OWL Strategic Partnership Playbook
Tools, Protocols, and Principles for Sustainable, Equity-Driven Collaboration
Owner: Director of Programming & Impact Visibility (DPIV) – with input from all Directors Audience: All OWL staff, contractors, and fellows who touch client work, internal projects, or grants
0. How to Use This Playbook
This guide is not a rigid checklist. It outlines OWL’s recommended process and values-aligned practices for developing partnerships across contexts. Not every collaboration will move through each phase, but the core principles—mutual benefit, shared power, and clarity—should remain constant.
Use your professional judgment to scale and adapt based on:
the complexity of the partnership,
the duration or funding level, and
the visibility, logistics, or external accountability involved.
When in doubt, prioritize trust, transparency, and shared understanding over process completion. This Playbook is meant to be a one-stop guide for how OWL initiates, structures, and stewards strategic partnerships that advance our mission in ways we could not accomplish alone.
For internal consistency, this Playbook sits alongside OWL’s other core documents: Collective Leadership & Decision Making (org-level RACI-S and Decision Ladder), the Common Roles & Responsibilities for All Directors (including the Director-as-PM role), the Client Engagement Playbook (school-facing work), the Program Delivery RACI (task-level roles for PMs, Contractors/Fellows, and External Partner Leads on joint projects), and the Productive Playbook (how we scope, budget, and track work). This Playbook does not change who holds org-level decision rights; instead, it offers partnership-specific guidance that should be used in concert with those tools.
The Director of Program Impact & Visibility (DPIV) is the steward of this Playbook, with input from all Directors. If this Playbook ever feels out of sync with how we actually partner, we update the Playbook together rather than creating side agreements or one-off norms.
1.0 Purpose and Philosophy
This Playbook is a practical guide for OWL staff and collaborators to initiate, develop, and sustain strategic partnerships that strengthen our mission and expand our impact. While the OWL Client Engagement Playbook focuses on school-facing work, this document supports peer nonprofit alliances, funders, research groups, and service-oriented collaborators.
Grounded in OWL’s values of transparency, contextual responsiveness, and co-designed transformation, this is a living document aligned with our open-source ethos and smart growth strategy. We view partnership not as a transaction, but as a relationship where each organization brings distinct strengths—reach, credibility, expertise, or tools—that, when combined, allow us to do things none of us could do alone.
Strategic partners help OWL:
fill gaps in expertise (policy, research, mental health, workforce, etc.),
increase credibility and visibility with schools, communities, and funders,
share leadership and backbone responsibilities on complex initiatives (e.g., WNCRP), and
spread and refine learner-centered, equity-driven practices across networks and regions.
This framework guides how OWL engages in everything from one-off collaborations to multi-year, high-visibility initiatives, always with the goal of advancing sustainable, learner-centered, and equity-driven change—not just “doing more projects.”
Partnership rhythm – PDSA at the ecosystem level: Just as our client-facing work runs on Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycles, our partnerships follow a similar rhythm:
Plan: Discovery & Fit, Scope & Structure
Do: Implementation & shared delivery
Study & Act: Review, renewal, scaling, or exit
The phases below are a simple way to make that rhythm visible and intentional so that partnerships evolve based on evidence, learning, and mutual benefit—not inertia or habit.
1.1—Phase 1: Discovery & Fit—“Start with Why”
Responsible: Initial point of contact + the assigned OWL Director in a PM role (per the Common R&R procedure), in consultation with D-OSL and/or DPIV as needed.
Purpose: Establish mutual understanding of values, potential alignment, and the strategic purpose of partnership before formal planning begins. This phase is meant to ensure that collaboration is rooted in shared goals and is likely to be both impactful and sustainable. It typically occurs 1–3 weeks prior to a proposed launch or planning period and sets the stage for intentional co-design.
This phase is meant to ensure that collaboration is rooted in shared goals and is likely to be both impactful and sustainable. It typically occurs 1–3 weeks prior to a proposed launch or planning period and sets the stage for intentional co-design with the right type of partner (e.g., primary partner, tactical collaborator, funder), as defined in Appendix A.
Log the potential partner in OWL’s CRM and internal planning board.
