Community Rhythms: Five Stages of Community Life

Communities have rhythms to them that we must come to understand so that our approaches, programs and initiatives — and the building of public capital — work with those rhythms, take advantage of them, even accelerate them. This 1999 report from the Harwood Institute describes five stages of community life: The Waiting Place, Impasse, Catalytic, Growth, and Sustain and Renew.

CommunityRhythmsImageAccording to the Harwood Institute, while a community can accelerate its movement through the Stages of Community Life, it cannot violate, or simply pass over, the hard work that needs to be done in each stage. For as Five Stages of Community Life reveals, each stage has its own purpose; indeed, within each stage, different approaches must be taken to grow a community.

For example, Growth strategies for the most part will not work for a community in Impasse. Why? Because the community simply does not have the kind of support — structures, relationships, networks, norms, sense of purpose, in short the level of public capital — required to undertake and sustain such strategies.

Written for the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Community Rhythms report helps you understand what stage your community is in, so you can choose actions that will best fit current conditions.

The Harwood Group’s work in communities reveals that there are stages of a community’s life and that each stage has deep implications for understanding your community and what it means for moving forward. These stages echo the development of all living things, such as a person or a plant or an ecosystem. Only if you know and understand the stage in which your community rests, will you be better able to figure out what kinds of approaches, strategies and timing best fit for seeking to move your community forward.

Each stage brings its own set of challenges and opportunities. The problem in many communities is that too often we do not think about stages of community life, or are even aware of them, much less approach them strategically in terms of what they mean for our actions.

Harwood’s Stages of Community Life emerges from over a decade of research and on-the-ground initiatives throughout the U.S.

Download the report: http://ncdd.org/rc/wp-content/uploads/Harwood-CommunityRhythmsReport.pdf

More about the Harwood Institute: www.theharwoodinstitute.org

Envisioning the Role of Facilitation in Public Deliberation

This 2013 article by Kara Dillard argues that academic research has neglected a critical factor in promoting successful citizen deliberation: the facilitator. In outlining a continuum of a facilitator’s level of involvement in deliberative dialogues, the author finds that facilitators are important to the forum process. More academic investigations into facilitator actions should reveal more of the logic that turns everyday political talk into rigorously deliberative forums emphasizing quality argument and good decision-making.

ABSTRACT
Academic research has neglected a critical factor in promoting successful citizen deliberation: the public forum facilitator. Facilitators create the discursive framework needed to make deliberation happen while setting the tone and tenor for how and what participants discuss. This essay brings facilitators more clearly into scholarly discussions about deliberative practice by offering an expanded and nuanced notion of facilitation in action. I modify David Ryfe’s continuum of involvement concept to outline three distinct types of facilitators: passive, moderate, and involved. Using this continuum, I investigate how various moves, types of talk, and discursive strategies used by each of these facilitators differ during six National Issues Forums style deliberations. Results demonstrate that most facilitators are not neutral, inactive participants in deliberative forums. Analysis indicates that the pedagogical choices made by facilitators about their involvement in forums affect deliberative talk and trajectories. Scholars evaluating deliberation should take into account facilitation and its different dimensions.

Citation:  Dillard, K.N. (2013). Envisioning the role of facilitation in public deliberation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 3, 217-235.

Resource Link: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00909882.2013.826813#.UrdW8mRDunE

Harnessing Collaborative Technologies: Helping Funders Work Together Better

In November 2013, Monitor Institute and the Foundation Center released a new report called Harnessing Collaborative Technologies: Helping Funders Work Together Better. As part of the research, we looked at more than 170 different technological tools now available to funders, dove deeply into the literature on philanthropic collaboration, analyzed the results of recent Foundation Center surveys, and spoke with a wide range of experts from the worlds of both technology and philanthropy.

HarnessingCollabTech-coverThe Harnessing Collaborative Technologies report helps readers make sense of the dizzying array of technologies that are now available to help those engaged in both low- and high-intensity collaborations by parsing the different collaborative needs of funders. How can new tools help funders learn and get smarter about the issues they care about? How can the technologies help you find and connect with potential partners? How can they help you transact business together? Which technologies can help you assess collective progress and measure outcomes? The report encourages funders to start with these collaborative needs rather than with the technologies themselves, to ensure that solutions fit the wants, requirements, and limitations of users.

Harnessing Collaborative Technologies also provides a set of principles that offer guidance for tool developers and funders about how to make thoughtful choices when investing in the creation and adaptation of new tools that facilitate collaborative work.

In addition to the gorgeous 43-page report, a super-useful interactive tool has been developed by GrantCraft at http://collaboration.grantcraft.org to help people identify tools to facilitate collaboration. This must-see tool is a joint service of the Foundation Center and the European Foundation Centre.

The report’s main headlines won’t come as a huge surprise to anyone: (1) more than ever before, funders are recognizing that they will need to collaborate to effectively to address the complex, intractable problems that we now face, and (2) new technologies—from simple group scheduling tools to comprehensive online collaboration workspaces—are now available to help facilitate the often challenging process of working together.

But there’s a deeper story beneath the headlines: about how these emerging technologies are enabling new types collaborations that weren’t possible (or at least much were more difficult) just a few years ago.

While much of the talk about collaboration these days centers on large, formal “collective impact” initiatives and “needle-moving” collaboratives, these types of highly intensive collaborative approaches aren’t necessarily right for all funders, all situations, and all purposes. In some cases, funders are simply looking to learn together. In others, they’re just aiming to understand the broader ecosystem of activity so they can act independently but still align their efforts with those of others.

New technologies are changing the playing field and making it cheaper and easier than ever before to facilitate these different types of “lower-intensity” collaborative activities. New collaborative platforms are helping funders share files and information, and can provide important forums for ongoing dialogue and conversation. Online project management systems are streamlining processes for coordinating and aligning action. And new tools for aggregating data and visualizing information now allow funders to see the larger funding landscape that they are a part of in new ways.

These simpler, technology-facilitated collaborative activities may not yield the outsized results of more complex, formal efforts, but they often produce very real improvements and outcomes, while also helping to build relationships and momentum that can build towards higher-intensity efforts.

By getting smarter about how we develop and use these collaborative tools, we have an opportunity to alleviate some of the “friction in the system” that has made working together—even in lower intensity ways—difficult until now.  And in doing so, we can ease the path to collaboration and help aggregate resources and effort that can match the scale of the problems we now face.

Resource Link: http://monitorinstitute.com/blog/2013/11/07/collaborative-technologies-reducing-the-friction-in-the-system/

Grantcraft tool that helps you find EXACT tool you need:  http://collaboration.grantcraft.org/