Criminal Justice Funders Network Report on Criminal Justice Philanthropy 2011
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Transcending Boundaries: Strengthening Impact The Full Potential of a Justice Network Research & Network-Building Project Report April 2011 Criminal Justice Funders Network This project would have not been possible without the generous financial and in‐kind support of the: Ford Foundation Open Society Foundations Peace Development Fund U.S. Human Rights Fund Women Donors Network The Women's Foundation of California: Race, Gender, Human Rights Fund About the Consultants: Alexa Aviles provides a wide range of consulting services, specializing in criminal and juvenile justice issues, to foundations and not‐for‐profit organizations. Prior to consulting, Alexa spent more than 10 years in the philanthropic sector working to address some of the most significant and complex social justice issues across the U.S including criminal and juvenile justice policy and system reform, environmental justice issues, racial/ethnic discrimination, indigenous peoples rights and culture, etc. June Holley provides consulting, training and coaching to organizations around the world who are interested in creating healthier communities through a better understanding of networks, collaboration, innovation and learning. June has developed training and coaching programs for Network Weavers who are creating healthier networks. An avid researcher on complexity and organizations, she has co‐authored over 30 papers, articles, and books on various aspects of economic and community networking. Tina Reynolds is Co‐Founder and Chair of Women on the Rise Telling HerStory (WORTH), an association of formerly and currently incarcerated women working to transform the lives of women who have been directly impacted by incarceration and change public perception and policy. Currently an adjunct professor at York College of the City University of New York, she has published pieces on the abolition of prisons, the impact of incarceration on women and children, formerly incarcerated women and policy change and is an editor of an anthology “Interrupted Life: Experiences of Incarcerated Women in the United States”. Acknowledgements Thank you to those funders whose commitment to changing the criminal and juvenile justice systems and improving their practice as funders led to the launch of the Criminal Justice Funders Network (CJFN). We would especially like to acknowledge and thank project advisors Deborah Drysdale, Paul Haible, Kirsten Levingston, and Leonard Noisette for their extraordinary leadership and commitment to reforming/transforming the U.S. justice systems and the ways in which we think about and respond to issues of crime and justice. Thanks to Anuja Mendiratta (The Race, Gender and Human Rights Fund of the Women’s Foundation of California) and Sue Simon (U.S. Human Rights Fund) for their vision and support. We would also like to acknowledge esteemed colleagues from philanthropic and nonprofit communities for taking time out of their hectic schedules to share their perspectives and ideas that informed and shaped this project. We extend our deepest thanks to: Ruben Austria (Community Connections for Youth), Ellen Barry, Sarah Bryer (National Juvenile Justice Network), Lisa Castellanos (Fund for Nonviolence), Betsy Fairbanks (Fund for Nonviolence), Penny Fujiko Willgerodt (Prospect Hill Foundation), Seema Gajwani (Public Welfare Fund), Adam Gelb (Pew Charitable Trusts), Rebecca Golden (Ben and Jerry’s Foundation), James Gore (Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation), Jody Lewen (Prison University Project), Luceia LeDoux (Baptist Community Ministries), Glenn E. Martin (Fortune Society), Marc Mauer (Sentencing Project), Marion Rodriguez (FREE! Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment), Liz Ryan (Campaign for Youth Justice), Tim Silard (Rosenberg Foundation), Nick Szuberla (Thousand Kites), and Ana Yañez‐Correa (Texas Criminal Justice Coalition). Lastly and most importantly, thank you to the more than 125 individuals from funding and nonprofit organizations across the country who contributed to this effort by participating in our surveys. We could not have done it without you. Dear Criminal/Juvenile Justice Funders, Activists, and Prospective Partners, The enclosed report is a product of two years of collaborative thinking, learning, and risk‐taking. It was propelled by the urgent sense that, despite the superior and exhaustive work of criminal and juvenile justice activists and funders alike, the number of people being pulled into the criminal and juvenile justice systems was continuing to grow, generating dire results for families and communities across the nation. From the beginning, the thread connecting everyone on the project was the sense that the justice system needed to be transformed. We use the term justice to refer to the adult criminal and juvenile justice fields. We were convinced that new interventions and strategies could be crafted that would yield deeper and broader results. At first, we called this effort the “mapping project.” Soon we realized that “mapping” carries many meanings: traditional research, geographic visuals, connections between people and organizations. As we learned more about change efforts, we were intrigued by the idea that analyzing and mapping the justice field – as a network ‐ could transform the justice movement. Accordingly, we designed the project as a mix of the traditional and the innovative: time‐honored research methods intersecting with newer social network analysis concepts and mapping tools. Initially, we focused only on justice funders. We realized: criminal and juvenile justice funders exist only in the broader context of justice organizations and activists. We then broadened the research scope to include organizations working in the field. The result has been dramatic; the enclosed report tells that story. We have progressed from initially envisioning a strategic, intentional network for funders only, to envisioning a broader network of funders and organizations that could contribute to the broader social justice movement in a number of different ways. The survey results in the enclosed report tells us: i) characteristics of the justice funders and organizations, ii) the ways in which these individuals are connected within their own disciplines and across disciplines; and iii) identifies gaps in those connections and suggests ways to close them. For those of you who have already participated in this effort, we thank you! For those just coming into the process, we welcome you. We invite all to join us in exploring new ways to work together to bring about change to broken criminal and juvenile justice systems. Sincerely, CJFN members/Research and Network‐Building Project Advisors: Deborah Drysdale Paul Haible Kirsten D. Levingston Race, Gender, Human Rights Fund of Women’s Peace Development Fund Ford Foundation Foundation of CA; Women Donors Network Leonard Noisette Open Society Foundations Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Background The Criminal Justice Funders Network ................................................................................................................................... 5 Research and Network‐Building Project ................................................................................................................................. 6 Section 2: Survey Findings: Philanthropic Investments and Justice Organizations Part I: Funder Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Part II: Philanthropic Investments Findings & Recommendations ....................................................................................... 11 Part III: Justice Organizations Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 16 Part IV: Justice Organizations Findings & Recommendations .............................................................................................. 19 Section 3: Survey Findings: Social Network Maps Part V: Funder and Organization Network Mapping & Analysis .......................................................................................... 22 Current Interaction Maps ............................................................................................................................................. 25 Current Innovation Maps ............................................................................................................................................. 28 Future Collaboration Maps ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Section 4: Network Recommendations and Strategies Recommendation #1: Develop the current network of justice funders ............................................................................. 31 Recommendation #2: Create a more inclusive justice network ........................................................................................ 33 Recommendation #3: Increase capacity for collaboration ................................................................................................. 36 Case Study: Innovation Learning Network .......................................................................................................................... 39 Section 5: Next Steps Summary Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 42 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Final Thoughts & Contact Information ................................................................................................................................. 