asked: peer networking for what?And this must be asked for all who participate,because people often do peer networking becausethey want money or access to it and see this as aprice to pay. They show up to get the moneyrather than because they really think they canshape philanthropic strategy or otherwisebenefit.”

These priorities have to be balanced, of course,against the need for inclusiveness in a peernetwork. It is particularly important that both theinquiries and the decisions resulting be handledby the peer network members, not the foundation.


34

Further analysis of Casey’s peer networkingactivities would of course reveal additional goodpractices and challenges. For instance, morevigorous efforts to identify the goals of peernetworking up front are likely to result in betterfunctioning of the network or peer matchingsystem. And in many cases, what was presentedby interviewees in this research as a challengemight be re-framed by others as a good practice(e.g., the balancing of equality versus expertise).These results are therefore presented as a “work inprogress,” designed to provide a useful place tobegin in both understanding and shaping peernetworking activities, by Casey or other sponsors.

Peer Networking in the Business Sector

Peer networking among business leaders is a long-established practice in all areas of the privatesector. Much of it occurs informally, but in recentyears the conference, the club and the golf coursehave been supplemented by special events andnetworking organizations that focus on peerlearning as well as a more structured type ofnetworking. These latter entities operate undermany of the same principles as the peernetworking activities discussed in this study.

There is some evidence of impact from theseefforts. For instance, the Edward LoweFoundation (2005) cites research findings thatcompanies with executives who peer networkgrow faster, weather business cycles better andprovide economic benefits to their employees.

Among the many events focused on peernetworking in the private sector are the DavosWorld Economic Forum and the RenaissanceWeekends, which have great prestige andworldwide media profiles. They represent apinnacle of “exclusive” networks which also arevery public in the reports on their gatherings.

Networking organizations of national prominenceinclude the Young Presidents Organization (which

now has more than 10,000 young global leaders),and Vista (formerly The Executive Committee,perhaps the best-established well-structured peernetwork in the business community, which bringstogether business leaders from different areas ofwork so that they can interact in a protectedsetting, without fear they’ll divulge informationto their competitors). Other networkingorganizations include the Social Venture Network(focused on philanthropic activity), and theHarvard Executive Education Program (whichprovides high-quality management education andhas a powerful alumni network, now thousandsstrong and considered one of the key assetsacquired by participating in the training itself).

Increasingly, peer networking has moved into thecorporate design and development process aswell. For example, peer networks inmanufacturing involve customers shapingproducts like Lego Mindstorms and the SonyAibo, with significant positive results. In thepolitical arena, several recent elections in Americaand other countries have been shaped by peernetworking, as has the antiglobalizationmovement.

Much of the peer networking on both the businessand social development fronts is done via the cellphone and the internet (e.g., with listservs, andsometimes assisted by ever-more-influentialblogs). And in fact, the business community isoften involved in social change networking,sometimes directly through corporate websites,webinars, etc.

In her recent book, Pull: Networking and SuccessSince Ben Franklin, author Pamela Laird (2006)focused on networking as a method for deployingsocial assets in business and government. Whileher focus is on individuals’ use of networkingapproaches, the underlying concept thatnetworking skill is an asset directly related tosuccess in the business and government worldsalso is relevant to the discussion here. One of thereasons that peer networking is more than ever an“idea whose time has come” is that individuals are


35

increasingly recognizing not only the value of theprocess, but also the value of structures thatencourage the interconnections and sharing.

Business observers note that cooperation isstarting to replace commodity-based capitalismand competition in some arenas, while leavingother aspects of competition intact, and this also ispromoting more use of peer networking (Savieriet al, 2004). At the most general level, networksare replacing hierarchies throughout society –open source software is just one example. Thesedevelopments increase both awareness of peernetworking as a strategy for success, andexperiences people have with such approaches,thus making them more receptive to peernetworking associated with philanthropic ornonprofit activity.

For some years the author has participated in apeer network in Los Angeles called the SeniorConsultants Group, a small and informal body ofexperienced management consultants who comefrom psychology and other disciplines. Inpresenting some preliminary findings to thisgroup in July 2006, the reaction obtained was thatthe greatest benefit of peer networking in theprivate sector (which they felt was equallyimportant in the philanthropic and nonprofitsectors) was that it afforded time to process.

Time for reflection and integration is vital toimproving both individual practice andinstitutional work (the lack thereof was a universalcomplaint in the internal interviews conducted forthis study, and the Senior Consultants Group feltthat its lack in the executive suite is a majorproblem in American business). Continuousimprovement of the sort described at thebeginning of this report, as a major element ofCasey’s philosophy about transformationalchange, requires processing that can only takeplace in semi-structured environments withpeople who are responsible for change.

Technology also plays an increasing role in peernetworking for the business world (and is on the

rise in the public and philanthropic sectors as well,as some of the discussion above makes clear). Forinstance, advanced computer software systemscalled groupware (e.g., Lotus Notes) facilitate peernetworking in the business sector.

Moreover, some of terms used throughout thisreport have their origins in technology (involvingboth software and hardware) referred tocommonly as “peer to peer” networking or file-sharing. “P2P” is a computer term standing formultiple computers connected so they can sharefiles and resources without a dedicated server, auseful mechanical analogy to the human processesemphasized here.

Transformational Change in the Business Sector

Management science and experiences from thebusiness sector in large-scale change have beentouted as an important source for thinking andaction by nonprofit organizations on systemschange (e.g., Savieri et al, 2004). That also mayapply to understanding about transformationalchange and peer networking in the foundationworld, as explored in this study.

There is an important caution, however. Recentresearch shows that most large-scale ortransformational change approaches from thebusiness sector have, in the end, not worked verywell.

For instance, in his book Leading Change, HarvardBusiness School professor John Kotter reports theresults of a decade-long study of more than 100companies that have engaged in significantorganizational transformation. The changeprograms Kotter studied included efforts atimplementing total quality management, re-engineering, ?rightsizing,” restructuring,organization-wide cultural change and corporateturnarounds (Kotter, 1995).


36

His results? ?A few of these corporate changeefforts have been very successful. A few havebeen utter failures. Most fall somewhere inbetween, with a distinct tilt toward the lower endof the scale.” Most mergers, fail, too, withcompelling research that a few years later neitherparty to the merger has produced increasedshareholder value. John Kotter’s more recentbook, The Heart of Change (2002), presentsstrategies for dealing with this challenge, mostlyemphasizing involvement of employees in thechange process, and other strategies intended todeal with the complicated human realitiesresulting from the prospect of change.

MIT's Michael Hammer (1995) acknowledges thattwo-thirds of re-engineering interventions havefailed, and his analysis points to staff resistance asthe single most important cause. People’s innateresistance to change is ?the most perplexing,annoying, distressing, and confusing part” of re-engineering, says Hammer. Resistance to change?is natural and inevitable. To think that resistancewon't occur or to view those who exhibit itssymptoms as difficult or retrograde is a fatalmistake ... The real cause of re-engineering failuresis not the resistance itself but management'sfailure to deal with it.” Again, the lesson fromevaluations of re-engineering is that handlingsensitively the human aspects of change is critical(e.g., hearing out people’s fears and finding waysto respond to them, sometimes by changing theintervention).

Both Hammer and Kotter, along with othermanagement scientists who have studied majorchange in the corporate world also presentexamples of transformational changes that haveworked well. The transformation of car makerJaguar from a very troubled to a successful andhigh-quality-level operation is a compellingexample. But these cautions about how majorchanges have been addressed by largecorporations, with all the resources and expertiseat their disposal, need to be looked at carefullywhen designing similar kinds of shifts in thefoundation arena.

Transformational Change in Philanthropy

On the foundation side, peer networking is not theonly or even the most common method forintroducing significant change into thephilanthropic strategies of large, staffedfoundations – especially those that also affect howthe foundation deals with the process of makingsuch changes. The three most common “triggers”of transformational change, according to thoseinterviewed for this study, are (1) the death of adonor, (2) the arrival of a new foundation CEO, or(3) the appointment of a new board chair.Sometimes large-scale changes take placeprimarily in response to external events (such asmajor changes at Ford and Rockefeller after WorldWar II), or internal changes such as suddengrowth of a foundation’s assets, as happened forthe William and Melinda Gates Foundation withthe multibillion dollar donation made by WarrenBuffett in June 2006.

Inevitably, these changes involve major shifts inorganizational structure and leadership,grantmaking process, and how resources actuallyget allocated. If done well, they also involvestrategic re-shaping of how change is handled,developing new and improved pathways for re-shaping philanthropic strategy as external orinternal events require it.

Those who try to win “tomorrow’s war withyesterday’s weapons” are less likely to succeed,according to those interviewed for this study. It isthat combination of changed strategy and changedapproach to handling future change thatcharacterizes effective transformational change,whether done via peer networking or otherapproaches briefly reviewed here for comparisonpurposes.

In many cases, the leadership for transformationalchange is provided by a foundation CEO, by itsboard, or by staff or outside consultants. Oneinterviewee described the process of


37

transformational change as he experienced it as asenior executive in several foundations insuccession – in each case, “the major change inphilanthropic strategy was called for by thetrustees, new senior management was brought into implement the change, consultants were calledupon to help, and some gathering of input fromrelevant stakeholders in the foundation’s areas ofinterest was done.” But each foundation brings itsown culture, as well as its past history of handingchange, to this task of transformation. Both helpto shape the change process in distinctive ways.

These fundamental shifts are risky and sometimestraumatic for the staff, trustees, grantees andcommunities participating in them. Some havesucceeded, others have failed. All carry with themthe need for careful strategy. In the words of oneinterviewee, “when you’re looking at fundamentaltransformation, you’ve moved beyond training,best practices, operations – the things that aremore visible. Most people are more comfortablethere, because as you move into transformationthere are more intangible elements.”

Morever, successful transformation requires acontext of continuity. As one interviewee stated,“Boards may think that transformation happensby radical change but it must be within bounds orit won’t be productive.”

This discussion of transformational change may beof little relevance to the individual peernetworking activities examined by this study.However, an argument already has been made,and will be expanded in the report’s last section,that there may be some advantages to looking atCasey’s peer networking work in a morecomprehensive way, both to share good practicesand challenges across activities (as has been donepreliminarily in this study), and to consider howpeer networking fits into Casey’s overallphilanthropic strategy (e.g., as an implementationmethod for the Casey philosophy that“conversation matters”). If such a shift takesplace, it is more likely to promote some type ofchange on the “transformational” level, which will

make the above cautions and the resourcesoutlined in the next section more pertinent toCasey.

Resources for Guiding Transformational Changein Philanthropy For many years, foundations hadlittle to draw upon other than their ownexperiences with past changes, or the resources(also experience-based) provided to them bycolleagues or consultants – after all, philanthropyhas only recently become a field of study in evena few universities, and the conduct of research onphilanthropic practice is a relatively newendeavor. But there is now a growing literatureand practice wisdom about how to structure andapply this leadership for transformational change,and many of the interviewees in this study drewupon this knowledge base in making theircomments.

As philanthropy has become a more professionalfield, studies focused on philanthropic strategyhave increased somewhat, though as Fleishman(2007) comments, the literature on this topic is stillquite limited. Backer (1999) reviewed a number ofthe early environmental scans of foundationeffectiveness, including those arising out of theventure philanthropy movement in the 1990s. Aparticularly influential early article was Porter &Kramer’s (1999) Harvard Business Review article,which set forth an approach to strategicphilanthropy based in management sciences.Lake, Reis & Spann (2000) discuss how programofficers were central in the shift from a hands-offto a more engaged model of grantee interaction, aspart of the philanthropic strategy of one largefoundation.

