Collective impact

Last updated

Collective Impact (CI) is the commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem, using a structured form of collaboration. In 2021, the Collective Impact Forum changed the definition of collective impact to "Collective impact is a network of community members, organizations, and institutions who advance equity by learning together, aligning, and integrating their actions to achieve population and systems-level change.This definition identifies equity as the North Star for why and how collective impact work takes place, specifically names community members as key actors along with other stakeholders, and emphasizes the importance of systems change in this work." [1] The concept of collective impact was first articulated in the 2011 Stanford Social Innovation Review article Collective Impact, [2] written by John Kania, managing director at FSG, and Mark Kramer, Kennedy School at Harvard and Co-founder FSG. Collective impact was chosen as the #2 philanthropy buzzword for 2011, [3] and has been recognized by the White House Council for Community Solutions as an important framework for progress on social issues. [4]

Contents

The concept of collective impact hinges on the idea that in order for organizations to create lasting solutions to social problems on a large-scale, they need to coordinate their efforts and work together around a clearly defined goal. [2] The approach of collective impact is placed in contrast to “isolated impact,” where organizations primarily work alone to solve social problems [5] and draws on earlier works on collaborative leadership, focused on collective goals, strategic partnerships, collective and independent action aligned with those goals, shared accountability, and a backbone "institutional worrier". [6] Collective impact is based on organizations forming cross-sector coalitions to make meaningful and sustainable progress on social issues. [7]

Explanation

Hank Rubin (author of Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships for Communities and Schools, Corwin press, 2009) and Leonard Brock (former director of the Rochester NY Anti-Poverty Initiative) offer a practical interpretation of collective impact by contrasting it with collaboration: “Collective impact really is much more than collaboration! Collaboration happens when we meet together; collective impact is what we do when we’re alone … Collaboration happens when we choose to sit in the same room and work together on the same project because we share an interest in accomplishing a shared goal … On the other hand, collective impact focuses on change inside each partner organization. It begins when we, as a community, agree to a set of shared outcomes … and then, individually, go back into our home organizations, work with our staffs, boards, and volunteers to figure out what we – individually and organizationally – can best do to achieve those shared goals and then choose to make changes to accomplish this. When each of our organizations chooses to shift and align our own work and priorities in this way, we set changes in motion in all portions of our community. And these changes will last a long time.” [8]

Five conditions

Initiatives must meet five criteria in order to be considered collective impact: [2]

Collective impact in practice

Collective impact initiatives have been employed for an issues [10] including education, [11] health and healthcare, [12] animal welfare, [13] homelessness, [14] poverty reduction, [15] and youth and community development. [16] Examples include: The Strive Partnership educational initiative in Cincinnati, the environmental cleanup of the Elizabeth River in Virginia, the Shape Up Somerville campaign against childhood obesity in Somerville, Mass, and the work of the Calgary Homeless Foundation in Calgary, Canada. [10]

Partners in Progress (PIP), an initiative of the Citi Foundation and the Low Income Investment Fund, supports a broad range of projects that use a collective impact approach to address the issues of poverty and urban transformation. [17] It emphasizes collaborative approaches to these issues, particularly at neighborhood and regional levels, guided by a local community leader (known as a “community quarterback” [18] or “backbone organization”). Its projects are also focused on data collection to show what is or isn't working. The projects range from engaging hospital, city and community organizations to improve health in an Oakland neighborhood, to uniting city officials, employers, and the community around jobs in Brooklyn, to using transit as a hub for health, housing, and economic development in Dallas. [19]

The White House Council for Community Solutions has recognized the potential of collective impact to play a major role in transforming the ways in which communities approach their social problems. [20] A 2012 report for the Council found that, among 12 “needle-moving community collaboratives” that had achieved at least 10 percent progress in a community wide metric, all 12 met the conditions of collective impact. [4]

The White House Council's work in collective impact is being continued today by the Aspen Forum for Community Solutions. [21] In 2014 it launched the Collective Impact Forum (n partnership with FSG,), an online community to support those practicing collective impact. [22]

The Promise Neighborhoods Institute is a PolicyLink initiative to unite diverse American communities on improving educational and developmental outcomes of children in underserved areas. [23] More than 50 communities have contributed neighborhood data, mobilized local leaders, launched advocacy campaigns and started multi-sector partnerships to demand federal-level policy changes to fund “cradle to college” programs nationwide. [23]