44 Endnotes ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Appendices (provided on accompanying CD) Appendix A: Justice Funder Survey Appendix B: Justice Organization Survey Appendix C: Methodology and Survey Participant Demographics Appendix D: Directory of Survey Participants: Justice Funders Appendix E: Top 3 Priority Issues: Justice Funders Appendix F: Directory of Survey Participants: Justice Organizations Appendix G: Justice Organizations Appendix H : Top 3 Priority Issues: Justice Organizations Appendix I: Guide to Understanding Social Network Maps Appendix J: Funders Appendix K: Names of Funders Added by Survey Participants Appendix L: Names of Individuals from Organizations Added by Survey Participants Appendix M: Network Weaver Checklist Executive Summary underclass of citizens who are barred from opportunities to fully participate in civil society. The impact of the criminal and juvenile justice systems is one of today’s leading civil rights issues. At the nexus of broken social systems and inequity sits the United States justice system and some of the country’s most marginalized, vulnerable, and invisible people. Those communities struggling with high concentrations of poverty, unemployment, poor educational systems, lack of adequate housing and other social services are the same communities most impacted by discriminatory and overly punitive criminal and juvenile justice policies and practices. Members of these communities are often the victims and survivors of crime. Here too, the system falls very short, offering little support, attention or investment in approaches that can repair the harm individuals, families and communities experience. And yet, operating this justice system comes with substantial cost. A recent Pew study noted that correctional budgets, second only to Medicaid, make up a sizable portion of state budgets, exceeding $50B annually, not including federal and local costs. Even with this level of investment, positive outcomes in relation to public safety or rehabilitation are minimal. Growing numbers of researchers are showing that the over reliance on incarceration has profound negative effects: it fuels more crime and contributes to a permanent Executive Summary Transforming or reforming this entrenched and complex system is a long‐term effort that requires collective resources and action from multiple sectors. While justice funders and organizations have achieved positive changes in policies and practices, there is still a great deal of work to do. Despite the enormous scope of the issues and their impact on millions of people across the country, philanthropic investment directed toward issues of crime, justice and legal services is less than 1 percent of the overall philanthropic dollars distributed.i In 2008, a small group of criminal justice funders initiated discussions to explore ways of improving their practice and outcomes. The group felt that justice funders could strengthen and coordinate giving, expand learning opportunities, encourage greater collaboration, and attract increased resources. They were committed to finding ways for their efforts to make a stronger impact. In 2009, ten interested funders (Ford Foundation, Fund for Nonviolence, Omnia Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Peace Development Fund, Public Welfare 1 Foundation, Rosenberg Foundation, U.S. Human Rights Fund, Women Donors Network, and the Race Gender Human Rights Fund of the Women’s Foundation of California) created the Criminal Justice Funders Network (CJFN). CJFN launched the Research and Network‐ Building Project in an effort to learn more about the funding landscape, resources, issues, and network approaches. Throughout the paper the term "justice" is used to refer to both the adult criminal and juvenile justice sectors. The project’s goals were to: 1) Provide funders, nonprofits, and others with an organized review of private and public philanthropic investments in the United States criminal and juvenile justice sectors. 2) Conduct a social network mapping analysis to assess the current networks, explore ways to strengthen connectivity and determine whether intentional network building could strengthen the justice movement. With the support of consultants, the Research and Network‐Building Project included: A survey of justice funders and organizations and the development of a series of graphs and network maps based on data to understand funding levels, broad contours, intersecting interests, and present state of the field; A review and summary of latest research and practice on network approaches to identify key lessons on how such approaches can be most effective; An analysis to determine the connectivity among funders, as well as the networks between organizations and funders; Recommendations for next steps to strengthen the field based on findings. The survey data produced an enormous amount of rich information on the characteristics, practices and issue focuses of both justice funders and organizations. Investment and Network findings include: Despite economic downturn and significant reductions in giving for human services, giving 2 toward issues of crime and justice is very limited but has been relatively stable; Philanthropic investments toward justice related issues are heavily siloed and thinly spread across multiple under‐resourced areas; There are significant funding gaps in areas including, but not limited to, gender, gender identity or expression, LGBTQ people, racial and ethnic disparities and the southern region of the U.S. that warrant further investigation and consideration; There exists a significant capacity building need as justice organizations tend to predominantly be small with much less capacity or large, well‐ established institutions; Many justice organizations are implementing innovative approaches and pushing beyond traditional approaches and constituencies; A small and loose network of justice funders currently exists with the potential to be developed and strengthened; Most funders and justice organizations want to be part of an integrated network and are interested in working together on specific projects; The justice field is not well‐connected to innovations especially those taking place outside the field. These efforts represent the beginning of a dynamic process to assess the field and launch an intentional effort to achieve greater and long‐lasting impact. In addition to the network recommendations below, the report outlines numerous practice and investment recommendations to improve field practice and funding impact. We hope this effort will spark continued discussion, creativity, research, and action. Network Recommendations & Strategies Recommendation 1: Develop the current network of justice funders. Funders need to focus their energy on recruiting new funders and on better connecting less well‐connected funders. This could unleash additional energy, resources, and learning needed for successful systemic reform. Strategy 1‐1: Strengthen existing network through strategic connections. Strategy 1‐2: Expand and target outreach. 3 Recommendation 2: Create a more inclusive justice network. Both funders and justice organizations could benefit by seeing themselves as a well‐integrated, intentional network ‐ a justice network ‐ where participants have a wide range of resources and skills to transform the justice system. Strategy 2‐1: Move beyond traditional funder/grantee relationships by learning more about the benefits of peer relationships between funders and justice organizations and initiate peer groups on substantive issue areas. Strategy 2‐2: Encourage strategic connections among funders, justice organizations and others from different sectors. Strategy 2‐ 3: Provide support for Network Weavers so they can more effectively connect the field. Recommendation 3: Increase Capacity for Collaboration. Network theory and practice offers the justice field tools, methodology, and strategies to increase effectiveness. Strategy 3‐1: Encourage collaborative action through support of issue‐focused work groups. Strategy 3‐2: Bring together a group that would research and share best practices for finding and coordinating collaborative projects. Strategy 3‐3: Increase the use of social media. Strategy 3‐4: Explore forming an intentional network. 4 The Criminal Justice Funders Network (CJFN) Over the last thirty years, there have been significant shifts in public opinion, policies and practices with regard to issues of crime, punishment and justice. Following the punitive era of the 1990s, momentum continues to build to redirect the system away from costly and largely ineffective practices of which incarceration rests at the center. Part of that momentum has been fueled by successful partnerships between justice funders and organizations to address a wide range of justice‐related issues. Recent polling research also underscores a shift in the public will towards more humane and effective approaches. A September 2010 public opinion poll conducted by Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project found that broad support exists among our nation’s Republicans, Democrats and Independents for reducing prison time if there are appropriate accountability mechanisms in place.ii The field has made notable advances, from preventative services to successful reintegration approaches. Nevertheless, significant challenges persist. Despite some growth in philanthropy directed at justice reform work, less funding has been directed at systemic and policy change initiatives. Many in the justice field are looking for new approaches and breakthroughs that lead to lasting systemic change. In the fall of 2008, at a reception at the Critical Resistance 10 conference in Oakland, CA, a small group of criminal justice funders initiated discussions to explore ways of improving their practice and outcomes. The group felt that a more coordinated effort might strengthen their giving, expand learning opportunities, encourage greater collaboration and attract increased resources. In 2009 justice funders organized a panel and lunch at the annual International Human Rights Funders Group conference in San Francisco. That spring, a series of calls was organized among ten interested fundersiii, who determined that the next step would be to research, map, and build a Criminal Justice Funders Network (CJFN). They defined project goals (see following page), raised funds, and hired a consulting team to research, map and help build the network. 5 Research and Network‐Building Project Research & Network‐Building Project Overview Project Goals: Provide funders, nonprofits, and others with an organized review of public and private philanthropic investments into the United States criminal and juvenile justice sectors; and, Conduct a social network mapping analysis to assess the current networks, explore ways to strengthen connectivity and determine whether an intentional network could strengthen the justice movement. The CJFN project group identified several key questions to be explored. These included: What are the characteristics of funders that support justice issues? What are the levels and patterns of giving? What approaches and issue areas are funders supporting? What does the current network for criminal justice funders look like? How can it be strengthened? Is there interest among funders in collaboration? Are there sufficient skills in network building, facilitation and social media to support meaningful collaboration? 