Volume 11, Number 3

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Changefeature articles

The Philanthropic Learning
Organization
Marilyn J. Darling

It Takes a School to Raisea Village
Carol Gorelick

A Systems Approach 		to Increasing the Impactof Grantmaking
David Peter Stroh and 		
Kathleen Zurcher© Pat Goosen

Published by The Society for Organizational Learningreflections.solonline.org
ISSN 1524-1734

ii

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

publisher’s Note 11.3

T

he evolution of my work
has led me to consider theunique value foundations
can provide in addressing
complex issues that may vastly
exceed their financial investments. I’m currently serving
as the Chief Learning Officer
C. Sherry Immediato
for the ReThink Health initiativeof the Fannie E. Rippel Foundation, where our goal is
to seed innovations in health. My interest in this role
was fueled in different ways by conversations witheach of the authors featured in this issue of Reflections.
When I read Marilyn Darling’s research report, “A Compass in the Woods - Learning Through Grantmaking to
Improve Impact,” I could see why so many foundations
are well positioned to be learning catalysts. Marilyn andher colleagues engaged a number of leading foundations
in a shared conversation (convened by yet anotherfoundation!) about their assumptions, strategies, andpractices. A serial contributor to Reflections, Marilynshares an elegantly simple framework for understanding the connections between work process and learning practice, with practical tips to bring the latter to 		life. While derived from a deep dive into the foundationworld, the concepts seem generally applicable for any
enterprise with a desire to facilitate innovation.
ABC Connects is an example of a grantee employing
a learning process on multiple levels. In 2002, former
principal Al Witten joined the SoL community andshared his work on creating school-based centers ofcommunity learning in South Africa that benefited boththe students and their families. Intrigued with the way
Al’s experiment dovetailed with her own interests, Carol
Gorelick obtained a grant from the Kellogg Foundationand created ABC Connects to operationalize the community school concepts he pioneered. We asked Carolto tell the story of the action research project she led thatemerged from a vision of developing a cross-culturallearning community among emerging community

schools in South Africa and the U.S. Her narrative helps
us appreciate the challenge of conducting a small andinnovative experiment with schools under stress in 		
the hopes of producing scalable insights.
Finally, some problems seem to absorb philanthropic
contributions, producing temporary relief of suffering
but little lasting impact. In the extreme cases, the fix
backfires and makes the problem worse. How can agroup acknowledge its well-intentioned efforts while
also developing a better appreciation for the complexity that favors maintaining things as they are? David
Stroh and Kathleen Zurcher illustrate a five-step process
for thinking systemically. They share examples from acommunity that applied this framework to revamp its
approach to ending homelessness and a foundationthat used it to design a comprehensive process for
dealing with the rise in childhood obesity. In theirdescription, they provide generic questions that
improve thinking at each stage of the process.
I’m grateful to all the authors for keeping me intheir learning loops and happily invite you in! I remain
intrigued by the possibility that a foundation can incubate multi-stakeholder dialogues and seed cross-sector
collaboration as a distinct contribution. When most
system participants are preoccupied with their narrow
view and immediate needs, the invitation to help thesystem see itself creates a space for true system stewardship to emerge that can transcend specific issues.
Perhaps there’s a new version of the old adage: If you
give a group a grant, you’ve aligned their focus withyour agenda. If you invite a group into conversation
and reflection, you’ve strengthened their focus on
their own goals and values. If philanthropy lives into
its linguistic roots of “loving humanity,” the latter would
seem the more appropriate path, and organizational
learning has a great deal to contribute.n

C. Sherry Immediato
Publisherexecutive digest

executive digest 11.3

The Philanthropic Learning Organization
Marilyn J. Darling
In the wake of the world economic crisis, philanthropic
organizations – like organizations in other sectors –have been forced to scrutinize the return on their grantmaking investments more carefully than ever before.
Because many traditional grantmaking practices are
too slow to help foundations manage risk through theability to adapt and innovate, some foundations areseeking to better integrate real-time evaluation andlearning into their operations. In this research project,
Marilyn Darling and her colleagues found that the moreskilled a foundation gets at closing the learning loop,
the more innovative it can be in accommodating new
thinking. A clear learning agenda thus helps a foundation mitigate the risks involved in placing its fullheft behind new, more strategic approaches to socialchange, so that foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences do not torpedo an otherwise worthy collective effort. And when learning is in service of the real
work at the heart of the foundation’s mission, theultimate outcome should be stronger networks 		
and greater impact.

It Takes a School to Raise a Village
Carol Gorelick
Today, most of us recognize that the educational
system doesn’t terminate at the boundary of school
property. The concept of community schools has developed from a preference for teaching children in neighborhood schools to a movement that sees the school
as a hub that brings together many partners to offer a
range of support and opportunities for children, youth,
families, and the larger community. From 2007–2010,
the ABC Connects program applied a systems

approach and organizational learning tools to thechallenge of transforming two schools in South Africa
and two schools in Detroit, Michigan, into vibrantcenters of community life. These schools engaged
with parents and other education stakeholders toaddress the challenges of poverty, improve teaching
and learning, and support students’ well-being anddevelopment. At the same time, students and teachers
benefited from taking part in cross-cultural learning
opportunities with their counterparts on the otherside of the globe. ABC Connects continues to build 		
on the lessons learned from this pilot program.

A Systems Approach to Increasing
the Impact of Grantmaking
David Peter Stroh and Kathleen Zurcher
Why do many foundations fall short in their efforts 		
to improve the quality of people’s lives over the longrun? The reason lies in part in our tendency to apply
linear thinking to complex, nonlinear problems.
Through research and case studies, this article shows
the benefits of combining conventional processes thatfacilitate acting systemically with tools to help stakeholders transcend their immediate self-interests bythinking systemically as well. Using this approach,		
a project to end homelessness and a comprehen-		
sive initiative to improve food and fitness and reducechildhood obesity managed to achieve lasting systems improvement by making a few key coordinatedchanges over time. Authors David Peter Stroh andKathleen Zurcher illustrate how the application of afive-step systems thinking process can help foundations make better decisions about how to use theirlimited grantmaking resources for highest sustainable impact.

iii

f e at u r e | D a r l i ng

f e at u r e 11.3

The Philanthropic Learning
Organization
M a r i ly n J. D a r l i ng
In the wake of the world economic crisis, philanthropic organizations – like organizations in other sectors –have been forced to scrutinize the return on their grantmaking investments more carefully than ever before.
Because many traditional grantmaking practices are too slow to help foundations manage risk through theability to adapt and innovate, some foundations are seeking to better integrate real-time evaluation andlearning into their operations. In this research project, Marilyn Darling and her colleagues found that themore skilled a foundation gets at closing the learning loop, the more innovative it can be in accommodating
new thinking. A clear learning agenda thus helps a foundation mitigate the risks involved in placing its 		
full heft behind new, more strategic approaches to social change, so that foreseeable and unforeseeable
consequences do not torpedo an otherwise worthy collective effort. And when learning is in service of thereal work at the heart of the foundation’s mission, the ultimate outcome should be stronger networks
and greater impact.

T

he field of philanthropy is under increasing pressure to produce greater
impact for its investments. A growing number of foundations are moving
away from the traditional responsive banker model to become morethoughtful and engaged partners with their grantees in the businessof producing outcomes. In the process, they are placing bigger bets on larger,
more strategic programs and initiatives.
The larger the investment, the more skilled
Some foundations are seeking
foundations must become at managing
Marilyn J. Darlingrisk – making informed decisions, tracking
to better integrate real-time
progress, adjusting action and learning – throughout the life of aevaluation and learning into
program, so that foreseeable and unforeseeable changes do nottheir operations to become
torpedo an otherwise worthy collective effort.

more adaptive, innovative,
and impactful.

The traditional grant-to-evaluation-to-adjustment cycle is long.
Because many traditional grantmaking practices are proving to
be too slow to help foundations manage risk through the ability
to adapt, some foundations are seeking to better integrate real-time evaluation and learning into
their operations to become more adaptive, innovative, and impactful. To that end, the field is striving
to ensure that this evolution is based on validated theory, not wishful thinking or shots in the dark.

My colleagues and I1 conducted interviews with nine foundations of different size (annual grantmaking
ranging from approximately $10 million to $250 million), scope, and focus (place-based foundations to
global change agents) to build understanding in three key areas:1

2

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3•	How foundations and their communities articulate the thinking behind their strategies andhow that thinking frames, and is adapted
through, their learning• What practices and tools foundations and theircommunities use to learn together through the
grant cycle• What specific adaptations to existing practices
and tools would enable foundations and theircommunities to integrate learning more deliberately into their work and correct course
throughout implementation to increase 		
their impact

Research ParticipantsT

he following grantmaking organizations participatedin this research:•	Barr Foundation•	Colorado Trust• David and Lucile Packard Foundation• Deaconess Foundation•	Lumina Foundation for Education• Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation• Ontario Trillium Foundation•	Rockefeller Brothers Fund
• William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) conducted 		a peer learning session in January 2009 hosted by the Packard
Foundation on integrating learning into grantmaking practice.
Foundations that participated in that session were invited toparticipate in the research project. Most of the foundationsin this research study participated in that session. Three
additional foundations were invited to participate.
For the research itself, my colleagues and I interviewed theCEO, at least one program officer, and a member of the evaluation or learning staff of each foundation. After all interviews
were completed, we produced an individual assessment
report for each foundation and conducted a follow-up
interview, normally with the evaluation or learning staff.

reflections.solonline.org

While each foundation in this study is different,
they all share a commitment to make learning notjust an aspiration but a reality. All are seriously
committed to doing grantmaking in a more “learningful” way. This research gave us the opportunity
to hear firsthand the stories of foundations traveling along the road as they experience the excitement of exploring new pathways, the frustrationof encountering big potholes along the way,
and the early indications of success.

The Grantmaking Learning Cycle
All foundations engage in these activities insome form or another:• Plan – define intended outcomes and articulate what actions and resources they think it
will take to achieve those outcomes, and why• Act – engage in various combinations of grantmaking and complementary non-grant activities,
such as grantee meetings, capacity building,technical assistance, or advocacy• Gather Data – gather evidence related toactual results compared to intended results,
successful practices, and innovations• Reflect – make meaning of evidence concerning strategy and program effectiveness andadjust strategy, planning, and/or implementation based on that meaning
A grantmaking cycle that is infused with learning
has certain characteristics that go beyond conventional practice (Figure 1). The following sections
describe what that looks like and what the implications might be for future practice.

A. Planning: Making Thinking Visible
Most foundations engage in some form of strategic,
annual, and program planning. Traditional planning works on the assumption that informed
decision making will produce a “right” answer
that simply needs to be implemented correctly to
succeed. Learningful foundations recognize that,in a complex world rife with changing conditions,the first solution is not likely to be completely“right,” or to stay right as conditions evolve.

f e at u r e | D a r l i ng

f i g u r e 1 The Grantmaking Learning Cycle

Foundation Theory& Strategy
C yc

le

Long

Reflect•	Analysis•	Insights•	Adjustments

M e d i u m C yc l e

Sh

or

t

Cy

cl

Plan
• Program Theory•	Implementation Plan
•	Evaluation DesigneGather Data
•	Evaluation•	Reporting•	Listening & SeeingAct• Grantmaking• Non-grant Activities• Portfolio Management

Results & Impact

In the social sector, because the efforts of many
partners must come together for them to achieve
their shared outcomes, the more clearly foundations and their partners articulate their thinking,the easier it becomes to discover how their thinking is aligned or in conflict, and to identify usefulperformance indicators. As goals and situations
change, this clarity positions the independent
but interconnected partners to predict challenges
and choose the best approach to achieve theirshared goals.
Who Defines the Theory?
For purposes of this article, we will use the term
“theory” to refer to all of the tools used to articulate thinking about how to get to outcomes, suchas the organization’s Theory of Change, Theoryof Action, Outcome Models, and Logic Models.
We heard that who defines the theory and at whatlevel (foundation, program, grantee) impacts how

Learningful foundations recognize
that, in a complex world rife withchanging conditions, the firstsolution is not likely to becompletely “right.”
complex it is, how accessible it is to people doing
the work of the grant, and how often it is referred
to and refreshed as thinking changes. Ultimately,
who defines the theory has an effect on how wellit reflects the thinking of the whole network andhow broadly it is embraced by the people whoare responsible for transforming theory into
reality (Figure 2, p.4).
People tend to think that theory has to be complex to reflect the complex environments in which34

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

figure 2
Grantmakerasks/helps
grantees
define theirown theoryreflections.solonline.org

Who Defines the Theory?
Grantees
define theory
in response to
grant-definedoutcomes

Evaluator
defines theory
with grantor/
grantee input

Emphasis on Grantee

foundations aim to create impact. But, in fact, wefound examples of complex initiatives guided byvery simple theory that was approachable, leftroom for experimentation, and as a result stimulated innovative thinking among a whole networkof stakeholders. We heard that when theory is
straightforward, people refer to and refresh it
more often than when it is more complex.

