A CASE FOR KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE

A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
We Know Local Power Matters. Knowledge Infrastructure Is How We Strengthen and Advance It.
Presented by Angele Jackson-DeLarge, 2026
BVM has built something real. The relationships, the trust, the proven belief that local power changes everything. This isn't a starting point, it is the foundation this proposal is designed to protect and strengthen. What follows is not a reaction to dysfunction. but a research-grounded, evidence-informed argument for what BVM's next stage requires, built on a clear-eyed analysis of where the organization stands and where the moment is headed.
The case centers on one interconnected investment in knowledge infrastructure and demonstrates how that single investment drives outcomes across three areas BVM cannot afford to leave to chance. The strength of field operations. The competitiveness of funder relationships. The long-term health of the organization itself. By establishing clear ownership of institutional knowledge, defining shared growth indicators that help us recognize and reinforce partner development, and building structured learning systems that connect field insight back to strategy, we move from informal alignment to intentional integration. What we've learned doesn't fade with staff transitions or election cycles. It compounds. It strengthens. It becomes easier to pass forward.
Alignment doesn't diminish innovation and autonomy. It sustains it. We're not here to prescribe how communities organize or tell partners how to lead. Local strategy stays local. Partner autonomy stays intact. What changes is the strength and coherence of the internal systems standing behind them. This is how BVM grows without losing what made it worth growing in the first place.
Why Now
This is the moment to build the systems that scale requires, before the external pressure makes it impossible to do so thoughtfully.
The Stakes Are High
The same forces making the external work harder are precisely why internal systems can't stay informal. The strength BVM brings to the field depends on the strength of what's standing behind it.
This isn't rhetorical. It's structural. Since 2020, at least 28 states have enacted 80 laws restricting voting access. Federal protections that organizers spent decades building are being challenged, weakened, or eliminated outright. The opposition is organized, funded, and moving fast. In this environment, local power isn't just important. It's the line. The organizing happening through BVM isn't background work. This is the work. This is why the organizations doing it need the strongest possible infrastructure standing behind them.
Black Communities NeedS Right NOW
Funders, advocates, and community members are watching to see whether civic investment actually produces durable strength. BVM is positioned to demonstrate that strength, but only if the internal systems exist to track and show it.
Right now Black communities need more than organizing alone. Communities need to see tangible, measurable progress: wins that compound, infrastructure that holds, leaders who grow. The kind of development that doesn't evaporate after an election cycle.
The Funding Environment
Organizations that can show developmental growth across their portfolios will hold their funding. Those that can't will lose ground, regardless of how strong the relationships are.
Philanthropic dollars are not expanding to match the moment. If anything, competition is intensifying. Foundations are asking harder questions, not just "what did you do?" but "what changed because of it?" Longitudinal evidence of ecosystem strengthening isn't a nice-to-have anymore. It's increasingly the threshold for continued investment.
BVM Perpetuity and Longevity
The mission hasn't changed. But the structural requirements of delivering on it have. This is the moment to close that gap, before the external pressure makes it impossible to do so thoughtfully.
In 2024, BVM invested $9,138,968 across 711 partner organizations in 25 states. That scale is an asset. It's also a responsibility. At this size, informal coordination is no longer sufficient to ensure that every partner receives the same quality of developmental support, that every staff member is working from the same foundation, or that every dollar is reinforcing long-term organizational strength.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
2
Current Themes
The table below maps six organizational themes across four dimensions: where BVM currently stands, how each gap shows up in the day-to-day work, what the risk is if left unaddressed, and what structural investment is missing. Together they tell a single story: BVM's informal systems have served the organization well and they are no longer sufficient for the scale the mission requires.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
3
A Closer Look at Each Theme
The table on the previous page names the gaps. This section shows what they look like in practice. Each theme is illustrated with a concrete example drawn from how BVM currently operates, the tradeoff it creates, and what becomes possible when the structural gap is closed. These aren't hypothetical scenarios. They're the operational reality of an organization that has grown faster than its internal systems.