6 This project is a first look at philanthropy’s criminal and juvenile justice investments and an evaluation of the social network of funders and organizations working in this field. Funders were the initial focus of the project, hence the name “Criminal Justice Funders Network.” Further consideration revealed, however, that the project would be greatly enriched if justice organizations were also surveyed. The term “justice” as used in this report refers to both the adult criminal and juvenile justice fields. The research drew on a core set of funders and organizations to establish baseline maps and analysis. Due to limited resources, government agencies, individuals directly impacted by the justice system, and representatives from different sectors ‐ all of whom are critical partners to achieve long‐term change ‐ were not included. Grassroots organizations were included in the survey pool, but only a small number participated. The findings and recommendations are based on information collected from two surveys (see Appendix A and B). For a description of the methodology and demographics of those who participated in the surveys, see Appendix C. Survey Pool and Completion Rates (number of surveys sent) Survey Pool Number of Surveys Completed Completion Rate (%) Criminal justice funders 97 59 61% Criminal justice organizations 98 67 71% Both surveys included three social network questions that were used to generate social network maps. The charts and graphs throughout the report are just a sampling of the data and findings that resulted from the surveys. A compendium of additional survey findings will be available for further analysis and next steps. To supplement the surveys, several funders and organizational leaders were interviewed and consulted. Lastly, the project included the review of relevant literature, data, reports, articles, and websites on criminal justice funding, current justice initiatives, and network theory and practices. 7 Survey Findings, Part I: Funder Characteristics The 59 funders who participated in the survey (see Appendix D) were a diverse group, reflecting the following characteristics: What types of funding entities participated? Funder Characteristics Distribution of Justice‐related Grantmaking Budgets (2009) Less than $100K 15% $101K‐$300K 20% $301K ‐ $500K 12% $501K‐$750K 15% $751K ‐ $1M 3% $1M ‐ $3M 10% Over $3M 20% 51 percent of funders were based in the Northeast region, 17 percent based in the Mid‐Atlantic region, 15 percent based in the Pacific region, 10 percent in the Mid‐West region and 7 percent based in the South. Fewer than 5 percent of funders reported having formerly incarcerated people represented on staff/ boards. 8 Giving Characteristics: Almost 50 percent of funders reported that the average size grant was less than $75,000. Paralleling funding trends in other areas, justice funders primarily provided project/program specific grants. Geographic Focus of Justice Giving System and Population Focus of Justice‐related Giving 15% ‐ Adult Criminal Justice only 12% ‐ Juvenile Justice only 68% ‐ Both Adult and Juvenile systems 5% ‐ Do not fund justice directly, but there is overlap In the aggregate, there was only a slight increase in justice‐related giving from 2008 to 2009 by survey respondents 2008 Giving ranges reported: $51.4M to $70.6M 2009 Giving ranges reported: $51.7M to $70.7M 9 Funders supported a wide range of organizations, issue areas and activities to meet their institutional missions and program plans. Some general characteristics of philanthropic investment in the justice field include: Distribution of the primary area of giving across the criminal/juvenile justice systems Prevention 12% Diversion/pre trial/trial 17% Post‐trial/sentencing 8% Community supervision 2% (probation/parole) Conditions of confinement 3% Reentry 22% Other 24% No response 12% What strategies does your entity support to meet its vision and mission in terms? Other litigation/legal Services Public Education/Communications Research Evaluation Capacity Building Organizing Direct Services Policy Adocacy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% • 1st Priority _ 2nd Priority • 3rd Priority Which constituency group is most often the primary focus of the activities funded by your entity? 36% Policymakers (judicial leadership, legislators, etc.) 25% Currently or formerly incarcerated people and their families 8% Direct service providers 8% Communities (civic groups, business, faith, etc.) 7% Justice system practitioners (system administrators, line staff, etc.) 10 Philanthropic Investment Findings & Recommendations Survey Findings, Part II: Philanthropic Investment Findings & Recommendations Between 2002 and 2006, Social Justice Grantmaking II documented that giving for issues of crime and justice grew faster than overall giving, increasing by 38%.iv Despite significant declines in giving to human services, giving towards crime, justice and legal issues from 2006 to 2008 has remained relatively stable but represented less than one percent of the philanthropic community’s overall giving in each year.v For example, in 2008, giving to crime and justice totaled $218 million compared to giving to Arts and Culture, which totaled $3.1 billion or giving to Public Affairs, which totaled 2.4 billion.vi Key Findings: Philanthropic investments in this area are very limited, but have been relatively stable. Survey results showed increases and losses in giving programs dedicated to justice issues, with smaller funding entities experiencing the most drastic decreases in giving. However, despite these shifts, in the aggregate, philanthropic investments for those surveyed was relatively steady over this two‐year periodvii. The 59 funders surveyed (less than 1/3 of known funders engaged in justice‐giving) awarded $70.6 million in 2008 and $70.7 million in 2009. Many survey respondents also demonstrated optimism with regard to their future justice‐related giving, with at least 1/3 projecting increases in their giving over the next two years. Recommendation: Funders should collaborate on a targeted campaign to raise awareness among their colleagues of justice issues and promote increased funding. Survey results showed significant interest from funders and organizations in this type of campaign. To increase impact with limited resources, funders could engage in more collective learning activities such as joint site visits with a diverse group of foundations and donors. 11 Philanthropic investments are siloed and thinly spread across multiple under‐resourced areas. The justice funding community presents a mosaic of agendas, philosophies, and approaches. Some funders are using opportunity‐oriented approaches to strategically respond to political openings, changes in the public will, and reform‐oriented policymakers. Others are leading with practice models that seek to demonstrate effective alternative approaches. Some are working to strengthen and activate specific stakeholder groups or end specific policies or practices. And lastly, others support services to help people directly. Survey results showed that almost 25% of funders work across the entire justice continuum from prevention to reentry. A majority of funders also spread resources broadly within specific issue areas. As a result, resources too often fall short of achieving the desired impact. For a list of the top three priority issue areas identified by each funder, see Appendix E. Some of the most common funding priority areas – which could be the basis for joint initiatives – identified are: 1. Improving reentry policies and practices, with a specific emphasis on employment; 2. Developing alternatives to system involvement; 3. Ending disparate treatment/racial justice; 4. Reforming sentencing, with specific emphasis on ending the death penalty; 5. Reducing the use of incarceration. Recommendation: The justice field needs intentional and longer‐term focus so that: High‐impact opportunities and strategies are identified; Efficacy of approaches is clearly and transparently revealed to the field; Successful approaches are identified, spread and institutionalized; Projects have opportunities for learning and improvement. 12 There are significant funding gaps for justice‐related work addressing gender, gender identity or expression, and LGBTQ people. Additionally, the lack of funding availability within and for justice‐related work in the southern region of the U.S. warrants further investigation and consideration. Survey results showed that only 12 percent of funders reported that all or most of their grants address issues related to gender. Yet women and girls represent one of the largest growing populations involved with the justice system. Likewise, justice‐involved LGBTQ adults and juveniles face incredibly harsh conditions with high rates of violence, sexual abuse and an array of poor outcomes. Unfortunately, funding in this area is also significantly lacking. Lastly, the South continues to be an important region for reform for many reasons (potential for impact due to the number of people affected, persistence of overly punitive policies and practices, harsh conditions, and privatization). Survey results showed little focused activity in the region. One respondent remarked: “the regional needs of the South are extreme and very acute.” Recommendations: To begin to address some of these gaps in funding, funders can consider ways to: Initiate a collaborative project conducting an in‐depth analysis of the needs of justice‐ involved women and girls to identify concrete opportunities and gaps within this area; Promote a gender‐based lens to mainstream justice‐related grantmaking; Explore ways to build on successes and tools developed to address the needs of LGBTQ people in the system; Develop targeted strategies to cultivate interest and investment from mainstream LGBTQ funders and organizations to attract the additional resources needed to bring about greater exposure to these issues; Launch a funding collaborative for the South that would offer matching funds to stimulate investment from local funders in direct contributions and in‐kind support. 