Programofficers define
theory with
grantee input

Programofficers define
theory foreach program

Grantmakerexecutives
define theory
for the whole
foundation

Emphasis on Grantmakerfoundations are experiencing a tension between
owning the theory and being collaborative. We
heard examples of program failures that were
attributed to the theory, metrics, and plan having
been overly defined by the foundation, which
resulted in low ownership and commitment
from grantees.

a complete strategic plan. This timetable can be
the kiss of death for creating a living documentthat promotes learning. When the process becomes too time consuming, people are reluctant
to get started or revise previous work, even if it
has become outdated.

The state of a foundation’s theory sometimes
reflects that tension. Everyone involved in a large
initiative could agree that they are trying to solve
world hunger, but it is not uncommon to fundamentally disagree about how to get there, without
ever getting those disagreements surfaced andthought through. If program staff or evaluation
consultants create a theory that they believe
speaks for all of the “moving parts” in a complex
initiative, it can muddle roles and hogtie wellintentioned, creative partners who may havemuch better ideas about how to tackle big challenges in their own environments. For those trying to include their partners in creating a sharedtheory, the challenge is how to include everyone’s
good thinking without getting mushy, or how tokeep the need to build consensus from making
the process grind to a halt. If there are multiple
funding partners with their own ideas of what“we” need to do, the theory landscape canbecome staggeringly complex.

Some large foundations that have taken a topdown approach have found the process to be
too abstract to be useful to operational planning.
Additionally, if just one party in a complex network of partners creates the theory, others seldom
own it. In their efforts to be more strategic, someYet another reason we heard that theory remains
unstated is that it may threaten some program
officer/grantee relationships. Being more strategic
brings with it increased transparency, greater scrutiny, and often the choice to make larger grants tofewer projects or organizations. Asking program

In some cases, the process of creating the document
can become more complex than the document
itself. Some foundations view crafting theory asa once-every-five-years-whether-we-like-it-ornot process, akin to (or done as part of ) writing

We heard that when theory is
straightforward, people refer toand refresh it more often thanwhen it is more complex.

f e at u r e | D a r l i ng

officers to put theory to paper with the intent
to track and learn from results may feel like thefoundation is micromanaging the grant.
But if for any of these reasons foundations fail
to commit to an outcome and a theory – by not
articulating it or letting thinking go stale – thequality of reflective learning suffers. Foundation
staff members can learn just about any lesson
they want from a particular grant or event if they
are not honest with themselves about whether
they achieved the result they expected, or if“success” can be rationalized from any result.

B. Action: Turning Action into Learning
Experiments
In a truly learningful organization, learning cycles
happen at several scales – from long-term strategy
to short, fast cycles of learning in action (Figure 3).
For purposes of this study, “action” comprises thecore business of a grantmaking organization –e.g., launching initiatives, making grant decisions,contracting with grantees, managing portfolios,
convening stakeholders, building capacity, providing technical assistance, enlisting partners, andother interventions to make change happen. Thisis the real work of the foundation. It is also “theclassroom” – the primary source from which insights emerge and the place where insights canbe applied to improve impact.
Learningful foundations are deliberate in theirgoal to learn from their action, making mid-course
adjustments to their actions or even their theory
rather than waiting until the end of a grant period
or an annual planning cycle to recognize andadapt to changing conditions. Building learning
practices into action fundamentally changes therate at which a foundation can improve its outcomes. Learning in small “fit-for-purpose” cycles
in the course of work not only reduces risk; it also
makes changing course a less traumatic process.
Time to Learn?
The number one challenge to learning expressed
across all of the foundations in our study was time.

Many foundations have built rich dialogue into
their decision-making process. But in the face of
too many other priorities, attention and dialoguetend to fall away immediately thereafter.
As workloads expand, foundation staff members
miss key opportunities to learn through their actions. Program officers are torn between focusing
on grantees and focusing on foundation business.
Despite attempts to build more dialogue andBuilding learning practices into
action fundamentally changes therate at which a foundation can
improve its outcomes.
experiments into the grant cycle – both within
the organization and with grantees – lack of timeand no deliberate plan to learn often leave insightsthat would improve future practice on the table.
We heard that the stronger the connection andmore frequent the interaction between program
staff and grantees, the more quickly both are able
to see problems and make course corrections. Unfortunately, the flip side of this strength is that
program officers are less likely to have either thetime or the patience to articulate the insight that
produced the course correction and share it with
their peers inside the foundation. As a result,

figure 3Strategy Cycle

Strategy Cycle
Initiative Cycle
Program Cycle
Implementation
Cycle

5

6

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

course correction mostly happens quietly. Whilethese corrections in themselves are a good thing,
the real learning nuggets remain hidden andlarger “lessons learned” may not be applied more
broadly. The result? A tendency to “learn thesame lesson” over and over again.

We define a lesson as being“learned” when (1) behavior
changes and (2) a group achieves
results that are consistent withwhat past lessons predicted.
We define a lesson as being “learned” when (1)behavior changes and (2) a group achieves resultsthat are consistent with what past lessons predicted. To succeed in learning from action, foundations need a combination of lots of action
experiments, good information flow between
grantees and program staff, and time to reflect
across programs on what the results of theseexperiments mean to future practice. The goal is
to learn to recognize situations and to know how
to respond: “We’ve seen this before and here iswhat works and why.”

C. Gathering Data: Using Evaluation to
Support Learning
Evaluation is also undergoing a significant transformation. Learningful foundations are recognizingthat the purpose of data gathering is to improve
decision making and gain a rich understandingof what it takes to create impact. Traditional evaluation is not only slow; it can shift the burden forlearning away from overcommitted staff and onto
the shoulders of external evaluators. This slows
down the learning cycle drastically. Most important of all: The lessons that might improve performance next time risk staying hidden in evaluation reports and not being fully understood andacted on by overwhelmed program staff.

reflections.solonline.org

For evaluation to lead to learning and improved
long-term results, it must also gauge criticalshort- and intermediate-term results, as well as
the activities that are expected to produce them.
As a result, many foundations are moving awayfrom depending entirely on end-of-project summative evaluations designed primarily for external accountability to a complement of evaluation
tools, including real-time approaches that support learning in action.
Can We Learn to Create Impact?
Foundations want to find ways to increase impact,
but they have learned that you can’t get at impact
directly. There are no linear cause-effect models. In
complex grant programs, data about impact will
not be available until long after an interconnected
web of actions on the part of a number of independent actors and external events come together to produce some downstream result.
The fundamental challenge of learning in a changing environment is that nothing stands still longenough to finally learn it. If tomorrow will not lookexactly like yesterday, no one “best practice” solution can simply be replicated and get the same
result. There are no “right” answers to be discovered.
How and what can a grantmaker or a grantee
learn in that kind of environment?
Consider an analogy: In the past century, meteorologists have discovered some powerful building blocks and ways to combine them that havegreatly improved their ability to predict local
weather in a wickedly complex system.2 Overthe years, real-time data gathering has improved
meteorologists’ ability to see patterns like ocean
temperatures, upper-air pressure centers, wind
patterns, and solar radiation. They have studied
how they interact to understand more complex
phenomena like jet streams and el Niño, whichallows them to see larger trends and make more
powerful, longer-range weather predictions.

f e at u r e | D a r l i ng

There may be some “unmeasurables” in grantmaking, and foundations do not get daily feedback about the accuracy of their predictions. But
we believe that there is still something to learn
from the example. Each new building block that
meteorologists discovered strengthened theirability to predict local weather. In the same way,foundations need to find things that repeat themselves, even if the situations are constantly shifting. The process of learning is one of discovering
these repeating elements – grant structures,
capacity-building approaches, stakeholder 		
engagement practices, etc. – and the underlying
principles about how they work in different kindsof grant programs in different geographies, inservice of different outcomes. With that knowledge, they can formulate a series of hypotheses
about how to combine them to get better atachieving intermediate outcomes in particularkinds of situations.
Let us say, for example, that the ability of communities across the U.S. to generate innovative
partnerships between nonprofit, public, andprivate-sector organizations is a critical intermediate outcome for a large initiative. If a foundationand its partners were to experiment with a wide
variety of methods and track and learn from theircollected successes and failures, over time theywould improve their understanding about whichapproaches work in which kinds of communities
to produce the most innovative partnerships.
Eventually, they would learn which approaches
work best in large urban versus small rural 		
communities; cohesive versus fragmented communities; communities that have a wealth ofresources versus those that don’t. With thatknow-how, the foundation and its partners canturn their attention to other parts of the theory,
confident that they understand how to help
communities generate the partnerships needed
to enact better community solutions.
The “Little Arrows”
Focusing on learning how to produce intermediate outcomes offers a vehicle to break throughsome of the complexity of learning through grant-

figure 4

Typical Logic Model Format

making. In the logic models we studied, the mostimportant learning opportunities seemed to beconcentrated in what we thought of as the little
arrows between boxes (Figure 4). Each of thosearrows represents a hypothesis about what it willtake to produce a particular outcome (“If we takethis action or produce this intermediate outcome,then we will get that outcome or impact.”).

Focusing on learning how to
produce intermediate outcomes
offers a vehicle to break throughsome of the complexity of learning
through grantmaking.
If foundations can “forecast” what tools, appliedin which ways, in which environments, will achieve
what results (and why) within those small arrows,
then as has happened with meteorology, they can
use that knowledge to tackle their larger challenges.
Focusing on these little arrows is not, however,just about how to deliver an “effective” capacitybuilding program, for example. It is about learning
how the choices foundations make in designingand delivering these programs interact with theenvironments in which they are being delivered
to produce a certain result. Done deliberately, andkeeping short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes insight (the “compass in the woods”), these little
experiments can add up to stronger capacity tocontribute to long-term impact.

7

8

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

figure 5reflections.solonline.org

Designing Reflection to Close the Learning Loop

Strategy

Reflect

Plan

Gather Data

Act

Results

D. Reflection: Connecting the Dots
For our purposes, reflection is the process ofmaking meaning of observations, data gathered,external research, and lessons offered by peers.
Even the best data will not produce change until
grantmakers and grantees take the time to makemeaning of it and to think fairly explicitly about
how and when they will use it to produce better
results. The foundations in this study are all experi-

Done deliberately, little
experiments can add up to
stronger capacity to contributeto long-term impact.
menting with different models for creating timeand space for reflection. Nevertheless, reflection
tends to get set aside due to the pressures of“real work.”
Connecting the Dots
Our research interviews confirmed previous observations in foundations and other arenas: orga-

nizations tend to equate learning and reflection,
which leads them to over-invest in ad hoc reflection sessions and under-invest in linking reflection
back into the learning cycle (Figure 5).
The reflection practices we heard were often
designed as ad hoc meetings to reflect on a particular past program or across programs on somecommon question. The link to future action was
more of an aspiration than a specific plan. In somecases, reflection was explicitly kept separate fromaction to preserve the time to think and to avoid
slipping into tactical problem solving. We were
not surprised, then, that overcommitted program
staff often resisted taking precious time away fromwhat they considered to be their mission work.
To improve future action and results, foundation
staff members need to train their thinking as wellas their actions. That means that reflection on past
results needs to include reflecting on the thinking
behind the actions. When foundations take thetime to reflect on the thinking behind the choicesthat created those results, it helps staff prepare
to make better decisions in the future, including
occasionally adjusting their theory.
In every sector we have studied, organizations
are easily able to link planning to action. If theytake the time, they are able to link action to reflection. The weak link in the learning cycle is almost
universally from reflection to planning. A firststep to creating this link can be as simple as asking“how will you apply what we talked about today?”at the end of reflection sessions.
Who Are the Right People?
When Is the Right Time?
We heard three approaches that foundations
take to choosing when to reflect:• Ad hoc – based on something that happened,such as an initiative that “went south”• Periodic – built into regular program staff
meetings or as their own regularly scheduled
eventsf e at u r e | D a r l i ng

• Linked into the grantmaking cycle – preparation for grant decisions and board meetings
A strength of ad hoc reflection is the emotional
connection participants have to what happened
and the need to make sense of it. The two weaknesses include lack of clarity about when and how
insights will be applied, and failure of an ad hoc
practice to build good learning habits into theculture of a foundation.
A strength of periodic reflection is that it builds
a learning discipline. The biggest weaknesses arethat meetings may be cancelled in the face ofother priorities; reflection may become abstractand disconnected from work: learning for 		
learning’s sake.
Reflection that is linked into normal work processes offers the greatest potential for transforming learning practices into “just the way we dowork around here.” Adults – especially overcommitted professionals – learn best when they needto.3 Not every reflection opportunity lends itself tothis format, but it is worth drawing on this wisdom
to make sure that reflection is designed to enablepeers to learn together in a way that respects theirneed for relevance. For reflection that is done aspart of preparing for something, it is clear who
needs to be involved. But especially when preparing to reflect in ad hoc meetings about past
events and, even more so when the purpose is tocapture lessons to disseminate to others, finding
some relevance to specific immediate or nearterm opportunities can greatly amplify the value
to participants.