The United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) is the “backbone organization” for a nationwide coalition of 50 healthcare organizations that support healthy breastfeeding initiatives. [24] Goal #3 of the 2014 USBC Strategic Framework is “engage stakeholders in a collective impact model”. [24] In 2017, the USBC updated its strategy to emphasize its organizational commitment to breastfeeding health equity. This reflects current demands from critics who want a general frame of equity added to the collective impact model framework. [25]

Critiques of Collective impact

Corporate CEOs, small business leaders, non-profit and social-sector executives, government officials and community service practitioners have made contributions to the evolving concept in the form of insights, feedback and critique. [26] Community psychologist Tom Wolff argues that John Kania and Mark Kramer's concept of collective impact “fails to adequately acknowledge, understand, and address” the framework in the context of community organizing. He lists the following Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong [27]

  1. Collective Impact does not address the essential requirement for meaningfully engaging those in the community most affected by the issues.
  2. A corollary of the above is that Collective Impact emerges from top-down business consulting experience and is thus not a true community development model.
  3. Collective Impact does not include policy change and systems change as essential and intentional outcomes of the partnership's work.
  4. Collective Impact as described in Kania and Kramer's initial article is not based on professional and practitioner literature or the experience of the thousands of coalitions that preceded their 2011 article.
  5. Collective Impact misses the social justice core that exists in many coalitions.
  6. Collective Impact mislabels their study of a few case examples as “research.”
  7. Collective Impact assumes that most coalitions are capable of finding the funds to have a well- funded backbone organization.
  8. Collective Impact also misses a key role of the Backbone Organization – building leadership.
  9. Community wide, multi-sectoral collaboratives cannot be simplified into Collective Impact's five required conditions.
  10. The early available research on Collective Impact is calling into question the contribution that Collective Impact is making to coalition effectiveness. [27]

Wolff's claim that collective impact is a “failed model” has caught the attention of community service practitioners who are also skeptics of the model's “five conditions”. [28] Calling it a top-down model for excluding community members as key stakeholders and partners of collaboration, Wolff has attracted input from many other non-profit and social-sector critics who also want the model to add elements of diversity and inclusion, civic participation, social justice and equity. [28]

Social sector leaders echo these critiques in publications like The Philanthropist , calling the five-pillared framework too simple for its intended purpose of tackling complex problems. [29] Drawing similarities between CI and other previously popular but failed models of collaboration, community activists struggle to believe that CI has what it takes to build long-term, sustainable, conflict-free solutions to social justice issues. [29] Pointing out several well-known case studies that underscore a real need for increased grassroots advocacy efforts, many critics believe Kania & Kramer conducted inadequate research before designing their model. [30]

In 2015, PolicyLink published a report called Equity: the soul of collective impact, which identified racial and economic equity as the most vital missing pieces of Kania & Kramer's concept. [23] With no mention of equity in the CI framework, PolicyLink executives argue that CI initiatives fail to address tense power dynamics that continue to polarize American communities and therefore impede progress on social change. [23]

Future of Collective impact

With high demand for adding a new equity frame to the original framework, Living Cities has partnered with The Collective Impact Forum to work exclusively on reforming the model for this purpose. [31] Founders Kania & Kramer, as well as organizations like PolicyLink, Aspen Forum for Community Solutions and Urban Strategies Council have also joined this effort, signaling that opinions from the field have been taken seriously, helping the concept adapt and grow with transparency and flexibility. [32] Ongoing discussions and updates are viewable at the Collective Impact Forum website where public input and participation is encouraged as CI continues to evolve with increased attention to community needs. [31]

Founding authors Kania and Kramer have responded to critics expressing appreciation for their interest and perspective on the topic, encouraging their continued input throughout the process to refine the model.