13 Funders identified specific areas where they are interested in collaborating with others. The independent nature of decision‐making in funding organizations poses challenges to collaborative efforts. Nevertheless, funders continue to recognize the value and the need of expanding collaborative activities. In fact, almost 50% of funder respondents report either initiating and/or participating in some sort of collaborative activities with colleagues. Justice‐related topic areas where funders were most interested in collaboration were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (15%) Racial and ethnic disparities (12%) Alternatives to incarceration (12%) Reentry (7%) Justice Reinvestment (20%) Other: includes a broad range and combination of topic areas including right to counsel; reforming sentencing practices; work regarding children with incarcerated parents; base‐ building; LGBT focused issues; building the evidence base of direct service organizations; and ending the death penalty. Twenty percent of funders also responded that they would like to engage more with government, but have not had much (or any) experience in doing so. In addition to shared topic interests, the top three activities funders selected for engagement in the upcoming year were: (42%) An issue‐based, action‐oriented workgroup, including funders and organizations. (17%) An issue‐based, action‐oriented workgroup for funders only. (10%) An interactive website for both funders and grantees/organizations. 14 Lastly, the top three activities that funders felt would “most contribute to building the justice field” included: (24%) Developing a campaign to promote increased funding and awareness of criminal/juvenile justice issues; (22%) Improving coordination among funders, grantees and other organizations; (22%) Working together to strategically leverage government investments. Recommendations: The desire to increase the scope and level of collaborative efforts brings with it enormous opportunities for funders to: 1) Improve assessment and learning practices; 2) Spread emerging successful practices; 3) Leverage investments and expertise; 4) Involve people from other disciplines (from arts to housing) to stimulate innovative thinking and approaches. Funders can launch virtual workgroups, learning labs, or use other tools to provide collaborative opportunities that help achieve systemic changes for the justice field. The charts presented in Part I: Funder Characteristics are only a snapshot of the research. A compendium of additional survey findings will be available to support next steps. 15 Justice Organizations Characteristics Survey Findings, Part III: Justice Organizations Characteristics 67 justice organizations participated in the survey (see Appendix F). They reflected the following characteristics: What types of organizations participated? Distribution of Organizational Budgets (2009) Under $250,000 28% $250,000 to $500,000 22% $500,000 to $1M 0% $1M to $3M 25% $3M + 24% There was an almost even distribution between new, maturing, and well‐established organizations that participated in the survey. 57% of the respondents had fewer than 10 full‐time staff; of that 57%: 24% had 0‐3 full‐time staff. 55% of organizations focused their work at the national or multi‐regional level, 19% worked at the state level, 10% at the regional level, 6% at the local level, and 9% mixed responses. 16 General Income Trends for Surveyed Justice Organizations Justice organizations are heavily dependent on public and private philanthropic funding 66% reported receiving no income from government sources 64% reported receiving no income from corporate‐related sources 45% reported receiving no income from income‐generating activities 42% reported less than 10% of total income from individual donors Which capacity‐building activity is most needed by your organization? 43% need fundraising assistance. 19% need communications/branding assistance. Which System and Population is the Focus of your Justice‐related Work? 15% need infrastructure development. 17 Most justice organizations work across multiple system points, using a wide range of strategies to bring about justice system change. Primary area of focus for organizations across justice system What strategies does your organization employ to meet its vision and mission in terms? Other Prevention Diversion/pre trial/trial Post‐trial/sentencing Community supervision (probation/parole) Conditions of confinement Reentry Other No response 10% 12% 10% 0% 3% 8% 49% *** 5% *** Other: generally characterized as work across the justice system from prevention through reentry Utigation!Legal Services Public Education/ Communications Research == I Evaluation Capacity Building I Organizing Direct Services Policy Advocacy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% • 1st Priority • 2nd Priority • 3rd Priority Organizations reported the constituents that are the primary focus of their justice‐related work include: 31% Currently or formerly incarcerated people and their families; 27% Policymakers (judicial leadership, legislators, et. al.); 15% Other (public defenders, and/or equally weighed across multiple constituencies). 18 According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, in 2008, the nonprofit sector encompassed more than 1.5 million tax‐exempt organizations nationwide. Within the Human Services category, there were 23,172 registered nonprofits addressing issues of crime and justice.viii While this potentially captures most of the independent justice‐focused nonprofits, it does not capture justice‐related efforts happening in some of the nation’s estimated 377,640 congregationsix or as part of other larger human service nonprofits classified under different categories. Thus the sample of organizations that responded to the survey presents only the tip of the iceberg of justice focused nonprofit organizations. See Appendix G, listing 316 justice organizations identified for the project. Key Findings: Justice organizations tend to be either large and well established or small with much less capacity. Generally, organizations working on justice issues are large multimillion‐dollar service institutions, national research think tanks, or emerging organizations with extremely limited capacity. Mid‐sized organizations are missing: of the 67 justice organizations that participated in the surveys, none reported having an organizational budget of between $500 thousand and $1 million. One quarter of the organizations surveyed had 0 – 3 full‐time staff. And yet, whether small or large, almost half work on multiple areas across the justice system. Some justice organizations are implementing innovative approaches and pushing beyond traditional approaches and constituencies. Some of these include: Leveraging the experience and insight of people most directly impacted by the justice system: currently and formerly incarcerated people, their families and survivors of crime. Some organizations are using currently incarcerated people to launch participatory research projects. Others are enlisting family 19 Justice Organizations Findings & Recommendations Survey Findings, Part IV: Justice Organizations Findings & Recommendations members to press for systemic change. Crime survivors are being included in projects to develop strategies that are more holistic and humane. Developing a cultural strategy for system transformation. Some justice organizations are using art and media to shift popular thinking about crime and justice, pushing boundaries of what is acceptable and not acceptable. Working at the intersection of multiple issue areas. Some organizations are working at the intersection of overlapping areas, such as immigration and justice, youth development and juvenile justice, and education and justice. Connecting with other sectors/constituencies. Some organizations have started to cultivate relationships with different sectors/ideologies to bring in new allies, but also leveraging additional resources. For example, in one jurisdiction an effective partnership has been developed between libertarians and progressives to place collective pressure to stop wasteful corrections spending. Recommendations: Funders and organizations could benefit by studying these innovative approaches and supporting venues where these innovations can be shared widely with others in the field. Both organizations and funders should consider supporting efforts to distribute and amplify successful efforts throughout the field. Organizations identified specific areas where they are interested in collaborating with others. Nonprofit justice organizations have long histories of collaborative work with other organizations. Most organizations reported being very or somewhat experienced in collaboration. Almost 40% of survey respondents reported lack of resources as the most prominent barrier to collaborative projects. There is a broad recognition of the importance and need to expand collaborative activities in order to reach the scale of change most envision for the justice system. Organizations were most interested in collaborating on the following justice topic areas: 20 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (16%) Justice Reinvestment; (12%) Racial and ethnic disparities; (9%) Alternatives to incarceration; (6%) Programs and/or leadership development for family members of the incarcerated; (25%) Other: a broad range of issues and a combination of topic areas including constituent organizing; for‐profit prisons and detention facilities; policing and prosecution; shifting institutional cultures; LGBTQ focused issues; and maintaining funding appropriations or budgets for alternatives. In addition to shared topic interests, the top three activities organizations were interested in engaging in the upcoming year included: (49%) An issue‐based, action‐oriented workgroup that includes funders and organizations; (13%) Conference or convening; (10%) An interactive website for both funders and grantees/organizations. The top three activities that organizations selected in the survey that would “most contribute to building the justice field” included: (31%) Develop a campaign to promote increased funding and awareness of criminal/juvenile justice issues; (31%) Better coordination among funders, grantees and other organizations; (10%) Increase exposure of the issues, information, etc. For a list of the top three priority issue areas identified by each organization, see Appendix H. Recommendations: Like funders, justice organizations are interested in increased collaboration to address justice related issues. Organizations can launch virtual workgroups, learning labs or use other tools to support and facilitate collaborative projects for greater impact. The charts presented in Part III Justice Organizations Characteristics are only a snapshot of the research. A compendium of additional survey findings will be available to support next steps. 