An Emergent Learning Agenda
Given our findings, what do foundations needto do to build the capacity to produce better
outcomes, reduce the risk associated with larger,
more strategic investments, and ultimately contribute to moving the impact needle? In this section, we describe the elements of an emergent
learning agenda and some ways to tackle thekinds of challenges reported by our participating foundations (Figure 6, p.10).4

Framing Questions: “What Will It Take to…?”
In the same way that what you measure drives
what you manage, the frame that foundation
leaders set for learning drives where people direct
their attention. Big, theoretical questions (e.g.,“What are the biggest drivers of rural poverty?”)lead to big, theoretical conversations. Summativeor retrospective questions (e.g., “Did our choices
about which partners to support actually contribute to increased preschool enrollment?”) leadto reflective conversations. Both of these can be
useful conversations at the right time for the right
purpose, but we heard that the former can makeIn the same way that what you
measure drives what you manage,
the frame that foundation leaders
set for learning drives where
people direct their attention.
busy program officers and grantees squirm in theirseats, and the latter is useful only in proportion to
how well it can inform what’s coming next.
Just as a foundation needs to choose a strategy
that represents a subset of great potential actions,
it needs the discipline to focus on a few powerfulquestions to avoid getting whipsawed by too many
simultaneous lines of inquiry. The very act of holding a dialogue about which questions are important is, in itself, a step toward becoming an organization that learns: “If we could improve our ability
to achieve just one thing this year, what would
make the biggest difference to our mission?”
Framing Questions focus on the most important
uncertainties or challenges – those that present
the greatest apparent risk to strategy effectiveness. Or they may focus on a foundation’s biggest
opportunities or leverage points. They set thestage for learning through work, which speeds
up the learning cycle and allows program teams
to adjust as they go.

9r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

The very act of holding a dialogue
about which questions areimportant is a step toward
becoming an organization thatlearns.
We observed above that there is a weak link between theory and action – between looking backto reflect on the theory that led to the action andlooking forward to target when and how insights
will be applied. Framing Questions are a way toforge that essential link (Figure 7).
To write a pragmatic, forward-focused Framing
Question, start with either:• “What will it take for us to…?” or• “How can we…?”

figure 6

For example:• What will it take for us to increase the capacityof our network of grantees to make a compelling case for the desired policy changes?
•	How can we promote outreach, education,
and advocacy across the region?
• Given the economic challenges our state isfacing, how can we ensure adequate pointsof access across the state for preventative,
primary, oral, and behavioral care?
Some foundations find it challenging to craft
a complete theory from scratch. For others, theprocess becomes more of an intellectual exercise
required to move a grant through, rather than astatement of what a group really believes to betrue and upon which it is prepared to act. If foundations get in the habit of asking “what will it taketo achieve our goals in this phase of our work?”
and writing down and collecting their hypotheses
related to their big Framing Questions, a body oftheory will begin to emerge. It may be messy at

Learning Agenda

Foundation Theory& Strategy

Reflect•	Analysis•	Insights•	Adjustments

Gather Data
•	Evaluation•	Reporting•	Listening & Seeing

Learning Agenda•	Framing Questions•	Action LearningPlan• Growing KnowHow Plan

10Results & Impact

Plan• Program Theory•	Implementation Plan
•	Evaluation Design

Act• Grantmaking• Non-grant Activities• Portfolio Management

f e at u r e | D a r l i ng

first, but the process of sorting it out will help thefoundation begin to build a framework aroundwhich to learn.

figure 7

The Relationship Between Theory and Action

IF…, THEN…

Action Learning Plan
As we heard from many foundations, the intention
to learn is not by itself enough to make it happen.
An action learning plan takes each Framing Question and lays out specific steps to weave learning
about the question into implementation planning.
An action learning plan:
1. picks the best action learning opportunities
from among the whole plate of planned activities that make up a program;
2. builds in a step of reminding everyone of theirthinking about what will make them succeedin these key actions and transforming thisunderstanding into learning experiments;
3. specifies when and how the group will reflect
on those actions and their results; and4. provides a means to link this reflection back totheory and forward to inform future actions.
Speeding Up the Cycle:
Before and After Action Reviews
An action learning plan looks for the natural“punctuation points” in a workflow and uses themto prompt learning activities. Board preparation,
grantee contracting and reporting, convenings,
and even preparing to meet with peers at conferences can serve as punctuation points for learning. Before Action Reviews (BAR) and After Action
Reviews (AAR) are a simple discipline some foundations are adopting to speed up the learning cycle.
BARs help everyone involved to remind themselves
about their intended short- and longer-term outcomes and their thinking about what it will taketo get there before launching into action. AARs
help them deliberately reflect just after an activity
about whether their thinking and actions moved
them toward their intended outcomes and what
they intend to sustain or improve through thenext set of actions.5

Growing Know-How Plan
One of the most fundamental challenges organizations face as they make the effort to capture what

Given our theory, what willthat help us accomplish?

IF we take (action), THEN we can expect (result).
Given the situation, what
will it take to do that?

IF…, THEN…

An action learning plan looks forthe natural “punctuation points”
in a workflow and uses them toprompt learning activities.
they have learned has always been getting people
to use it. If nothing gets captured and brought
into the community to reflect on, knowledge
quickly dissipates. What matters is that foundations
and their communities find ways to make it easy
for program officers, grantees, and other stakeholders to capture nuggets of news and insight ina single place, and find natural points in the work
process to reflect on what has been collected.
If foundations are able to identify those partsof the theory that are most uncertain or highest
leverage, and keep Framing Questions related
to them actively in sight, then as everyone goes
about their work, they are more likely to noticesomething newsworthy that holds a lesson for
the foundation. This practice is one more way inwhich theory remains visible and linked to work.
Learn How to Learn from Failures
As the focus on demonstrating impact has increased, philanthropy has become serious about
recognizing and learning from failures and disappointing results. Learning from philanthropic

11

12

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

failures is challenging for a number of reasons.
In a recent Center for Effective Philanthropy guest
blog post, Bob Hughes, VP and Chief Learning
Officer for Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,observed that “failures can puncture deeply held
beliefs about what works and why in bringing
about social change. They can generate conflictand disagreement among people with common

Good Practices

We’ve heard about many good practices thatworked because of the unique characteristics of the foundations that discovered them.
There is no single best practice that fits every situation.
Here are a few simple ideas that this research suggests
as a starting point.
Involve potential grantees and other stakeholders
in creating program theory.
Whenever possible, involve people who represent allparts of the change you are aiming to achieve in thinking through what short- and long-term outcomes will
look like and what it will take to get there.
Keep theory visible and editable.
The moment the theory you put on paper disconnectswith your theory in action, it loses its value as a compass for your learning process. Revise the theory if it
doesn’t reflect the choices you are making; the actions
you are taking; the way you will recognize program
success.
Use Framing Questions to turn key actions into
learning experiments.
As you plan the next critical step of action in a program,ask yourselves what little arrow in your theory thispiece of action supports. Turn that into a Framing
Question and consciously state your shared hypothesis about what it will take to succeed.
Create information flows between grantees andfoundation staff during implementation.
Hone in on the Framing Questions that are most important for both grantees and the foundation. Pay
attention to the “news and insights” related to thosequestions and find ways to bring that information 		in front of program staff to discuss regularly.

Use a complement of internal and external real-timeand summative evaluation to support learning.
Find ways to have your evaluation and action learningplans support each other. Aim to be able to report in thesummative program evaluation not just about what you
collectively accomplished, but what you learned along
the path as you ran into challenges and course-		
corrected.
Focus on learning around the “little arrows” 		
to strengthen the building blocks of your craft.
Think of the little arrows in your theory as spaces forexperimentation and innovation. Develop the discipline
to focus on the most critical arrows and “peel the onion”
about what works when to accomplish what.
Reflect not just on actions, but on the theory 		
behind them.
Be sure that when you declare success, it is not just 		because you completed a task. Use reflection to test
your thinking as well as your actions and do the deeper
learning that will build the foundation’s capacity tothink through complex challenges in the future.
Use a learning agenda to guide who should 		reflect when, for whose benefit.
To be respectful of everyone’s time, don’t ask people
to reflect without first knowing when and where insights gained can be applied to improve future work.

Recommendations for Leaders
Get good as a foundation at figuring out the 		
important questions.
Know your most important learning questions. A foundation may ask lots of questions as they come to mind,
but it may lack the disciplined follow-through to learn

f e at u r e | D a r l i ng

aims and values.” He observed that “failures involve people, institutions and reputations thatmight be harmed through full disclosure. Failures
have the risk of jeopardizing future funding.”6

effectively from them. If staff members feel
whipsawed by random but seemingly important questions, they will grow weary 		of the quest.
Learn how to learn from failures.
Leaders create safe spaces for honest reflection. They reward the people on their staff
who are willing to learn from their mistakes,
and they lead the way by their own honesty.
Close the loop.
If leaders don’t insist on closing the loop, staff
members begin to doubt the foundation’scommitment to learning.
Be humble and curious.
Leaders can set the tone of humility and curiosity that creates a virtuous cycle where there
are no right answers, only hypotheses to betested, and where program staff and grantees
keep the important questions in mind and areconscious about learning through action.
Don’t call yourself a “learning organization”
too soon.
Calling yourself a learning organization
without having a clear rationale to back it up
can create an immune response. A good doseof skepticism and a rigorous “due diligence”
process helps organizations create learning
practices that are focused and fit-for-purpose.

When disappointing results are not addressed
early, their significance grows, and it becomes
more and more difficult to bring them into thelight.
Organizations often “fix” a failure by tossing out
the “failed” approach and replacing it with another.
This classic baby-and-the-bathwater mistake leads
foundations to oscillate back and forth between
fads. Swapping out approaches is not the same

The most powerful way to learn
from either a failure or a success is
to compare it with other similar
situations to discover morerobust insights.
as learning. And if the reason for the failure was
not the approach, but the execution of it, what
lesson does the foundation learn? For a foundation to learn from such a change requires that
staff reflect on what it was about the situation thatmade one approach work better than another orwhat else might have contributed to the failure,
and to form a hypothesis about which approaches
work in which situations – to build the toolbox
rather than discarding tools along the path.
What does it take, then, to truly learn froma failure?
There is little information contained in a single
failure about what will work. There is a tendency
to over-learn on the one hand (e.g., lessons that
include the words “always” or “never”) or to write
it off on the other. The most realistic thing to learn
from a single failure or success, therefore, is a setof pointers about patterns that might present
themselves in future programs. Rather than thinking of them as “lessons learned,” they might bebetter thought of as “lessons to be learned.”7 Whatshould we be looking for next time that mightlead us toward success or failure?

13

14

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

The most powerful way to learn from either a failure or a success is to compare it with other similar
situations to discover more robust insights. Using
comparison also relieves the pressure of learningfrom a single, painful failure. Why did this approach work here and not there? Were there
similar reasons why these two programs failed/succeeded or did they both fail/succeed for different reasons? If so, what should we really learn

Foundations need tools that makeit easier to bring news and insightsfrom programs back into thefoundation and make meaningof them.
from them? To that end, if done in a safe, trusting
environment where people can openly reflect ondecisions and actions, reflection can help uncover
deeper insights.
If the weak link is between the lesson and its
application, then foundations need to invest as
much or more on learning from lessons as they doon sharing them. The collective know-how of the
field of philanthropy would, we propose, growmuch more quickly if foundations increased theirinvestment in reflecting on their work, setting
up deliberate experiments to try out new ideas,
and bringing new insights from those experiments back to the field.