I. Institutional Knowledge Lives Primarily in People
Where We Are Now
Core organizing philosophy and historical context are transmitted relationally rather than through shared systems.
Impact on Work
Onboarding and cross-regional alignment depend heavily on who is available to explain context.
Example
BVM has always prioritized relationships over bureaucracy, and that's a strength. Passing knowledge person-to-person keeps it warm and contextual. The tradeoff is that when staff transition, that context doesn't always travel with them. A new regional organizer asking "how does BVM define capacity building differently from direct service support?" may get a different answer depending on who they ask, not because anyone is wrong, but because the framing was never formally codified. Building shared institutional knowledge means that clarity lives in the organization, not just in its people.
The work still happens. Codifying it makes it more durable.
II. Capacity Development Is Strong but Not Always Sequenced
Where We Are Now
Partners receive meaningful support, but there isn't always a clearly shared developmental pathway across regions.
Impact on Work
Grant conversations may center on immediate program needs rather than stage-based organizational growth.
Example
BVM intentionally avoids being prescriptive; partners know their communities, and imposing a rigid framework would undercut local strategy. The tradeoff is that without a shared developmental sequence, it's difficult to know whether a partner in Year 3 is stronger than they were in Year 1 in ways that matter, such as leadership depth, governance systems, and financial sustainability. A defined curriculum doesn't tell partners what to do. It gives BVM a consistent lens for recognizing and reinforcing growth when it happens.
Growth is happening. A shared framework makes it visible and reinforceable.
III. Learning Is Relational, Not Institutional
Where We Are Now
Organizing innovations are shared through conversation but not always documented and integrated across regions.
Impact on Work
Successful strategies stay localized longer than necessary.
Example
The most important lessons at BVM travel through trust: a conversation at a convening, a debrief call between staff, a story shared at an Institute session. That's by design. Relationship-based learning keeps knowledge grounded. The tradeoff is that a youth-led GOTV model that drove real turnout engagement in one region may take years to reach the other 24 states, or never get there at all. Building a structured learning cadence means BVM captures those lessons without stripping out the relational texture. The innovation spreads on purpose, not by chance.
The knowledge exists. Institutional infrastructure makes it travel.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
4
IV. Reporting Reflects Activity Over Growth
Where We Are Now
Activity is well documented, but developmental growth across 711 partners isn't consistently tracked over time.
Impact on Work
Long-term ecosystem strengthening is harder to quantify, making it harder to defend to funders expecting longitudinal evidence.
Example
Partners already carry significant responsibility, such as running programs, mobilizing communities, managing staff, and reporting on outcomes. The last thing BVM wants is to add reporting burden on top of that work. So developmental tracking has stayed light. The tradeoff is real: without consistent cross-regional indicators, it's difficult to see how a partner's leadership structure, governance, or financial sustainability have shifted over time. Building shared institutional knowledge and a defined curriculum means BVM, not partners, holds the tracking infrastructure. The developmental picture becomes clearer on our end, without adding weight on theirs.
The impact is real. The measurement isn't yet developmental, and that's a gap we can close internally.
V. Alignment Relies More on Relationships Than Systems
Where We Are Now
Internal coordination works because of trust and communication, rather than shared structural clarity.
Impact on Work
Expectations and reinforcement can vary subtly by region.
Example
BVM's regional staff are talented, mission-aligned, and deeply trusted. Coordination has worked because the people make it work. The tradeoff is that when alignment depends entirely on relationships, it's fragile. A transition, a capacity crunch, or a period of rapid growth can quietly introduce variation in how success is defined and reinforced. One region emphasizes partner development milestones. Another emphasizes event execution metrics. Both are right. But without shared developmental indicators, there's no common foundation to return to. Institutional alignment infrastructure doesn't replace trust. It makes trust more durable.
The work moves forward. Shared systems mean it moves forward together.
VI. Scale Is Increasing Complexity
Where We Are Now
With $9.1M invested annually across 25 states and 225 counties, informal coordination becomes more fragile.
Impact on Work
More time is spent reconciling alignment questions rather than advancing strategy.