“As this movement continues to evolve, we look forward to additional contributions such as Wolff’s published editorial (and the myriad of contributions we list here, as well as many others) that can deepen understanding of how best to practice collective impact in a manner that leads to a more just and equitable world”. [33]

Wolff however, believes the model is flawed beyond repair and needs full replacement rather than reform. [28] Suggesting six principles in the NonProfit Quarterly’s 2017 Collaborating for Equity and Social Justice Toolkit, Wolff empowers social innovators and thought leaders to design collaboration models for the future that will “leave the power in the hands of community residents”. [28]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Global Compact</span> Non-binding United Nations pact

The United Nations Global Compact is a non-binding United Nations pact to get businesses and firms worldwide to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies, and to report on their implementation. The UN Global Compact is the world's largest corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility initiative, with 13000 corporate participants and other stakeholders over 170 countries. The organization consists of a global agency, and local "networks" or agencies for each participating country. Under the Global Compact, companies are brought together with UN agencies, labor groups and civil society. Cities can join the Global Compact through the Cities Programme.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social entrepreneurship</span> Approach to develop, fund and implement solutions to social or environmental issues

Social entrepreneurship is an approach by individuals, groups, start-up companies or entrepreneurs, in which they develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues. This concept may be applied to a wide range of organizations, which vary in size, aims, and beliefs. For-profit entrepreneurs typically measure performance using business metrics like profit, revenues and increases in stock prices. Social entrepreneurs, however, are either non-profits, or they blend for-profit goals with generating a positive "return to society". Therefore, they use different metrics. Social entrepreneurship typically attempts to further broad social, cultural and environmental goals often associated with the voluntary sector in areas such as poverty alleviation, health care and community development.

Social innovations are new social practices that aim to meet social needs in a better way than the existing solutions, resulting from - for example - working conditions, education, community development or health. These ideas are created with the goal of extending and strengthening civil society. Social innovation includes the social processes of innovation, such as open source methods and techniques and also the innovations which have a social purpose—like activism, crowdfunding, time-based currency, telehealth, cohousing, virtual volunteering, microcredit, or distance learning. There are many definitions of social innovation, however, they usually include the broad criteria about social objectives, social interaction between actors or actor diversity, social outputs, and innovativeness. Different definitions include different combinations and different number of these criteria. Transformative social innovation not only introduces new approaches to seemingly intractable problems, but is successful in changing the social institutions that created the problem in the first place.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation International</span> Nonprofit environmental organization

Conservation International (CI) is an American nonprofit environmental organization headquartered in Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Trade Centre</span> Multilateral agency

The International Trade Centre (ITC) is a multilateral agency which has a joint mandate with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations (UN) through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation (GFAR) is an inclusive global forum, enabling all those concerned with the future of agriculture and its role in development around the world, to address key global needs. GFAR provides an open forum for stakeholders across the agricultural spectrum—ranging from researchers, organizations, and farmers—to participate in collaborative discussion and action around the current and future state of agriculture.

Governance is a broader concept than government and also includes the roles played by the community sector and the private sector in managing and planning countries, regions and cities. Collaborative governance involves the government, community and private sectors communicating with each other and working together to achieve more than any one sector could achieve on its own. Ansell and Gash (2008) have explored the conditions required for effective collaborative governance. They say "The ultimate goal is to develop a contingency approach of collaboration that can highlight conditions under which collaborative governance will be more or less effective as an approach to policy making and public management" Collaborative governance covers both the informal and formal relationships in problem solving and decision-making. Conventional government policy processes can be embedded in wider policy processes by facilitating collaboration between the public, private and community sectors. Collaborative Governance requires three things, namely: support; leadership; and a forum. The support identifies the policy problem to be fixed. The leadership gathers the sectors into a forum. Then, the members of the forum collaborate to develop policies, solutions and answers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition</span> Swiss nonprofit foundation

The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) is a non-profit foundation based in Geneva, Switzerland. GAIN was developed at the UN 2002 Special Session of the General Assembly on Children. GAIN’s actions include improving the consumption of nutritious and safe foods for all. They are supported by over 30 donors and work closely with international organisations and United Nations agencies. Their activities include improving consumption of nutritious food globally. The organisation has a 20 year history of food system programmes: focusing on adolescent and child nutrition, food system research, fortification, small and medium enterprise assistance, biofortification of crops and reducing post-harvest losses.

Creating shared value (CSV) is a business concept first introduced in a 2006 Harvard Business Review article, Strategy & Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. The concept was further expanded in the January 2011 follow-up piece entitled Creating Shared Value: Redefining Capitalism and the Role of the Corporation in Society. Written by Michael E. Porter, a leading authority on competitive strategy and head of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School, and Mark R. Kramer, of the Kennedy School at Harvard University and co-founder of FSG, the article provides insights and relevant examples of companies that have developed deep links between their business strategies and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Porter and Kramer define shared value as "the policies and practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing social and economic conditions in the communities in which it operates", while a review published in 2021 defines the concept as "a strategic process through which corporations can turn social problems into business opportunities".