Closing the Loop
A learning agenda helps make program staff andgrantees more attentive to learning opportunities
that might otherwise pass unnoticed. It can stimulate a strategic dialogue with grantees and intermediaries about their respective theories ofchange and indicators, and create a regularreflections.solonline.org

information flow between grantees and foundation staff. It makes building a learning disciplineeasier to do and staff less resistant, because learning is in service of the real work that is at theheart of the foundation’s mission.
The better a foundation gets at closing the learning loop, the more innovative and emergent it canbe in accommodating new thinking. It allows thespace for – and even encourages – competing
hypotheses to be explored simultaneously or in
faster sequence. A clear learning agenda helps
a foundation mitigate the risks involved inplacing its full heft behind new, more strategic
approaches to social change.

Stronger Networks, Greater Impact
What we take away from this research: Foundations need tools that make it easier to bring news
and insights from programs back into the foundation and make meaning of them. They need easierways to generate theory from grantmaking decisions and actions; methods for collecting dataaround the little arrows, including pulling together
data from across programs; and ticklers to help
busy staff remember to use the punctuation
points in their work to strengthen the links andclose the learning loop.
The field as a whole needs to make it easier forfoundations to grow know-how with their peers:
to collaborate on identifying the important Framing Questions they hold in common and easy
ways to gather and learn from the news and insights generated by, and captured from, the entire
community. As foundations set their sights on
becoming “learning organizations,” they need tothink carefully about what that means to avoid
learning for learning’s sake and to invest in waysthat manage the risks of being strategic. The outcome should be stronger networks and greater
impact. n

f e at u r e | D a r l i ng

about the author
Marilyn J. Darling, of Fourth Quadrant Partners, LLC, is a founding member of the Society for
Organizational Learning. She works with foundations and nonprofits, identifying learning priorities
and developing learning agendas, and supports peer learning and communities of practice using
the tools of emergent learning. marilyn@4qpartners.com

endnotes
1	This article is dedicated to the memory of our friend and research partner, Bruce Boggs. His vision, insight,
and passion continue to inspire us daily.
2	This section draws from the writings of John H. Holland on complex adaptive systems, including his books
Emergence (Perseus Books, 1998) and Hidden Order (Perseus Books, 1995).
3 Knowles, M., Holton, E., Swanson, R. (1998). The Adult Learner, 5th Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann.
4	For more details about emergent learning, see “Growing Knowledge Together: Using Emergent Learningand EL Maps for Better Results,” Marilyn Darling and Charles Parry, Reflections, V8N1.
5	For more information about AARs and BARs, see “Learning in the Thick of It” by Marilyn Darling,
Charles Parry, and Joseph Moore, Harvard Business Review, July–August 2005; the article is also availableat www.signetconsulting.com.
6 “Can Failure Be the Key to Foundation Effectiveness?” www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog, Jan 11, 2010.
7 “Lessons (Not Yet) Learned,” by Marilyn Darling and Jillaine Smith, The Foundation Review, Volume 3, 		Numbers 1–2, 2011.

15

16

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

f e at u r e 11.3

It Takes a School to Raise a Village
Carol Gorelick
Today, most of us recognize that the educational system doesn’t terminate at the boundary of school
property. The concept of community schools has developed from a preference for teaching children inneighborhood schools to a movement that sees the school as a hub that brings together many partners tooffer a range of support and opportunities for children, youth, families, and the larger community. From
2007–2010, the ABC Connects program applied a systems approach and organizational learning tools to
the challenge of transforming two schools in South Africa and two schools in Detroit, Michigan, into vibrantcenters of community life. These schools engaged with parents and other education stakeholders to address
the challenges of poverty, improve teaching and learning, and support students’ well-being and development. At the same time, students and teachers benefited from taking part in cross-cultural learning opportunities with their counterparts on the other side of the globe. ABC Connects continues to build on thelessons learned from this pilot program.

We as children have power to change the whole world. Learn asmuch as you can. Be somebody in life. Try to change the world.”
Akhona Sokutu, a ninth grader at the Willow Park School in East
London, South Africa, made this moving statement at the launchof the ABC Connects project, attended by 1,000 students, teachers, school leaders, partners, and community members. ABC Connects uses a systems approachand organizational learning tools to improve the quality of education for children
and young people in poor areas. From 2007–2010, through a three-year action
Carol Gorelick
research pilot program funded by the Kellogg Foundation, my partner and I
sought to transform two schools in South Africa and two schools in Detroit, Michigan, into vibrant centers of community life. These schools engaged with parents and other education stakeholders to address
the challenges of poverty, improve teaching and learning, and support the well-being and developmentof students in becoming empowered, active, and informed citizens.
“

We began with the awareness that the role of education in developing productive, responsible citizens
in a chaotic environment is a complex problem. We believed that our approach would improve thepilot schools and build stronger communities. Our intention was to identify similarities and differencesamong the schools as well as collect lessons learned. To a large extent, we achieved our objectives. The
principals and teachers in Detroit were excited about the opportunity for their students and parents
to see the hope that exists in South Africa despite extremely limited resources. In South Africa, theschools learned from experienced U.S. teachers, specifically about language and literacy instruction.
Future plans exist for building on this short but rich experience by continuing to create educational
environments that use the ABC Connects approach and by creating cross-cultural opportunities forstudents, teachers, and schools.

f e at u r e | go r e l i c k

Origins of ABC Connects
In 2000, I was a visiting professor at the Graduate
School of Business at the University of Cape Town.
Apartheid had ended only six years before mytrip. In addition to the requisite tourist stops, I immersed myself in the culture and met local people
as much as time allowed. To be sure that I saw
many sides of life in post-apartheid Cape Town,
I made it a priority to tour the townships.
Townships are residential settlements that werebuilt to segregate nonwhites under the apartheid
system. A large percentage of Cape Town’s population still resides in townships. Despite their poverty, these areas are abuzz in culture. I visited thetownship of Langa, not far from Cape Town. The
tour driver scattered stray dogs and chickens as
he drove the minibus through a muddy parking
lot and pulled up in front of two brightly painted
shipping containers. A guide greeted us and led us
into one of the containers. The walls were covered
with crude yet cheerful artifacts: the alphabet,numbers, children’s work papers, and shelves ofbooks. These shipping containers were home to
the Chris Hani Independent School.
According to our host, Maureen Jacobs, theprincipal and one of two teachers, this innovative
structure was originally designed to hold 100
students, but 200 learners were present. This
community school served functionally illiterate,
culturally deprived children, mostly girls, ranging
in age from five to 16. The purpose was to transform them into school-ready learners who could
be mainstreamed into the state-supported 		
public education system.
Ms. Jacobs signaled to the children to move to an
open space at the back of the shipping container.
They quickly formed groups and performed several
songs and dances. Their energy and enthusiasm
were palpable. When the tour guide indicated that
it was time to leave, I asked if I could do anythingthat would be helpful.
Softly, Ms. Jacobs responded, “Clothes for the girls.”

I was overwhelmed by this experience. Despite
the extraordinary hardship in the township, I felt
a real sense of hope. The spirit of this makeshift
schoolhouse was infectious. I saw the potential
for breaking the cycle of poverty through small,
strategic interventions and was determined tolearn more about community schools.

The Challenge
The concept of community schools has developed
from a preference for teaching children in neighborhood schools to a movement that sees the

The concept of community schools
has developed from a preference
for teaching children in neighborhood schools to a movementthat sees the school as a hub.
school as a hub that brings together many partners to offer a range of support and opportunities
for children, youth, families, and the larger community. The traditional focus of schooling has
been teaching and learning, the instructionalcore (Figure 1, p.18). As populations shifted andincreased, educational institutions grew from oneroom schoolhouses into organizations with added
layers of complexity. Modern advancements, suchas changes in technology, government, media,
culture, and other socioeconomic factors, directly
and indirectly impact the classroom experience.
Figure 2 (p.18) represents the stakeholders thatparticipate in today’s educational process.
For many children, however, these modern advancements do not ensure a quality education. If
learners come to school hungry, have witnessedviolence in the neighborhood, are concerned
about the well-being of parents and caregivers,or are plagued by the myriad of other social issues
that occur in struggling communities, the educational process cannot be effective, no matter how
well administered or well intentioned. Social

17

18

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

problems are always interconnected and 		collectively limit or deny children and young
people the ability to take advantage of educational opportunities.

f i g u r e 1 The Instructional Core

ParentToday, we recognize that the educational systemdoesn’t terminate at the boundary of school property. Addressing the many challenges that students and teachers face requires a comprehensive,
multi-sectoral approach to community buildingthat cuts across environments and incorporates
a wide range of interventions. Social and personal
problems are not exclusive to poor communities
but are exacerbated in such environments, because the opportunity to get a good education
is often the only hope for students and theirfamilies to move out of poverty.

Student

TeacherCurriculumClassroom
Community(home for this group of students)

f i g u r e 2 Stakeholders in Today’s Educational Process

Publishers, universities,
creators, scientists, & other“suppliers of knowledge”

ParentState & national
government

Student

Extended family& familial support
Other
students & friends

Private businesses(employing parents& students)

Ideologues& influencers

TeacherClassroom

School Board (US)District Offices (SA)Superintendent
Principal

Community institutions(hospitals, churches,police, social work)

International media:
new sources of knowledge,
entertainment, news, Internet,& other interactive opportunities
for learning outside the classroom

Curriculum

Other teachers(& unions)

Administrative& support staff

School(or school system)

School Governing Body

Community
Local media(including talk shows)(home for this group of students)

The world at large
Other administrators(beyond the community)

f e at u r e | go r e l i c k

Making It Happen
The opportunity to work in community schoolspresented itself when I met Allistair Witten while
he was working on his master’s degree at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Al was a South
African principal who had transformed a oncedilapidated public school in a dangerous Cape
Town township into a vibrant center of community
life. He eventually received a scholarship to Harvard to codify what he knew implicitly into a replicable theory and model for a systems approach tolearning. We decided to launch ABC Connects andused what we named the “School-Based Community Learning Model” as the conceptual framework
for ABC Connects’ action learning projects.
Al and I believed that persistent poverty and inequality affect the life experiences and opportunities of young people and their families by undermining their potential to participate as active
citizens in building sustainable local, national,
and global communities. The need for educational
programs that influence community change, andcommunity change that influences educational
programs, has never been greater in the U.S. or
South Africa. Al and I shared a passion for education, South Africa, and the scores of children inunderprivileged communities who could benefit
from a new approach to education.
Through ABC Connects, we sought to involve allof the stakeholders in the extended community,
using the school as a central hub. We planned tofacilitate interventions and develop programs
to provide youth and their families with supportand services to enhance their cognitive, social,and emotional development. With the support
of a Kellogg grant,* we created a practice field foraction learning projects to apply the conceptual
theory while simultaneously developing methods
and capturing lessons learned.

Our Goals
By facilitating collaborative events and ongoingsupport with and for school principals, teachers,

Allistair WittenAllistair Witten was a teacher
and principal at Lavender
Hill Primary School in Cape Town.
At that time, the South African
Minister of Education was planning a Safe School program toprovide schools at risk with electricfences. Al spoke out against thisintervention, suggesting instead that “we must invite thecommunity in.” He started to think about what connects
parents and youth to the school, and how they can be
persuaded to see the school as an asset to the community.
Al began by raising the funds to run a skills development
program to make bricks and blocks for building new houses,with the support of a local technical college and the University of Cape Town Business School. Within eight months, thebrick-making venture had created jobs for local workers.
Also, the number of break-ins in the community dropped.

Witten’s experience led him to Harvard’s Graduate Schoolof Education, where he developed the School-Based Complementary Learning Model that provided the conceptual framework for the ABC Connects pilot projects. Al returned to South
Africa after completing his dissertation in 2010. In August
2011, he was appointed Director of the Centre for the Community School within the Faculty of Education at Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan University.

parents, and other community partners, ourobjectives for the ABC Connects pilot program
were to:• implement the School-Based Community
Learning framework at four schools;• establish active linkages with the communityand other external stakeholders aimed at supporting projects that used the framework;• strengthen community relations, promote civic
participation, and increase the intellectual andfinancial resources in the school community;* SoL and then-executive director Sherry Immediato were the official recipients of the grant and managed the funds.