Example
At current scale, BVM's staff spend real time assembling answers that should already exist. This includes pulling longitudinal partner narratives manually, reconciling regional interpretations of capacity building, and reconstructing institutional context for new team members. None of that effort is wasted, but it's effort that compounds. When a funder asks for evidence of ecosystem strengthening across the portfolio, the answer is there. It just takes disproportionate work to surface it. Building shared tracking systems and institutional infrastructure means that work gets done once, structurally, rather than repeatedly by individuals under pressure.
Scale amplifies both opportunity and operational strain. The infrastructure catches up to the ambition.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
5
What This Requires
Three interconnected investments make this work. None of them alone is sufficient and none of them is optional. Each one addresses a documented gap in how BVM currently operates at scale. Together they create the conditions for an organization that can hold complexity without losing coherence, demonstrate impact without assembling it manually, and grow without leaving its institutional knowledge, its partners, or its people behind. What follows is the case for each.
Institutional Knowledge Infrastructure
BVM's core organizing philosophy, how it defines capacity building, how it distinguishes developmental support from direct service, what it believes about the relationship between local power and national change, currently lives in people. That's not a failure. It's a reflection of how relational this organization has always been. But at this scale, relational transmission alone introduces risk.
Every staff transition, new hire, and regional expansion requires someone to explain context that should already be documented and shared. When clarity depends on who you know, it leaves with them.
Building institutional knowledge infrastructure means creating a living articulation of BVM's organizing philosophy, one that is formally owned, regularly updated, and integrated into onboarding, regional practice, and grant conversations.
The goal isn't to standardize how regions work. It's to ensure that everyone doing the work is drawing from the same foundation, regardless of when they joined or where they're based.
A Defined Curriculum and Shared Growth Indicators
BVM invests meaningfully in partner development. What's missing isn't the investment. It's a shared framework for what development looks like across stages, so that investment can be sequenced, tracked, and demonstrated over time.
A partner in Year 1 needs different support than a partner in Year 4. Right now, those distinctions live in individual staff judgment rather than shared organizational systems.
A defined curriculum establishes the developmental pathway BVM believes in: the progression from early-stage organizing capacity through leadership depth, governance stability, and financial sustainability.
Shared growth indicators give every region a common language for recognizing and reinforcing that progression, without prescribing what local strategy should look like. This is how BVM stands behind partners consistently, at every stage, in every state.
Cross-Functional Alignment and Dedicated Leadership
The first two investments create the infrastructure. This one makes it hold. Institutional knowledge, curriculum, growth indicators, learning cadence, and longitudinal tracking don't sustain themselves. They require a single person with clear authority and dedicated time to steward all of it.
Infrastructure without stewardship is just documentation. A curriculum without someone managing its evolution becomes outdated. A learning cadence without someone driving it becomes optional.
This means establishing a role explicitly designed to hold cross-functional alignment: connecting grantmaking to capacity development, synthesizing cross-regional learning, maintaining the theory of change, and ensuring BVM's internal systems strengthen rather than strain as the organization grows.
This role is not a layer of oversight. It's a connective function, the infrastructure that ensures field insight reaches strategy, partner development is consistently reinforced, and institutional memory compounds rather than dissipates with every staff transition.
Without one person responsible for all of it, these systems don't fail loudly. They drift quietly.  Each of the three investments in this proposal depends on the same thing: a single person with clear authority and dedicated time to hold all of it together.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
6
GETTING THERE: A PHASED APPROACH
This isn't a proposal that requires everything to happen at once. The three investments described in this document build on each other deliberately, with each phase creating the conditions the next one requires. What follows is a sequenced path from foundation to full institutionalization, designed to generate early wins, incorporate staff input, and ensure the infrastructure is built with the same intentionality BVM brings to its external work. The timeline is ambitious but achievable. What makes it possible is the same thing that makes all of it work: dedicated leadership with the authority and focus to see it through.