21 Funder and Organization Network Mapping Analysis Survey Findings, Part V: Funder and Organization Network Mapping and Analysis Network mapping creates a visual representation of individual interactions. Mapping is like taking an x‐ray: it enables one to see the structure of relationships among individuals, identify problem areas and reveal general characteristics that can help to inform how to strengthen and maximize the network. For example, a map will show if the network is too dependent on one individual, if it is too sparse for information to flow easily, or if key groups are missing. Once recognized, simple actions can be taken to remedy these problems. Researchers have identified a particular pattern of interactions found in networks that have generated the most successful collaboration. This type of network is called a Smart Network (See Figure 1). A Smart Network has a fairly dense core of diverse types of individuals who often work with others in the core on collaborative projects and a periphery that contains many individuals with expertise, resources and different perspectives that can be drawn on by those in the core as needed. There are several key indicators that can be used to determine the health of the current justice networks: • Free flow of information and communication: examining our networks can help us see how well information is flowing throughout the network. • Diversity: research showsx that having diverse perspectives in a network can significantly increase innovation. • Innovation: Many people in the network need to be seeking new ideas, both from inside the core and from unique sources. The people in the network also need to be well‐connected so that everyone hears about innovations that are occurring and can learn from them. Collaboration: The most efficient way to get a more densely connected core is to have individuals form cross‐organizational collaborative projects. • 22 Figure 1 Smart Network Benchmark Periphery includes individuals from outside the field = innovation Core of overlapping clusters of peers = High potential for effective collaboration Overlapping Collaborative Action Groups = Generate more innovative and share innovations Core composed of diverse types of individuals 23 Using these indicators the maps in the following sections can be compared to the Smart Network model by asking the following questions: 1. Does the network have a substantial core of individuals who have a history of interaction so that future collaborations are likely to be successful? 2. Does the network have a periphery that is bringing in resources and new ideas from other fields? 3. Does the core have sufficient diversity of types of organizations and individuals so that criminal justice projects will have multiple perspectives and a wide range of skills and resources? The funder and justice organization surveys included three social network questions. Responses to these questions generated three types of maps of funders and justice organizations. The surveys asked: 1. With whom do you currently interact (collaborate, give or obtain resources, have discussions, etc.) as part of your criminal/juvenile justice efforts and activities? Responses then generated the current interaction maps. 2. From whom have you gotten new ideas or innovations that have increased the effectiveness of your criminal justice efforts? (May be from within the criminal justice field or from outside.) Responses then generated current innovation maps. 3. Who would you like to collaborate with on a criminal/juvenile justice project in the next year (Checking only those individuals you haven't worked with before)? Responses then generated future interaction/collaboration maps. In the following maps: A square (node) represents an individual from each responding organization. An arrow between the nodes shows who was selected by whom. For more information on understanding network approaches, social network maps and key questions to ask, see Appendix I. 24 1. Current Interaction Maps Funders. Funders were asked: “With whom do you currently interact (collaborate, give or obtain resources, have discussions, etc) as part of your criminal/juvenile justice efforts and activities?” The current interaction network among funders misses opportunities because it is loose and small. (See Figure 2) The core (shown by the red circle) consists of a dozen funders. It is well connected, but individuals in the rest of the network each have only a few connections; some individuals are completely isolated. As a result, it is unlikely that many of the funders have access to a full picture of what is happening in the field, or that they know about effective (and ineffective) strategies and emerging leverage points. • o . • • o o Figure 2 Funder Interaction Network The Interaction Network Map shows the relationships between the funders. The core (those inside the red circle) consists of several types of funding entities. However, most of those in the periphery are family, independent and community foundations. ----;-y .-----. ~ Family Foundation Operating Foundation Independent Foundation Community Foundation Individual Donor Philanthropic Advisors • o 25 Community foundations, family foundations, and some independent foundations tend to be in the periphery and not in the core of the network. There are untapped skills and resources that community, family and independent foundations could bring to the CJFN and the larger justice field if they were better integrated into the network core. For example, these funders often play critical roles in convening local stakeholders in their areas and tend to be skilled in coordinating collaborations. Many funders have few or no connections to the organizations beyond their grantees, such as many of the organizations surveyed (many of whom are regarded as leaders in the field). Without relationships to organizations working in all parts of the field, it will be difficult for funders to get an accurate picture of innovations in the field. Having a sense of the “big picture,” and where and how one’s grantmaking fits into this picture can lead to funding that is significantly more strategic and impactful. This lack of relationships between funders and justice organizations also means that the many non‐monetary resources that funders can access and offer (i.e. space, experts, public statements of support, credibility) are being vastly under mobilized, weakening an already strapped field. Justice Organizations. The interaction network of justice organizations is much larger and denser than that of funders; the periphery suggests the network extends well beyond those that were surveyed. Mapping analysis revealed the organizational network is strong (See figure 3). Its structure and density enable information to flow easily among the core organizations. The periphery, however, contains few organizations from outside the justice field; this indicates that organizations are not accessing sufficient expertise from other sectors (such as organizational consultants or social media experts) that could help them become more effective and better resourced. 26 Figure 3 Justice Organization Interaction Network Map shows a substantial and tight core consisting primarily of justice organizations, shown in red circle. Most foundations are on the outer edges of core or in periphery. Many of the organizations have substantial numbers of relationships with other organizations beyond those listed in our survey (sizable periphery). Other Justice Organization Funding Entity No answer Direct service and grassroots groups tended to be less integrated into the network. However, the Both the funder network and the organizational network showed little interaction with organizations outside the justice field that may have overlapping interests. These include groups network is fairly diverse and includes advocacy, legal, grassroots, research, and membership organizations that all interact with each other. and/or funders working in other areas such as immigration, education, gender, public health, racial justice, and domestic violence. Thus the field is missing out on collaborating with potential allies and thereby increasing impact. 27 2. Current Innovation Maps Funders and Justice Organizations. Both groups were asked: “From whom do you get new ideas about criminal justice strategies that increase the effectiveness of your efforts?” Surprisingly, both networks showed similar tendencies: Neither funders nor organizations tended to look outside the justice field for new ideas. Maps below showed funders only looked to a small set of justice organizations for new ideas. Likewise, justice organizations mainly look to each other for new ideas. Very few participants added new names (red circles) or included individuals from outside the justice field (red nodes). Green nodes are justice organizations and blue nodes are funders. This means that the field is missing important perspectives, lessons, and cross‐ fertilization. Breakthroughs often come when ideas from outside are adapted for use in a new field. Integrating people from other fields can change the conversation about justice system transformation and link in new stakeholders to address these complex issues. Funder Innovation Networks • • • IiIi ,, • • .. .. • • • ;. ;i Figure 4 Justice Organization Innovation Networks • / ' • . I \ \ "'\·r / • ? \\ I • \ • • • -. -- • • • - ~-- ;e[f--. -~ 1-- • ~ o o \ • '. .. . .. \ • • • )\ • • .. • , I1\\\ . I I • \ \ • . • • • • 28 3. Future Interaction/Collaboration Maps Funders. When funders were asked with whom they would like to work on justice issues in the next year, the future network was much larger and denser than the current network (see contrast below). If funders had the opportunity to work with those individuals they selected in the survey, the network would become much healthier. Figure 5 Current Funder Interaction Network Future Funder Interaction Network • • 0 0 \\ • \ ••----. • • ~ 0",-. • --------0 • When funders indicate with whom they would like to work in the near future, the network becomes more robust. Funders are saying they want to work more together. 