19

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

The School-Based Community Learning ModelThe Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) developed the concept of “complementary learning,” which
focuses on the different contexts in which children develop and learn. HFRP research has shown that deliberate
and focused efforts to link the various learning contexts
foster positive, consistent educational and developmental outcomes for youth and their families.
For his doctoral dissertation, Allistair Witten proposed
the notion of “School-Based Complementary Learning,”
in which the school becomes the central hub that is explicitly connected to other learning contexts (Witten,

A. M. 2010. “Building the community school: How school
principals can lead in addressing educational and social
challenges in South Africa”). For practitioners, it is called
the “School-Based Community Learning Model.”Schools and their leaders can play a key role in building school–community partnerships. They can act asinitiating agents who start relationships and projects withother stakeholders, or as integrating agents who connect
existing initiatives to students, parents, and other partners. Figure 3 is a visual representation of the SchoolBased Complementary Learning Model.

f i g u r e 3 School-Based Complementary Learning Model

Higher
Education

Out-of-School/
After–School
Programs

Erxte

nal EnvironmentSchoolBusinesses

Capacity
Student

Community/
Cultural/Faith-Based
Organizations

InstructionalCore
TeacherCurriculum

Resources

Organizational
Management

20

Preschool/
Other Schools

Learning &Teaching

School Culture
Families/
Community
Members

District
OfficeHealthServicesf e at u r e | go r e l i c k• build capacity in each local community tosustain the work beyond the pilot;• create methods and tools as well as measurement and evaluation instruments to scale
up and expand the program; and• host a conference at the end of the pilot tolaunch a community of practice for the four
pilot schools and Allistair Witten’s three 		dissertation schools.
To implement the School-Based Community
Learning framework in the pilot schools, we developed a six-step process. Our aim was to help communities in a lasting and sustainable way without
being prescriptive. The community stakeholders
themselves needed to identify problems andimplement solutions, supported by the process
we provided.

The Pilot Project
The ABC Connects project team initiated pilot interventions in two schools in East London, South
Africa, and two schools in Detroit, Michigan.
Year One (2007–2008): During the first grantyear, each of the schools developed a vision andidentified high-priority projects to achieve thatvision. From the beginning, a critical component
was strengthening relationships within each school
and with its immediate network, and forging new
relationships and partnerships with businesses
and other previously unengaged stakeholders.
For example, in South Africa, PetroSA committed
significant funding for school improvement. The
principals and staff were also inspired by the
future opportunity to connect South Africanand Detroit students and teachers.
Year Two (2008–2009): In the second year, we dida culture survey at each school to collect empirical
data to understand the current situation. We used
the results to focus our professional development
and project plans. We also began to connect theSouth African and Detroit schools through a penpal exchange for students and a “Critical Friends”
literacy project for teachers. PetroSA sponsored an
ABC Connects launch event at both South African
schools.

The Six-Step ProcessThe steps are not intended to be a linear structure,
but rather an iterative process:Step 1. Build Relationships by reaching out to community
members, groups, and organizations.
Step 2. Create a Vision by collecting desires for the schoolfrom its teachers, leaders, students, and the community.
Step 3. Assess “What” by asking all partners tough questions
about obstacles and assets.
Step 4. Develop Pathways to the future by drawing aroadmap of how to get “where we want to be” by identifying
organizations, groups, and individuals needed to support
the journey.
Step 5. Build Capacity for the future by guiding schoolcommunities in becoming training grounds for the work they
will do on their own tomorrow. Our commitment is to create
sustainable local communities rather than achieve specificprogram outcomes.
Step 6. Measure and Evaluate by looking back at theresults and asking: What happened? What do we keep?
What do we change or improve?

Year Three (2009–2010): During the third year,
we focused on supporting the schools with theirprojects and on developing people’s confidencewith using a systems approach and organizational
learning tools so that they could continue thework after the pilot officially ended. We planned
a conference to celebrate, communicate, anddisseminate the outcomes and learning, andto launch a community of practice to support
ongoing and expanded work.
Here are some of the specific features of andoutcomes at the different sites:

Willow Park Primary School in East London,
South Africa
Even before ABC Connects arrived, Willow Park
Primary was a community school. It had been a

21

22

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

resulted in serious tensions between the school
and its adjacent white neighborhood and an
immediate collapse of school-fee revenue.

Core Project Team
Name

Function

Location

Carol Gorelick

Project Director

New York, NY

Al Witten	Co-Director	Boston, MA
Sarah Bruhn	External Evaluator, 	Ann Arbor, MI
Detroit			
Gordon Brode	Communications
Manager

New York, NY

Jennifer Downing	Culture Survey 	Boston, MA
	Evaluator			
Pat Goosen	Local Coordinator, 	East London,
	South Africa	South Africa
Lorraine Lawrence	External Evaluator, 	East London,
	South Africa	South Africa
Duke Stump	Strategy, 	Brentwood, NH
	Branding				“Model-C” (whites only) school during apartheid. Upon desegregation, the middle-class white
students were replaced by black and colored students from at least three remote townships andsquatter settlements. This demographic shift

Mr. Swanepoel, the principal, and the school’s
administrators also had to adapt to the fact that,while instruction took place in English, many
learners spoke only Xhosa or Zulu. In addition,
many of the students’ parents came out of an
educational system where parent involvement inschools was minimal. Not knowing how to interact
with their children’s teachers and others at theschool, they often chose not to participate inparent meetings.
Even with these challenges, the principal was
undaunted. He successfully demanded funds fromthe school district, worked overtime to reach out
to the surrounding community, and methodically
expanded parental involvement. These efforts resulted in an increase in revenue from school feesand better relationships with the parents. The
school established a system so that unemployedparents could work at the school five days permonth as their payment of school fees.

Many South
African children
so rarely have
had their
photos takenthat a chance toappear on camera
incites a joyful
frenzy at Willow
Park Primary.

© Pat Goosen

f e at u r e | go r e l i c k

To bring the staff and leadership team closer
together, the ABC Connects project held three
offsite staff development sessions. In addition,
administrators attended management and leadership courses. Teacher Eleanor Hansio said, “Theproject encouraged us to work together as ateam. We now tend to consult one another 		more about learners.”
During the ABC Connects project, the schoolpurchased a school bus to enable sports teams
to compete with other schools and built a netballcourt. A computer, laser printer, and wireless Internet were installed. With community support, thestudent meal program was expanded; a newmobile library provided reading opportunities foreach child. Beyond Basics, a Detroit-based NGO,
facilitated art and book-making projects thatgave kids the opportunity to see what they
could create, improving their self-esteem.
Willow Park’s initial visioning workshop identified a community food garden as a high priority
for employing community members, stocking theschool’s kitchen, and offering agricultural training
to students. The plan was to acquire a large plot of
land adjacent to the school for the garden. Local
farmers offered to provide materials and training.
A small prototype garden was planted on the school
property as proof of concept. Unfortunately, thelarge project still has not come to fruition due
to legal and political conflicts over zoning andownership of the land.

Pefferville Primary School in East London,
South Africa
In 1973, a temporary prefabricated building was
erected on the outskirts of the Pefferville community to serve as a school until a proper structure
could be built. Almost 40 years later, this structure
faithfully stands as the Pefferville Primary School.
Over time, the school has been plagued by vandalism, break-ins, and hard luck. Campaigns toengage the community in cleaning up and participating in the school were largely unsuccessful.

By the time ABC Connects arrived in 2007, morale
among staff was extremely low, and serious divisions existed. Dilapidated school buildings weresurrounded by overgrown scrub. There were noboys’ restrooms in the school. Administrators andteachers were skeptical about the prospects ofchange through ABC Connects.

By the time ABC Connects arrived
in 2007, morale among staff wasextremely low, and serious
divisions existed.
An early ABC task was to purchase modular furniture for the unused staff room to encourage collaboration. Acquiring the furniture served to break
down staff cliques, create a culture of scheduled
meetings, and provide an informal setting forteachers and administrators to interact. The initiative led the teachers to prioritize their needs. With
funds from corporate partners, people from thecommunity repaired the facilities. ABC Connects
installed a computer, laser printer, and wirelessInternet; sent educators to team-building sessions;and provided training for school leaders. The
school opened its first physical library with major
help from the U.S.-based NGO Room to Read andthe efforts of two passionate teachers.
Nevertheless, parent involvement remained
low. A turning point occurred when the school
planned a meeting and sent parents invitations
written in English and Xhosa, the most prevalent
African language in the Eastern Cape. At least
140 people showed up, and the excitement waspalpable. When asked, parents enthusiasticallyvolunteered for school activities.
As a result of the activities at the school, oneof ABC Connects’ local partners recommended
Pefferville for a nationally televised community
self-improvement contest called “Kwanda.” Morethan 2,250 residents were trained and employedin an eight-month project focused on building

23

24

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org© Pat Goosen© Pat Goosen

Pefferville Primary, before and after. Visible improvements to the school have an impact beyond the cosmetic: They spark local
pride and the motivation necessary to go forward with more complex community interventions.

skills. Among the goals were preventing new HIV
infections, assisting orphans and vulnerable children, reducing alcohol abuse, combating sexual
violence, and generating economic growth. The
community selected Pefferville Primary as theadministrative hub for these interventions.

South Africa’s people are reborn:
One is either of the first generationof citizens to never know apartheid
or of the generation thatconquered it.
After three years of work, Pefferville Primary andthe local community are transformed. The buildings are still old and in need of repair, but they are
well kept and tidy. The community maintains a
thriving garden in the central courtyard, and theschool kitchen incorporates the vegetables into
student meals. Members of the community are
constantly at work in the school, which is becoming a center of community pride. Proof of this shift
is that during the last year of the ABC Connects
project, Pefferville Primary did not experience asingle burglary, and community functions are
fully attended.

Barbara Jordan and Jamieson Elementary
Schools in Detroit, Michigan
The initial meetings with the principals at the
Barbara Jordan and Jamieson Elementary Schools
in Detroit were similar to those in South Africa. We
conducted a follow-up visioning session with bothschools, including staff, parents, and community
members. ABC Connects offered to provide support in terms of capacity building and professional
development for implementing the projects identified, but access to both schools was extremely
difficult, and we had no on-the-ground presence
to keep the work going. We had small successes
from language and literacy projects that took
place between the Detroit schools and Willow
Park Primary.
Vivian Johnson, a Barbara Jordan teacher, spoke
about the level of energy and excitement at theearly professional development sessions. She enthusiastically described how her students wanted
to know more about the lifestyles of South African
teenagers and how they frequently asked about
the status of their pen-pal project letters. As an
educator, Ms. Johnson felt that the experience
helped her realize that the issues she faces in theclassroom are not local and that teachers acrossthe globe are striving to develop better strategies
for learning and behavior.

f e at u r e | go r e l i c k

25

The third year of the pilot project coincidedwith major upheaval in the Detroit Public School
system. Ultimately, little improvement occurred ineither Detroit school. We attribute our inability togain momentum and produce substantive resultsin Detroit as compared to South Africa to manyfactors:

Jamieson Elementary School in Detroit looks modern by comparison to
the schools in East London, yet its students face the same challenges as
their South African counterparts.

© Carol Gorelick

Leading with Resources: Unlike in South Africa,
where projects were initiated between the school
and ABC Connects, we launched the Detroit initiatives with industry at the forefront. Instead of
mentoring the principals in developing relationships with these outside stakeholders, we provided
them at the outset. By doing so, we created the
expectation that ABC Connects would supply services and resources as opposed to our developing
the school’s capacity to identify its own needs andengage appropriate partners.

Students at Barbara Jordan Elementary in Detroit, inspired by theirconnection to South African pen pals, don African costumes for a
Martin Luther King Day appreciation event.

© Carol Gorelick

Not Having an On-the-Ground Presence in
Detroit: In East London, we had engaged a retired
principal, Pat Goosen, to be our project coordinator.
Because of Al’s and my proximity to Detroit, ourpartnership with DTE and Ford, and resource constraints, we delayed hiring a project coordinatorin the U.S. We later learned that beyond managing
logistics, Pat played an essential role in the South
African schools, establishing ABC Connects’ presence, facilitating communication and engagement
among the staff, and building links from theschool to the surrounding community.

© DTE Energy

Failing to Clarify the Scope, Mission, andPurpose: We realized after the fact that a vast
disconnect existed between the expectations of
the leaders and teachers in Detroit and ABC Connects’ mission of transforming the institutions into
community schools. While both schools establishedbroad vision statements, teachers were focusedon the possibility for immediate impact on theirstudents, primarily through the cultural exchangewith South Africa. This disconnect also seemed to
be a source of frustration for stakeholders outside
the classroom. Our SoL corporate partners, DTE
Energy and Ford, were willing to support the ABC
Connects initiative, but the schools did not takeadvantage of the opportunity offered.

Barbara Jordan educators brainstorm project possibilities at aprofessional development workshop.

26

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

Overlooking the Cultural Context: South Africa’s
people are reborn: One is either of the first generation of citizens to never know apartheid or of
the generation that conquered it. Despite theovert poverty, the spirit among the people is oneof pride and possibility. Detroit, by comparison,has been on the brink of collapse after a sustained
period of prosperity, and the overarching moodis one of desperation.

