COMMUNITY LEARNING AND GOVERNANCE NETWORK: INITIAL CONCEPTS
By Paul Epstein and Chris Paterson, revised based on comments, March 6, 2001
Initial “Boundary Conditions” or “Focus” of the Network
Eventually, a network will be strongest if its members agree on a shared vision and goals, and
focus on subject matter important to all members. In this case, because people are interested
in topics that are not all fully defined, and may mean different things to different people, it is
important to provide some “starting boundary conditions” or “initial focus” with at least parts of
our subject matter—what the network is about—pre-defined. This will give initial network
members a mutual understanding from the outset, or a clear point of departure for starting
discussions and learning. Network members may eventually decide to cross those initial
boundaries and widen the focus—or create multiple points of focus, some wide, some narrow.
But we have to start somewhere, and with other networks out there using similar language,
such as “learning communities” and “collaborative strategies,” we suggest that as early network
members, we set clear initial boundaries for ourselves concerning what this network is about.
Here is our initial thinking on network boundaries:
Suggestions for what the network is about, and what it is not about, at least at first:

Physical communities, not virtual communities. As members of a spread-out network of

Community learning, not “learning communities.” While we ultimately may want to build a

Strategically aligned results-oriented governance, not only engaged citizens or collaborative
governance, and not only “managing for results.” It may be important for the network to
people with different institutional relationships, we will be a “virtual community.” But our
focus of concern will be real-world physical communities where people live their lives, with
“community” broadly defined to include regions (and potentially states, provinces, or
nations) as well as counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods.
definition or template for a “learning community,” we think that will be a problematic
distraction at first, and it will be better to focus on “how a community learns,” and how to
stimulate learning, at the outset of the network. See Table 1 for an initial attempt at listing
key attributes of community learning for the network to explore.
share approaches to engaging citizens and building collaborations, and techniques for using
data to improve results. But ultimately, the network is interested in strategically achieving
both in the same community, and making strong, strategic connections between the “people
processes” (i.e., engagement and collaboration) and the “data processes” (i.e., using
performance data to help make decisions and improve outcomes). See Table 2 for an
“Effective Governance Model” focusing on “strategic alignment” (including a possible
expansion of the model presented in the recent RP-CINet on-line forum) and suggested
“minimum characteristics” of strategic alignment.

Systemic community learning involving repeated use of data and feedback, not only discrete

“Strategic alignment” and “community learning” strategies that help communities achieve
widely shared goals, not alignment or learning for its own sake. See Figure 1 for a
or one-time problem solving. Again, it may be important for the network to share
collaborative problem solving processes, facilitation techniques, etc. But network members
will see those techniques as a “means” toward the “end” of a community that uses its
learning processes systemically to improve multiple conditions of community life, and to
shift its focus and improvement approaches over time as it reviews data on those conditions
and attempts to improve them over time.
suggested depiction of “double loop learning” relationships among “strategic alignment,”
1
“systemic community learning,” and a community achieving its goals. It would be up to
each community whether its shared goals focus on issues of “quality of life,” “effective and
efficient public services,” “community health,” “sustainability,” or another set of constructs.
Figure 1. “Double Loop Learning” Relationships Among Strategic Concepts
Strategic
Alignment
Systemic
Community
Learning
Progress Toward
Community Goals
Strategic alignment helps promote
systemic community learning, which
in turn helps a community achieve its
goals. Looping back, feedback on
indicators related to goal attainment
helps a community learn systemically,
which in turn may help a community
improve its strategic alignment. The
outer loop notes direct connections
between alignment practices and goal
attainment.

Community learning that results in communities changing their goals. As was mentioned in

Examining roles of, and relationships among, different community players or institutions, not
only about the roles of one type of institution or “player.” The different players can include
government, “non-government organizations” (NGOs, generally non-profit organizations),
businesses, and individual citizens. Again, it may be important for the network to share
the recent RP-CINet on-line forum, a community might demonstrate learning not only by
achieving its goals, but also by changing its goals based on what people learn. For
example, a community might start with goals focused on immediate “street level” quality of
life or public service issues, and later decide to add longer-term sustainability goals. The
network might examine the dynamics and conditions needed to stimulate the “deeper
learning” for a community to shift from incremental changes toward established goals, to
more ambitious or sophisticated goals that address complex issues of modern society.
approaches and techniques used by one type of institution or another in different
communities, especially as in different communities, different types of institutions are likely
to take the lead and go furthest in developing relevant techniques. But ultimately, the
network is interested in how different kinds of organizations and individuals can play
important roles in systemic community learning, can take concerted action toward shared
community goals, and can help the community continually improve itself in multiple ways.