A comprehensive review of foundationeffectiveness strategies was undertaken by JoelOrosz at Grand Valley State University (2004),providing an analytic comparison of a number ofthe initial efforts in the late 1990s, through theearly part of the current century, to study or guidephilanthropic effectiveness. Approaches tochanging philanthropic strategy in a variety ofdomains have been documented in a series of


38

practice guides by Patti Patrizi and colleagues(2003-05). Among the topics discussed in theseguides are principles for evaluation and forcollaboration activities by foundations.

Other recent works include a survey of foundationeffectiveness by Francie Ostrower and colleaguesat the Urban Institute (2004). This surveyexamined attitudes and practices about measuringthe achievement of philanthropic goals from morethan 1,000 staffed foundations in the U.S. In turn,Ostrower’s study was one of ten related researchprojects reviewed by Foundationworks (2006) in asynthesis of approaches to foundationeffectiveness, grantee needs and publicperceptions – all intended to have an impact onphilanthropic practice.

In another study of foundation approaches toeffectiveness, Ostrower (2006) concentrated oncommunity foundations. Her findings suggestthat community foundations could enhance theireffectiveness by bringing together different partsof the community in relationship to communityneeds – something for which peer networkingapproaches could be very useful.

Similarly, Hunter, Parzen & Brown (2004) assertthat community foundations face increasingpressures to demonstrate their effectiveness,which they can do so in part by becomingcommunity change makers (thus distinguishingthemselves from private donor advised fundproviders such as Fidelity). They can contributeideas and information, foster strategiccommunication, expand resources devoted tocommunity change, and promote performance –all activities in which peer networking effortssupported by community foundations could playa major role.

Major change efforts in the foundation world havebeen studied by Helmut Anheier and Diana Leatin their 2006 book, Creative Philanthropy. Anheierand Leat see relationships as one of the key assetsfoundations have, and that successfulphilanthropic strategy includes attention to

building rich networks of different types of peopleat different levels within their foundations and outin the community. They assert that such networksincrease access to ideas and perspectives, and canbe useful to test out ideas and recruit championsto assist with the work of change.

Most recently, Fleishman (2007) weaves togetherapproaches to “scientific philanthropy” that goback to the strategies used by Carnegie andRockefeller in the early part of the 20th centurywith modern methods such as those emergingfrom venture philanthropy. Thinking strategicallyinvolves a set of stages – get the facts by research,identify problems, study potential options,identify who can help or hinder the changesneeded, develop a plan of action includingobjectives and benchmarks, implement the changeand gather data on results.

These methods in particular can increase theability of a foundation to respond to“unpredictable opportunities.” Fleishman’shistorical analysis of how foundations havecontributed the most in the past makes it clear thatkeeping this response to uncertainty alive makesa major difference.

Strategies by which foundations can becomelearning organizations have been studied byHamilton and colleagues (2005), by Bernholz(2002) and are summarized in Backer (2005). Therole of learning and knowledge management intransformational change has been emphasized inthese works, and forms part of the framework forCasey’s activities in this area as well.

Hamilton et al (2005) identified seven corecomponents of foundations that have a majorcommitment to being “learning organizations.”Two of them are directly relevant to the use ofpeer networking strategies – creating learningpartnerships among foundation peers, andcreating learning partnerships with grantees andcommunities. These partnerships, to be trulyeffective, need to involve sustained engagementover time, and like all peer networking efforts, are


39

focused on exchanging insights and lessons,exploring, uncovering and generating newknowledge; and articulating new questions andlearning agendas.

Backer (2006) presents some similar approachesused by individual donors in philanthropylearning groups. These groups are one part of agrowing movement among donors to becomemore strategic in their giving. Peer networkinghas long been used by donors but has nowbecome more strategic, through groups thatmanifest many of the same qualities as the groupsstudied here.

And the inquiries into how the “practice ofchange” in philanthropic strategy can beimproved is continuing. For instance, The Centerfor Effective Philanthropy is currently conductingan interview-based study of 20 large foundations,focused on how they have developed their overallphilanthropic strategy (Bolduc et al, 2006).

They note that foundations can benefit fromdefining a strategy for the same reason suchapproaches add value for businesses andnonprofits: to increase effectiveness throughunique positioning in a particular environment, tomaintain responsiveness to external changes, andto appropriately align internal resources. Butsome foundation leaders actually resist embracinga sharply-defined organizational strategy, citingtheir “belief that flexibility, responsiveness andpluralism are important foundation strategies thatcould be undermined by implementation ofstrategies” (p. 8).

Examples of Transformational Change inPhilanthropy Many examples could be given ofindividual foundations that have implementedtransformational changes in their overallphilanthropic strategy. The two highlighted herecome from foundations with which Casey hasongoing ties through the peer networks studied.

The Ventures Program at Northwest Area Foundationwas begun in 1998, about the same time that Casey

was implementing Making Connections. It is a ten-year, $167 million effort to promote communitypoverty reduction in 10 sites over an eight-statearea, with a heavy investment in increasing thepower of community residents to make their ownsolutions to the problems of poverty. Venturesalso is aimed at testing strategies that then couldbe applied in other communities both in NWAF’seight-state region and across the country(“identifying, sharing and advocating for whatworks”).

The Ventures program represents a major changein its philanthropic strategy, again moving from awide-ranging program of smaller grants over aneight-state region, to initiatives that concentrateresources in a small number of sites, such as the 10of the Ventures program. Ventures has shiftedresources from a number of communities in whichthe Foundation traditionally gave money, a factthat has led to several lawsuits (each of themresolved in favor of the Foundation).

The John S. & James L. Knight Foundation madewide-ranging changes in their philanthropicstrategy five years ago, converting from what hadbeen largely a centralized operation with mostdecisions made at the national level by programdirectors in several programs (arts, education,journalism), to a system in which CommunityAdvisory Committees in each of the Foundation’s26 communities of interest are much more activelyinvolved in setting program priorities and inselecting grants that are awarded in response tothese announced priorities (e.g., learningreadiness for schoolchildren, in a number of the 26cities). Field-placed program officers assist incarrying out these initiatives.

After an examination of the operation of this newsystem over several years, a refinement iscurrently being implemented. In the revisedsystem, field-placed program officers will have alarger arena of responsibility in setting programpriorities, but much authority will still rest withthe Community Advisory Committees.


40

There are many other examples of large-scalechange in larger and more traditionally-organizedfoundations. One that has been analyzedrepeatedly in the philanthropic press is the EdnaMcConnell Clark Foundation. While maintaining amission focus on youth development, Clarktransitioned from providing a number of smallergrants to nonprofits to making much largerstrategic investments in a handful of youth-serving agencies that have been through a“vetting” process indicating that they can benefitfrom such an investment.

At the other end of the experience spectrum, newfoundations that have emerged recently from thetechnology industry, with much younger donorsat the helm, have made major shifts in direction.For instance, the Omidyar Foundation now is theOmidyar Network, which makes strategicinvestments to achieve social goals both innonprofit and for-profit ventures.

Relationship to Peer Networking in PhilanthropyIn “Leading Boldly,” their analysis of severalrecent examples of assertive foundation leadershipin promoting community or systems change, MarkKramer and his colleagues (Heifetz, Kenner &Kramer, 2005) look at how different the strategiesfor change need to be when dealing with technicalissues versus what they term “adaptiveproblems.” The latter kinds of problems grow outof conflicting values or contradictions betweeninternal values and external realities. For theseproblems, a central task is to mobilize people toclarify what matters most, so that sensiblesolutions addressing balance and tradeoffs canemerge in a less-than-perfect situation. Peernetworking is a potentially powerful tool fordealing with adaptive problems.

Peer networking provides an ongoing platform forthat kind of dialogue. Foundations, the “LeadingBoldly” authors note, tend to fight adaptiveproblems with technical tools. Instead they needto frame complex issues in ways people cancomprehend the challenges and opportunitiesthey face, and offer a place in which these can be

discussed openly and in a trusting environment –the kind of circumstances in which a peer networkcan play an essential role. Moreover, themembers of the peer network bring in turn all oftheir networking contacts to the group’senterprise, which can significantly increase itspower.

Where foundation peer networks are concerned,the issue emphasis of peer networking also fitswith the increasing preference of younger donorsto focus on content and on real learning in theirnetworking activities. Networking either forsocial purposes or for a kind of un-differentiated“professional development” are not as appealingas they may have been in the past. This has had considerable impact on training and developmentactivities both for individual donors and forfoundations large and small (Hamilton et al, 2005).

Expanding and Enhancing Casey’s PeerNetworking Activities

Results from this study suggest six ways toexpand and enhance Casey’s peer networkingactivities:

(1) Integrate peer networking internally with theFoundation’s philanthropic strategy ;

(2) Disseminate learnings about peer networkingthrough Casey’s Knowledge Management system;

(3) Hold a consultative session to synthesize andadvance knowledge on peer networking;

(4) Promote links of Casey peer networks to othernetworks, both internal and external;

(5) Explore refinements in peer networking, such aslow-cost approaches and methods for includingcommunity residents; and

(6) Evaluate the impact of Casey’s peer networkingactivities


41

Each of these recommendations is discussedfurther here.

(1) Integrate peer networking internally with theFoundation’s philanthropic strategy Significantinvestments in peer networking activities havebeen made by Casey over the last 10 years. Thisstudy suggests that some positive impact hasresulted from these investments, that someapproaches have worked better than others, andthat there are identifiable limitations to thismethod based upon experiences to date. Whilespecific peer networking activities have been quitevisible, the overall scope of these efforts hasremained “below the radar screen.” To lift uppeer networking activities internally as a moreformal part of the Foundation’s philanthropicstrategy, Casey needs to: (a) create a statement onpeer networking and its place in achieving theFoundation’s mission and (b) develop guidelinesfor considering, implementing and evaluating apeer networking activity.

(a) create a goal statement on peer networkingand its place in achieving the Foundation’smission Such a statement would frame how peernetworking activities of all types serve thecommon purpose of helping Casey advancecommunity change and public systems reform toassist vulnerable children and families. Whilemaintaining the individual creativity andflexibility required for good peer networking inCasey’s many initiatives, such a statement canhelp create a more organized body of practice forpeer networking at Casey, and make it a moreintentional part of the culture within theFoundation.

The goal statement also could help align theseactivities more fully with the Foundation’scomprehensive annual planning and budgetingprocess. At present, Casey’s investments in peernetworking are quite idiosyncratic to each activity.Opportunities for synergy and cross-activitylearning are likely to result once such a frameworkis made available.

(b) develop guidelines for considering,implementing and evaluating a peer networkingactivity Building on this goal statement, a set ofguidelines could then be constructed about how todecide whether peer networking is a wiseinvestment for a particular Casey initiative (insome cases, peer networking may not be a usefulstrategy); how to implement such an activity if itdoes seem likely to advance the Foundation’soverall mission; and where to begin the task ofsetting performance criteria useful for evaluation.

For instance, each Casey peer networking activityneeds a clear purpose statement. Each activity canbuild on the set of common good practices andchallenges identified in this study. Initialplanning can begin with the set of questionspresented earlier.

Sub-sections of a guidelines document might focuson particular challenges of peer networking –how to evaluate these activities, how to “winddown” a peer network when it has served itspurpose, how to deal with the challenges ofmember transition in a peer network, etc. Thisbrief guidelines document can in turn be linked toknowledge resources on peer networkingavailable through Casey’s KnowledgeManagement system.

(2) Disseminate learnings about peer networkingthrough Casey’s Knowledge Management system This report is just one of a number of knowledgeproducts Casey has created that could help inplanning new Casey peer networking efforts or inrefining existing ones. The goal statement andguidelines just discussed can serve as theorganizing frame for presenting these products,both through the newly-organized public website,and the internal e-Casey system.

