Learning With Partners — The Learning Philanthropy Framework

What Is Learning With Partners?

Learning through relationships with those closest to the work.

The most valuable insights often come from the people doing the work and experiencing its effects. Learning with Partners recognizes that meaningful learning happens through reciprocal relationships built on trust, openness, and shared purpose.

Rather than treating partners simply as sources of information, learning philanthropies create opportunities to learn together, reflect together, and adapt together—strengthening both relationships and impact.

Using learning to strengthen partnerships.

Learning becomes most valuable when it leads to shared action. Reflect & Adapt Together creates opportunities for philanthropies and partners to review progress, explore challenges, and decide together how to improve. Collaborative reflection strengthens trust while supporting more adaptive and effective partnerships.

Maturity spectrum:

Not Yet Engaging	Initiating	Building	Embedding	Thriving
We have not yet identified shared learning priorities with partners. Reflection does not occur intentionally; our interaction with partners is largely limited to reviewing their reports for compliance. We recognize the need for shared learning priorities and more intentional reflection with partners. A few individuals engage in reflective conversations, though these mostly serve our needs and partners remain cautious due to power dynamics.	Some teams have structured reflection conversations or sessions with partners that balance our priorities with theirs, though participation and candor vary. Reflection across partners (peer-to-peer) is rare. Some teams and partners apply insights to make targeted improvements, but practice is inconsistent.	We routinely: co-develop interactive, meaningful reflection processes with partners that serve both parties’ learning priorities. foster safe, trusting environments where candid sharing between partners and with us is increasingly common. gather feedback on the value of reflection and adjust formats and facilitation accordingly. Most teams and partners leave conversations with actionable insights or strengthened connections that inform their work.	We consistently and systematically: co-create reflection agendas with partners, enabling partners to define priorities, methods, and facilitation approaches. foster an environment where peer-to-peer learning and candor are the norm. Partners consistently and systematically adapt strategies when needed as a direct result of shared learning, and–similiarly– we adapt our practices in response, making reflection a core driver of continuous improvement across our partnerships.

Not Yet Engaging

Initiating

Building

Embedding

Thriving

We have not yet identified shared learning priorities with partners.
Reflection does not occur intentionally; our interaction with partners is largely limited to reviewing their reports for compliance.
We recognize the need for shared learning priorities and more intentional reflection with partners.
A few individuals engage in reflective conversations, though these mostly serve our needs and partners remain cautious due to power dynamics.

Some teams have structured reflection conversations or sessions with partners that balance our priorities with theirs, though participation and candor vary.
Reflection across partners (peer-to-peer) is rare.
Some teams and partners apply insights to make targeted improvements, but practice is inconsistent.

We routinely:

co-develop interactive, meaningful reflection processes with partners that serve both parties’ learning priorities.
foster safe, trusting environments where candid sharing between partners and with us is increasingly common.
gather feedback on the value of reflection and adjust formats and facilitation accordingly.
Most teams and partners leave conversations with actionable insights or strengthened connections that inform their work.

We consistently and systematically:

co-create reflection agendas with partners, enabling partners to define priorities, methods, and facilitation approaches.
foster an environment where peer-to-peer learning and candor are the norm.

Partners consistently and systematically adapt strategies when needed as a direct result of shared learning, and–similiarly– we adapt our practices in response, making reflection a core driver of continuous improvement across our partnerships.

Listening and responding to the perspectives of partners and communities.

Feedback creates value when it informs action. Learn from Feedback helps philanthropies consistently seek, interpret, and respond to insights from partners, communities, and others affected by their decisions. By creating accessible feedback channels, addressing power dynamics, and closing the loop on what they hear, philanthropies strengthen relationships and use feedback to improve their practices, strategies, and decisions.

Maturity spectrum:

Not Yet Engaging	Initiating	Building	Embedding	Thriving
We do not have structured feedback mechanisms with partners, communities, and /or stakeholders. Communication is largely one-directional from us to partners. Feedback is not used in decision-making.	We solicit some feedback from partners but quality, relevance, and scope are inconsistent; some topics are not genuinely open to influence. Feedback is referenced in decisions sporadically, and we recognize the need for more systematic approaches. We are exploring how partners might gain feedback from communities and/or relevant stakeholders but have not established support or processes.	Some individuals or teams: establish regular two-way feedback processes with partners; share selective findings, though rationale for decisions may remain limited; use feedback to make targeted improvements. Some partners use feedback from communities and/or relevant stakeholders to strengthen implementation, though practices vary.	The majority of staff routinely: seek and provide feedback with partners, creating a balanced exchange. share feedback findings openly, including context and implications. listen with an open mind and apply feedback to inform decisions and adapt approaches. The majority of partners routinely use feedback from communities and/or relevant stakeholders to improve implementation and share insights with us.	Feedback processes are institutionalized so that all staff, partners, other stakeholders, and—where appropriate—communities: consistently give, receive, and act on input; share findings, decision rationales, and follow-up actions transparently; integrate feedback into programmatic, operational, and strategic adaptations. The continuous “closing of the loop” is a norm across our partnerships.