29 Funders and Justice Organizations. The “future” maps of funders and justice organizations were combined to see what a potential justice network might look like. This combined network has a very large and dense core and a budding periphery. Figure 6 shows a network with significant clout that is much closer to the Smart Network model (page 24). However specific attention would need to be paid to integrating funders and justice organizations. Conscious and sensitive relationship‐building will be a critical task. Figure 6 Future Justice Network (combined future interaction network) This map shows the justice organizations network (blue nodes: black dotted circle) concentrated on the left and the funders (multi colored: red dotted circle) on the right. This tells us that in order to bring about integration, intentional relationship‐building between funders and organizations is essential. • • • 30 Recommendation #1: Develop the network of justice funders There are many different kinds of networks... Their purpose is not to serve individual members alone but to meaningfully analyze, understand and foster the development of a movement by working with and for others in the network....Movement networks play concrete and essential roles to support and contribute to their social movements. ‐ Robin Katcher, "Unstill Waters: The Fluid Role of Networks in Social Movements" Rationale. Mapping analysis shows that the current network of justice funders is small and sparse. Expanding and better connecting the funder network could have the following concrete benefits: 1. Improved information flow: Increased sharing, both formally and informally, of information about specific funder activity could enable funders to see trends and successes more clearly; 2. Increased communication: Discussions about what is working and not working could become more inclusive and productive; 3. Increased knowledge of resources and expertise: More funders would learn about more experts, useful consultants, books, conferences, research and other resources; 4. Increase potential collaborators and clout: More funders would know about other funders and their interests, thus helping them identify those who might make the best partners on future projects. The field could have more clout and visibility if more funders were involved; 5. Expand dissemination potential. Each funder exists inside a network. Funders wanting to disseminate their projects/research results would have a larger pool through which ideas could be disseminated. 31 Network Recommendations & Strategies Network Recommendations & Strategies As shown in the Future Funder Interaction Network (see Figure 5), funders indicated that they are very interested in developing partnerships with other grantmaking entities and justice organizations. A majority of survey participants identified increased coordination among funders, grantee partners and other organizations as a critical field‐building strategy. Strategies Strengthen the funder network through strategic connections. Using mapping results, funders can be encouraged to link less‐connected funders to better‐connected funders in the core of the network. For example, one well‐connected family foundation could be asked to introduce some of the other family foundations to one of the operating foundationsxi in the core. By weaving less‐connected funders into the core, the overall network will become dense and will more closely resemble a Smart Network. Expand and target outreach. We identified 229 individuals representing 180 funding entities who have interest in, or are currently funding, justice‐related projects (see Appendix J). These funders could be integrated into the funder network during the network‐building process. Additionally, justice organizations surveyed mentioned 30 funders, some that are not justice‐identified, but with whom they have worked (see Appendix K). A small group of funders could analyze these names and select 6‐8 whom they feel would add energy or new perspectives to the network, initiating exploratory conversations to determine their interest in becoming more involved. This outreach itself would build the network. 32 Recommendation #2: Create a more inclusive justice network “Sometimes, real innovation is in changing who is doing the work, and not just how it's done.” – Ellen Barry Rationale. As mentioned earlier, justice organizations have a significant network with vast expertise and much interest in collaborating. Social network analysis shows that an integrated network combining the robust justice organization network with the smaller funder network could bring increased energy, expertise, and resources to the entire field. This would be a network that goes beyond relationships that revolve solely around funding. To gain all the benefits, funders should have collaborative relationships with justice organizations that are not grantees, as well as with organizations and funders from other sectors. Similarly, justice organizations should expand their relationships with funders and other sectors. We identified over 300 individuals from justice organizations across the U.S. (see Appendix G) that could be integrated at some point during the network‐building process. Additionally, survey participants mentioned additional individuals with whom they have worked or would like to work with in the future (see Appendix L). This type of network would greatly expand the number of advocates for change and help the justice field develop more innovative and more connected approaches. Despite concerns that such interaction would raise an organization’s expectations about possible funding from a grantmaker, the field can develop norms that help all parties differentiate between collaborating as participants in a field and asking for funds, with clear guidelines about behavior and expectations in each sphere. There are a growing number of successful examples in the field that have developed protocols and mechanisms to support more peer‐ oriented partnerships.xii 33 Strategies Learn more about the benefits of peer relationships between funders and justice organizations. Funders are clearly beginning to examine and shift their relationship with organizations they support and other organizations in the field. The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s “Making Change” subgroup on LinkedIn is discussing new and more inclusive peer relationships between grantmakers and nonprofit organizations. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (www.geofunders.org), a membership association for grantmakers, provides tools and resources to help funders improve their practice, pushing its members to move beyond traditional philanthropic approaches. The Criminal Justice Initiative,xiii a donor circle housed at the Solidago Foundation, is one example in which donors and organizations/activists have developed agreements/protocols on working together, breaking down barriers and fostering collective learning and giving. Funders have breadth with overview of the field; activists have the depth of the issues. Either one alone is inadequate. If we are trying to make the best decisions, if we are trying to achieve change, we must partner. There is so much to be gained. – Anonymous interviewee Make strategic connections to strengthen and expand the field. Link isolated funders with justice organizations of many varieties: national, grassroots, rural, urban, innovative, formerly incarcerated persons, arts, communications‐oriented. Connect the justice field with closely related fields such as job training, health, housing, poverty alleviation, community organizing, asset development, etc. For example, a small group of funders and justice organizations could attend one of the Corporation for Enterprise Development’s (www.cfed.org) conferences on asset development and discuss how individual development accounts (savings accounts used for home purchase, business or college) might be part of strategies for re‐entry. 34 The American Association for Hispanics in Higher Education hosts one of the best annual conferences I've ever attended. The Independent Sector also hosts a phenomenal conference. It'd be incredible to send a whole delegation of justice nonprofit and foundation people there to network. Maybe this is atypical for organizations working in this field, but I'd say that contact with folks outside of the justice field tends to be more useful to me in a practical way than contact with folks within that community. ‐ Anonymous Interviewee Connect to “unusual suspects” such as arts organizations. A Thousand Kites (www.thousandkites.org) partners with Appalshop (www.appalshop.org), a film and media non‐profit in Kentucky, to engage families of incarcerated individuals and people in communities impacted by crime in policy initiatives using flip cameras to interview each other. Engage mainline religious denominations. Integrating the faith‐based community would also be another powerful addition to the network and to philanthropic approaches to achieving change. Increase inclusion of people most directly affected by the justice system, who are likely to have different perspectives on the system that could be very beneficial to strategy development such as currently and formerly incarcerated individuals and their families, as well as victims/survivors of crime. For example, the Women’s Foundation of California, Women Donors Network, and Center For Restorative Justice Works organized a prison visit and briefing, creating the opportunity to learn from women incarcerated in the Central California Women’s Facility. This event has led to more than a dozen multi‐level follow‐up activities, spearheaded by a mix of funders and activists. Provide support for Network Weavers. Individuals who make the kinds of connections described in the previous section are called Network Weavers. See Appendix M, for a network weaver checklist to assess your network weaving skills. Network Weavers incorporate network building activities into their current work, simply paying more attention to connections and interactions. Funders in other sectors are now supporting Communities of Practice for Network Weavers that enable them to enhance their skills and learn from each other.xiv 35 Recommendation #3: Increase capacity for collaboration Rationale. The justice field is currently attempting to make systemic changes to the criminal and juvenile justice systems with a very small amount of funding. This funding is spread thinly over the entire justice continuum, with no area generally receiving enough, in most cases, to permanently shift these systems. The key is the capacity to identify those areas with the highest