The first step would be to inventory theseproducts. Some are published, such as the severalreports of the Center for the Study of Social Policycited in this report. Others are still in final draftform, and need to be readied for publication ifthey are to be used widely by Casey staff and


42

others. One of the difficulties of this study wasobtaining information in print form about Casey’speer networking activities – likely a main reasonmany Casey staff did not know about any peernetworking activities except the ones in whichthey were directly involved!

A second step would be to inventory current andcompleted Casey peer networking efforts, usingthis report as a starting point. Such a “peernetworking directory” might contain the name,purpose, activities and products of each activity,along with a contact person.

The e-Casey system, which has components likean electronic newsletter for Casey staff and videostreaming, can offer resources such as periodicupdates on the peer networking activitiesexamined in this research, and the video on peernetworking and Communities of Practiceprepared after these two subjects were presentedat a July 2006 Casey Management Committeemeeting. Original videos could also becommissioned, for instance presenting interviewswith peer networking participants about theirexperiences and insights. Some of these resourcescould be made available in the public portion ofthe Casey website as well, offering knowledge insomewhat the same way as has been done onother topics of importance to Casey, such as place-based philanthropy.

As is being done with other elements of Casey’sKM system, input from philanthropic, nonprofitand community colleagues can be sought on whatinformation about peer networking is of mostvalue, and how best to present it. As Casey learnsmore about the successes and challenges of itsown peer networking activities, this informationcan be shared through the KM system. Also,through print or video interviews, Casey mightoffer access to the learnings of other leaders in thepeer networking arena, e.g., the Ventures programat Northwest Area Foundation.

In addition, findings from this study and otherknowledge about Casey's peer networking

activities can be disseminated through (a) articlesfor journals such as Stanford Social InnovationReview, (b) development of a practice-orientedsummary of this report by Grantcraft (including adiagnostic tool based on the study findings, tohelp foundation staff determine whether they're"doing peer networking well"), and (c) articles forprint and electronic news publications inphilanthropy like The Chronicle of Philanthropyand the newsletter of the Foundation Center.Presentations about study findings can be made atconferences such as those of the Council onFoundations, Grantmakers for EffectiveOrganizations, Forum of Regional Association ofGrantmakers, and so forth.

GEO may be a particularly valuable channel,because of its emphasis on organizational capacitybuilding, and may offer disseminationopportunities through its electronic newsletter andother means. Current GEO board chair BethBruner has extensive experience with peernetworking through Bruner Foundation's supportof the Rochester Effectiveness Partnership, andmay be able to advise Casey about how to bestinteract with GEO on this subject.

Some of the peer networks studied in this researchmay provide platforms for dissemination togroups of interested foundations. The Long TermFunders Exchange and the Lead ProgramExecutives networks may be especially likelycandidates in this regard. Finally, the Center forthe Study of Social Policy already has begun toexplore how it might share some of the learningsfrom its TARC work with other foundations,which may identify possibilities for dissemination.

(3) Hold a consultative session to synthesize andadvance knowledge on peer networking In 2001,the Center for the Study of Social Policy (incollaboration with the EZ/EC FoundationConsortium) brought together 12 organizations todiscuss peer learning and peer networkingactivities. The session resulted in a jointpublication. At a February 2007 meeting, CSSPstaff suggested that it would be valuable for Casey


43

and for the field to hold a similar convening in thenear future.

(a) selecting participants This consultativesession would bring together (a) key internalleaders of Casey peer networks and peer matchingsystems, (b) selected representatives from Caseycommunities from Making Connections and otherinitiatives, and (c) selected foundation, nonprofitand business leaders interested in peernetworking as a strategy for systems change. TheCenter for the Study of Social Policy mightcoordinate the meeting. This report and its authorcould serve as a resource, as could EtienneWenger and Bill Snyder and their upcomingreport on application of Communities of Practiceapproaches in a Making Connections site (seefurther discussion below).

(b) reviewing the basic concepts of peernetworking The consultative session might beginwith an overview of principles and strategies forpeer networking, how they’ve been applied atCasey and elsewhere, and what has been learnedso far as a result. Drawbacks and limitations ofpeer networking as a concept could also bediscussed, drawing on the notion expressed byCharlie Munger, co-chair of Berkshire Hathaway.At the company’s 2006 shareholders meeting heemphasized that “it isn’t a competency if youdon’t know the edges of it.”

(c) applying peer networking to new Caseyinitiatives Then the session could explorewhether peer networking approaches (and theaccumulated knowledge about it at Casey) mightcontribute to several key new Casey initiatives:

• plans for establishing a “national programoffice” for Making Connections, marking a majorshift away from the current mode of Casey site-based personnel

• site-based activities to promote sustainability ofMaking Connections after Casey’s funding ends(peer networking could be a vital part of planningfor sustainability and actually bringing together

the community resources needed to sustain boththe Making Connections infrastructure – forhowever long it might be needed – and in thelarger frame to promote efforts to incorporate theprinciples of Making Connections into nonprofitand community operations so they become part ofthe “organizational DNA”)

• plans for a “Making Connections Institute” toshare lessons learned from this initiative withother foundations that might be interested inexploring some similar paths to community-basedsystems change

• related work on systems approaches to changethat Casey is exploring with Canadianfoundations (primarily through PhilanthropicFoundations Canada), and with United Ways inthe U.S.

(d) comparing peer networking with relatedconcepts Next, the session might look at peernetworking from a more conceptual standpoint, todetermine whether some further shaping ofCasey’s definition of this social process might bein order. Peer networking has “permeableboundaries” with some related types of activitieswhich may offer opportunities for increasingunderstanding or actual cross-fertilization:

• Mentoring is a one-on-one, mutually trustingrelationship in which a more experiencedindividual shares knowledge and providesguidance to someone less experienced.

• Coaching is typically a one-on-one relationship inwhich the coach helps unlock a person’s potentialto maximize their own performance by helpingthem to learn.

• Reflective Practice involves systematicallythinking about and learning from one’s ownpractice in order to improve it, a concept from theteaching field.

• Communities of Practice are “groups of peopleinformally bound together by shared expertise


44

and passion for a joint enterprise” and existwidely in business, e.g., more than 60 in one unitof IBM (Gongla & Rizzuto, 2001).

Although in fact Communities of Practice andpeer networking share many basic features, thereis a difference in the former’s emphasis on a bodyof knowledge and skill related to some specifictype of practice (e.g., practice in a specificprofessional discipline). It is possible that existingpeer networks Casey has helped create mightmorph into Communities of Practice as a body ofknowledge and practice evolves around them.

There are also many overlaps between the twoconcepts both conceptually. For example, the“good practices” of peer networking describedabove are similar in many ways to seven basicprinciples of Communities of Practice (but thereare also some distinctive features of the latterwhich could be usefully added to peer networkingstrategies). These seven basic principles are:

(1) design for evolution;(2) open a dialogue between inside and outsideperspectives;(3) invite different levels of participation;(4) develop both public and private conveningspace; (5) focus on value; (6) combine familiarity and excitement; and(7) create a rhythm for the community

Casey provided grant support to Etienne Wengerand Bill Snyder, the main conceptualizers ofcommunities of practice, to field-test use of theCOP approach at a Making Connections site. Theintervention started with efforts to educate sitecoordinators and the results team, and movedfrom there to a more general educational effort inthe community. A draft report from the pilotintervention was submitted to Casey in August2007, which sets forth its purposes and results inmore detail than can be provided here.

(e) exploring related activities in philanthropyRepresentatives of other foundations at this

session could help Casey put its peer networkingefforts into the larger context of other effortsfoundations are making to shape theirphilanthropic strategies. In the present study, oneinterviewee asked whether “Casey wouldconsider bringing together the increasinglydiverse structures of philanthropy that are, in theend, all engaged in the same cause? We seem tobe consumed with our own type of philanthropy,rather than looking for ways to grow all kinds ofphilanthropy, and to build partnerships betweenus.” The interviewee used the tension betweencommunity foundations and commercial giftfunds as an example. However, the peernetworking infrastructures developed forfoundations vs communities vs individual donorsvs their trusted advisors could also be an example.

(f) exploring related activities in the private sectorIn addition to exploring similar work by otherfoundations, further shaping and refining of theseapproaches might be facilitated by including inthis consultative session an examination of workon transformational change and peer networkingin the private sector.

If this exploration was found fruitful, a futureconsultative session might bring together a smallgroup of experts in business peer networking (andrelated concepts such as Communities of Practice,etc.) and experts in transformational change in theprivate sector (Frances Hesselbein of the Leader toLeader Institute, or Harvard’s John Kotter andMichael Hammer of MIT, whose work ontransformational change in the corporate sectorwas discussed earlier, are examples). A “collisionof ideas” with these private sector experts andoperators of some of Casey’s networks, plus thosedoing cutting-edge work on transformationalchange in philanthropy, could be very useful.

(g) exploring possible publication of sessionresults Finally, the consultative session could lookat whether its own deliberations and outcomescould form the basis for a new Casey publicationon peer networking. Also, the participants mightconsider starting a “peer network on peer


45

networking” that would initially help to edit andrefine a session publication, but that might bemaintained, at least in an internet environment, toprovide support for the work of Casey and otherparticipating funders doing work on this topic.

(4) Promote links of Casey peer networks to othernetworks, both internal and external Threedifferent linkages might be part of this effort:

a. First, linkages can be made inside Casey,bringing together peer networking managers andselected members of peer networks for a cross-cutting discussion on specific issues and lessonslearned. In particular, the “family” of MakingConnections peer networking efforts might benefitfrom linkage with those leading activities like theUrban Child Welfare Directors Group or theLanguage Access Network, where the purposesare different but some core processes are similar.

b. Second, linkages might be established withsimilar organizations having content domainsand values somewhat like Casey’s. This hasalready been done by the Urban Child WelfareLeaders Group in its collaborative relationshipwith the Pew Commission on Child Welfare, withmore intensive collaborations planned for thefuture. Among other things, this makes possibleresource-sharing that increases the potential forimpact of these activities.

As discussed previously in this report, theNorthwest Area Foundation has implementedsome community and systems change initiativesthat are similar to some of Casey’s strategies, butthere are also important differences (e.g., in howmuch initial leadership is taken on by communityresidents). NAF also has implemented “VenturesFridays,” a peer network bringing together thefoundation staff involved in these community-based initiatives to talk about and learn fromthem. Community-based staff come from a widevariety of perspectives, ranging from secondaryeducation to economic development. Thisprovides a rich diversity to the network’s dialogueabout the Ventures program. How might Casey

learn both about peer networking process andabout change strategies from NAF’s work? Woulda peer match be productive?

c. Third, external links might be made withsomewhat dissimilar organizations, in keepingwith the argument made by Duncan Watts, authorof Six Degrees (2003), that in many complexsystems, clusters of strongly linked nodes caninexpensively extend their reach by adding a few“weak links” to other clusters. As mentionedearlier, weak links are useful because they aremade between people who don’t know each otherwell, and thus don’t share the same set ofknowledge and contacts, thus making it morelikely that they will bring in “new blood” to theexchange of ideas.

For instance, a link could be made with a peernetworking activity involving foundations, butwhere the funders involved have somewhatdifferent agendas than Casey’s, such as a regionalgeographical emphasis. An example is theKellogg-Kauffman Seminar, an annual meeting of20 midwestern-region foundation CEOs, at whichthey explore both content issues and processmatters such as board and staff relationships. TheAspen Institute, which now operates the LongTerm Funders Exchange, also coordinates thisseminar, which would provide an easy way ofmaking the connection.