For all of our emphasis on meeting each school’s individual needs,
we downplayed their desire forconnection, inspiration, andglobal relevance.
Both Detroit principals were motivated to engage
with ABC Connects for the cultural exchange with
South Africa. They believed that their students andstaff would benefit from seeing their counterparts
who had fewer resources and less reason for hope.
Our strategy to use the connection as incentive
through the early stages of the project did notwork. For all of our emphasis on meeting eachschool’s individual needs, we downplayed their
desire for connection, inspiration, and global relevance. Instead, we focused on capacity building
and professional development for specific projects.
For that reason, most of the recommended work
never got off the ground.
Failing to Sustain Victories: When we finallyfacilitated the connection between the Detroit
and South African schools through a pen-pal
project and the formation of a “Critical Friends”
community of practice around literacy, we didn’t
have much time left to build capacity to keep
those projects going beyond the three-year
Kellogg grant. These projects had the most impact
on teaching and learning in the Detroit schools,
but we did not sustain them in an ongoing way,
and they did not continue after we left.

reflections.solonline.org

Lessons Learned
One key lesson we learned during the three-year
process was that the power of relationships isstronger than organizational structures. ABC
Connects’ role in creating social capital and crosssector multi-stakeholder relationships was a critical success factor in generating and sustaining
transformational change in Pefferville and Willow
Park. We worked with the schools and their communities to build bridges among stakeholders
and create long-term relationships at multiple
levels: within the school, between the school
and community, and from school to school.

Within the School
Culture of Collaboration: For the School-Based
Community Learning Model to be effective, schoolleaders must create a culture that encourages
collaboration. In South Africa, the project teamencouraged collaboration by building trust andrespect with the schools’ principals and teachers,
which ultimately led to increased confidence andpride in accomplishments for the whole school
and community.
Rigor at the Start: Engaging a school fully withmultiple stakeholders, parents, community members, NGOs, and companies is imperative. Thisfactor was noticeably lacking in Detroit due toexternal pressures on principals. We learned that
ABC Connects and each school should develop
a written agreement. At the start of an ABC Connects project, the project team needs to administer a culture survey and gather baseline statistics,
with a follow-up survey and updated statistics
at the end of the intervention to effectively
evaluate project results.
On-the-Ground Coordination: A critical successfactor is local coordination at two levels. First,
each school needs to have an experienced project
manager to ensure that the work stays on track.
Second, a respected community organizer, ideallysomeone with local school experience, adds credibility to the work. A community organizer canbuild relationships with stakeholders that generate
and maintain momentum. During the capacity-

f e at u r e | go r e l i c k

27

building phase of the work, these functions
must be transferred to local workers, preferably
in the school.

School to Community
The Model: We found the School-Based Community Learning Model a powerful lens for assessing
school-community cohesion and for organizing
interventions. Additional effort is required todevelop a replicable, scalable implementation
methodology and curriculum.
The Role of a Champion: PetroSA served as acorporate champion, providing significant funding for the South African schools. In this role, it
had an enabling effect that allowed ABC Connects
and the schools to take concrete actions aimed ataddressing the schools’ challenges. Second, it had
an initiating effect in that many subsequent partners became involved as a result of the initial 	
PetroSA-funded projects and PetroSA’s supportof the ABC Connects launch event.

Hundreds of community members, students, and faculty gather under an © Pat Goosen
enormous tent, compliments of PetroSA, for the ABC Connects launch, acelebration of work completed and a commitment to the future.

Strategic Engagement: An inevitable tension
arises between the desires to do projects and to
be strategic. Limited resources require a method
for evaluating and focusing attention on highpayback initiatives. Ultimately, each initiative
must create needed improvements in the schoolcommunity and build capacity among community
members to improve teaching and learning after
we leave.

School to School
International Impact: One of the core purposesof this international partnership was to develop
a professional learning community for schools toshare their learning. The students, teachers, andprincipals who participated highly valued theinteraction – however little – between the East
London and Detroit schools. The Willow Park andBarbara Jordan students remarked that they andtheir schools were more alike than different.
Expanding the interaction between schools is
an opportunity for research and next steps.

A choir from Pefferville Primary School greeted visitors for the ABC
Connects launch with an exuberant song.

Critical Friends: Teaching literacy was one of theprincipal challenges in the South African schools.
A master’s student addressed this issue as a final
project. To improve classroom practice, she established an international ABC “Critical Friends”© Pat Goosen

28

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

and project plans. Each session expanded on theprevious year’s work. Though each school worked
separately to formulate its vision and action plans,
the participants saw value in coming together.

© Pat Goosen

Leaders, staff,
and educators fromboth East London
schools came
together for aresidential weekend
at a seaside retreat
center, an opportunity for learning,mutual support,relaxation, andplanning the pathforward.

group. The group came together virtually so members could reflect on, analyze, and give each otherfeedback around their work. The Detroit teachers
were enthusiastic and helpful in identifying usefulteaching aids for the Willow Park teachers. The
participating teachers were disappointed that theCritical Friends initiative did not continue and expand after the project manager completed her
required coursework. An ongoing community ofpractice – something that teachers in both countries would value – requires a structured projectplan with a committed project manager.
Communication Logistics and Technology:
Technical issues made communication with ourcoordinator challenging and connection between
the schools difficult. Additionally, the time difference between the schools in East London and Detroit (6 hours) made synchronous collaboration
impractical.
Going Deeper Events: For Pefferville and Willow
Park to get the “whole system in the room,” Al and
I organized a series of yearly off-site weekend
events. We combined Schools That Learn–basedorganizational learning modules and facilitatedbreakout sessions in which the schools produced
and delivered presentations of their visions, goals,

Community of Practice: In late 2010, a professional learning community that integrated the
ABC Connects schools with Al Witten’s dissertation
schools was launched at the Manyano Conference
at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University(NMMU). The level of enthusiasm and positive response to the conference corroborated our belief
in the need for a province-wide conversation on
how to make schools the center of communities.
We learned that the conference content and design seeded supportive relationships that havealready had impact throughout the learning community. A positive unintended consequence was
the benefit to the schools from the opportunity toreflect, prepare a presentation, and tell their stories to a multi-stakeholder audience.
The Power of Personal Artifacts: Low-tech objects such as handmade learner-authored books
and quilts were enormously effective in developing relationships and building connections. They
serve as artifacts of accomplishment for the children who helped create them and for younger
children who see new possibilities.

Looking Forward
Although the pilot has officially ended, the work is
continuing. In South Africa, the community ofpractice initiated at the Manyano Conference has
become a self-organized network of 13 schools
with a local coordinator. The Faculty of Education
at NMMU established the Centre for the Community School (CCS), a first of its kind in the country,
to integrate research and programmatic activities
to inform and support school improvement initiatives in South Africa.
The ABC Connects work is continuing in Willow
Park and Pefferville. The Kwanda project recently
contacted Pat Goosen, the ABC Connects coordinator, to launch a second initiative in the Pefferville community with the school as the hub.

f e at u r e | go r e l i c k

29

In the U.S., we are exploring university connections as potential partners with the Centre for theCommunity School at NMMU and international
programs such as Operation Hope, Operation Respect, Facing History and Ourselves, and Microsoft
Partners in Learning. We hope to expand the interaction among the schools in both countries.
The community school movement in the U.S. isgetting attention and support from the Department of Education. In addition, recent educational
research includes work on school–community relationships. David Kirp’s recently published book,
Kids First: Five Big Ideas for Transforming Children’s
Lives and American’s Future, advocates for linking
schools and communities to improve what bothoffer children. Sally Kilgore and Karen Reynolds
include a chapter on family and community partnerships in Silos to Systems: Reframing Schoolsfor Success.

© Pat Goosen

AB O V E :Students at Willow
Park illustrated
their conceptions ofgratitude on fabricsquares, which werethen assembled into
a quilt and greetingcards by literacy
partner Beyond
Basics.

My next steps will be to focus more strategicallyon partnerships and alliances and to experimentwith methods of cross-cultural connection. I
would like to continue training the next generation of educators and social entrepreneurs using
the community schools model and methods.

I am grateful to have experienced the work in
South Africa and Detroit and to have witnessed
the interactions among committed, professional

LEFT :A Gratitude Quilt 		
is proudly displayedin the entranceway
to each school as asign of accomplishment to the young
people who helped
create it and of
possibility foryounger children.
© Pat Goosen

Creating a community school is fundamentally
about culture change, leadership, and relationships ­– all of which take time. But many of the administrators and teachers were encouraged by the
results they experienced in three short years. As
Mr. Swanepoel, the Willow Park principal, said: “We
all learnt . . . a small school can do things.” Alicia
Theron, a Pefferville teacher, reported: “When ABC
Connects came, I was despondent. I was going
to leave teaching after 34 years of service. WhenI saw what ABC Connects was planning for theschool, I was so enthusiastic I hung on to see what
was really going to take place. . . . I am renewed
and feel so enthusiastic and excited about what’s
happening.”

educators in both countries. This as an exciting
point in history, full of potential to close the door
on social inequality and poverty as we know it
and enter a time when every child can grow as
a whole person. n

30

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

In an Earth Day
performance at
Pefferville Primary
School, students
demonstrate
literacy andpublic-speaking
skills as they
affirm their commitment to theirenvironment.

© Carol Gorelick

R esources
Kilgore, S. B., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). From Silos To Systems: Reframing Schools for Success. Corwin.
Kirp, D. (2011). Kids First: Five Big Ideas for Transforming Children’s Lives and America’s Future. Public Affairs-		Perseus Books Group.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N. H., Lucas, T., Kleiner, A., Dutton, J., & Smith, B. (2000). Schools That Learn: 		
A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education. Doubleday.

about the author
Carol K. Gorelick, MBA, EdD, co-founded SOLUTIONS for Information & Management Services Inc.
after a 25-year corporate career in the telecommunications, airlines, and financial services industries.
She is an adjunct associate professor at Pace University’s Lubin School of Business in New York andwas a visiting professor in the MBA program at the Graduate School of Business at the Universityof Cape Town, South Africa. In 2007, she co-founded ABC Connects. cgorelick@knocony.com

f e at u r e | s t r o h a nd Z u r c h e r

f e at u r e 11.3

A Systems Approach to Increasing
the Impact of Grantmaking
D av i d P e t e r S t r o h a nd K at h l e e n Z u r c h e r

Why do many foundations fall short in their efforts to improve the quality of people’s lives over the longrun? The reason lies in part in our tendency to apply linear thinking to complex, nonlinear problems. Throughresearch and case studies, this article shows the benefits of combining conventional processes that facilitate
acting systemically with tools to help stakeholders transcend their immediate self-interests by thinking
systemically as well. Using this approach, a project to end homelessness and a comprehensive initiative toimprove food and fitness and reduce childhood obesity managed to achieve lasting systems improvement bymaking a few key coordinated changes over time. Authors David Peter Stroh and Kathleen Zurcher illustrate
how the application of a five-step systems thinking process can help foundations make better decisions
about how to use their limited grantmaking resources for highest sustainable impact.

I
David Peter Strohn the summer of 2006, a group of local foundations supported the leadersof Calhoun County, Michigan (population 100,000), in developing a 10-yearplan to end homelessness.1 The agreement forged by government officials
at the municipal, state, and federal levels –along with business leaders, service providers,“I learned the difference
and homeless people themselves – came after
between changing ayears of leadership inertia and conflict regarding what needed to be done to solve theparticular system andproblem. Moreover, the plan signaled a paraleading systemic
digmatic shift in how the community viewed
change.”the role of temporary shelters and otheremergency response services. Rather than see
them as part of the solution to homelessness, people came to view these
programs as one of the key obstacles to ending it.

The plan won state funding, and a new executive director supported by a multisector board began steering implementation. Service providers who had previKathleen Zurcher
ously worked independently and competed for foundation and public monies
came together in new ways. One dramatic example was that they all voted
unanimously to reallocate HUD funding from one service provider’s transitional housing program to apermanent supportive housing program run by another provider. Jennifer Schrand, who chaired theplanning process and is currently Manager of Outreach and Development for Legal Services of South
Central Michigan, observed, “I learned the difference between changing a particular system and leading
systemic change.”

31

32

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

Calhoun County has done a remarkable job of
securing permanent housing for the homeless,
especially in the face of the economic downturn.
For example, in the plan’s first three years of operation from 2007–2009, homelessness decreased
by 13% (from 1,658 to 1,437), and eviction rates
declined by 3%, despite a 70% increase in unemployment and a 15% increase in bankruptcy filings.
Readers can follow the ongoing progress of theinitiative at the Coordinating Council of Calhoun
County website.