1
Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1 through 6) 
Establish dedicated leadership and conduct a baseline assessment of existing institutional knowledge, tools, and resources. Document BVM's theory of change and begin codifying core organizing philosophy. Identify gaps in current onboarding, regional practice, and cross-functional alignment. Establish shared growth indicator framework in draft form for staff review and input.
2
Phase 2: Integration (Months 7 through 12) 
Launch the organizational knowledge and resource infrastructure with formal ownership assigned. Pilot shared growth indicators across two to three regions and refine based on feedback. Stand up the quarterly cross-regional learning cadence. Begin embedding growth indicators into grant review processes in partnership with the development team.
3
Phase 3: Institutionalization (Year 2 and Beyond) 
Full deployment of longitudinal tracking across the partner portfolio. Annual developmental synthesis completed and circulated to leadership, funders, and partners. Knowledge infrastructure integrated into all onboarding, regional alignment, and funder conversations as standard practice. The system sustains itself because someone is responsible for sustaining it.
A NOTE ON INVESTMENT
In 2024, BVM deployed $9,138,968 across 711 partner organizations in 25 states. The infrastructure proposed here is not a separate initiative alongside that work. It's what makes that work more durable, more demonstrable, and more defensible to the funders who resource it.
The primary cost of this investment is personnel,  a dedicated role with the authority and time to build and steward the systems described in this proposal. Relative to the scale of BVM's current deployment, this is a proportionate investment in organizational resilience. It is also a one-time infrastructure build with compounding returns: the systems created in Year 1 strengthen every funding cycle, every partner relationship, and every staff transition that follows. The question isn't whether BVM can afford to make this investment. At $9.1M deployed annually across 25 states, the question is whether BVM can afford not to.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
7
Measuring Impact  Framework
This is what operational knowledge infrastructure makes possible across BVM's partner portfolio.
What does operational knowledge infrastructure actually make possible? This. The Measuring Organizing Impact framework represents a fully developed vision for how BVM could track community power development across six dimensions, from leadership pipelines and relationship quality to electoral influence and narrative transformation, with both quantitative and qualitative indicators for each. The intellectual work is done. The framework is sophisticated, specific, and ready to deploy. What stands between BVM and this level of organizational clarity is exactly what this proposal advances: the infrastructure, the systems, and the dedicated leadership to make it operational, consistent, and longitudinal across 711 partners and 25 states. 
This is what that leadership makes possible before the role even officially begins.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
8
The Impact of These Shifts
The three investments in this proposal are internal by design. But their effects are not. When institutional knowledge has a formal home, when partner development follows a shared framework, and when learning travels across regions rather than staying local, something larger shifts. Partners experience BVM differently. Funders engage BVM differently. And the organization itself develops a different kind of credibility, one built not only on relationships alone but on systems strong enough to show what those relationships have made possible.
For Partners
Consistent developmental support replaces inconsistent reinforcement. A partner in Louisiana and a partner in Georgia both experience BVM as an organization that understands where they are in their development, knows what they need next, and has the systems to back that up. Local strategy stays local. What changes is the quality and consistency of what's standing behind it.
For BVM
Institutional knowledge stops being vulnerable to turnover. Learning stops being siloed by region. Strategy refinement stops being reactive. The organization develops the capacity to demonstrate, not just describe, how 711 partners have grown across funding cycles. That's a different kind of credibility. And it compounds.
For Funders
The story changes from compelling to verifiable. Longitudinal evidence of ecosystem strengthening becomes something BVM can produce structurally, not assemble manually each time someone asks. In an increasingly competitive funding environment, that distinction matters. Organizations that can show developmental growth across their portfolios will hold their funding. BVM will be one of them.
The Cost of Inaction
The risk of not acting isn't a sudden breakdown. It's a slow drift; quiet enough that it's easy to rationalize, serious enough that it compounds into something much harder to repair.
Without formal alignment and learning infrastructure, institutional knowledge stays vulnerable every time someone leaves. Regional variation increases without anyone deciding it should. Grant conversations drift toward immediate program needs rather than long-term development. Innovations that work in one state never reach the other twenty-four. And when a funder asks for longitudinal evidence of ecosystem strengthening, the answer requires weeks of manual assembly rather than a system that already holds it.