(5) Explore refinements in peer networking, suchas low-cost approaches and methods for betterincluding community residents As alreadydiscussed, many of Casey’s current approaches topeer networking are costly (though the costs varywidely), and there is reason to believe that formany problem areas and communities, the long-term, high-level investment in supporting theinfrastructure for peer networking does pay off interms of impact. In other cases the probable“Return on Investment” for a full-scale peernetworking activity might not justify taking onthese costs. But a “stripped down” approachcould have a good “ROI,” and in some cases mightreplace a more costly approach when peer


46

networking for initial development of acommunity or systems change initiative has beencompleted, and a lower level of “maintenance”activity is needed.

Simplified approaches to peer networking includethose that utilize something as simple as a listservto bring people together online for discussion ofissues and strategies related to a particular Caseyinitiative. This could be combined with some ofthe other principles for effective peer networkingidentified by this study.

Other stripped-down versions that could beexplored include webinars, an approach used bythe Lead Program Executives peer network, ortelephone conference calls or video conferences.Several experiences reported in this study showthat established Casey peer networks have beenable to move from in-person meetings totelephone conference calls as a way of continuingthe efforts of the peer network while reducing thefinancial and human costs.

Also, peer networks may not be equally efficientfor residents in poor communities as for socialelites (foundation staff, welfare directors, etc.).For instance, peer networking involves startuptime, investment in learning and strategy that lowresiliency people may not have to give. How canCasey evaluate the effectiveness of peer networksthat include residents, and how might thesenetworks be re-shaped to better accommodate therealities of these members? As one intervieweeput it, “Peer networks are a powerful way to workwith elites but not as quick or efficient withcommunities, where some sort of communityorganizing strategy may work better.”

(6) Evaluate peer networking As this study hasrevealed, peer networking already is makingimportant contributions to shaping andimplementing the Annie E. Casey Foundation’sphilanthropic strategy, particularly in its MakingConnections initiative. The Foundation has madea significant investment of financial and staffresources in peer networking.

Available evidence suggests that there have beenuseful results from this investment, ranging fromspecific elements of Casey initiatives createdthrough the peer process, to self-reports ofsatisfaction with this “way of doing business.”For instance, a customer satisfaction surveycommissioned by Casey reported 100 percentsatisfaction with technical assistance providedthrough peer matches.

But this is not guaranteed. As stated by oneinterviewee in this study, “peer networks are a lotof work and money for not always a lot of benefit.Some peer networks really work well and manydon’t, but I suspect many funders stick with thembecause they have made a commitment, or don’thave a lot of alternatives.”

If peer networking is to become a more systemicpart of Casey’s overall philanthropic strategy, itscosts, benefits and outcomes need to bedetermined, both for individual activities andacross all of the efforts the Foundation hasundertaken in this domain. A first step would bean analytic study of Casey’s financial investmentsin peer networking to date, including bothdevelopmental and operational costs.

To do so, each peer network or peer matchingsystem (including but not limited to the 19 studiedhere) would provide an estimate of the costs ofpeer networking in the most recent fiscal year.Results from such an analysis would be extremelytentative, especially given lack of comparabilitybetween various activities and inability in manycases to separate peer networking costs from thoseof other activities. But such a study could helpbegin a dialogue about cost-benefit of thisapproach. Studies to analyze peer networkingactivities from a more rigorous standpoint couldbe useful to evaluate both process and outcome.Evaluative activity could help to improve theoperation of Casey peer networks and peermatching systems, make it easier to share them inother settings (both within Casey and throughoutphilanthropy), and help to justify the investmentin these systems for Casey trustees and leadership.


47

A judgment has been made that peer networkingfor Casey’s purposes needs to be resource-intensive with an ongoing structure, so that thedeeper, trustful kinds of interactions described inthis study are possible. However, the advantagesof this system over other, possibly much lessexpensive interventions as described above canonly be judged fairly if there is some idea abouthow much the current way of doing things costs.

Evaluations also can explore the natural life cycleof peer networking activities. The good practices,challenges and questions framed here are tied tosome extent to the life cycle of peer networks andpeer matching systems. Part of institutionalizingpeer networking at Casey or in any other settingcomes from understanding what these natural lifecycles are. Some Casey peer networks havealready concluded and others have limited lifespans built into their organization - what can belearned from these, as well as the peer networkingactivities that continue?

Similarly, there are at least two levels where“simultaneous loose-tight properties” may apply.One is at the level of the individual peernetworking activity – what is the right balancebetween structure and flexibility/spontaneity foran effort that draws so much on interpersonalrelationships? But there is also a larger level –how much structure of good practices and othersupporting features will help peer networkingevolve in a desirable way at Casey or in any othersetting?

There is a paradoxical quality to peer networking– trying to make the informal formal can impedesuccess, but this study has made it clear that somelevel of structure is related to success. If peernetworking and communities of practice are on acontinuum of some sort, it may also be that somepeer networks will evolve into communities ofpractice as the content of the networking activitybecomes more clear and professionally focused.

All of these steps are suggested as ways ofexpanding, making more rigorous, and integrating(into Casey’s overall philanthropic strategy andlearning systems) the basic element of Casey’speer networking activities ... that conversationmatters!


48


49

References

Anheier, H. & Leat, D. (2006). Creativephilanthropy. London: Routledge.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2001). Buildingleaders for change: An overview of Annie E. CaseyFoundation’s Children and Family Fellowship.Baltimore: Author.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation (1995). The path ofmost resistance: Reflections on lessons learned fromNew Futures. Baltimore: Author.

Backer, T.E. (2006). Nurturing high-impactphilanthropists: Learning groups for donors and smallfoundations. Encino, CA: Human InteractionResearch Institute.

Backer, T.E. (2005). Overview of foundation learningapproaches. Encino, CA: Human InteractionResearch Institute.

Backer, T.E. (1999). Innovation in context: Newfoundation approaches to evaluation, collaboration andbest practices. Encino, CA: Human InteractionResearch Institute.

Backer, T.E. (1985). Networking in rehabilitation.Journal of Rehabilitation, 51(4), 47-50.

Backer, T.E., Smith, R. & Barbell, I. (2005). Whocomes to the table? Stakeholder interactions inphilanthropy. In D. Eilinghoff (Ed)., Rethinkingphilanthropic effectiveness. Gutersloh, Germany:Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Bailey, T.J. (2005). Ties that bind: The practice ofsocial networking. Baltimore: The Annie E. CaseyFoundation.

Bailey, T.J. (2004). Social network strategic analysis:A view from the literature. Baltimore: The Annie E.Casey Foundation. Bernholz, L. (2002). Spending smarter:Knowledge as a philanthropic resource. In F.

Ellsworth & J. Lumarda (Eds.), From grantmaker toleader: Emerging strategies for 21st centuryfoundations. New York: Wiley.

Bolduc, K. et al (2006). Foundation strategy: Distinctchallenges. Cambridge, MA: Center for EffectivePhilanthropy.

Butler, A.J. (1975). Visiting consultant program forresearch utilization. Rehabilitation CounselingBulletin, 19(2), 401-415.

Center for the Study of Social Policy (2003). Helpon the way. Washington, DC: Author.

Center for the Study of Social Policy & EZ/ECFoundation Consortium (2001). Peer assistance:Emerging lessons. Washington, DC: Authors.

Community Partners (2006). Peer learning: Apartnership for growth. Los Angeles: Author.

Edward Lowe Foundation (2005). What are thebenefits of peer networking? Available atwww.lowe.org.

Fleishman, J.L. (2007). The foundation. New York:Public Affairs.

Foundationworks (2006). A research synthesis onaspects of foundations and philanthropy. Washington,DC: Author.

Gladwell, M. (2007). Open secrets. The NewYorker, January 8, 44-53.

Gongla, P. & Rizzuto, C.R. (2001). Evolvingcommunities of practice: IBM Global Servicesexperience. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 842-862.

Grantcraft (2006). Scanning and networking:Routines for discovering the unexpected. New York:Ford Foundation.

Gutierrez, M. et al (2005). Assessment of the AnnieE. Casey Foundation’s Children and Family FellowshipProgram. Philadelphia: OMG Center.


50

Hamilton, R., Parzen, J. & Brown, P. (2004).Community change makers: The leadership role ofcommunity foundations. Chicago: Chapin Hall.

Hamilton, R. et al (2005). Learning for communitychange: Core components of foundations that learn.Chicago: Chapin Hall.

Hammer, M. (1995). The re-engineering revolution.Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Heifetz, R.A., Kenner, J.V. & Kramer, M.R. (2004).Leading boldly. Stanford Social Innovation Review,21-31.

Knowles, M. S. (1990). The Adult Learner. Aneglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading change: Whytransformation efforts fail. Harvard BusinessReview, March-April, 59-67.

Kotter, J.P. & Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change.Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Kramer, M. & Porter, M. (1999). Philanthropy’snew agenda: Creating value. Harvard BusinessReview, November-December, 121-130.

Krebs, V. & Holley, J. (2002). Building smartcommunities through network building. Available atwww.networkweaving.com.

Laird, P.W. (2006). Pull: Networking and successsince Ben Franklin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Lake, K.E., Reis, T.K. & Spann, J. (2000). Fromgrant making to change making: How the W.K.Kellogg Foundation’s Impact Services Modelevolved to enhance the management and socialeffects of large initiatives. Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly, 29(1), Supplement, 41-68.

Orosz, J. (2004). Agile philanthropy: Understandingfoundation effectiveness. Grand Rapids, MI: GrandValley State University.

Ostrower, F. (2006). Community foundationapproaches to effectiveness: Characteristics, challengesand opportunities. Washington, DC: AspenInstitute Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.

Ostrower, F. (2004). Attitudes and practicesconcerning effective philanthropy: Survey report.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Patrizi, P. et al (2003-5). Practice Matters series.New York: Foundation Center.

Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search ofexcellence. New York: Harper & Row.

Plastrik, P. & Taylor, M. (2006). Net gains: Ahandbook for network buildings seeking social change.Available at www.in4c.net.

Rhodes, C., Stokes, M. & Hampton, G. (2004). Apractical guide to mentoring, coaching and peer-networking. London: Routledge Farmer.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. NewYork: Free Press.

Saveri, A., Rheingold, H., Pang, A.S. & Vian, K.(2004). Toward a new literacy of cooperation inbusiness. Menlo Park, CA: Institute for the Future.

Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: The revengeof unintended consequences. New York: RandomHouse.

Watts, D. (2003). Six degrees: The science of aconnected age. New York: Norton.

Wenger, E.C. & Snyder, W.M. (2000).Communities of practice: The organizationalfrontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.


