The document discusses Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) and co-created consortiums. It provides definitions of RPPs from literature as long-term collaborations between practitioners and researchers to address problems in education. Co-created consortiums are discussed as similar but with shorter-term collaborations under a single agreement like a USAID project. Key characteristics of effective RPPs are outlined, like long-term collaboration and mutual benefit. The document explores how a USAID-funded consortium led by LINC compared to characteristics of effective RPPs and discusses activities, products and evaluation of the consortium's work.

1. 11/27/2019 FOOTER GOES HERE 1
Charting the Journey: Defining Success for
Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs)
Presented by LINC & Revolution Impact

2. Who are we?
2
INTRODUCTIONS
Pranav Kothari
CEO & Founder
Jenna White
Program Director
Revolution Impact is a consulting firm that
focuses on helping social sector organizations
improve their results through better business
practices and organizational strategies.
LINC is a US-based small business that assists
local and international organizations to design
effectively, increase institutional capacity, forge
lasting partnerships, and measure impact.

3. Agenda
3
WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY
1. Overview of RPPs
2. Overview of existing framework for evaluating RPPs proposed by Henrick et al. 2017
3. Experience from designing local and state RPPs in the education space (Pranav Kothari,
Revolution Impact)
4. Experience from managing an RPP for a 3-year USAID-funded project (Jenna White, LINC)
5. Discussion

4. What is a Research Practice Partnership (RPP)?
4
DEFINITIONS FROM LITERATURE REVIEW OF RPPS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
DEFINITIONS
• “Long-term, mutualistic collaborations between
practitioners and researchers that are
intentionally organized to investigate problems
of practice and solutions for improving
outcomes.”
• “RPPs are research collaborations between
educational researchers and practitioners.
RPPs bring researchers, practitioners, and
other stakeholders together in long-term,
cooperative relationships to examine and
address educational problems.”
• “RPPs are long-term collaborations between
practitioners and researchers that are
organized to investigate problems of practice
and solutions for improving schools and school
districts.”
GOALS
• Disseminate and implement evidence-based
practices. In this case partnership work focuses
on research and technical assistance to support
implementation of interventions.
• Enable greater use of research in decision-
making.
• Address persistent problems of practice and
improve [educational] outcomes.
• Building the skills, knowledge and capacity of
educators for using research evidence in their
decision-making.

5. How are RPPs different than traditional partnership approaches?
5
FROM LITERATURE REVIEW OF RPPS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Traditional Approach RPP Approach
Short-term, project-centered relationships Long-term relationship with develops trust, and
furthers the ability to weather challenges
Focus their work on addressing researchers’
questions that arise from gaps in the literature
about specific topics.
Focus their work on the problems of practice
that stem from the school district’s goals and
interests.
One group has authority over agenda-
setting. Researchers may try to persuade
schools to adopt a policy or intervention. A
district may hire researchers to conduct and
evaluation.
Mutualism. Mutually beneficial partnerships
that meet the needs of both the researchers and
the practitioners, resulting in shared ownership
over the work.
Lack of structure which results in a lack of
dialogue between practitioners and researchers
Specific structures and systems are used to
organize their work with each other (e.g. formal
data sharing agreements, regular meetings,
formal networks)
Make existing data accessible to district
leaders.
Production of original analyses of data to
answer research questions posed by the district.

6. What makes an effective RPP?
6
HOW DO WE MEASURE SUCCESS?
In their 2017 paper, Henrick et al. propose the following five dimensions for evaluating the
efficacy of RPPs:
1. Building trust and cultivating partnership relationships
2. Conducting rigorous research to inform action
3. Supporting the partner practice organization in achieving its goals
4. Producing knowledge that can inform educational improvement efforts more broadly
5. Building the capacity of participating researchers, practitioners, practice organizations, and
research organizations to engage in partnership work
Source: Henrick, E.C., Cobb, P., Penuel, W.R., Jackson, K., & Clark, T. (2017). Assessing Research-Practice
Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.

7. Our reason for forming
7
IN SEPTEMBER 2017, A STEERING COMMITTEE FORMED TO EXPLORE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
With so many important education
policy changes happening in
Illinois, including a new K-12 funding
formula, implementation
of the Postsecondary & Workforce
Readiness Act, approval of the
state’s plans under ESSA, and
investments related to the Illinois
Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge Grant,
THE GROUP FORMED
TO ANSWER:
What can we do to maximize the impact
of rich data we are now able to produce?
What research capacities might we need to
add in order to support improved data use?
How can we more tightly connect research
and data to policy and practice, including
ensuring that we have ongoing research that
informs our policy agenda and supports
successful implementation of existing policies?