None of these are crises. That's what makes them dangerous. Scale without alignment introduces fragility that doesn't announce itself until it does. And at that point, the work of repair is far more disruptive than the work of prevention.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
9
How We'll Know This Worked
When this infrastructure is in place, BVM won't just be doing the work differently. It will be able to show it, explain it, and build on it in ways that compound over time. Here's what that looks like in practice.
Partner Development and Alignment
Every regional staff member can have a consistent, informed conversation with any partner about where they are in their development and what comes next, without inventing the framework on the spot. Success looks the same in Louisiana as it does in Georgia, not because the strategies are identical, but because the lens BVM uses to recognize and reinforce growth is shared across all regions.
Cross-Regional Learning and Field Innovation
Field innovations that currently stay localized reach all 25 states within a defined timeframe rather than by chance. Quarterly cross-regional learning sessions are a standing part of how BVM operates; not an occasional convening, but a structural rhythm that captures what's working and moves it forward deliberately.
Organizational Knowledge and Resource Infrastructure
Staff at every level and tenure draw from the same foundation. A new hire in any region can read, internalize, and apply BVM's organizing philosophy in their first 30 days without needing to absorb it entirely through relationships. A veteran staff member navigating a new region, a new campaign, or a new funder conversation has the same tools and institutional context available without having to reconstruct it from scratch. The tools, resources, and institutional knowledge staff depend on live in one accessible place: updated regularly, owned formally, and available across every function and region. The foundation exists in the organization, not just in its people.
Funder Relations and Revenue Growth
When BVM can show how partners have grown across funding cycles, not just what they did, but how their leadership deepened and organizational strength compounded, the fundraising conversation changes. Funders see verifiable, longitudinal evidence that BVM's investment model produces durable results. In a competitive philanthropic environment where foundations are directing larger dollars toward organizations that can demonstrate ecosystem impact, that distinction matters. Organizations that can prove developmental growth across their portfolios don't just hold their funding. They expand it.
Longitudinal Tracking
A partner's governance structures, leadership depth, and financial sustainability are tracked across funding cycles, not reported on annually in isolation. BVM can show, with specificity, how a partner in Year 4 is stronger than they were in Year 1, and what BVM's support made possible across that arc.
Ecosystem Health and Strategic Reporting
BVM already produces an annual report. What changes is the depth and utility of what it can show. Today the annual report captures activity; what happened, where BVM invested, and what partners accomplished. With longitudinal tracking and shared growth indicators in place, it becomes something more powerful: a developmental synthesis that shows not just what happened but what changed because of it. Leadership, funders, and partners are working from the same picture of ecosystem health; one that demonstrates how partners have grown across funding cycles, where the portfolio is strongest, and what BVM's support has made possible over time. The annual report was always the right vehicle. This gives it the evidence to match the story BVM already knows is true.
Dedicated Leadership and Institutional Accountability
One named role carries explicit accountability for all of the above; not as an administrative function, but as a core organizational responsibility. This person doesn't just maintain the systems. They drive them. They synthesize what's coming in from the field and connect it back to strategy. They identify where the curriculum needs to evolve and make sure it does. They keep grantmaking, capacity development, and learning aligned across functions and regions. And they ensure that institutional knowledge, longitudinal tracking, and the annual developmental synthesis all have a home that doesn't shift with staff transitions or organizational pressure. The infrastructure holds and the organization grows because someone is explicitly responsible for both.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
10
THE WORK IS READY. SO ARE WE.
This proposal makes the case for one interconnected investment across three areas BVM cannot afford to leave to chance. Institutional knowledge infrastructure that ensures what BVM knows and believes lives in the organization, not just in its people. A defined curriculum and shared growth indicators that give every region a common language for recognizing and reinforcing partner development without prescribing how local strategy should look. And dedicated leadership that holds all of it together, connects field insight back to strategy, and ensures the systems compound rather than drift over time.