potential impact, where funders (or funders and justice organizations) can collaborate. There are five components that need to be in place for this to work: A system for identifying and exploring critical focal areas; An understanding of how collaborations can be most effectively structured; Individuals trained to lead and coordinate collaborative efforts; Processes for evaluating and learning from sets of projects; Dissemination of what is learned. Strategies Encourage collaborative action through support of issue‐focused work groups. To explore the idea of collaboration, an organizing group could take the issues identified by funders and justice organizations and help create a set of work groups. Some of these could be for funders, and others could be more inclusive. The chart below lists topics of high interest among both funders and justice organizations. Potential collaborative work groups A campaign to promote increased funding/awareness of justice issues Leveraging government investments Addressing racial and ethnic disparities Supporting alternatives to incarceration Supporting justice reinvestment 36 A key to success is working on very focused issues and then immediately sharing the findings with the broader field. Bring together a group that would research and share best practices for finding and coordinating collaborative projects. Drawing from experience in other domains where funders and/or organizations have initiated targeted collaborations, an organizing group could identify key factors for successful initiatives. xvSome of the key elements are: Starting with research and learning projects to identify innovators and lessons from other fields; Having effective systems for communication and dissemination (often including the use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter); Processes for critically examining collaborative projects as they progress to identify what led to success; Organizing projects into learning clusters or innovation labs where projects learn from each other; Setting up an innovation fund, a pool of easily accessed funds for supporting small innovative collaborative projects. #CJReform in Twitter has an array of live information on current discussions, practices, and information about justice issues from people across the country We listen, do, reflect to learn from what we did, and do again. It’s an iterative method in which we don’t presume to know the answers. It’s experimental, because we don’t know the answers. ‐Anonymous Interviewee 37 Increase the use of social media. The use of mobile phones, flip cams (video recorders) and platforms on the Internet that encourage people to engage with each other, called social media or Web 2.0, are enabling people to collaborate on a scale not believed to be possible – at virtually no cost. Clay Shirky in Here Comes Everybody documents hundreds of examples of effective self‐organizing, from small groups to huge protests, all using social media to reach important outcomes.xvi Most funders and many justice organizations reported having little or no skills in social media, making good virtual interaction and amplification difficult. Social media can be used as a low‐cost way to convene, network and collaborate. Training can be developed to assist individuals in using low‐cost social media tools. To address these needs, the Justice Network would need to consider how it could build the skill level of individuals in the field. It can draw upon the small number of people in the justice field who consider themselves experts, having them train and/or mentor others; it could hire trainers in the field such as Beth Kanter or Deanna Zandt; or, it could involve NTEN (www.nten.org) or Tech Soup (www.techsoup.org). Explore forming an intentional network. Networks that are intentional and want to focus on a particular area benefit when they spend time determining how that network will operate. Some networks have loose coordinating bodies; others form network organizations. Some networks develop a joint plan of action; others simply encourage the formation of various collaborations. There are numerous case studies available and several “how to” guides to assist in the process.xvii The following case study is an example of a low‐cost network formed by a set of organizations that has been highly effective. 38 Case Study: The Innovation Learning Network Increasingly, researchers, hospitals, businesses and communities are adopting a network approach to make big changes with few resources. In a network approach: • • • • • • A set of organizations decides to work together on an area of interest. They bring in people – often from different fields – to give them new perspectives. They identify innovators from within the field and give them more visibility. They encourage (and provide resources for) people to generate collaborative projects to work on issues and opportunities. They spend time figuring what worked (and what didn’t) in those projects to identify “patterns of success” and then use these factors to define future collaborations. They help successes spread virally throughout the network. The following case study presents an example of a set of hospitals that adopted a network approach and, as a result, generated significant positive outcomes for their patients and their bottom line: It’s 2006 and representatives from major U.S. hospitals have gathered to study innovations in their field. Investigating such topics as electronic records and new ways to access medical care, they are assessing which innovations make sense for their particular hospital and harvesting ideas for implementation.A 39 None of the hospitals could individually afford to explore all the innovations that were popping up, but by sharing the costs of research, they felt they could identify and implement those most critical to improving patient care. They came up with a very low‐cost network approach to support their collaboration. The founding group became sponsors, identified resources, and formed the Innovation Learning Network (ILN). They hired two Network Weavers to help build a network and coordinate the explorations. First, the sponsors commissioned a baseline network map of the people who planned to be part of the ILN. To build network leadership that was lacking, Network Weavers recruited a group of six to help them guide the mapping process and learn more about networks and collaboration. The maps showed a network that was loosely connected. The Network Weavers knew that for successful collaboration to occur, their network weaving role was essential. Nurturing trusting interpersonal connections would maximize identification of common interests, safe and creative sharing about challenges, and spreading new practices throughout the network. At their first annual face‐to‐face gathering, the Network Weavers presented the maps to the 70 people who attended. The participants – after learning more about networks and innovation – came up with a set of strategies to connect people from different hospitals so that they could work together more effectively. About 20 more people volunteered to become Network Weavers and agreed to have monthly calls to learn more about building the network. Throughout the two‐day gathering, the Network Weavers made an effort to introduce people from different hospitals to each other. At the same meeting, people were introduced to many new ideas through an open space process that allowed anyone to organize and attend sessions on an innovation that peaked their interest. Many innovators and experts had been invited and they too set up sessions. At the end of the two days, participants formed six collaborative action groups that would continue after the gathering. The Network Weavers facilitated these groups, using group email, conference calls and webinars with experts who could explain more about the innovation. In some groups, each participating hospital starting implementing a particular innovation; the monthly calls were used to compare and assess the results. Each group shared its learning on a custom social network site. and Twitter. Bi‐monthly Virtual Fridays introduced people to innovations as they were emerging. Sometimes these morphed into a new collaborative action group. 40 After a year, the network was mapped again; this time the network was much more we‐connected. In addition, the network now had a large periphery of connections to experts and innovators, whom they could call upon as needed. The outcomes generated in just three years were significant. For example, the Innovative Approaches to Lower Medication Error Project, documented in Harvard Business Review article, is now saving one hospital system a million dollars a year.B These successes have convinced most of the hospital systems to be notably more open to innovations. Hospitals also became more patient‐centered: a major insight that has come out of the ILN efforts is that involving everyone impacted by innovation in its design – patients and families as well as hospital staff – results in more effective implementation. Most participants are learning how to do deep listening and interviewing of patients and their families to gain the valuable insights that these individuals have to offer. Although there are some differences, the ILN has many important lessons for the Criminal and Juvenile Justice fields. It shows how a group of organizations can join together to help an entire field become more innovative and effective. It reveals how a network can generate many different collaborative projects – some exploratory, some large scale – that eventually start to transform the field. A https://www.vhafoundation.org/PriorInitiative/Pages/PriorinnovationsProjects.aspx and interviews with ILN staff November 2010. B https://Hbr.org/2010/09/Kaiser‐permanentes‐innovation‐on‐the‐front‐lines/ar/1 41 Summary Conclusions Summary Conclusions & Next Steps Investment findings: Given the magnitude of the problem, the justice field does not have sufficient resources to create the requisite systemic change. Philanthropic investments are spread too thinly across a wide‐range of justice issues and approaches. Despite many successful individual efforts, the field is constantly challenged by its inability to assess, access, disseminate, or replicate the many innovations occurring within the justice field or in other fields. Network findings: Social network mapping of justice funders and organizations provided a snapshot of the current network status, and provided a basis from which to develop recommendations to increase connectivity, and collaboration. Network mapping analysis of justice funders and organizations showed the following: Current justice organizations network Current justice funders network • Substantial and well‐connected with other justice • Not large or dense enough to have a transformative organizations; impact; • Wide range organizations; • Insufficiently connected to the network of justice • Need to develop and connect with diverse, young, and organizations; formerly incarcerated leadership. • Insufficiently connected to people directly impacted by incarceration. Both current justice funders and organizations network • Insufficiently connected to innovation, especially from outside the justice field; • Need to understand what led to successes and build new collaborative strategies based on that learning; • Lack sufficient and flexible resources/support for experimental approaches essential for identifying breakthrough strategies and taking them to scale. 