Use the Partner Intake Framework* and OWL’s Core Partnership Guardrails (Appendix D) to assess the following:
Alignment with OWL’s mission, values, and guiding principles
Potential contribution to or enhancement of current initiatives
Complementary strengths, reach, expertise, or community networks
Readiness for open, equity-centered collaboration and co-design
Share OWL’s framing documents (e.g. “Our Approach,” GitBook links, project examples)
If appropriate, begin a draft “Gives & Gets” Matrix (Appendix C) to clarify anticipated contributions and mutual benefits.
What the Gives & Gets Matrix is (in plain language): The Gives & Gets Matrix is a simple, shared table that makes expectations explicit. Each row represents one organization. The “Gives” column captures what that org is actually contributing (time, staff, funding, tools, credibility, logistics, backbone coordination, etc.). The “Gets” column captures what they hope to gain (learning, visibility, access to networks, artifacts, data, evaluation support, sustainability, etc.).
The goal is not to negotiate every detail, but to surface assumptions early so that no one is quietly over-giving or under-receiving. A good matrix reads like a story of mutual benefit and complementary strengths, not a transactional ledger.
For lighter-weight relationships, the Gives & Gets Matrix can sometimes function as a stand-alone working agreement (especially when a full MOU would be overkill), or as a precursor to an MOU. In more complex initiatives, we often draft the matrix first, then use it to co-author the MOU and Scope of Work so that roles, contributions, and benefits are aligned from the start.
Key differences when using the client intake process
OWL’s Intake Process and Discovery Template were originally designed to assess client fit (e.g., schools and districts), they can also be adapted to guide early conversations with potential partners, including funders, nonprofits, and collaborators. However, these tools must be used with intention to avoid signaling a transactional or hierarchical relationship. When used with partners, the focus should be on mission alignment, complementary strengths, and co-leadership potential—not service delivery or client readiness.
Replace “client” with “partner” or “collaborator”
Focus on shared value creation, not service provision
Reframe questions to emphasize strategic alignment, not service fit
Use the Discovery Call Template to guide early conversations. Like the intake process, we typically use this template to guide conversations with schools and districts, but it can be adapted in this case to help surface shared priorities and test alignment for a potential partnership. Please view this as a co-learning tool and not a checklist, with the goal of designing something collaboratively, assuming the fit feels right for both parties.
It is important to remember that the Discovery Template is an internal planning tool designed to promote reflection and alignment within the OWL team. While its content may be informed by early conversations with a potential partner, the completed document is not shared externally.
The purpose is to help OWL staff determine whether to move forward with a proposed partnership by evaluating the strategic fit, resource implications, and mission alignment. Based on the Discovery Template and initial meetings, the Director or assigned lead will recommend one of three options:
Note: A “No-Go” recommendation is not a judgment of the organization’s value or credibility. It reflects OWL’s current strategic focus, resource bandwidth, and fit for mutual success. When possible, we aim to offer a referral, future opportunity, or shared resource to maintain good faith and network goodwill.
When engaging with potential funders or grantmaking entities, OWL applies the same lens of strategic fit, mission alignment, and values congruence as with programmatic partners. Vetting should include:
Analyzing the funder’s public reputation, funding history, and policy affiliations
Evaluating alignment with OWL’s equity-driven mission and learner-centered philosophy
Considering the public implications of association (e.g., whether OWL wants to be publicly affiliated with the funder)
If concerns arise about "strings attached," potential co-optation of OWL’s mission, or philosophical misalignment (e.g. privatization advocacy, deficit framing of public education, etc.), OWL may opt not to pursue the relationship, even if funding is available.
Best Practices
Be clear about what OWL is and isn’t seeking in a partner.
Ask about the partner’s desired outcomes and limitations.
Identify early signs of misalignment (e.g., competition mindset, IP control issues).
Vet funders not just for financial alignment but for cultural and strategic alignment. When in doubt, consult with OWL leadership or board advisors.
1.2—Phase 2: Scope & Structure—“Document the What and How”
Responsible: OWL Project Manager (Director in PM capacity), in close coordination with the DFO (pricing, terms, compliance) and DPIV/D-OSL as appropriate for visibility, precedent, and strategy.