Together these investments address six documented gaps in how BVM currently operates at scale. They make the Measuring Organizing Impact framework operational across 711 partners and 25 states. They strengthen funder relationships by turning compelling stories into verifiable longitudinal evidence. And they protect the organizational knowledge, field innovation, and partner development that BVM has spent years building.
The research is done. The framework exists. The phased path is mapped. What remains is the decision to move forward and the leadership to make it real. BVM has never waited for perfect conditions to do important work. This is no different. The infrastructure the mission requires is within reach and this proposal is the first step toward building it.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
11
Sources Referenced and Reviewed
This proposal is grounded in peer-reviewed research, philanthropic sector studies, legal documentation, and community organizing literature spanning more than two decades. The sources below represent the evidentiary foundation across six domains directly relevant to BVM's organizational moment. They were reviewed not to justify a predetermined conclusion but to stress-test the argument and ensure the recommendations reflect what the evidence actually supports.
Institutional Knowledge Management in Nonprofits
Candid. (2024). The people behind nonprofit impact: Survey data suggests high staff turnover ahead. Candid Insights.
Center for Effective Philanthropy. (2024). State of nonprofits 2024: What funders need to know.
Center for Effective Philanthropy. (2026). A sector in crisis: How U.S. nonprofits and foundations are responding to threats.
Lettieri, E., Borga, F., & Savoldelli, A. (2004). Knowledge management in non-profit organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410567602
National Council of Nonprofits. (2023). 2023 nonprofit workforce survey results: Communities suffer as the nonprofit workforce shortage crisis continues.
Nonprofit HR. (2024). 2023–2024 compensation landscape outlook.
Walk, M., Schinnenburg, H., & Handy, F. (2015). Voluntary turnover in nonprofit human service organizations: The impact of high performance work practices. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(5), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1031416
Capacity Building Frameworks and Developmental Sequencing
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany Good to Great. Jim Collins.
Connolly, P. (2006). Navigating the organizational lifecycle: A capacity-building guide for nonprofit leaders. BoardSource / TCC Group.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2019). Reimagining capacity building: Navigating culture, systems & power.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2025). 2025 national study of philanthropic practice.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.194
Landles-Cobb, L., Kramer, K., & Milway, K. S. (2015). The nonprofit leadership development deficit. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_nonprofit_leadership_development_deficit
Light, P. C. (2004). Sustaining nonprofit performance: The case for capacity building and the evidence to support it. Brookings Institution Press.
McKinsey & Company. (2001). Effective capacity building in nonprofit organizations. Venture Philanthropy Partners.
McKinsey & Company. (2024, February 5). How nonprofits can build capabilities to catalyze impact. McKinsey Organization Blog. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-organization-blog/how-nonprofits-can-build-capabilities-to-catalyze-impact
Stevens, S. K. (2008). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofit capacity (2nd ed.). Stagewise Enterprises.
TCC Group. (n.d.). Core capacity assessment tool (CCAT). https://www.tccgrp.com/resource/ccat/
Tierney, T. J. (2006). The nonprofit sector's leadership deficit. Bridgespan Group.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
12
Cross-Regional Learning and Knowledge Transfer
de Waal, A., Weaver, M., Day, T., & van der Heijden, B. (2019). Silo-busting: Overcoming the greatest threat to organizational performance. Sustainability, 11(23), 6860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236860.
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012, January 26). Channeling change: Making collective impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://doi.org/10.48558/2T4M-ZR69.
Jones, A., Bui, T., Fox, A., & Vo, T. (2024). Breaking down silos in the workplace: A framework to foster collaboration. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001984.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36–41. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (rev. ed.). Doubleday/Currency. (Original work published 1990).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.
Learning Organizations and Implementation Science
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Impact Measurement and Longitudinal Tracking in Philanthropy
Cabaj, M. (2014). Evaluating collective impact: Five simple rules. The Philanthropist, 26(1). Tamarack Institute.
Center for Effective Philanthropy. (2002 to present). Grantee perception report.