51

Appendix A. Study Interviewees

The Annie E. Casey Foundation Staff Interviews

Clarice Bailey (consultant)Ira BarbellJohn Beilenson (consultant)Rosa Briceno (CSSP)Patrick CorvingtonFrank FarrowLeila Feister (consultant)Juanita Gallion (CSSP)Audrey JordanTom KernSherri KillensIrene LeeWanda MialPatrick McCarthyPhyllis Rozansky (consultant)Miriam SharkBill Shephardson (CSSP) Ralph SmithDonna StarkChrista VelasquezRoger Williams

(CSSP - staff of Center for the Studyof Social Policy, which administersTARC Peer Matching for the foundation)

Thought Leader Interviews

Alan Abramson, formerly of Aspen InstituteHelmut Anheier, UCLA Center for Civil SocietyJohn Bare, Blank Foundation Lucy Bernholz, Blueprint R&DElizabeth Boris, The Urban Institute Joe Breitenacher, The Philanthropic InitiativePhil Buchanan, Center for Effective PhilanthropyTom David, Tides CenterJames Ferris, USC Center on PhilanthropyAlan Glassman, California State University NorthridgeGordon Goodwin, Northwest Area FoundationSteve Gunderson, Council on FoundationsRalph Hamilton, Chapin Hall

Steve Hilton, Conrad Hilton FoundationElwood Hopkins, Los Angeles Urban Fundersellery july, formerly of Northwest Area FoundationPeter Karoff, The Philanthropic InitiativeMark Kramer, Foundation Strategy GroupAnne Kubisch, Aspen InstituteLorna Lathram, formerly of Indiana UniversityLauren LeRoy, Grantmakers in HealthJoe Lumarda, California Community FoundationTerry Meersman, Talaris Research InstituteBetsy Nelson, Association of Baltimore Area GrantmakersMiyoko Oshima, formerly of Southern California GrantmakersJoel Orosz, Grand Valley State UniversityFrancie Ostrower, The Urban InstituteEd Pauly, Wallace FoundationPeter Pennekamp, Humboldt Area FoundationTom Reis, W.K. Kellogg FoundationLoren Renz, Foundation CenterHarold Richman, Chapin HallShirley Sagawa, Sagawa-JospinEd Skloot, formerly of Surdna FoundationPaul Shoemaker, Social Venture PartnersJames Allen Smith, Georgetown UniversityMaureen Smyth, Mott FoundationKarl Stauber, formerly of Northwest Area FoundationVince Stehle, Surdna FoundationEugene Tempel, Indiana UniversityJanet Topolsky, Aspen InstituteSylvia Yee, Walter & Evelyn Haas, Jr. Fund

____

This report is dedicated to the memory of JoeBreitenacher, a great leader in the field of philanthropy.


52

Appendix B. Background on Peer Networking at the Annie E. Casey Foundation

Casey-Coordinated Peer Networking

Active Design

Active Learning

Life Span

Some Key Activities Some Key Products

Child Welfare Training DirectorsGroup

Lead Inside 2005- 2006

3 meetings/year for over twoyears; personal networking

tools for training assessment,engagement tool, best practices

Children and Family FellowsAlumni Network

Lead Field 1992- now

2 meetings/year, small grants,program committee, coordinator

system for between-meeting inter-actions, outside evaluation report

Community FoundationExchange

Involved Inside 2004-2006

several meetings/year outside report on Exchangecreation and operation

Family Strengthening Awards Involved Inside 2000-now

1 meeting/year Family Strengthening Awards

Language Access Network Involved Inside 2006-now

2 meetings so far draft manual for increasinglanguage access, meeting reports

Leadership in Action Program Involved Inside 2004-now

several meetings so far meeting reports; monograph onLAP program

Making Connections LocalCoordinators Network

Lead Inside 1999-now

several meetings/year meeting reports

Making Connections ResidentLeadership Network


2 meetings/year meeting reports

Making Connections SocialNetwork


several meetings, 6 site visits 3 papers on social networks; toolkit(in development)

National Partners Network Lead Inside 2000-now

1 meeting/year meeting reports

TARC Peer Matching (*PM*) Involved Field 2000-now

regular peer matches involvingsite visits

peer matching reports; included inHelp on the Way report

United Way Training Program Involved Inside 2005-2006


Urban Child Welfare LeadersGroup


3-4 meetings/year collaboration with PewCommission on Child Welfare

Externally-Coordinated Peer Networking

Active Design

Active Learning

Life Span

Activities Products

Casey/CSSP Alliance for RaceEquity in Child Welfare

Lead Field 2004-now

several meetings/year,committees

grantmaking; meeting reports

Lead Program Executives Group Lead Inside 2000-now

several meetings/year meeting reports, short papers

Leadership Development FunderAffinity Network

Involved Inside 2004-now


Long-Term Funders Exchange Lead Inside 2003-now

several meetings/year meeting reports

National Rural FundersCollaborative

Lead Field 2001-now

several meetings/year grantmaking, meeting reports

PRI Makers Network Lead Inside 2003-now

several meetings/year website, meeting reports


53

The chart above is deliberately very compressed inorder to display all 19 peer networking activitieson one page. It provides an analysis of eachactivity under the following dimensions:

• Casey-Coordinated/Externally-Coordinated - isthe activity coordinated by Casey and related toone of its internal initiatives, or is it an externalphilanthropic network of which Casey is just onemember? (Internal and External activities arepresented in separate sections of the chart).

• Active Design - how actively are peerparticipants involved in designing the activities ofthe peer network or peer matching system?

(All 19 peer networking activities provide somedegree of active participant involvement in designof their activities. Those categorized as “Involved”are activities in which participants contribute toactivity design, but the coordination is handled bythird-party support staff, often Casey staff.“Lead” indicates that participants are in fullcharge of and lead the activity design, even ifthere is some support work done by others).

• Active Learning - to what extent are peernetworking activities designed to producelearning through direct experience andinvolvement in taking action?

(Again, all peer networking activities studied havea considerable degree of active learning forparticipants. Activities categorized as “Inside”base these learning experiences inside the actualmeetings of the group; “Field” activities place atleast some of the learning out in the field throughdirect activities of all involved , e.g., through sitevisits for the two peer matching systems, orgrantmaking done directly by the peer network,rather than by funders individually).

• Lifespan - when did the activity start and whendid it end, if it has yet concluded?

(Those still in operation as of this writing arelabeled from start date to “now”)

• Some Key Activities - what are some of themajor activities of the peer network/peermatching system?

(The activities listed are representative, notcomprehensive)

• Some Key Products - what kinds of products orresults have emerged from the peer networkingactivity?

(Again, these are representative, notcomprehensive)

There is only one Peer Match activity among the19 presented in this chart (TARC Peer Matching)which is identified by the designation *PM.*

More detailed descriptions of the objectives,history and operations of the peer networkingactivities included in this study follow. A fewinterpretations from the material presented in thischart include:

(1) Most Casey peer networking activities (11 of19) have placed participants in the leadership rolefor designing meetings and other activities.

(2) Active learning for the peer networks takesplace mostly within the boundaries of their groupmeetings, though there is much reason to believethat the learning continues informally whenparticipants are back in their home territories. Theexceptions are the two activities in whichgrantmaking is a part of the peer network’s basicorganization – in the case of the Children andFamily Fellows Alumni Network, these are grantsmade to network members for small projects theycarry out on topics of particular interest; for theCasey/CSSP Alliance for Race Equity in ChildWelfare and the National Rural Funders


54

Collaborative, these are grants made in thecommunity from pooled funds. And of course thetwo peer matching systems by definition involvelearning in the field, since that’s where the peerscome together!

(3) The most typical peer networking activity is ameeting, and the most typical product of thatactivity is a written report that is shared with thepeers both as a record of what happened and aguide to future actions. But some peer networksare shaping products intended to be shared withthe field, in an effort to transfer what’s workedabout their activities to other foundations or tononprofits and communities.

Casey-Coordinated Peer Networking Activities

Child Welfare Training Directors Group

This peer network, now concluded, focused on therole of staff training and development in systemsreform for child welfare agencies across thecountry, and on best practice approaches to stafftraining and development in these systems. Itbegan with a convening in July 2005 of a smallgroup of training directors from public agenciesfor child welfare, drawn from sites where Caseywas already working. This was followed by largermeetings of leaders from all over the country.

The meetings were set up so that participantscould talk freely amongst themselves about howto advance the role of training and developmenton the overall agenda of their agencies. Keyquestions addressed included: What are the mostimportant aspects of an effective trainingacademy? How can child welfare agency leaderscome to see training and staff development ascrucial to overall success (this came to be knownas “sitting at the big people’s table atThanksgiving,” said one interviewee).

This in turn led to discussions about the largerissues of child welfare agency system reform. Italso led to discussions about what part stafftraining and development can and should play inreform efforts.

This peer network was successful, according to astudy interviewee, because members were able toconvene away from the pressures of their worklives, without having to “do the logistics,” andthey knew there was good “capacity in the room.”The sessions were focused on problem-solving,with an equal mix of teaching and learning.

The last official meeting of the Child WelfareTraining Directors Group was in August 2006. Inaddition to providing another platform fordiscussion of the above issues, this meeting wasstructured to reflect the desire of the group tohave an “intentional ending.” There were anumber of rituals, such as certificates ofappreciation for all group members, and acelebratory dinner.

At the end of the meeting, it was not clear thatanyone in the group will take the lead incontinuing it. But there was some evidence fromthe discussion in August that if there were anoutside “instigator,” a number of people in thegroup would be happy to participate in some sortof ongoing activity. This has not yet taken place.

There was general consensus among the group oftraining directors that the year they spent togetherin peer networking had value. The group’sactivities generated several products, which nowcan be used both within the group and moregenerally in the child welfare agency arenanationwide: (1) an assessment tool for trainingacademies to use to do performance assessment onthemselves, (2) a document to determine whetheran engagement can be around training and staffdevelopment, and (3) a best practices matrix.


55

Children and Family Fellows Alumni Network

Since 1994, the Annie E. Casey Foundation hasprovided one-year fellowships to professionalsworking in the children and family services field.The program’s aim is to facilitate the movement ofFellows into positions of significant influence intheir communities and agencies, so that they canincrease their ability to have an impact on a largenumber of children and families. Sixteen newFellows were announced in January 2007.

The program is supported by publications (bothprint and electronic) from Casey that documentlearnings from the Fellowship effort, such as amonograph, Building Leaders Through Change. Inaddition to meetings and informal networking, theFellows have access to a small grants programwhich can support small projects they carry outback in their home communities. Applications forthese small grants are reviewed and awarddecisions made by a committee of Fellows.

The Alumni Network was proposed by the firstgraduating class of Fellows and was created in1995. There are now about 60 members, whocome together twice a year for meetings over along weekend. It is a combination of “reunion, re-connection and leadership development,” as oneinterviewee put it.

This peer network has a steering committee to setits policy, a coordinator who is a former Fellow,and a “national voice committee” to addressissues of advocacy on which the Network mightwant to take a stance. There are also ad hocgroups concerned with early childhood andresults-based accountability (The Annie E. CaseyFoundation, 2001).

According to one interviewee, the FellowshipNetwork “does a good job of making itself visibleto itself and to the Foundation, but it has struggledin demonstrating itself and its work to the broader

world - people are busy, and the work of thisNetwork is not any of the participants’ primeresponsibilities.” Disseminating informationabout its process and results remains a challenge.

There is some evaluative evidence about theNetwork’s success. An OMG Center evaluation(Gutierrez, et al, 2005) showed that 85 percentofFellows found it had contributed to theirprofessional progression, and every Fellow hadhelped another Fellow at least once. It is a veryactive system that operates constantly between theactual meetings, with more than 1400 transactionsduring a recent two-year period. As oneinterviewee put it, the evaluation revealed a peernetwork that is “very dense and vibrant,”providing input on resources, problem-solvingand even information about career developmentopportunities for the Fellows.

Community Foundation Exchange

This peer network of community foundationexecutive directors and senior staff held multiplemeetings over a two-year period, organizedaround the central question: “What does it take tobe an effective community foundation, especiallyaround advancing outcomes for vulnerablechildren and families?” It was intended toencourage community foundations to becomemore actively engaged in community initiatives,especially in Making Connections communities.

Meetings included speakers like Within Our Reachauthor Lisbeth Schorr, and a variety of approachesby which the experiences of individualfoundations could be shared. Foundation staffparticipating in this peer network began toconnect with each other in what one intervieweetermed “personal and deep ways,” and begantheir own informal network for exchanging ideas.