8. Engagement Approach
The Steering Committee met five times over the course of the engagement to review findings, provide guidance
to the project team, and inform strategic decisions. Steering Committee members also offered critical feedback
between meetings on strategic choice points that are reflected in the recommendations that follow.
FINAL
READOUT
JANUARY 2018
PHASE 3
DECEMBER 2017 –
JANUARY 2018
PHASE 2
NOVEMBER –
DECEMBER 2017
PHASE 1
SEPTEMBER –
NOVEMBER 2017
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT AND
LANDSCAPE SCAN STRATEGIC PLANNING
BUSINESS AND
OPERATIONAL PLANNING
ENGAGEMENT
CONCLUSION
Stakeholder interviews,
peer interviews, and
secondary research
Explore and detail strategic
choices related to vision,
where we will play, and how
we will succeed
Explore and detail strategic
choices related to
competencies and
management systems
Present a summary of
findings, recommendations,
and next steps

9. What we learned
Stakeholder engagement, national and regional landscape scans, and facilitated
work sessions with a diverse Steering Committee led to three primary conclusions:
1. There is clear demand and growing momentum to see research and data
inform education policy and practice across Illinois;
2. New research capacity, in the form of a to-be-established entity, is needed
to address stakeholder demand; and,
3. The research produced through this new capacity should and will help advance
educational outcomes for all students in Illinois.
The recommendations that follow detail the capacity needs and how they can be
filled in the Illinois education research and data ecosystem.
9

10. Stakeholder Engagement: Summary
KEY FINDINGS
Stakeholders
validated the need
to better connect
research and data
to education
policy and
practice in Illinois.
Stakeholders affirmed
there is not an entity
or dedicated budget
currently addressing
this role statewide.
This is a material gap
in the ecosystem.
Stakeholders insisted
that for this work to
advance, we need
trusting relationships,
frequent
communication,
ready access to data,
a focus on
continuous
improvement, and
sound operations.
Stakeholders specifically
mentioned the importance
of state agencies and
practitioners as key
contributors to a
research agenda.
10

11. Landscape Scan: Summary
THERE WERE THREE STEPS IN THE APPROACH TO LEARN FROM EXISTING MODELS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
Compiled a List of
Organizations in Data/Research/
Policy/Practice Space
Assessed Similarities and
Differentiating Factors
Among Regional and State
Focused Organizations
AREAS OF INTEREST:
Organizational Structure
Data Analysis & Research Activities
Strategies to Engage Policymakers
and Practitioners
13ORGANIZATIONS
26ORGANIZATIONS1
IDENTIFY ORGANIZATIONS SECONDARY RESEARCH PEER INTERVIEWS
60+ORGANIZATIONS1
SOURCES:
State by State Search
Suggestions from Stakeholder Interviews
National Network of Education
Research-Practice Partnerships
Interviewed Exemplar
Organizations for
Additional Insights
TOPICS COVERED:
Key Success Factors
Lessons Learned/Current Challenges
Measures of Success
Funding
Institutional Homes1Please see the appendix for the initial list of 60+ organizations and the 26 included in the secondary research11
APPROACH

12. Landscape Scan: Summary (continued)
SUCCESS FACTORS AND LESSONS LEARNED CENTERED ON THREE DOMAINS
Timely access to high
quality data
Entrepreneurial and
passionate team
Research/
translational capacity
at state agencies
Select the right
research partners
Stakeholder
engagement early
and often
Invest time into
peer learning
Balanced and relevant
research agenda
Careful project
selection to maximize
impact
Purposeful research
dissemination/
products
COLLABORATIVE
RELATIONSHIPS
RELEVANT AND
ACTIONABLE
RESEARCH
FOUNDATIONAL
CAPACITY
12
KEY FINDINGS

13. 11/27/2019 FOOTER GOES HERE 13
Local Systems Practice RPP
Presented by LINC, member of the USAID Local Systems Practice (LSP)
Team

14. • Local Systems Practice (LSP) is a USAID-funded activity that is directly assisting
multiple missions, partners, and constituents to design and adaptively manage systems-
based programs in complex environments.
• LSP is a consortium composed of six organizations, led by LINC and including
development practitioners and research institutions. The partnership aims to explore and
implement systems thinking approaches with missions, local partners and other local
stakeholders, and to provide unique insights and learning around the value of systems
thinking in a development context. The five sub-implementers are ANSER, the University
of Notre Dame, AVSI, the University of Missouri, and Practical Action.
Our reason for forming