Examining learning and governance processes around specific issues of interest to network
members and their communities. This network is essentially about processes of learning
and governance. But ultimately, examples demonstrating real progress toward results must
focus on specific issues facing communities. The interests of network members, and the
communities they serve, live in, or study, will inevitably determine which issues are explored
through these examples. When a critical mass of network members show interest in—or
submit examples related to—specific topics such as “sustainability,” it may be useful for the
network to call attention to such topics by, for example, creating discussion groups and
indexing material based on those topics. However, it will probably be best for this network
to focus on the processes used to work with these issues, and refer members to other
sources for technical aspects of the issues (e.g., the science behind global warming).
2
Table 1. Possible Attributes of “Community Learning” for the Network to Explore
WHO IS LEARNING, AND AT WHAT LEVELS? e.g.:
 Individual citizens and families
 Younger members of communities who can be the “next generation” of engaged citizens
 Individual members of groups and organizations (e.g., government organizations, NGOs,
businesses, and less formal community or interest groups)
 Teams of people within organizations or groups, or organized by groups (e.g., citizen teams
organized by NGOs or governments)
 Multi-group and cross-sector learning: People from different groups, organizations,
jurisdictions, or sectors within a community learn together or learn from each other
WHAT CONNECTIONS OCCUR—OR CAN OCCUR—BETWEEN DIFFERENT LEARNERS,
AND DIFFERENT LEVELS OF LEARNING? e.g.:
 Connections between NGO and government measurement efforts, including roles and
relationships for key activities, e.g., deciding on measures, data collection, use of data.
 Connections between learning and decision processes of citizens and families, and those of
organizations (e.g., governments, NGOs, businesses) in the community
 Connections between government, business, and NGO analysis and decision processes
 Connections between each organization’s learning and decision processes, and broader
community collaborative learning processes
 The direction of these connections (e.g., one-way, or two-way with feedback loops)
LEARNING WHAT? e.g.:
 At a minimum, learning about conditions and issues in the community, as measured by
outcome indicators and other relevant performance measures. Other possible types of
learnings may include, for example, the two items below.
 People and organizations learning about each other, e.g., their values, needs, interests,
attitudes, and views; their similarities and differences; the resources they can bring to help
the community achieve its goals.
 Strategic skills and techniques for working together and using information for decisionmaking; e.g., systems thinking, dialogue and listening skills, group facilitation, performance
management tools (such as the Balanced Scorecard). These could be learned and applied
by individuals, organizations, or mixes of people from different organizations and groups.
WHAT ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND DECISION
PROCESSES SUPPORT COMMUNITY LEARNING? e.g.:
 Indicator, performance measurement, and related systems of information relevant to
community decision making.
 Decision processes shaped to make use of community indicators, and to be inclusive of
different interests and interpretations of community data.
 Facilitation and technical assistance techniques and levels of support for, e.g., consensus
building, conflict resolution, goal setting, better understanding of data.
 Balancing potentially competing aspects of learning and governance, e.g., expertise and
participation; collaboration and competition; flexibility and accountability.
 Information management systems, including geographic analysis and display capabilities,
that provide ease of access to multiple levels of data and analysis for citizen use and
decision support for community leaders from government, NGOs, businesses, and crosssector community collaboratives.
3
Table 2. Effective Governance Model with Strategic Alignment as the Central Link
Citizen
Engagement
NOTE: In an “Expanded
Governance Model,” this
element would be changed to
“Decisions, Plans, and Actions”
that may be taken by any
organizations in the community
(including businesses and nonprofits) or by individual citizens,
not just by government.
3
3
Government
Policy and
Implementation
4
1
2
Performance
Measurement
Linkages to Enhance Effective Governance in Communities
The numbers above note the following four linkages in the Effective Governance Model:
1. Performance management by government: The two-way linkage of performance
measurement and reporting, and government policy and implementation.
2. Citizens engaged in measuring and reporting performance: A two-way linkage.
3. Citizens engaged in government policy and implementation: A two-way linkage.
4. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT: Citizens engaged in performance management: The
three-way linkage that aligns all three elements of the effective governance model.
Characteristics of Strategic Alignment
While strategic alignment can take many forms, the following minimum characteristics are
suggested in “Engaging Citizens in Achieving Results that Matter: A Model for Effective 21st
Century Governance,” available at: http://www.citizensleague.net/cl/SLOAN/cover.htm:
 A public discourse that goes beyond “informed” citizens to “engaged” citizens, with citizens
involved in community governance in multiple roles (roles are defined in the above paper).
 A vision, strategic plan, or set of strategic priorities, is developed and accepted in the
community, and followed by government and other organizations through resource
commitments and through measurement, reporting, and feedback of quantitative results.
 The effort is sustained over time with adequate resources and some mechanism to sustain
continuation, such as a local ordinance or charter provision and designated public office to
implement it, or a community-based non-profit organization with dedicated funding.
 Cross-sector and cross-organizational collaborations.
 What some call “authentic public participation” (King, Cheryl S. et al, “The Question of
Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration.” Public
Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 4., 1998). For strategic alignment, this would include:

Citizens actively engaged in community processes in which they have some effective

influence; at least some of the citizen engagement should be broad-based, representative
of the community, and autonomous from government officials.
Citizen influence is translated into change. Not every citizen concern need be acted upon,
but enough should be so citizens’ participation is credible and they stay engaged. Citizen
influence can be effective whether decisions and actions for change are taken by
government, private organizations, or individual citizens, which reflects an expanded
governance model: see note in graphic above.
4
Possible Types of Network Goals
For greatest success, network members will develop a common vision based on shared values,
and shared goals based on that vision. Members can also “re-vision” the network from time to
time. At this early “concepts” stage, it may be more useful to consider “types” of goals, than
actual goals. Here are suggestions for five possible types of network goals:
1. Goals for information sharing and learning among members, e.g., about ideas, practices,
lessons learned members feel are valuable (without evaluating, judging, or trying to reach
agreement or consensus on those ideas and practices).
2. Goals for producing useful products or tools, e.g., self-assessment guides, practice guides,
case studies, syntheses of types of practices or lessons learned.
3. Goals for in-the-field accomplishments: Actual projects in communities or across
communities stimulated by the network.
4. Goals for developing and translating key concepts and definitions related to community
learning and governance. People from different fields may use their own language to
discuss related ideas, and they may have different understandings of key phrases such as
“community learning.” This network can provide a forum for “translation” of ideas across
fields to promote understanding of concepts and support for practices.
5. Goals for public or professional acceptance, beyond this network, of values, ideas, and
practices supported or encouraged by the network. This can include serving as a translator
between the different languages—often representing similar concepts or principles—used by
different people and professions.
Some goals may be emphasized early (e.g., information sharing), while others may more
realistically be emphasized later. Goals will change as the network changes. For example,
“translation” goals (type 4) may start out focusing on promoting a better understanding among
people in different professions. However, if the network expands beyond professional
practitioners and researchers to involve, for example, elected officials and community residents,
network members may be challenged to simplify the language used to make the concepts
understandable and compelling to people who don’t study these concepts professionally.
Simpler language may also be needed to achieve “public acceptance” goals (type 5).
Memberships: Potential Future Structure and Starting Point
As this network is about boundary-crossing ideas, and will doubtless have goals that depend on
collaborations across organizations and sectors, it will have to draw upon people from different
backgrounds, professions, sectors, and kinds of organizations. As different professions and
organizations have their own networks, this “boundary-crossing network” can ultimately be
most effective if it leverages other networks based on professions, types of organizations, and
other interests. In other words, this network will increase its impact if we not only get
interested people to learn from each other through a single, stand-alone network, but also get
them to spread these ideas through other networks they participate in. Then, if other networks
(e.g., associations of government professionals, of elected officials, of civic organizations, of
business leaders) form their own discussion groups or “internal networks” around the ideas
from “our” network, many more people will be exposed to these ideas, and will develop them
and take them in more directions faster than could be accomplished in a single network. To
close the loop, people from those networks can then bring these new learnings back to “our”
network, which would serve as a “core network” that advances the learnings, thinking, and
practice of systemic community learning all that much faster. This would be a “network of
networks.”
5
A useful metaphor for such a network of networks is a healthy, dense forest. The mature forest
has many trees (individual networks) whose root structures overlap to drink from a common
well of values without interfering with each other, and whose branches overlap at various
heights to provide numerous levels for interactive networking among the creatures (network
members) who populate the forest. At this point, of course, we’re only at the point of planting
the first tree of the forest: the “core network.” But it is realistic to consider an eventual
network of networks, as representatives of several existing networks have already expressed
interest in our prospective learning network. So it will be useful and practical to think about
how to develop the core network in a way that will also stimulate other networks to focus on
our subject. That leads to the following thoughts:
Developing the initial membership of the core network:

Invite all who expressed interest immediately after the recent on-line forum to join, and to
participate in early shaping of network goals, without carving the goals in stone; also invite
representatives of other networks or membership organizations (those who have already
expressed interest, and others thought to be strategic) to participate in this “shaping”
process to increase the likelihood of interest from their members.

Based on the above “shaping process,” invite selected other networks or membership
organizations to extend invitations to their members to join the core network.
From an early point in the life of our network, encourage core network members to bring the
ideas we’ve discussed back to their other networks, and to try to get parallel discussions going,
as a way to start working toward an eventual network of networks.
Some time later, after the network has been in contact with communities attempting interesting
learning and governance practices, our network may want to expand beyond professional
members in existing networks to include “lay” members such as community residents, elected
officials, business people, and others. While it is premature to say whether the network will
expand in that direction, the Internet, and the rise of “e-government” electronic connections
among governments and people, make such an expansion an intriguing possibility.
Communication Strategies: Technology Platforms and Other Meeting Places
Networks work best if they offer a variety of ways for members to communicate, with different
communication approaches reinforcing each other. At a minimum, we suggest:
 Face-to-face meetings, which may be arranged by “piggy-backing” onto existing
organizations’ conferences, by developing the network’s own meetings, or both.
 Internet-based communications, using “broadcast” technology such as a listserv, and more
focused technology such as web conferencing. In addition to developing or “borrowing” its
own technology platforms, the “core network” could link with other networks’ platforms.
Electronic communications can directly contribute to network goals and support face-to-face
meetings by fostering continued discussion, promote on-going learning, and serve as a
medium to plan between face-to-face meetings.
As important as communication strategies are to a network, we think they should be driven by
network goals, subject matter, and membership considerations. So we suggest deferring
detailed consideration of communications strategies until the concepts presented earlier in this
paper are considered and developed further by prospective initial network members.
6