The temporary shelters provided
by Calhoun County led to the ironic
consequence of reducing thevisibility of its homeless population,
which diminished communitypressure to solve the problem
permanently.
Why was this intervention so successful whenmany other attempts by foundations to improve
the quality of people’s lives fall short? For example,
urban renewal programs of the 1960s were backed
by good intentions and significant funding, yetthey failed to produce the changes envisioned forthem. Moreover, the programs often made living
conditions worse – leading to outcomes such as
abandoned public housing projects and increased
unemployment that resulted from what appeared
to be successful job training programs.2
Stories of well-intentioned yet counterproductive
solutions abound, as we learn that food aid canlead to increased starvation by undermining local
agriculture, and drug busts can cause a rise in
drug-related crime by reducing the availability
and increasing the price of the diminished street
supply. In other cases, short-term successes frequently fail to be sustained, and the problem
mysteriously reappears. We see this dynamic
when civic leaders invest in programs to reduce
urban youth crime only to have the crime rate

reflections.solonline.org

subsequently rise, or when international donors
fund the drilling of wells in African villages to improve access to potable water, with the result thatthe wells eventually break down and villagers
are unable to fix them.
By applying a systems thinking–based approach,the project to end homelessness managed toovercome the pitfalls of these other initiatives.
Foundations and other partners combined two
significant interventions: a proactive community
development effort that engaged leaders in various sectors along with homeless people themselves, and a systems diagnosis that enabled all
stakeholders to agree on a shared picture of whyhomelessness persists and where the leverage
exists in ending it. In other words, the approachcombined more conventional processes thatfacilitate acting systemically (such as bringing
the whole system into the room) with tools to help
the stakeholders transcend their immediate selfinterests by thinking systemically as well. Likewise,a comprehensive initiative to improve food andfitness – and in the process address childhood
obesity – illustrates how the application of systems thinking can help foundations make better
decisions about how to use their limited grantmaking resources for highest sustainable impact.3

The Non-Obvious Natureof Complex Systems
Lewis Thomas, the award-winning medical essayist, observed, “When you are confronted by any
complex social system . . . with things about itthat you’re dissatisfied with and anxious to fix, you
cannot just step in and set about fixing with muchhope of helping. This is one of the sore discouragements of our time.”4 The stories above about
the failed interventions epitomize this poignant
insight. They share other specific characteristics:•	The solutions that were implemented seemedobvious at the time and in fact often helped
achieve the desired results in the short term. For
example, it is natural to provide shelter, eventemporary, for people who are homeless andoffer food aid when people are starving.

f e at u r e | s t r o h a nd Z u r c h e r• In the long term, the intervention neutralized
short-term gains or even made things worse.
For example, the temporary shelters provided
by Calhoun County led to the ironic consequence of reducing the visibility of its homelesspopulation, which diminished communitypressure to solve the problem permanently.
•	The negative consequences of these solutions
were unintentional; everyone did the best
they could with what they knew at the time.
• When the problem recurs, people fail to see
their responsibility for the recurrence andblame others for the failure.
How can the interactions over time among 		elements in a complex system transform the bestof intentions into such disappointing results? The
reason lies in part in our tendency to apply linear
thinking to complex, nonlinear problems. Systems
and linear thinking differ in several important
respects, as shown in Table 1 (p.34).5

For instance, a linear approach to starvation
might lead donors to assume that sending foodaid solves the problem. However, thinking about it
in a systemic way would raise concerns about such
unintended consequences as depressed local foodprices that deter local agricultural development
and leave a country even more vulnerable to foodshortages in the future. From a systemic view,
temporary food aid only exacerbates the problem
in the long run unless it is coupled with supports
for local agriculture.

Systems vs. Linear Thinking
Because the problems addressed by foundations
are exceedingly complex, one step they can taketo increase the social return on their grantmaking
investments is to think systemically (vs. linearly).
Implementing a systems approach involves thefollowing process:1. 	Building a strong foundation for change byengaging multiple stakeholders to identify an
initial vision and picture of current reality

33

34

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

TABLE 1 Distinguishing Linear Thinking from Systems Thinking

Linear Thinking

Systems Thinking

Causality

There is a direct connection
between problem symptoms
and their underlying causes.

System performance is largely determined byinterdependencies among system elementsthat are indirect, circular, and non-obvious.

Time

A policy that achieves shortterm success ensures longterm success.

The unintended and delayed consequencesof most quick fixes neutralize or reverse
immediate gains over time.

Responsibility

Most problems are caused byexternal factors beyond ourcontrol.

Because actions taken by one group often
have delayed negative consequences on its
own performance as well as the behaviorof others, each group tends to unwittingly
contribute to the very problems it tries tosolve and to undermine the effectiveness ofothers.

Strategy

To improve the performanceof the whole, we must
improve the performance ofits parts.

To improve the performance of the whole,
improve relationships among the parts.

Tackle many independent
initiatives simultaneously to
improve all the parts.
2. 	Engaging stakeholders to explain their oftencompeting views of why a chronic, complex
problem persists despite people’s best efforts
to solve it
3. 	Integrating the diverse perspectives into a
map that provides a more complete pictureof the system and root causes of the problem
4. 	Supporting people to see how their wellintended efforts to solve the problem often
make the problem worse
5. 	Committing to a compelling vision of the
future and supportive strategies that can leadto sustainable, system-wide change
Based on the insight that non-obvious system
dynamics often seduce us into doing what isexpedient but ultimately ineffective, the Foodand Fitness (F&F) initiative of the W.K. Kellogg

Identify a few key interdependencies thathave the greatest leverage on system-wide
performance (i.e., leverage points) and shiftthem in a sustained, coordinated way overtime.
Foundation (WKKF) followed these steps in taking
a comprehensive systems approach to planning,
implementing, and evaluating the program. Initialplanning began in 2004, and the first work withsystems thinking in the field started in 2007.
Implementation continues today in nine communities throughout the U.S.
F&F began as a response to staff and board member concerns about the rising rate of childhood
obesity and early onset of related diseases suchas type 2 diabetes. The WKKF program officers
who initially led F&F, Linda Jo Doctor and Gail
Imig, knew that many well-intentioned programs
had attempted to address childhood obesity byfocusing on nutrition, education, or exercise.
Some targeted policy change, whereas others
focused on individual behavior, but data clearlyf e at u r e | s t r o h a nd Z u r c h e r

showed undesirable outcomes continuing, 		
especially among children from poor families.
WKKF had long supported developing a healthy,safe food supply and increasing consumption ofgood food. Because the issue was highly complex
and prior efforts to address it had been unsuccessful, the program officers determined that asystemic approach would be essential to achieving long-term goals. They believed that applying
this kind of process to F&F would increase the likelihood of engaging a diverse group of people andorganizations, fostering collaboration and finding
innovative strategies to change the underlying
systems, and thereby creating and sustaining thehealthy results everyone seeks for children andfamilies.

Applying Systems Thinking
to Program Planning
Of the three major foundation programming
functions – planning, implementation, and evaluation – systems thinking can play an especially
important role in improving planning. Here aresuggestions for how to integrate these steps
into the program planning process.

Step 1: Build a Foundation for Change
Building a strong foundation for systemic change
involves engaging diverse stakeholders in theplanning stage. This is a cornerstone of the F&F
initiative. WKKF developed its knowledge base bybringing together researchers and theorists fromaround the country in fields such as public health,nutrition, exercise physiology, education, behavior
change, child development, social change, andsocial marketing. The foundation also assembled
a group of community thought leaders for a conversation about the current realities in their communities, as well as their visions for communities
that would support the health of vulnerable
children and families. In addition, WKKF engaged
with other foundations throughout the U.S. inconversations about their collective thinking onchildhood obesity and the roles foundations might
play. From all of this outreach, a collective vision
for the initiative began to emerge – not as a reaction to the immediate circumstances, but froman enriched understanding of current realities, aswell as deeply shared aspirations for the future:
We envision vibrant communities where everyone– especially the most vulnerable children – hasequitable access to affordable, healthy, locally

35

36

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

grown food, and safe and inviting places forphysical activity and play.
Asking powerful questions is an especially effective way of inviting people onto a level playing
field and surfacing and strengthening everyone’s
mental models.
Questions for Building a Foundation
for Change• Who needs to be engaged in this conversation?
Who has been historically excluded but needs
to be invited into this conversation?
• What is the future we and our partners truly
care about creating?
• What is our intended impact? What long-term
results do we want to achieve, and for whom?
• What events and patterns of behavior over time
do we notice that are related to this vision?
• What are the key gaps between our vision 		and current reality?

In the ensuing conversation,
participants came to realize thatno single explanation, including
their own, could fully explain thehealth outcomes they saw.
Step 2: Engage Stakeholders to Explain
Often-Competing Views
Ricardo Salvador, program officer at WKKF, notesthat one characteristic of social systems is thatdifferent observers view them differently. Jillian
Darwish, executive director of the Institute forCreative Collaboration at KnowledgeWorks Foundation, adds that conversations in which people
clarify their own mental models, listen deeply
to others, and find a way forward together are
essential to creating sustainable change.
Building on the results of Step 1 above, systems
mapping is one tool to help stakeholders see
how their efforts are connected and where theirviews differ. This tool extends the more familiar

reflections.solonline.org

approaches of sociograms or network maps toshow not only who is related to whom, but also
how their different assessments of what is 		
important interact.
F&F’s conversation among community thought
leaders was structured using the systems thinking
iceberg model. Examples of questions included,“What is happening now regarding the health andfitness of children in your communities that has been
capturing your attention?” “What are some patterns
related to health and fitness of children that you’re
noticing?” “What policies, community or societal
structures, and systems in your communities do you
believe are creating the patterns and events you’vebeen noticing?” “What beliefs and assumptions
that people hold are getting in the way of children’s
health and fitness?” This conversation ended with
the question, “What is the future for supporting thehealth of children and their parents that you truly
care about creating in your community?”
Initially, each participant’s comments reflected
his or her own work and the competition forresources that typically accompanies community
engagement. Some believed the lack of mandated
daily physical education caused childhood obesity. Others faulted school lunches. Some hoped
parents would prepare more meals at home rather
than eating out. Several blamed the rise of fastfood establishments. In the ensuing conversation,
participants began to consider one another’s
thinking. They came to realize that no single explanation, including their own, could fully explain
the health outcomes they saw. The conversation
revealed different perspectives and experiences
but also began aligning participants aroundcommon beliefs and a deeper, broader understanding of the issue.
Questions for Engaging Diverse Views• Why have we been unable to solve X problem
or achieve Y result, despite our best efforts?
• What solutions have been tried in the past,
and what happened as a result?
• What has been working? What can we build on?

f e at u r e | s t r o h a nd Z u r c h e r

Step 3: Integrate Diverse Perspectives
Systems maps integrate diverse perspectives
into a picture of the system and provide an understanding of a problem’s root causes. Participantsin F&F came to see that the obesity epidemic inchildren was the result of national, state, and local
systems failing to support healthy living, rather
than a consequence of accumulated individual
behaviors. They began to recognize the interrelationships among systems such as the food system,
the quality of food in schools and neighborhoods,
the natural and built environment and its role insupporting active living, safety, and public policy
such as zoning. They also started to understandhow individual organizations’ good intentions andactions could actually undermine one another’sefforts. These conversations paved the way forcollaboratively creating strategies and tactics inlater phases of the work.
Questions for Integrating Diverse Perspectives• How do the underlying factors contributing to
the problem relate to one another?
• How do changes in one factor influence changes
in others?

Step 4: Support Responsibility for
Unintended Consequences
One characteristic of social systems is that people
often unintentionally contribute to the very problems they want to solve. Systems thinking enabledcommunities working in the F&F initiative to
uncover potential unintended consequencesof their efforts.
For example, marketing the concept of eating
locally grown food without developing a foodsystem that can provide it can lead to increased
prices for that food, putting it out of reach forschools, children, and families in low-income communities and thus decreasing the consumptionof good food among that population. By focusing
on documenting the incidence of disease andhealth problems, the public health and medical
community could unintentionally pull attention
and resources from supporting communities increating environments for healthy living. Pushingfor policies to allow open space to be used forcommunity gardens could have the unintended
consequence of reducing access to outdoor
areas for children to play and be active.