The network was so successful that at the endsome of the participating foundations offered to


56

pick up their own costs if Casey would continue toconvene the meetings. The process by which thispeer network was set up, through the Coalition ofCommunity Foundations for Youth and ChapinHall, has been documented in a recent report byChapin Hall (Hamilton, Parzen & Brown, 2004).The learning outcomes of the Exchange have yetto be documented.

Actual impacts include the MilwaukeeCommunity Foundation’s refocusing theirengagement with the community around familyeconomic success. They acted as a catalyst tobring together a strategy for the whole city ofMilwaukee. Another is the creation by the DesMoines Community Foundation of a wholedifferent way of partnering with other communityorganizations and with donors. This has led to thecommunity foundation being a leader inconvening other philanthropic organizations inthe region, especially those concerned withoutcomes for vulnerable kids.

Family Strengthening Awards

The purpose of the Family Strengthening Awardsis to build commitment to family strengthening asa strategy for front-line practice in the humanservices. Casey’s support for this program arisesfrom the assumption that when human serviceagencies operate from a family strengtheningperspective, they achieve better results forvulnerable children and families.

The program is run as a joint venture with elevennational nonprofits, such as the Boys and GirlsClubs of America, Goodwill Industries and theNational 4-H Council. Each organization runs anapplication process through their own nationalnetworks to identify potential recipients of FamilyStrengthening Awards. These awards are givenby the national organization to several localagencies with outstanding family strengtheningprograms. Cash awards of $15,000 - $25,000

(funded by Casey as part of its support for thiseffort) recognize good programs, and also helpcover costs for the winners to offer peer technicalassistance for promoting wider adoption of theirfamily strengthening approaches. The nationalorganizations also disseminate information aboutthe winning programs through their networks.

The Awards program brings together nationalstaff members who manage the Awards effort fortheir organization once a year for several days. The meeting allows them to discuss strategies forpromoting family strengthening in eachorganization’s national network, and talk aboutother emerging topics of interest related toimproving services for vulnerable children andfamilies.

Thus peer networking happens at two levelsthrough the Family Strengthening Awards – at thenational level with staff of the eleven partnernonprofits, and at the local level through the peernetworks each of these organizations has withtheir constituents. Use of the latter constitutes asignificant co-investment by these nationalorganizations with Casey in elevating best-practice examples of family strengthening.

Language Access Network

This peer networking group is focused on learningwhat can help limited English-proficient childrenand families have better access to high qualityservices by removing barriers related to language,and on the specific challenge of reducing thenumber of children who serve as translators fortheir parents. These children often don’t knowwhat words mean in either language, and puttingthem in this translator role undermines parentalauthority and status.

The Language Access Network (LAN) so far hashad two convenings, in March and September2006, and further events are being planned for


57

2007. The convenings have brought togethermunicipal officials, advocates and others who areearly adopters of programs for increasing access totranslation services. They also have provided aplatform for discussing innovative programs andchallenges involved in implementing them.

The peer convenings are a combination of nutsand bolts problem-solving and attention to largerpolicy issues. One of them is how Casey cansupport and accelerate government work toreduce language-access barriers.

The September convening presented a number ofcase examples of good practice. Peers alsodiscussed challenges in managing translateddocuments in a community so as to make themreadily available, e.g., through some sort ofcentralized database. And they discussed how toevaluate a limited-English proficiency program,how government and nonprofits can partner inthis area, and how the media can help.

The convening concluded with a candiddiscussion about the future of this peer network –should there be another convening, and if so, whatform should it take in order to best supportaction? In the meantime, there is a self-organizedlistserv that enables LAN participants tocommunicate with each other. Casey isconsidering whether an intermediary organizationmight be brought on board to support furtheractivity, for instance to support efforts in 10 statesthat may soon be issuing executive orders relatedto language access.

This is a young field, and while there are alreadypilots across the country doing this (usuallybecause of recent legislation or a government ormayor decides to take the issue on), most of thework now is being done by municipalities, nothospitals or health care institutions. There are tensites now involved in the network.

As mentioned, the LAN peer network consists ofearly adopters, and the help provided both letsthem ramp up as innovators and supports them toget through their operational issues and they learnfrom each other. A longer-term goal is to producea manual that others can use to improve practicein this area.

For example, some cities have sophisticatedtelephone systems for language access, but theLAN peer discussions indicate that these are oflimited usefulness. So, as one interviewee put it,the discussion now focuses on “how do you helpagencies put in place the policies and practices sothat people can get served, and how do you get toa conversation about quality, such as agencyperformance measures?”

Leadership in Action Program

The Leadership in Action Program (LAP) peernetwork is composed mostly of representativesfrom Making Connections sites across the country.LAP was formed in 2004. It is oriented to theimplementation of results-based leadershipdevelopment programming (a five-phase processfrom engagement, to site readiness,implementation, maintaining momentum, andachieving scale and sustainability).

The LAP peer network’s individual members areleaders from state and city governments, nonprofitorganizations, businesses and faith organizations.Who comes from a particular site depends uponthe particular focus of the Making Connectionseffort (e.g,. in Maryland the topic is schoolreadiness, so the participants are Head Startcoordinators, parents and business leaders; whilein San Antonio, where the focus is on FamilyEconomic Success and the participants areconcerned with economic issues, including issuesin the medical arena.


58

An outside consultant documents the LAPmeetings. One monograph, also created by theconsultant with input from the peer network, hasbeen published; it addresses leadershipdevelopment and the work of the LAP program.

Making Connections Local Coordinators Network

The local coordinators are paid staff consultants ofCasey who work with each of the MakingConnections sites on the ground, helping to leadand manage various aspects of the communitychange initiative at each site. While there werepreviously independently-scheduled meetings ofthe Network, the local coordinators now gettogether for a separate peer network meeting eachtime the Making Connections sites are convened,usually for a lunch or dinner after the monthly“joint operations” meetings have concluded.

This separate time allows them an opportunity toconcentrate on issues specific to their job roles ina peer-to-peer atmosphere that encourages candorand good problem-solving. The Network hasbeen in existence since the beginning of theMaking Connections implementation phase, andprovides a vehicle for skill development andlearning for these site coordinators.

The local coordinators convened separately for thefirst time at their own request because theywanted to learn from each other how to bestperform their job role. By the end of this firstmeeting, they had (with support from Casey staff)defined a constructive learning agenda which hassince set the frame for their subsequent meetings.The Technical Assistance Resource Center (otherwork described elsewhere in this report)collaborated with Casey’s LeadershipDevelopment unit to help create meeting activitiesthat would address this agenda.

Over the last 18 months, as the Making Connectionssites have been addressing the transformation of

this initiative into locally-led operations, includinga sustainability strategy after the Casey fundinghas ended, the local coordinators have beenfocused on this challenging new set of demands.This is the main reason they decided to meet onlywhen some other purpose was bringing themtogether. Casey also may suggest that theNetwork be convened along with the new leaders,part of the Local Management Entities (LMEs) inmost sites, so that the next generation of leaderscan benefit from their experiences.

Making Connections Resident LeadershipNetwork

In Making Connections (and the related Civic SitesInvestments program), residents play a significantrole in community and family strengthening. TheNetwork enhances their capacity to do so,providing problem-solving and leadershipdevelopment opportunities a well as contentlearning (e.g., about what makes a difference inhelping families to get jobs). Its purpose also is tohelp Casey understand more deeply the roleresidents play in foundation initiatives, as well asto develop and deploy talents of residents.

The Making Connections Resident LeadershipNetwork began in 2003, bringing together 25residents from across the sites for a two-dayadvisory meeting. The meeting agenda focusedon how residents see themselves involved in themaking of change, and what they would likeCasey to know about how to have maximumimpact in their communities.

According to a study interviewee, “It was apowerful experience for both residents and theFoundation.” Input also was provided on how toplan additional meetings of these individuals, andthe residents made it clear they wanted moremeetings – that a “one-shot” learning experiencewould not be of great value.


59

From the first successful experience a peernetwork evolved. Although residents alwayswere involved in planning meetings, a major stepforward occurred in 2005 when residents becamemore active on the design team for structuringthese meetings, as they had requested in a 2004cross-site meeting. Casey’s goal is to reach thepoint where the residents constitute the designteam, but get necessary consultation from Caseystaff on structure of their Network experiences.

The Network focused first on skill developmentfor individual resident leaders to facilitatemeetings and take on other leadershipresponsibilities, using interactive exercises andother methods. More recently, the meetings haveshifted to an emphasis on helping resident leaderslearn how to influence deeper, more structuralchange in their communities, e.g., throughadvocating for public policy change.

The Network now meets twice a year for threedays each time, with some 60-80 residentsattending. Each cross-site meeting agenda andprocess are created by a meeting design teamwhich is 2/3 residents and 1/3 Casey staff.Residents facilitate the meetings. Localcoordinators, who are Casey consultants on-site ineach Making Connections community (see above)also are invited to attend these meetings, as aresenior Foundation officials and others involvedwith community site work.

There are challenges in the design of thesemeetings, including, as stated by one interviewee,“issues of power, race and class and how theyimpact foundation-resident relationships,” as wellas those between residents, leaders of localnonprofits and elected officials in the community.These often are issues of power differentials aswell as cultural differences.

There are also practical concerns, such as howmuch commitment to the Network is feasible,

given the circumstances of residents’ lives(residents live in disorganized communities,which increase the unpredictability of their lives;also, participants in this Network typically arehighly engaged community advocates who havemany other volunteer responsibilities). The issueof how to compensate residents fairly for theirparticipation in this activity also has been raised.

While there was consideration given to setting upa national network steering committee, includingresidents in an external decision-making body,the Foundation decided again to increase the sizeof the design team so that all communities arerepresented, and to request that several well-known community leaders provide some overallguidance to the future direction of the Networkand of the Making Connections effort as a whole.

Making Connections Social Network

Following a literature review done on socialnetworks (Bailey, 2005) and a carefuldevelopmental process, a peer learning networkon social networks was created in 2005 to assistthe Making Connections initiative in promoting thehealthy growth of social networks at itscommunity sites. A social network is defined as asustained effort to build and support cooperativeand interdependent relationships in community,woven together but open to allow for ease ofaccess and freedom of movement.

The Making Connections initiative was launchedwith a theory that called for connecting familieswith economic opportunities, to social networks,and to effective services and supports. Togetherthese three types of “connections” couldstrengthen families and help them raise theirchildren. In operational terms, initial emphasis insites was often on connections to economicsuccess, and specifically on re-connecting peoplein dis-invested communities with economicopportunities. As the initiative completed its


60

fourth year, Casey staff decided it was essential tofocus more explicitly on how sites could developpositive social networks, or enhance those alreadyin place (including what the role of theFoundation should be in offering TA related toSocial Networks).

The Social Network brings together MakingConnections site personnel to deepen attention tothis topic. As stated by one interviewee: “Wewant to hear from the community – tell us aboutyour experience of social networks, how we cancreate more robust networks with more benefits togive in relation to improving quality of life in yourcommunities.”

Initially, Casey staff mostly listened to sites’experiences and needs. Then they obtainedadditional input by identifying intermediaryorganizations that have strong track records ofsuccess in social networking formation, such asthe Family Independence Initiative in Oakland,Community Organizing in Chicago, and BeyondWelfare in Ames, Iowa. All six were site visited,and then leaders of the six intermediaries werebrought together for a Social Network meeting inOctober 2005.

A framework for social network formationemerged from this meeting, and current activitiesof the peer network are focused on creating a“toolkit” for local use. Then the effort will be“going deep” at two Making Connectionscommunity sites (Louisville and Denver), to testthe toolkit and the overall concepts of networkformation. More meetings of the Social Networkalso are planned, and other sites will be broughton line to use the toolkit.