Patton, M. Q. (2006). Evaluation for the way we work. Nonprofit Quarterly, 13(1), 28–33.
Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford Press.
Preskill, H., & Parkhurst, M. (2014). Guide to evaluating collective impact. FSG.
Voting Rights and Attacks on Black Civic Power Since 2020
Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023).
Brennan Center for Justice. (2021 to 2025). State voting laws roundups. NYU School of Law. https://www.brennancenter.org/series/state-voting-laws-roundups.
Brennan Center for Justice. (2023). Voting laws roundup: 2023 in review. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2023-review.
Brennan Center for Justice. (2024). Voting laws roundup: September 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-september-2024.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. 647 (2021).
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. (2024). Civil rights monitor poll 2024. https://civilrights.org/2024/10/07/civil-rights-monitor-poll-2024/.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
13
Morris, K., & Grange, C. (2024, March 2). Growing racial disparities in voter turnout, 2008–2022. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/growing-racial-disparities-voter-turnout-2008-2022.
NAACP. (2025). Addressing the disproportionate impacts of President Trump's 2025 executive orders on communities of color. https://naacp.org/resources/addressing-disproportionate-impacts-president-trumps-2025-executive-orders-communities.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund. (2024). Democracy defended: Lessons from the 2022 elections & the path ahead in 2024. https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-11-27-Democracy-Defended-5-2.pdf.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund. (2025, June). Twelve years after Shelby County v. Holder: LDF calls for voter protections in wake of increased attacks on our democracy. https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/twelve-years-after-shelby-county-v-holder-decision-ldf-calls-for-voter-protections-in-wake-of-increased-attacks-on-our-democracy/.
Voting Rights Lab. (2024). Battleground 2024: How new voting laws will impact the election. https://votingrightslab.org/report/battleground-2024-how-new-voting-laws-will-impact-the-election/.
Philanthropic Funding Competition and Funder Expectations
Candid. (2020–present). Foundation funding for U.S. democracy [Data platform].
Democracy Fund. (2024). Field in focus: The state of pro-democracy institutional philanthropy. https://democracyfund.org/idea/field-in-focus-the-state-of-pro-democracy-institutional-philanthropy/.
Dorsey, C. L., Bradach, J., & Kim, P. (2020). Overcoming the racial bias in philanthropic funding. Echoing Green & Bridgespan Group.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (n.d.). Philanthropy's racial funding gap is an urgent crisis.
NCRP. (2018). Power moves: Your essential philanthropy assessment guide for equity and justice (L. Ranghelli, Author).
Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity. (2021). Mismatched: Philanthropy's response to the call for racial justice (M. Devich Cyril et al., Authors).
Black Civic Power and Community Organizing Outcomes
Building Movement Project. (2022). Race to lead: Confronting the nonprofit racial leadership gap [Survey report series, 2016–2022]. https://racetolead.org/.
Building Movement Project. (2024). Reckoning with sustainability: Black leaders reflect on 2020, the funding cliff, and organizing infrastructure. https://buildingmovement.org/blog/sustain-blk-organizing/.
Han, H. (2014). How organizations develop activists: Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336777.001.0001.
Han, H., McKenna, E., & Oyakawa, M. (2021). Prisms of the people: Power & organizing in twenty-first-century America. University of Chicago Press.
NCRP. (2014). Leveraging limited dollars: How grantmakers achieve tangible results by funding policy and community engagement.
Pastor, M., & Ortiz, R. (2009). Making change: How social movements work and how to support them. USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) / California Endowment. https://search.issuelab.org/resource/making-change-how-social-movements-work-and-how-to-support-them.html.
Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity. (2012). Critical issues forum vol. 4: Mobilizing community power to address structural racism.
APA 7th edition format. DOIs included for peer-reviewed journal articles. URLs retained for web-only sources and active online reports. Print books and widely searchable organizational reports cited without URLs.
A Case for Knowledge Infrastructure: Driving Field, Funding, and BVM's Future
Angele DeLarge. 2025-2026
14
Angele Jackson-DeLarge, 2026