1. ASSESSING NETWORK HEALTH Terri Willard, March 3, 2009 Rural People, Rural Policy Initiative Network meeting

2. Varying Starting Points  Network assessment and evaluation has grown out of a variety of evaluation traditions:  Organizational learning and improvement  Accountability to funders and stakeholders for $ spent on projects/programs Process evaluation Impact evaluation  None of these fit precisely when you are trying to assess network health.

3. Networks Need to Distinguish Between:  Grows out of organizational learning tradition  Lack of collaboration typology makes description essential, but difficult  Focuses on goals, structures, processes, operations and capacities–and the degree to which there is a shared understanding of these  Grows out of a project/program framework  Focuses on relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability  Challenges in applying the standard definitions of these elements to network work (e.g., no difference between effectiveness and impact for purpose-driven networks) The network’s operations (Form)The network’s work (Function) A good network assessment looks at both form and function, with an analysis of their compatibility. Does form follow function?

4. Additional Evaluation Challenges  Network Life Cycle  Networks evolve–Issues for network form and function are different in Year 1 than Year 10  New networks must achieve balance between building trust and getting something done!  Older networks must demonstrate adaptability to changing circumstances and contexts, particularly with respect to reinvigorating leadership and maintaining relevance of work  Purpose of Network  Connectivity, alignment and production networks do different “work”  Harder to assess effectiveness and impact of connectivity and alignment networks since results are less tangible  A focus on outcomes can help all networks understand that their impact is achieved through changing the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of others

5. Assessment is easier when the network:  Has a clear goal, a theory of change, and a logical plan which connects activities to expected outcomes  Maintains organized files on its history, activities, and finances  Develops documentation on the roles and responsibilities of members, coordinators, host organizations and funders  Involves members in the development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation frameworks for itself  Engages in periodic evaluative activities, whether or not required to do so by funders

6. Network Assessment Resources  IISD: www.iisd.org/networks/evaluationwww.iisd.org/networks/evaluation  Net Gains book: www.networkimpact.org/downloads/NetGainsHandbookVersion1.pdf www.networkimpact.org/downloads/NetGainsHandbookVersion1.pdf  Evaluation Exchange: www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation- exchangewww.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation- exchange  Outcome Mapping Community: www.outcomemapping.cawww.outcomemapping.ca  McKinsey Capacity Assessment Framework: www.vppartners.org/learning/reports/capacity/capacity.htm www.vppartners.org/learning/reports/capacity/capacity.htm  Universalia Institutional and Organizational Assessment: www.universalia.com www.universalia.com  OECD DAC Evaluation Criteria: www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_ 1_1_1_1,00.html www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_ 1_1_1_1,00.html