Purpose: Formalize the relationship through co-design and a shared understanding of roles, contributions, and expectations. Internally, the PM should ensure that the emerging partnership scope and roles are consistent with OWL’s org-level RACI-S and documented in the appropriate Scope of Work (SOW) and Program Delivery RACI entries for the project.
Default Approach (for most partnerships) - Use the OWL MOU Template as the single, co-created document that includes a simple statement of how we will learn together (e.g., story capture, shared metrics, PDSA cycles) so the partnership is designed from the start to generate Bright Spots, Proof Points, and remixable tools—not just activity:
Purpose and shared objectives
General timeline and key deliverables
Roles and responsibilities
Resource contributions (financial or in-kind)
Public messaging and branding agreements
A Gives & Gets Matrix (as an appendix)
Communication expectations (e.g., check-ins, shared calendars)
The resulting MOU from this process serves as both a working agreement and a record of mutual understanding. It should be nimble, phase-based when appropriate, and adapted collaboratively.
For more complex initiatives (optional supplements may apply) - When the project involves multiple phases, external funders, or multi-org coalitions, it may be helpful to supplement the MOU with the following documents:
Develop a standalone Scope of Work (SOW) document with detailed milestones and deliverables (reference the OWL Partner Scope of Work template).
Include a more detailed budget, communication protocol, or sub-granting agreement, if applicable
MOU vs Scope of Work
Purpose
Formalize partnership & shared intent
MOU items plus more defined specific actions and deliverables
Focus
Relationship & mutual commitment
MOU items plus more detail regarding tactical execution over time
Structure
General roles, goals, and principles
MOU items plus detailed tasks, timelines, people, etc.
Used When
Most single-partnership arrangements
Complex/multi-phase work, subgrants, external deadlines, high visibility initiatives, or projects >$100k
Note: For potential funding partners, the scope of work may be less focused on shared deliverables and more on:
Clearly defined learning goals
Shared evaluation frameworks
Narratives of impact and strategic outcomes
While a traditional MOU may not be needed, OWL should maintain internal documentation that clarifies:
What was funded and why
Any reporting or dissemination expectations
Agreed boundaries around branding, influence, or storytelling
In high-visibility or multi-year grants, co-developing a lightweight Funders Partnership Summary may help define roles and avoid ambiguity.
Best Practices
Ensure co-creation — OWL does not "issue" MOUs; we build them with our partners.
Reference and adapt the MOU template and appendix tools to fit the context.
Revisit and revise the MOU as the relationship or project evolves.
Be explicit about what we will not do together (e.g., work that doesn’t align with our guardrails, unfunded expectations, or activities that pull OWL into roles better held by the partner) so “zombie” projects and vague commitments don’t accumulate over time.
1.3—Phase 3: Implementation & Reflection—“Plan and Do”
Responsible: OWL Project Manager (Director in PM capacity) + Partner Lead (primary point of contact at the partner organization).
Purpose: To activate the partnership with shared clarity, momentum, and accountability. This phase ensures that all parties understand their roles, responsibilities, and desired outcomes—and that communication norms and feedback loops are in place. It also establishes a rhythm for collaboration that promotes trust, reflection, and responsiveness over time.
Key Actions
Host a formal launch meeting to:
Review the timeline, deliverables, and pacing
Clarify each organization’s roles and responsibilities
Confirm shared success metrics and learning goals (as outlined in the MOU or SOW)
Set communication protocols and check-in cadence
For multi-org or complex initiatives, use OWL’s Program Delivery RACI to clarify task-level roles across OWL (PM, Contractors/Fellows, Directors) and External Partner Leads, ensuring alignment with the org-level Collective Leadership & Decision Making framework.
Schedule and conduct periodic check-ins aligned to the project's scope and complexity to:
Celebrate early wins and progress
Identify and address emerging misalignments
Adjust timelines, deliverables, or roles as needed
For complex, multi-org initiatives (e.g., WNCRP + partner networks), the PM and External Partner Leads should co-create a partnership rhythm that includes:
predictable touchpoints (e.g., monthly or quarterly check-ins),
shared artifacts (e.g., Bright Spots, Proof Points, learning memos, or joint case studies), and
agreed “Study” moments (milestones where we pause to ask what’s working, what’s not, and what we will change).