Not Yet Engaging

Initiating

Building

Embedding

Thriving

We do not have structured feedback mechanisms with partners, communities, and /or stakeholders.
Communication is largely one-directional from us to partners.
Feedback is not used in decision-making.

We solicit some feedback from partners but quality, relevance, and scope are inconsistent; some topics are not genuinely open to influence.
Feedback is referenced in decisions sporadically, and we recognize the need for more systematic approaches.
We are exploring how partners might gain feedback from communities and/or relevant stakeholders but have not established support or processes.

Some individuals or teams:

establish regular two-way feedback processes with partners;
share selective findings, though rationale for decisions may remain limited;
use feedback to make targeted improvements.

Some partners use feedback from communities and/or relevant stakeholders to strengthen implementation, though practices vary.

The majority of staff routinely:

seek and provide feedback with partners, creating a balanced exchange.
share feedback findings openly, including context and implications.
listen with an open mind and apply feedback to inform decisions and adapt approaches.

The majority of partners routinely use feedback from communities and/or relevant stakeholders to improve implementation and share insights with us.

Feedback processes are institutionalized so that all staff, partners, other stakeholders, and—where appropriate—communities:

consistently give, receive, and act on input;
share findings, decision rationales, and follow-up actions transparently;
integrate feedback into programmatic, operational, and strategic adaptations.

The continuous “closing of the loop” is a norm across our partnerships.

^{1. Systems change refers to: “the practice of confronting the causes of problems rather than treating their symptoms”}^{(Lynn & Coffman, 2024)}^.

Evidence-informed grantmaking shaped in collaboration with partners.

Learning begins before a grant is awarded. Design & Award Grants helps philanthropies use evidence and prior experience to shape strategies, while involving partners and relevant communities in defining needs and designing approaches. By building flexibility, learning expectations, and appropriate resources into grants from the outset, philanthropies enable partners to learn, adapt, and respond as their work unfolds.

Maturity spectrum:

Not Yet Engaging	Initiating	Building	Embedding	Thriving
We do not use evidence or prior learning to inform grantmaking or partnership strategies. We largely dictate what partners do. Agreements do not support adaptation or partner learning during implementation.	We rarely use prior experience and existing evidence to develop grantmaking or partnership strategies; we are most likely to continue our approaches from previous years without interrogation. Design decisions involve minimal partner input. Agreements have limited support for learning or flexibility for adaptation during implementation.	Some individuals or teams: use relevant evidence and experience to shape more responsive strategies and designs; engage partners meaningfully in design conversations, though depth and quality vary; design grants with sufficient flexibility to support partner learning and enable adaptation during implementation	The majority of relevant staff: make grantmaking and partnership strategy decisions in response to evidence, experience, and learning; co-create designs with partners through open exchange of priorities, technical expertise, and contextual knowledge; ensure the majority of our agreements enable flexibility and partner learning and adaptation during implementation. Organizationally, we offer tangible support to interested partners for learning, including funding, training, and/or advisory services.	All relevant staff consistently and systematically: make intentional and timely strategy and design decisions guided by credible evidence and shared learning with partners; co-create designs with our partners and leverage partner expertise to guide final decisions. Partners and grantmakers feel that grants reflect their shared priorities and decisions. make awards with built in flexibility to enable learning and adaptation during implementation. This is institutionalized through our operational processes.

Not Yet Engaging

Initiating

Building

Embedding

Thriving

We do not use evidence or prior learning to inform grantmaking or partnership strategies.
We largely dictate what partners do.
Agreements do not support adaptation or partner learning during implementation.

We rarely use prior experience and existing evidence to develop grantmaking or partnership strategies; we are most likely to continue our approaches from previous years without interrogation.
Design decisions involve minimal partner input.
Agreements have limited support for learning or flexibility for adaptation during implementation.

Some individuals or teams:
use relevant evidence and experience to shape more responsive strategies and designs;
engage partners meaningfully in design conversations, though depth and quality vary;
design grants with sufficient flexibility to support partner learning and enable adaptation during implementation

The majority of relevant staff:

make grantmaking and partnership strategy decisions in response to evidence, experience, and learning;
co-create designs with partners through open exchange of priorities, technical expertise, and contextual knowledge;
ensure the majority of our agreements enable flexibility and partner learning and adaptation during implementation. Organizationally, we offer tangible support to interested partners for learning, including funding, training, and/or advisory services.

All relevant staff consistently and systematically:

make intentional and timely strategy and design decisions guided by credible evidence and shared learning with partners;
co-create designs with our partners and leverage partner expertise to guide final decisions. Partners and grantmakers feel that grants reflect their shared priorities and decisions.
make awards with built in flexibility to enable learning and adaptation during implementation. This is institutionalized through our operational processes.

Link copied