15. Engagement Approach
The consortium came together for weekly or bi-weekly calls through Phase 3 of the project. The consortium also came together to co-author
periodic reports and develop annual workplans.
FINAL REPORT
JANUARY 2020
PHASE 3
DECEMBER 2017 –
AUGUST 2019
PHASE 2
MAY 2017 –
DECEMBER 2018
PHASE 1
JANUARY – MAY
2017
DEFINE SUCCESS FOR THE
CONSORTIUM
OUTREACH & RESEARCH PILOTS & TRAININGS ENGAGEMENT
CONCLUSION
Stakeholder interviews,
kickoff meetings,
workplanning, develop
shared work systems,
discovery and learning
Reach out to missions to
identify opportunities for
engagement. Conducted
original research.
Engaged in 4 pilot
engagement with USAID
missions. Conducted
trainings for CSOs.
Present a summary of
consortium achievements
under the LSP activity

16. Why and When is Co-Creation Appropriate?
from USAID Discussion Note on Co-Creation
• Co-creation creates a unique collaboration space characterized by shared ownership
and decision-making.
• This approach also makes it easier to identify opportunities for innovation and
systems change.
• Through mutual engagement and problem-solving, co-creation offers a valuable platform
for forging new network connections, coalitions that cut across traditional silos, and
partnerships to advance specific actions and agenda.
• The diverse, and sometimes conflicting, perspectives brought together through
collaborative brainstorming and problem-solving often produce more fit-for-purpose
solutions and/or out-of-the-box ideas that have greater potential for breakthrough
change.
A co-created consortium
Source:
https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/co_creation_discussion_note_august_13_2017_final.
pdf

17. Key characteristics of RPPs
17
1. Long-Term Collaboration
Open-ended commitments that involve more
than a single consulting agreement or grant.
2. Focused on Problems of Practice
RPPs start with a focus on problems relevant
to practice. These are issues and questions
that [districts] find pressing and important.
3. Mutualism
RPPs are characterized by sustained
interaction that benefits both researchers and
practitioners.
4. Use Intentional Strategies to Foster
Partnerships
RPPs set out written agreements through
charters, operating principles, and
memoranda of understanding. RPPs specify
norms, roles, and responsibilities to avoid
confusion, uncertainty, and conflict.
5. Produce Original Analyses
RPPs produce original analyses of data to
answer research questions posed by [the
district].

18. How do co-created consortiums compare to RPPs?
1. Long-Term Collaboration
Short-term collaboration involving only a
single agreement.
2. Focused on Problems of Practice
Consortium began with a focus on problems
relevant to practice. These are issues and
questions that [USAID] finds pressing and
important.
3. Mutualism
The consortium was characterized by varying
interaction that benefitted both researchers
and practitioners, but not always
simultaneously.
4. Use Intentional Strategies to Foster
Partnerships
The consortium set out written agreements
via sub-contracts. However, this placed one
organization in the position of being the prime.
The consortium took time at the beginning of
the work to specify norms, roles, and
responsibilities to avoid confusion,
uncertainty, and conflict.
5. Produce Original Analyses
The consortium did produce original analyses
of data to answer research questions posed in
collaboration with USAID.

19. Activities & Products
• Research Reports:
– Critical Success Factors for Development
Initiatives
– ONA / SNA reports
• Practical Guides:
– User’s guide for using systems-based
approaches to address development
challenges
– Listening for program design guide
• Delivered Systems Thinking Trainings
– Series of trainings for CSOs
What we achieved & how we worked
Ways of Working
• The group used a combination of
online platforms (google site),
standing phone calls, and in-person
meetings for collaboration.
• Different combinations of partners
worked together on various
deliverables

20. Discussion Questions
20
WHAT WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK ON
• How should we think about evaluating the efficacy of RPPs?
• What are the unique aspects that should be captured? Who decides?
• Who determines success (partners, users of knowledge products, etc.)?
• Where have you observed RPPs work well?
• What successes have you had?
• What challenges have you encountered?

21. What makes an effective RPP?
21
HOW DO WE MEASURE SUCCESS?
In their 2017 paper, Henrick et al propose the following five dimensions for evaluating the
efficacy of RPPs:
1. Building trust and cultivating partnership relationships
2. Conducting rigorous research to inform action
3. Supporting the partner practice organization in achieving its goals
4. Producing knowledge that can inform educational improvement efforts more broadly
5. Building the capacity of participating researchers, practitioners, practice organizations, and
research organizations to engage in partnership work
Source: Henrick, E.C., Cobb, P., Penuel, W.R., Jackson, K., & Clark, T. (2017). Assessing Research-Practice
Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.