Feedback & Reflection Tools:
Use a short partner survey or informal debrief call after key milestones
Host a joint reflection session when appropriate to revisit goals and strengthen collaboration
When appropriate, co-author a short Bright Spot or Proof Point that captures the partnership’s impact and learning, with clear attribution to each organization’s contributions.
Note: In the case of funding partners, even if they are not involved in day-to-day operations, they should be thoughtfully included in key milestone reflections, story harvesting, and shared learning moments. When appropriate, invite funders to observe or contribute to:
Strategy reviews
Learning showcases
Mid-project field updates
Be cautious not to let funders drive decisions on implementation unless it is explicitly part of a co-design process and grounded in trust-based philanthropy.
Best Practices
Set the tone at launch with an emphasis on mutual learning and flexibility, not just deliverables
Keep project documents (e.g., SOW, MOU, Gives/Gets) open and accessible to both parties
Use real-time project dashboards or shared folders to increase transparency (reference OWL’s Rethinking Measures of Success document for details).
Document adjustments and emerging insights, especially when scaling or replicating efforts
Anchor check-ins in appreciative inquiry: What’s working? What’s possible? What needs attention?
Maintain clear internal and external boundaries between funding influence and programmatic integrity.
1.4—Phase 4: Review, Renewal, or Exit—“Hold Space for Learning”
Responsible: OWL Project Manager (Director in PM capacity) + relevant Director(s) (typically DPIV for visibility/field implications and/or D-OSL for strategic fit and precedent).
Purpose: To reflect on the impact and experience of the partnership in order to make an intentional and values-aligned decision about its future. This phase ensures that every collaboration—whether ongoing or concluding—is treated with transparency, gratitude, and learning. It reinforces OWL’s commitment to shared leadership, continuous improvement, and responsible stewardship of relationships.
Key Action
Host a debrief and renewal planning session with the partner to explore:
Did the partnership meet its goals and success metrics?
What changes in context, capacity, or strategy have emerged?
What feedback, tensions, or insights can inform future collaboration?
Where does this partnership sit on an ownership arc (e.g., OWL doing more of the backbone work vs. the partner holding more local leadership), and how might that shift in a renewal or scale-up?
During periods of organizational transition or financial constraint, we must explicitly pair the partnership learning questions in this Playbook with our financial guardrails (margin targets, deposit and payment expectations, unfunded work limitations, etc.) so that renewal or exit decisions honor both our relationships and our responsibility to protect our financial sustainability.
Decision Options
In general, a healthy renewal reflects both deeper impact and a clearer distribution of leadership. Much like our Train–Main–Final stance with schools, we look for patterns where:
early phases may rely more heavily on OWL for design, backbone, and field credibility;
middle phases move toward shared leadership, with partners co-owning design, delivery, and storytelling; and
later phases center partner-led ownership, with OWL in a lighter-touch coaching, documentation, or amplification role.
Decisions to extend, pause, or sunset should be grounded in evidence and stories of impact, not just the availability of funding or habit. Options include:
Note that in the case of funding partners, they may be invited to participate in final reflections, either informally or through structured debriefs, although that is always a case-by-case decision. Whether done internally of with the funding partner, these conversations help:
Surface lessons learned
Shape future funding strategy
Strengthen trust and mutual accountability
If OWL decides not to renew a funding relationship (due to evolving strategy or misalignment), the offboarding process should still express gratitude and reinforce shared values, while documenting the rationale for non-renewal internally.
Exit Best Practices
Share a summary email with key takeaways, next steps, and any agreed documentation
Honor contributions publicly (e.g. social media, newsletters, events), if appropriate and aligned with partner preferences
Log lessons learned and final artifacts in internal folders or GitBook for future reference and replication
This tool helps OWL staff and facilitators lead early conversations with potential clients to ensure clarity, mutual alignment, and a strong foundation for co-designed success. The intake conversation should happen ideally 2–4 weeks before any service begins.
Use this guide with flexibility! These aren’t scripts—they're conversation starters meant to invite insight, reflection, and connection.
Appendix A—Definitions and Clarifying Language
These categories help us right-size expectations, rhythms, and MOUs. Not every collaboration needs every tool in this Playbook, but every collaboration should be intentionally placed somewhere on this map.