42 Most funders and justice organizations want to be part of an integrated network and are interested in working together on specific projects such as: Racial and ethnic disparities; Alternatives to incarceration; Reentry. A new approach is needed that: Identifies and encourages collaborative, innovative options that can then spread to bring about systemic change; Enables the field to bring in new resources; Engages new supporters and allies from outside the current field. Next Steps: The report offers numerous strategies to address gaps and opportunities to effectuate change in the justice field. Although there is very broad interest among both justice organizations and funders to work collaboratively, not everyone is in the same place. Some people are quite familiar with networks and collaboration and how they might work, while others are not. Any strategy must consider these differences. Some concrete next steps include: 1) Discuss the findings and recommendations contained in this report. This report can be the starting point for exploring how and why funders and/or organizations might work together. This could be done through a variety of ways: interactive teleconferences; sessions piggybacked on other meetings; or through a web site. 2) Convene an organizing group to determine next steps. This could focus on structure and focus. Activities could include: Providing learning opportunities about collaboration and network approaches; Identifying network weavers; Defining working framework; Launching workgroups on high priority areas. 43 Final Thoughts & Contact Information Transforming the justice system is a key step in creating a world that is good for everyone. We do not have resources sufficient for the task, but we believe we can still make a difference by working together in new ways. We invite you to join us, reaching out to new partners, experimenting together, learning what works, noticing what doesn’t – and, as a result, having more impact than we ever imagined was possible! Thank you for taking the time to explore this effort. If you are interested in joining with us in any way, please contact us at: Criminal Justice Funders & Activists Network Coordinator Phone (646) 926‐0504 Email: CriminalJusticeFN@gmail.com www.CJFANetwork.com 44 Endnotes i The Foundation Center, Distribution of Foundation Grants by Subject Category, circa 2008. Available at: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2008/10_08.pdf; The Foundation Center, Distribution of Foundation Grants by Subject Category, circa 2007. Available at: www.foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2007/10_07.pdf; The Foundation Center, Distribution of Foundation Grants by Subject Category, circa 2006. Available at: www.foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2006/10_06.pdf. Foundation Center’s grants classification system is based on the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) to classify grants by subject. Crime, Justice, and Legal Services includes a broad array of justice related activity from prevention, legal services, advocacy, services for justice involved people, professional associations, etc. ii Pew Center on the States, National Research of Public Attitudes on Crime and Punishment, September 2010. Available at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/Initiatives/PSPP/PSPP_National%20Research_web.pdf?n=6608 iii The Ford Foundation (NY), Fund for Nonviolence (CA), Omnia Foundation (CA), Open Society Institute (NY), Peace Development Fund (MA), Public Welfare Foundation (DC), Rosenberg Foundation (CA), U.S. Human Rights Fund (NY), Women Donors Network (CA), and the Race Gender Human Rights Fund of the Women’s Foundation of California (CA). iv Foundation Center, Social Justice Grantmaking II, July 2009, pg. 12. Available at: www.foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/specialtrends.html. Report identified $81.3M of the $191M in 2006 directed to systemic and policy change initiatives which were defined as giving directed at promoting changes to institutions and/or policies that perpetuate inequality or unfairness. This analysis only included grants of $10,000 or more awarded by a sample of 871 larger foundations. As such, funding entities with small grants may be underreported. A closer examination of that giving showed 45.3% focused on legal services for low‐income and vulnerable populations and public interest litigation; 26.6% focused on administration of justice/courts to support and reform judicial systems, and; 28.1% classified as Other included variety of prevention programs, programs for current and former offenders, as well as, an assortment of other reform activities. v The Foundation Center, Distribution of Foundation Grants by Subject Category, circa 2007. Available at: www.foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2007/10_07.pdf; The Foundation Center, Distribution of Foundation Grants by Subject Category, circa 2006. Available at: www.foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/04_fund_sub/2006/10_06.pdf vi http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/nationaltrends.html vii It is important to note that the findings only reflect the giving of those institutions surveyed and not of the larger field. The economic crisis coupled with the loss of a number of private and family foundations across the country in late 2008 has had dramatic impacts on justice nonprofits across the country. The findings demonstate both commitment of those funders in this area, to at least maintain grantmaking levels while endowments were experiencing significant losses, as well as, new or significant increases in grantmaking for other entities. viii Internal Revenue Service Exempt Organizations Business Master File (2010, Aug). The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics www.nccsdataweb.urgban.org. Organizations are classified according to the National taxonomy of Exempt Entities. To obtain a listing of all the subcategories included within the Crime and Justice classification see: www.nccs.urban.org/calssification/NTEE.cfm ix National Center for Charitable Statistics, Quick Facts about Nonprofits, American Church Lists 2006. Available at: http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm x Hargadon, Andrew, How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate, Business Press (June 5, 2003) and Johnson, Steven, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation Riverhead Hardcover (October 5, 2010) 45 xi A private operating foundation as defined by the IRS is a foundation that devotes most of its resources to the active conduct of its exempt activities. Available at: http://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/articles/2001‐older/just‐what‐are‐public‐charities‐and‐private‐foundations‐anyway.aspx xii Funder interviewees noted two models that could be examined for the development of a Justice Network that integrates funders and nonprofits as members. They include a workgroup of the U.S. Social Forum that includes nonprofits and funders as equal partners to address social issues and the Food and Community Network of the Kellogg Foundation that convenes funders, activists, organizations and academics as partners in the food movement. xiii The Criminal Justice Initiative is a cross‐class funding circle made up of community organizers and activist donors to challenge the status quo in the United States criminal justice system. Circle members include formerly incarcerated people who have organized inside prisons, artists who work with court‐involved youth, progressive attorneys, and concerned educators. Together, Circle members fund grassroots activism in order to transform the criminal justice system in the United States. Contact: Criminal Justice Initiative Program: 516‐ 413‐1167 or aleahb@solidago.org xiv Packard Foundation has organized a collaboration of eight funders who have supported 70 grantees in a Network Weaver Community of Practice. Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Minnesota has supported a Community of Practice for 28 individuals in 8 funded projects. xv For learning clusters see: Operations of a Learning Cluster: Structuring a National Peer Education Model, Association for Enterprise Opportunity, 2005 and Aspen Institute's Learning Clusters and publications http://www.fieldus.org/projects/Business_growth.html. For Innovation Labs see http://bit.ly/9r09Ax. On innovation http://aidontheedge.info/2010/06/15/complexity‐and‐innovation‐a‐plexus‐institute‐interview/. On collaborative action: Learning and Performing Through Hastily Formed Networks, George Roth SoL Reflections Volume 9, Number 3‐4. Non‐profit collaboration database: http://collaboration.foundationcenter.org/search/searchGenerator.php and Nonprofit/nonprofit Collaboration in Boston, Barr Foundation http://www.barrfoundation.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=436183. xvi Shirky, Clay, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations, (Penguin Press HC, 2008). xvii Paul Vandeventer and Myrna Mandell, Networks that Work: A Practitioner's Guide to Managing Networked Action, (2008). Available at: http://www.communitypartners.org/networks/ 46 An electronic copy of Transcending Boundaries: Strengthening Impact is available at: www.CJFANetwork.org Transcending Boundaries: Strengthening Impact was created and produced with support from: W the OPE omen Donors NPtvvnrk o FORDFOU DATIO of CALIFOR IA SOCIETY ~OUNDATIO 5