37

38

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

reflections.solonline.org

A Shared Vision of Ending HomelessnessIn Calhoun County, Michigan, the local
Homeless Coalition had been meeting formany years to end homelessness. Their shareddesire to serve the homeless had been undermined by disagreements about alternative
solutions, competition for limited funds, andlimited knowledge about best practices.
Although many understood the importanceof a collective effort to provide critical services,
housing, and jobs to both homeless people
and those at risk of losing their homes, they
were unable to generate the collective will
and capacity to implement such an approach.
They lacked a shared vision of the future theywanted to create, an understanding of current
reality, and a common appreciation of how
they were all contributing to that reality.
Finally, the promise of state funding if they
could agree on a 10-year plan to end homelessness, the provision of funding for developing the plan by local donors, and the use ofa team of consultants experienced in community development, systems thinking, andnational best housing practices enabled themto break through years of frustrated attempts.

With the help of consultants David Stroh,
Michael Goodman, and Alexander Resources
Consulting, the Coalition enlisted and organized the support of community leaders acrossthe nonprofit, public, and private sectors
along with representatives from the homelesspopulation. They established a set of committees and task forces as well as a clear anddetailed planning process. While they began
by articulating a shared vision of ending homelessness, they would not be able to really commit to this result until they fully understoodthe system dynamics that perpetuated the
problem.

The consultants led the group in applying systems thinking to (1) understand the dynamics
of local homelessness, (2) determine why the
problem persisted despite people’s best efforts
to solve it, and (3) identify high-leverage interventions that could shift these dynamics andserve as the basis for a 10-year plan. Throughinterviews with all key stakeholders, they analyzed a number of interdependent factors thatled people to become homeless in the firstplace, get off the street temporarily, and findit so difficult to secure safe, supportive, andaffordable permanent housing.
We learned that the most ironic obstacle to 		
implementing the fundamental solution was thecommunity’s very success in providing temporary
shelters and supports – an example of the “Shifting
the Burden” systems archetype (Figure 1). These
shelters and supports had led to several unintended consequences. One was that they reduced the visibility of the problem by removing
homeless people from public view. The overalllack of visibility reduced community pressure tosolve the problem and create a different future.
The temporary success of shelters and otherprovisional supports also tended to reinforce
funding to individual organizations for theircurrent work. Donors played a role in buttressing existing funding patterns through theirpressure to demonstrate short-term success.
Such reinforcement decreased the service 		
providers’ willingness, time, and funding toinnovate and collaborate because it led to:• 	Fragmentation of services• 	Competition for existing funds• 	Lack of deeper knowledge of best practices• 	Reluctance to overcome government restrictions that made it difficult to innovate• 	A shelter mentality

f e at u r e | s t r o h a nd Z u r c h e r

f i g u r e 1 Shifting the Burden to Temporary Shelters

Pressure byFunders for ShortTerm Success
Temporary Shelters& Supports

Vicious
Cycle

InitialSuccess

Barriers Producedby Homelessness
Vicious
Cycle
Difficulties
AccessingResources

DELAY
Vicious
Cycle

People on Street
or Hidden

DELAY

Best
Practices

Funding to
Individual
Organizations for
Their Work

Visibility of
the Problem
DELAY

Comprehensive
Coordinated LongTerm Solution•	Critical Services•	Housing• Jobs

The community’s collective ability to implement
the fundamental solution was undermined as aresult. In response to this insight, the consulting
team helped the county define goals that formed
the basis for a 10-year plan subsequently 		
approved by the state:• 	Challenge the shelter mentality and end
funding for more shelters.
• Develop a community vision where all citizens
have permanent, safe, affordable, and supportive housing.
• 	Align the strategies and resources of all 		
stakeholders, including funders, in serviceof this vision.
• 	Redesign shelter and provisional support
programs to provide more effective bridges tocritical services, housing, and employment.

DELAY

Willingness, Time, &Funding to Innovate& Collaborate•	Fragmentation•	Competition•	Lack of Knowledge•	Reluctance to Overcome Restrictions•	Shelter Mentality

Today, the county continues to makeprogress toward these goals. The program 		
has an executive director, in-kind funding forspace and supplies, additional funding focusedon long-term strategies, and a communitywide board supported by eight committees
with clear charters producing monthly reportson their goals. A community-wide eviction
prevention policy was changed to enablepeople to stay in their homes longer, and 		a street outreach program is going well toplace people into housing.

39

40

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

If people understand how they contribute toa problem, they have more control over solving
it. Raising awareness of responsibility without
invoking blame and defensiveness takes skill –yet it is well worth the effort.
Questions for Exploring Unintended
Consequences• What well-intended actions in the past have
led to where we are now?
• How might we as a community or foundation
be unwittingly contributing to the problem?
• What unintended consequences can we anticipate that might arise from our work together?

Step 5: Commit to a Compelling Vision
and Developing Strategies
Once a foundation for change has been developed and the collective understanding of current
reality has deepened, the last planning step is toaffirm a compelling vision of the future and design
strategies that can lead to sustainable, systemwide change. This step entails
1. committing to a compelling vision,
2. developing and articulating a theory of change,
3. linking investments to an integrated theory ofchange, andreflections.solonline.org

4. planning for a funding stream over time thatmirrors and facilitates a natural pattern of
exponential growth.6
The systems approach to this work resulted inunanticipated positive consequences. Developing
relationships, engaging in high-quality conversations, and committing to a common vision during
the planning phase produced immediate resultsin many of the communities. In Northeast Iowa,
Luther College, the public school district in Decorah, and the city council created a proposed community recreation plan under which Luther College would grant a no-cost lease on 50 acres ofland for a citywide sports center and would raise
the money to build an indoor aquatic center; thecity would build soccer and tennis courts; and theschool district would raise money for maintenance.
Documenting these results during each phase ofwork is critical to maintaining momentum andfunding for long-term system change.
Questions for Affirming a Shared Vision• What goals is the system currently designed toachieve (i.e., what are the benefits of the way
things are)?

f e at u r e | s t r o h a nd Z u r c h e r• How can we reconcile differences between
espoused goals and current benefits? For example, can we align people around a meta-goalor achieve both espoused and existing goals
at the same time?
• What is the shared vision that people commit
to work toward together?

Social vs. Competitive Advantage
Our continued work in applying systems thinking to social change in such areas as homelessness, early childhood development, K–12 education, and public health affirms the importanceof integrating approaches for acting and thinking
systemically. We have seen people deepen theirunderstanding and empathy for other’s viewpoints, communicate their own experiencesmore honestly and transparently, and create
more robust strategies together that serve theircollective – though not necessarily their own
immediate – best interests.
Acting systemically is perhaps better understoodthan thinking in this way, and many people havebecome familiar with tools such as stakeholder
mapping and community building, and methodologies for getting the whole system in theroom to bring together the range of interests
and resources vital to social change. These arepositive steps toward overcoming the pitfalls of
the failed interventions referenced at the beginning of the article.
However, unless we drastically shift the way wethink, all too often, bringing diverse stakeholders
together fails to surface or reconcile the differences between people’s espoused (and sincere)commitment to serving the most vulnerable
members of society and the equally if not more
powerful competing commitment to optimizing
their individual contributions and maintaining
their current practices. For example, shelter directors want to end homelessness, but they actually
get paid according to the number of beds they fill
each night. Donors want to end homelessness, but
their benefactors get more immediate satisfaction
from housing people temporarily. Service providers

who specialize in helping the homeless may findthemselves competing for funds that might otherwise be allocated toward prevention, even though
research suggests that $1.00 spent on keeping
people in their homes saves $6.00 in treating andthen moving homeless people back into permanent housing.

Integrating thinking and acting
systemically is increasingly
important given our country’s
growing income inequality 		and additional threats to social
safety nets.
As one nonprofit noted, the greatest challengein creating social change can be mustering thecourage to ask different kinds of questions, suchas, “What is our organization willing to give up inorder for the system as a whole to succeed?” Thinking systemically helps people answer that question in a way that serves their higher intentions.
It does so by enabling them to see the differences
between the short- and long-term impacts of theiractions, and the unintended consequences of
their actions on not only other stakeholders but
also themselves. The result might be that one
shelter director decides to close his facility, while
another reinvents her organization to focus on
helping the homeless build bridges toward thesafe, permanent, affordable, and supportive
housing they ultimately need to heal. The net
outcome is that people act in service of the whole
because it naturally follows their thinking about
how the whole behaves.
Integrating thinking and acting systemically is
increasingly important given our country’s growing income inequality and additional threats tosocial safety nets. People committed to helping
the underprivileged are challenged by growing
demand and declining resources. It can be difficult
for them to accept that there might be relatively
little leverage in the part of the system where they

41

42

r e f l e c t i on s | vo l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 3

have committed their efforts, or that their wellintended actions might actually make problems
worse.
At the same time, the challenges represent 		
opportunities for thinking and working differently. In cases where a systems approach has beensuccessful, growing budget pressures have actually motivated people to collaborate in new ways
and reassess their distinct social (vs. competitive)
advantage.

A Few Coordinated Changes
There are many ways in which foundations canalign their programmatic approaches and systems
with the behavior of the social systems they seek
to improve. It is useful to begin by clarifying thereasons for applying systems thinking and thenwork over time to integrate systems thinking into
the core function of planning followed by imple-

reflections.solonline.org

mentation and evaluation.7 One strategy we havehighlighted in this article is asking staff, board,
grantees, and other stakeholders systemic questions that help transform how they think about
their goals and approaches.
From a grantee’s perspective, Ann Mansfield,
co-director of the F&F program in Northeast Iowa,
summarized the benefit of using systems thinking:“The tools helped us put a pause on the quick fix.”
Systems thinking provides frameworks and toolsthat can enhance philanthropy’s efforts to achieve
lasting systems change results by making a few
key coordinated changes over time. By following
the five-step change process for achieving sustainable, system-wide improvement as spelled out
in this article, we can increase the chances that
our interventions will have the results we fervently desire. n

E ndnotes
1	Stroh, D. P., & Goodman, M. (2007). “A Systemic Approach to Ending Homelessness,” Applied Systems(Topical Issues No. 4). This article is available online at http://www.appliedsystemsthinking.com/supporting_documents/TopicalHomelessness.pdf
2	Forrester, J. (1969). Urban Dynamics. Pegasus Communications.
3 Much of the first part of this article was adapted from Stroh, D. P. (2009). “Leveraging Grant-Making: Understanding the Dynamics of Complex Social Systems,” Foundation Review (Vol. 1, No. 3). This article is available online at
http://www.bridgewaypartners.com/FR1-print.pdf
4	Thomas, L. (1979). The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher. Viking Press. P. 110.
5	For example, see Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
6	For details about each of these processes, see Stroh, D. P., & Zurcher, K. (2010). “Leveraging Grant-Making—Part 2:
Aligning Programmatic Approaches with Complex System Dynamics,” Foundation Review (Vol. 1, No. 4).
http://www.bridgewaypartners.com/FR2Color.pdf
7	See Stroh and Zurcher, 2010, for details on these latter phases.

f e at u r e | s t r o h a nd Z u r c h e rabout the authors
David Peter Stroh, Master’s Degree, City Planning, was a founding partner of Innovation Associates.
He is currently a principal with Bridgeway Partners, an organizational consulting firm dedicatedto supporting social change through the application of organizational learning disciplines.
Dstroh@bridgewaypartners.com
Kathleen A. Zurcher, PhD, Educational Psychology, partners with communities and organizations
to achieve their desired future by applying and building capabilities in organizational learningand systems thinking. In 2008 she retired from WKKF. She was previously a senior administrator
for Family Medicine, and a faculty member in the University of Minnesota’s extension service
and at Lehigh University. kzurcher33@gmail.com

43

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
Volume 11, Number 3

E dit o rial T eam
Managing Editor
Janice Molloy
Publisher
Claire Sherry Immediato

S u bscripti o n Opti o n s
To order online and for a full descriptionof subscription options, visit our website:reflections.solonline.org.
Receive Reflections as a SoL Connections
member:• USD$125 U.S. (electronic edition only)
One year individual subscription:• USD$75 U.S. (electronic edition only)
University/Non-profit Institution• USD$175 United States• USD$195 International
For-profit Institution• USD$275 United States• USD$295 International
Reflections: The SoL Journal is published quarterly
by the Society for Organizational Learning. Inquiries
regarding subscriptions, address changes, back 		
issues, reprints, and permission requests should 		
be directed to:
ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2012 by the Society for Organizational Learning.
SoL is a registered trademark of the Society for Organizational Learning.
Design & Production: DG Communications (NonprofitDesign.com)

reflections@solonline.org
Reflections: The SoL Journal
PO Box 425005
Cambridge, MA 02142-0001+1.617.300.9515 (phone)+1.617.812.1257 (fax)E-mail: reflections@solonline.org
reflections.solonline.org