Partner refers to any external nonprofit, foundation, or mission-aligned organization that OWL collaborates with to co-design or deliver work. This differs from a client (typically a school, district, or education-facing organization that OWL directly supports).
Primary Partners (Co-Leads): Organizations that share ownership over initiative design, facilitation, and deliverables. They co-steward grants, coordinate communications, and hold responsibility for quality and alignment. Responsibilities include: strategic planning, school onboarding, backbone support, facilitation, coaching, documentation, and public representation.
External Partner Lead: The primary project lead at a collaborating organization (e.g., Education Reimagined, RootEd, SparkNC, NC Center for Resilience & Learning) who co-designs, co-facilitates, or co-manages work with OWL. In OWL’s internal tools (e.g., the Program Delivery RACI), this role is listed to clarify handoffs and shared responsibilities across organizations. It is an external role, distinct from OWL’s internal PM and Director roles.
Tactical Collaborators (Implementation-Aligned): Organizations that bring specialized expertise (e.g., policy, mental health, technical assistance) and are matched to schools based on need and interest. They operate under shared protocols and communication norms. Responsibilities include: workshop facilitation, local coaching, resource provision, evaluation, or technical assistance—always in collaboration with OWL and/or the primary partners.
Strategic Advisory Board (Critical Friends & Amplifiers): A diverse group of thought leaders, policy advisors, and field experts who:
Provide insight on equity, strategy, and sustainability
Help connect the initiative to national and state policy movements
Offer external validation and advocacy support
Mission-Aligned Funders (Catalysts & Stewards): Philanthropic partners or foundations whose investment is based on alignment with OWL’s vision and values. While they may not be involved in day-to-day implementation, they are essential collaborators in scaling impact, supporting innovation, and sustaining long-term transformation. Roles may include:
Co-designing high-level learning goals, evaluation plans, or investment strategies
Participating in milestone reflections and convenings
Sharing learning with broader funding networks
Encouraging transparency and trust-based philanthropy in the work
Appendix B—Core Partnership Guardrails
All partnerships must reflect these OWL-wide standards, which align with our Collective Leadership & Decision Making, Common R&R, and Program Delivery RACI tools:
Mission Alignment
Alignment with OWL’s learner-centered, equity-driven mission, vision, and values.
Co-Design Over Control
Evidence that the partner approaches work with schools with humility and a collaborative posture, not prescriptive models. All scopes and roles adapt to local school context and readiness.
Nonprofit-Led Structure
Strategic narrative, design, and decisions led by OWL or Primary Partners that have a mission-driven motivation, not a profit-driven motive.
Transparency with Schools
All school-facing relationships are clearly co-managed to prevent confusion or overreach.
Role-Specific Visibility
Branding and attribution must reflect each partner’s actual contributions.
Scope Documentation
Each partner has a clear understanding of their role, responsibility, and scope of work.
If a potential partnership conflicts with these guardrails, the default should be “No-Go” or “Not now,” even if funding is available.
Appendix C—Gives & Gets Matrix (Template)
How to use this template: Start by listing each partner (including OWL) in its own row. For each, name the concrete Gives (what we’re putting in) and Gets (what we’re hoping to gain). Treat this as a living document: revise it as the partnership evolves, and pull key elements into the MOU or summary email once there is shared agreement.
[Partner Name]
e.g. facilitation, research, funding
Visibility, access to networks, documentation tools
OWL
Design support, backbone coordination
Field credibility, reach, learning, sustainability
Appendix D—Partner-Adapted Intake Questions
“What is your organization hoping OWL can help deliver?”
“What shared goals might our organizations pursue more effectively together?”
“Who are the key decision-makers for this engagement?”
“Who on your team would help guide this collaboration if we move forward?”
“What is your timeline for launching this engagement?”
“Are there any upcoming opportunities or planning cycles we should be aware of?”
“What are the success indicators you hope to achieve?”
“What would a successful partnership look like—for both organizations and the field?”
“What supports do you expect OWL to provide?”
“What roles or contributions do you see OWL playing in this potential partnership?”
“What internal capacity does your team currently have?”
“What strengths and constraints should we both be mindful of as we explore this?”
Last updated