Read our clients’ stories:

STRATEGY

Public Health Trust “What’s next?”

Common Vision: How do we change the conversation for long-term impact?

CompassPoint: How do we articulate our “value add”?

First 5 San Francisco: How can we become more effective at an organizational level?

EVALUATION

RYSE Youth Center: Starting Off Right

Fundraising Academy for Communities of Color: Are we doing the right things?

Latino Community Foundation: How can we increase our effectiveness while implementing our initiative?

First 5 Marin Children and Families Commission: Can we do more with others than we can alone? How?

IHPTP: Making Evaluation Meaningful

Horizons Foundation: More than a Perfunctory Exercise

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Oakland Kids First: How do we demonstrate our impact?

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Oakland Department of Human Services: How can we have greater impact?

Center for Civic Partnerships: How can the sector have a greater impact?

Common Vision: How do we change the conversation for long-term impact?

Background: Common Vision is a demonstration project of Funders for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Issues (FLGBTQI). The vision of this multi-year initiative, now in its final stages, was to bring funders with a shared interest regarding equity together to create positive change by collectively addressing the root causes of an issue of health and well being.. This outcome was to be achieved by developing and implementing a structural change framework for grantmaking that targeted the intersections in the system where the potential for impact is greatest. To this end, the Common Vision initiative convened grantmakers in two regions—the Midwest and New England—who share an interest in creating "healthy communities with widespread equity."

Situation: Prior to engaging jdcPartnerships and its strategic partner, LFA Group, which is conducting the evaluation of Common Vision, FLGBTQI developed a Theory of Change (ToC) to guide Common Vision’s work. When she joined FLGTBQI as Program Director, Ellen Gurzinsky assumed the project management role for Common Vision, which was already underway. It soon became apparent to Ellen that the ToC for Common Vision was, in her words, "too big, broad and general" to provide useful guidance towards achieving the intended outcomes. In initiating the evaluation of Common Vision, Ellen saw the revision of the ToCs as an important first step. Jara then was able to operationalize the Theories of Change into region-specific projects.

Assessment: When Ellen engaged jdcPartnerships and LFA Group, Common Vision was between Launch & Start-up and Ground & Deliver in terms of its stage of organizational development. Because the participants in Common Vision were at different stages, it was important to have a flexible process that recognized these differences while still moving the collective forward.

Ellen wanted to provide a unifying frame for the work in the two cohorts and knew that, in order to achieve this, the ToC would have to be refined. This was a natural fit with jdcPartnerships’ expertise in the development of ToC’s and Logic Models, and especially of ones that address complex issues related to structural change. As Ellen commented: "Jara looked at what had been done and was flexible in figuring out how to move it forward. She did a great job." The revised ToC is being used to guide the evaluation—a process led by LFA Group with jdcPartnerships playing the overarching role of "project facilitator." Ellen described this role and process as follows: "Jara holds it all together. The groups meet in-person periodically and by phone. In-between the meetings, Jara designs the meeting agenda, facilitates the phone calls and generally keeps the work moving. She has excellent facilitation skills and anticipates the next steps well."

Outcomes: Ellen commented that "it would have been optimal to have Jara on board from the get-go. But, once she was involved, it made a total difference. She has been able to ‘go with the flow,’ while at the same time moving us forward." As the initiative draws to an end, both cohorts have come to understand the relationship between equity and structural change. Moreover, based on that understanding each cohort has created a grantmaking process; designed an RFP, solicited proposals, and finally, made a grant or grants in the field. It is clear that the cohorts have learned a lot through this process and have advanced their own knowledge. In addition, a toolkit is being developed that builds on the lessons learned from Common Vision and from others involved in this work.