Challenges of social networking in the MakingConnections environment are being exploredcandidly as part of the peer network’s activity.For instance, different kinds of relationships needto be developed across barriers of class and power

to make the social network inclusive and effective.Over time, it also will be important “to obtainevidence between positive social networks and thequality and quality of overall results,” as oneinterviewee expressed it.

And the membership of the social network needsto be defined in terms of organizations with powerin the community as well as individuals. “Wewant to map the environment and look at all typesof networks in the community, to look for naturalconnectors,” said one interviewee. This will makepossible a “network of networks approach,”which is already being tried in the Denver site.

National Partners Network

This group consists of the CEOs of large nationalnonprofits like the National 4-H Council andUnited Way, all with a common interest in helpingdisadvantaged families succeed. Collectively,these organizations represent local organizationsthat deliver much of the help and supportvulnerable families receive. The goal of theNational Partners Network is to get good familystrengthening practice more widely implemented,and through this leadership group, to create newparadigms for promoting family strengtheningand family economic success.

The Network meets annually. The first meetingswere around individual organizations’ work, butnow the peer network concentrates on broaderissues that are important to them all. Themembers are thought leaders in each of theirfields nationally. They say there’s not anotherplace they can come together to talk candidlyabout issues like tax policy – in addition to thefocus of these meetings on family strengtheningcore concepts and programs, which they can thentransfer to the local organizations they represent.

They are also interested in coming to the meetingsbecause it is an opportunity to engage with the


61

senior management at the Annie E. CaseyFoundation . Some of the resulting peernetworking is quite personal. For example, DonFloyd CEO of 4-H, and Brian Gallagher of UnitedWay get together for breakfast because they foundout through these meetings that Gallagher’s homeis near the 4-H offices in Chevy Chase.

TARC Peer Matching

The Technical Assistance Resource Center(TARC), a Casey-funded activity based at theCenter for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) inWashington, DC, has been offering peer matchesto Making Connections community organizationssince 2000. TARC also does peer matches forother Casey initiatives, such as the Civic Sites.

Peer matches offer structured opportunities forteams of people working on similar issues toexchange experiences and practical knowledge.When TARC receives a request for peer matching,a standard process is used to determine whetherthe issues presented are a good fit, and if so afacilitator is selected to prepare and guide the peermatching process. Selection variables includewhether local stakeholders are invested inworking to achieve a common objective, thetiming is right for significant change to happen,and that people involved in the match have thepower to act on what they learn.

The peer participants co-design the intervention,setting forth what results are to be achieved andthe process to be followed. A written report isprepared on outcomes, with follow-up aboutresults achieved. A site visit from a set of peers inone or more geographical areas to another is oftena part of this process.

Initially, the peer matching process was quiteinformal, but TARC has learned that preparing forthe peer exchange is critical. The peer interactionis focused on a particular challenge that has been

identified in advance. To learn about thischallenge, TARC staff “don’t take what peoplesay at face value, but rather determine what theyreally want to achieve, see what people need to getthere, and then re-frame the learning objectivesaccordingly,” said an interviewee.

A lot of the success of this system comes from“making sure you have the right people involvedin the peer match,” in the words of oneinterviewee. This means “getting the folks who arethe key decision-makers and the key thinkers ––they need to be able to absorb and digest and putthe information to good use.” But it also meansgetting a diversity of participation, especially fromcommunity residents.

As an example, the Jacobs Family Foundation andits Market Creek project in San Diego welcomedgroups from Atlanta to look at the groupownership model Market Creek had successfullydeveloped. Other recent peer matches includegroups going from Louisville to Chicago (the topicwas public housing), Camden to Baltimore(development of East Baltimore), and Atlanta toBaltimore (community revitalization).

Sometimes the result of the peer match is that thepotential adopter community decides againstreplication. For instance, when the site visitorsfrom Camden, New Jersey came to visit inBaltimore, they quickly learned that the level ofresources required to replicate the Baltimoreprogram was too high for what was feasible inCamden.

The peer TA process is consistent with theprinciples of adult learning theory. Learningactivities concentrate on real-world need, learningoccurs in a safe environment, and participants arepushed to think outside the box so that thelearning outcomes can be improved. As oneinterviewee put it, “the main challenge is creatingthe container for the work that makes a level


62

playing field for each participant, so they can getto the heart of what they need to learn about andtake action on. These people are usually on thedance floor all the time, so to speak, and they needto come up to the balcony” – to get a largerperspective on their work by looking at othercommunities.

Dozens of peer matches have been completed thatbring together peers involved in two or moreMaking Connections sites. This work issummarized in CSSP’s 2005 report Help on the Way(which also discusses other CSSP peer matchingwork).

Considerable data gathered over several years byCommunity Development Associates indicatesthat the TARC peer matching system and the TAit facilitates can have powerful impact, especiallywhen it is part of a larger comprehensivecommunity change effort. The CommunityDevelopment Associates assessment of peermatches made in 2002 found that 100 percent ofrespondents indicated overall satisfaction withtheir participation in TARC’s peer matching

This ongoing assessment also has revealed thatwhat makes peer matching work also makes itcumbersome – unless people are convinced they’llget a good outcome they may be reluctant toinvest in this more structured process. And thisway of doing peer matching TA is expensive –there may be as many as 8-12 people coming fromone community to another, as well as a facilitator,and TARC has made a policy of paying a stipendto all who participate. The level of demand forthese TA consultations has been great, so thatTARC has constantly been “behind the curve” infulfilling requests for TA in a timely way, aproblem which TARC staff are attempting toresolve.

TARC created a performance management groupto examine customer satisfaction and TA outcome

data, so that the ongoing process of peer matchingcan be improved. Both TARC variables (such asthe amount of training facilitators have received)and community variables (degree of communityresident participation in the peer matchingactivities) have been assessed in this process. .

United Way Training Program

This executive education program was developedto get the family strengthening agenda morebroadly understood and adopted. The targets ofthe United Way Training Program were risingleaders in local United Ways – a senior staffperson and a board member in each agency,identified by local United Ways that were invitedto participate.

United Way personnel were targeted because theirorganizations undergird health and social servicesin many communities through being a majorfunder. A United Way/Casey partnership for thistraining program was feasible because UnitedWay had already started a systems change agendaof its own, and had been considering this type ofleadership development/change agent approach.

Each participating senior staff person and boardmember participated in the Annie E. CaseyFoundation/United Way Family StrengtheningFellowship, operated through the Kennedy Schoolof Government at Harvard University. The groupof Fellows met three times a year for two yearsand then more informally. Topics covered at theProgram sessions included personal leadership,strategic leadership, being a change agent and thesubstance of family strengthening approaches.

The Training Program has now ended. However,Casey’s partnership with United Way continueson a number of levels, mostly focused aroundUnited Ways located in the Making Connectionssites.


63

Urban Child Welfare Leaders Group

This peer network pulls together commissionersor directors of child welfare large urban systems.Collectively, the Urban Child Welfare LeadersGroup represents more than 50 percent of allchildren in care; the members are high-poweredand politically astute, and they come to almostevery meeting. The Group has been successfulbecause, according to its participants, it is the oneplace they could all go where they were “trulyamong peers,” to have a safe place to talk aboutthe challenges of running a complex child welfaresystem in an urban setting.

There is no consultant to facilitate the meeting; theagenda is set by the group, and Casey providesneeded support for meeting topics selected (e.g.,a presentation from researchers in a topical area,such as older youth aging out of care). After thesepresentations, invited guests depart, so the leaderscan talk amongst themselves (Casey staff, one ofwhom is a former Group member, remain).

There are 20 members at present, and they includenow both deputies as well as commissioners forsome agencies. The group has three to fourmeetings a year. They also plan one meeting ayear jointly with the Pew Commission on ChildWelfare (a recent meeting includes judges fromeach system that is part of the Group, andrepresentatives from the National Center on StateCourts). The group feels that their major impactcomes from getting the systems with the most kidstogether several times a year to feel supported andconnected and to facilitate change in their systems.Pew has suggested it will co-fund some deeperexaminations in 2007 of court reform, a topic thegroup already has addressed. Some other detailsabout the Group’s operation are presented in thecase example at the beginning of this report.

As with all peer networks, one of the challenges isthat the learning and inspiration provided by the

group is difficult to translate back into anintractable system at home. Peer members oftenfeel they lack the tools for change needed to makeit happen, and in particular that they don’t haveaccess to the resources that real systems changewould require.

A shift in the Group’s leadership has occurredrecently. David Sanders, former child welfarecommissioner in Los Angeles, is now vice-president for systems reform at Casey FamilyPrograms, expressed interest in co-facilitating thispeer network. A partnership between the AnnieE. Casey Foundation and Casey Family Programs,its philanthropic “sister organization,” hasresulted. This joint administration may have somesignificant impact on the Group, though its basicoperation as a peer network is likely to remain thesame.

Externally-Coordinated Peer Networking Activities

Casey/CSSP Alliance for Race Equity in ChildWelfare

Also known as the “disproportionality initiative,”this peer network consists of the Center for theStudy of Social Policy and the “family of Caseyphilanthropies” (The Annie E. Casey Foundation,Casey Family Programs, Casey Family Services,Jim Casey Youth Opportunity Initiatives and theMarguerite Casey Foundation). Other membersinclude the Race Matters Consortium and BlackAssociation of Social Workers.

The Alliance is aimed at bringing a stronger voiceand visibility about racial equity issues in childwelfare at the national level, both within thephilanthropic and public policy communities. Ithas been in operation a little more than two years,and has several peer networking retreats a year, towhich some 60-70 people come.


64

The Alliance was created because of mid-levelmanagers in the Casey philanthropies deciding itwas needed, and then “bubbling up” to seniormanagers who had to approve the funding (someof whom are now getting involved directly on thegroup’s steering committee). It has succeededbetter than any other inter-Casey effort, accordingto one interviewee, because the peer network“successfully side-stepped turf issues” (e.g., whatis the dollar amount of investment and is mineequal to yours?).

The Alliance also has five committees with eight to12 people each. It is in these committees that thereal work gets done (committees are structuredaround policy, practice, communications, researchand data). The philanthropies involved havebeen pooling dollars into a pool administered byCSSP, funding grantees approved by the Alliancesteering committee. Also, a scan of best practicesconcerning racial equity in child welfare wasundertaken, which identified some promising sitesthat can serve as models for other communities.One larger observation is that African Americanchildren end up staying longer and getting deeperinto the child welfare system than their white,Latino or Asian American counterparts, evenwhen risk factors like poverty are controlled.

The group recently decided to experience the anti-racism training of the Peoples Institute in NewOrleans, which was a very personal experienceand this produced bonding. In fact, personalrelationship building is what holds this grouptogether. For instance, each meeting starts with“gallery walks” where participants are urged toput up photos or other ways of sharing recentevents in their personal lives.

The purpose is to get to know each other as peoplefirst (like having food together) - this producesmore and more purposeful agendas about what itwould take in the child welfare field to achieverace equity (there is not a lot of research about

what works). However, the group is now facingthe challenge of determining whether this highlyparticipatory approach will work as well whenthere is more decision making and moreorganizational structure as the peer networkgrows. Also, there are issues to be worked outamong the peers, e.g., impact of differences in thenumber of staff assigned to racial equity issues.

Lead Program Executives Group

Composed of foundation executive vice-presidents (or equivalent job titles), includingthose from some of America’s largest and mostvisible foundations, this group convenes severaltimes a year to explore the unique leadership andoperational issues these “chief program officers”face in their jobs. The changing membership ofthe group reflects numerous transitions in whooccupies these positions at foundations likeKellogg, Packard, Robert Wood Johnson andAnnie Casey. Typically 8-10 members attend anygiven meeting.

Casey has provided administrative support forthis network, and Kellogg financially supportedthe first gathering. For each meeting, one membertakes responsibility for shaping the agenda withinput from others. Both content issues (poverty,homelessness, etc.) and administrative orgrantmaking matters are discussed, as are“relationship matters” with respect to foundationCEOs and trustees.

Sometimes outside resources are commissioned,such as a series of short papers on emerging issuesin philanthropy. There are occasional invitedspeakers, such as for a presentation onCommunities of Practice at the June 2006 on-linemeeting.

In an expanded 2003 meeting held on Arizona’sCamelback Mountain, and thus dubbed the“Camelback Conversation,” 35 additional lead


65

program executives were invited to join theoriginal 11. Advance input on the invitees wasgathered by McKinsey & Company pro bonoconsultants, and the conversation was focused oncritical success factors for foundations in thedramatically changing philanthropic environmentof the 21st century. Much of the discussioncentered on the need to clarify strategy and focus,and the need to manage foundation performanceand results.

As with many peer networks, challenges havearisen which tested the viability of the group. Forinstance, the membership includes several leadprogram executives from smaller foundations,whose job responsibilities are somewhat differentthan those of their colleagues from largephilanthropies, and programming has neededadjustments to reflect this diversity. The largermeeting described above was intended to produce“spin-off” networks of other foundations, but thatdid not happen. One of the Lead ProgramExecutive group meetings in 2006 was postponed,and then reduced from an in-person meeting to atelephone “webinar,” which brought into questionwhether members are still committed toparticipation. Also, a proposal earlier in the yearto put together a funding consortium to deal withpost-Katrina issues did not happen.

Now there is an organizational shift in themaking, with a request to the Council onFoundation’s executive education group to take onthe responsibility of organizing these meetings(they could, for example, be held during theCouncil’s annual national conference, or tied toother Council activities). Inevitably, that wouldchange their character, though whether the resultwill be positive or negative remains to be seen.

Leadership Development Funder Affinity Network

Initiated in 2004, this group is operated by theLeadership Learning Community (a national

nonprofit oriented to people who run, fund andstudy leadership programs). It is an affinity groupindependent of the Council on Foundations, sothey can have deep, candid conversations amongthe 30 or so foundations that are part of the group.For instance, one recent topic was leadershipdevelopment for emerging leaders.

The group provides a safe space for reflectivepractice; everybody is busy, and this is a chance toprocess experience with others in similar roles.One of the issues in this group is that there is acore membership of about 15 who come to all themeetings and are very active, but there areanother 15 members whose attendance is moresporadic, with resulting challenges for groupcohesion and efficiency. The group meets twice ayear, once in the Spring at the annual meeting ofthe Leadership Learning Community, and once inthe fall.

Collaborative work often emerges from thesemeetings as well. Usually this happens by hearingsomeone discuss a similar mission and vision,leading to a “sidebar” conversation about forminga working relationship.

Long-Term Funders Exchange

This is a group of foundations which fund long-term community change initiatives, meeting todiscuss (a) the assumptions, forces and objectivesthat drive such initiatives, and (b) practicalmatters such as site partnership approaches,results-oriented management at the communitylevel, and the challenge of managing expectationsand risks within the foundations. Capacitybuilding within sites, sustainability anddocumentation and knowledge managementregarding such initiatives also were identified aspriority topics. Four strong themes emerged fromthe first four meetings of this peer network: (1) ashared commitment to community engagement aspart of an initiative; (2) a focus on results and a


66

commitment to collecting and using data; (3) theimportance of identifying pre-existing“platforms” in the community (communityorganizations, individual leaders or intermediaryorganizations) to support the change effort; and(4) the importance of policy advocacy to thesuccess of community change.

In addition, at each meeting participants grappledwith process issues. For example, there wasattention to how to balance meeting time used forupdating each other (what one interviewee calledthe “show and tell” function, valuable but notsufficient in itself to keep these leaders engaged)and focusing in-depth on a few issues of commoninterest (sometimes aided by a case study).

The participants in the first four meetings of thispeer network were staff of the Annie E. CaseyFoundation, Northwest Area Foundation, John S.& James L. Knight Foundation and Robert WoodJohnson Foundation. In 2005, the conversation wasbroadened to look at long-term initiatives ofAtlantic Philanthropies and Palm Beach CountyChildren’s Services Council, with staff from bothinvited to join the dialogue. Chapin Hall served ascoordinator for the Long-Term Funders Exchangeover its first several years, supported byconsultant Leila Feister.

In mid-2005, the Exchange was at a turning point.The group’s leaders met to review its status andconcluded that a stronger focus on endingpersistent poverty was needed, driven by a solidnational policy framework and developing humancapital in the form of livable-wage jobs for peoplein these communities. To make progress on theserevised priorities, the Long-Term FundersExchange has morphed into the Funders’Exchange on Community Change, PovertyReduction and Prosperity Promotion. In Summer2006 coordination for this group was taken overby the Aspen Institute, and a meeting of the groupin Aspen focused on this new orientation.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and KnightFoundation are no longer part of the group. Caseyand Northwest, the remaining “foundingmembers” of the original peer network, are nowits sole funders. Membership in the new group isevolving, to permit recruiting those foundationsand individuals within them that are mostinterested in the new focus on reducing povertyand promoting prosperity. The next Funders’Exchange meeting is likely to be at a site where amember foundation has work underway, topromote learning from those actually doing thework “on the ground.”

National Rural Funders Collaborative

This peer network, formed in 2001, consists ofCEOs and program officers from 12 national andregional foundations with an interest in ruralcommunities, to help these funders learn aboutwhat makes for effective philanthropy in ruralregions, and to pool funds for support in theseareas. Babcock, Ford, Northwest AreaFoundation, Kellogg, The California Endowmentand Heron are among the member foundations.

The National Rural Funders Collaborativeoperates primarily as a funding pool, intended tochannel philanthropic resources to reduce povertyin rural areas. There also is a good deal of peer topeer learning among foundation staff whoparticipate, focused on the specific issues ofproviding philanthropic support in ruralenvironments. A recent peer learning meetingdiscussed policy issues and also brought togetherlocal leaders, functioning as a “giant consultativesession” in Casey’s terms, as an interviewee put it.

The Collaborative now has an ongoinginfrastructure with offices in Dallas and anexecutive director and staff, who coordinate theabove activities. The peer network takes the formof a Steering Committee, which acts as thedecision-making body for NRFC. Each


67

participating funder (National and Regional) hasa seat at the table with additional representationfrom on-the-ground partners and grantees), aswell as partnering Federal Agency representatives.The learning activities of the Collaborative alsoinclude a learning network that is website-enabled. The Collaborative is a ten-year, $100 millioninitiative. It has become more intentional andsuccessful since local leaders were included in thenetwork, in the opinion of one interviewee. Themajor frustration of the group surrounds theamount of time devoted to the mechanics of thepooled funding, which leaves much less time forfunder-to-funder learning.

PRI Makers Network

Several years ago, Casey hosted a consultativesession of other foundations that use ProgramRelated Investment (PRI) approaches as part oftheir overall philanthropic strategy, to help thefoundation in initial development of its own socialinvesting strategy. This activity has helped toinspire creation of the PRI Makers Network, aproject of the Neighborhood Funders Group,which has been partly underwritten by Casey.

Casey’s internal work to develop its PRI activitieshave included efforts to educate Casey staff aboutsocial investing in general and PRIs in particular.Publications presenting basic information aboutthe concept of PRIs were commissioned, andCasey staff traveled from site to site providingindividualized education and consultation. Thiswas helpful because dealing with PRIs is timeconsuming, with multiple steps required in theprocess of due diligence, investment decision-making and structuring the PRI.

Casey’s efforts have been shared through itsparticipation in the developing PRI MakersNetwork, and its membership in this peer network

also has helped Casey refine its approaches. ThePRI Makers Network is now an independent peernetwork of foundation staff concerned with PRIs,and includes both basic and advance training onthe subject, plus a PRI activity database which isbeing created in partnership with the FoundationCenter. Initiated in 2003, their third annualconference was held in January 2006.


68

Acknowledgments

This two-year study began in discussions with Ralph Smith about transformational change in foundations– how large, staffed foundations go about making changes in their overall philanthropic strategies. Asdescribed in the study report, this led to a focus on peer networking at the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Ralphprovided the key intellectual inspiration for this study from beginning to end, along with important inputfrom his Casey colleagues, Ira Barbell, Tom Kern and Frank Farrow. Christina Lyerly, Caryl Mellott andespecially Marci Weiner provided invaluable assistance in coordinating complicated schedules and handlingthe administrative aspects of the project at the Casey end. Production of this report was coordinated byConnie Dykstra and Steve Presbury of the Foundation’s Strategic Communications department. At the HIRIend, administrative and research support were ably provided by Beth Howard, Terri Ruddiman, Kate Grovesand Sue Koone.

Four important opportunities for sharing the preliminary findings from the study in group settings wereprovided in July 2006 at the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Senior Management meeting; in July 2006 andJanuary 2007 at meetings of the Senior Consultants Group, a peer network of experienced organizationalconsultants the author has belonged to in Los Angeles for some years; and in February 2007 at a gatheringof staff at the Center for the Study of Social Policy.

Most of all, thanks are extended to the interviewees for this study, both Casey staff and thought leaders inthe field of philanthropy and organizational change. Their contributions were essential both inunderstanding peer networking and transformational change, and in thinking about how the results of thisstudy might affect philanthropic strategy in the future.


69

About the Human Interaction Research Institute

Founded in 1961, the nonprofit Human Interaction Research Institute conducts research and providestechnical assistance on the challenges of change in the nonprofit sector. The Institute works closely withgovernment and foundation funders of nonprofits, helping develop grantmaking strategies, facilitatingdissemination and implementation of innovations, and evaluating both the process and outcomes of systemschange.

For more than 20 years the Institute has studied philanthropy from a psychological standpoint – exploringhow to improve its operations, and how to integrate donors and foundations into the work of communitychange. Current research includes a study of how advisors to wealthy donors help them shape aphilanthropic strategy, and a study of lessons learned from evaluations of foundation grantmaking focusedon nonprofit capacity building. The Institute also provides back office support for a family foundation’sgrantmaking initiative on nonprofit capacity building, as part of a larger program of research on this subject(which includes maintaining the world’s largest database on foundation capacity-building grantmaking andservices).

Past projects for the Annie E. Casey Foundation include studies of stakeholder involvement in philanthropy,collaboration approaches for small foundations, and individual donor strategies for funding capacitybuilding. A current project focuses on development of a manual and intervention for helping public mentalhealth agencies implement an evidence-based program for involving Spanish-speaking Latino families inmental health services.

The Institute has long investigated methods for improving diffusion of results from foundation grantmaking,as reported in its book, Dissemination and Utilization Strategies for Foundations: Adding Value to Grantmaking.These methods have been applied through long-term interventions with large foundations such as the JamesL. & John S. Knight Foundation, Ewing M. Kauffman Foundation, The California Endowment, and TheCalifornia Wellness Foundation.

A psychologist, Institute president and study author Dr. Thomas Backer has written widely on philanthropy,and has been a member of the International Network on Strategic Philanthropy. He also is Associate ClinicalProfessor of Medical Psychology at UCLA Medical School.

For more information: www.humaninteract.org

pee r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e t -wo rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e twocommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e rne two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing compee r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ingg commun i t y change p e e r ne two rk ingcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y changepe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t ychange pe e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing comcommun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk i ng commun i t y change p e e r n e two rk ing commun i t y change

701 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 410.547.6600 410.547.6624 fax www.aecf.org


Date post:	12-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Peer Networking and Community Change - The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Documents