Collaborative leadership is a management practice which is focused on leadership skills across functional and organizational boundaries.

The Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation was an office new to the Obama Administration, created within the White House, to catalyze new and innovative ways of encouraging government to do business differently. Its first director was the economist Sonal Shah. The final director was David Wilkinson.

The Regional Forum on Environment and Health in Southeast and East Asian Countries is a global framework for action provided by Agenda 21 of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development; the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations and the recommendations of the fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific on enhancing the environmental sustainability of economic growth. The second Ministerial Regional Forum was held 14–16 July 2010 in Jeju Province, South Korea. The forum is held every three years; the first was in Bangkok in August 2007.

The Devonshire Initiative (DI) is a Canadian forum for leading international development NGOs and mining companies to come together in response to the emerging social agenda surrounding mining and community development issues. The DI was founded on the belief that the Canadian mining and NGO presence in emerging markets can be a force for positive change. The group came into being on March 5, 2007 at an initial workshop conducted at the University of Toronto on cross-sector partnerships, which featured a case study of the Kimberley Process on Conflict Diamonds.

Sustainability standards and certifications are voluntary guidelines used by producers, manufacturers, traders, retailers, and service providers to demonstrate their commitment to good environmental, social, ethical, and food safety practices. There are over 400 such standards across the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative</span>

The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative is a partnership between the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the global financial sector to catalyse action across the financial system to align economies with sustainable development. As the UN partner for the finance sector, they convene financial institutions on a voluntary basis to work together with them, and each other, to find practical solutions to overcome the many sustainability challenges facing the world today. UNEP FI does this by providing practical guidance and tools which support institutions in the finance sector to find ways to reshape their businesses and commit to targets for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, protecting nature, promoting a circular economy and supporting financial inclusion to address inequality. The solutions developed effectively form a blueprint for others in the finance sector to tackle similar challenges and evolve their businesses along a sustainable pathway. The creation and adoption of such a blueprint also informs policy makers concerned with sustainability issues about what would constitute appropriate regulation for the finance sector at large. Founded in 1992, UNEP FI was the first organisation to pioneer engagement with the finance sector around sustainability. The Finance Initiative was responsible for incubating the Principles for Responsible Investment and for the development and implementation of UNEP FI’s Principles for Responsible Banking and Principles for Sustainable Insurance as well as the UN-convened net-zero alliances. Today, UNEP FI provides sustainability leadership to more than 400 financial institutions, with assets of well over $80 trillion headquartered around the world.

The Baltimore Community Foundation (BCF) is a community foundation created by and for the people of Baltimore to serve the current and future needs of the Baltimore region.

<i>Stanford Social Innovation Review</i>

Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) is a magazine and website that covers cross-sector solutions to global problems. SSIR is written by and for social change leaders from around the world and from all sectors of society—nonprofits, foundations, business, government, and engaged citizens. SSIR's mission is to advance, educate, and inspire the field of social innovation by seeking out, cultivating, and disseminating the best in research- and practice-based knowledge. With print and online articles, webinars, conferences, podcasts, and more, SSIR bridges research, theory, and practice on a wide range of topics, including human rights, impact investing, and nonprofit business models. SSIR is published by the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Partnership on AI</span> Nonprofit coalition

Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to Benefit People and Society, otherwise known as Partnership on AI, is a nonprofit coalition committed to the responsible use of artificial intelligence. Coming into inception in September of 2016, PAI grouped together members from over 90 companies and non-profits in order to explore best practice recommendations for the tech community. Since its founding, Partnership on AI has experienced plethora of change with influential moments, comprehensive principles and missions, and generating more relevancy by every passing day.

The Chicago Community Trust is the community foundation serving Chicago, suburban Cook County, and the Illinois counties of DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will. Established on May 12, 1915, it is the third largest community foundation in the country as of 2019, with assets of more than $3.3 billion. The Trust awards more than $360 million annually in grants and has awarded more than $2 billion in grants since its founding. The Trust received gifts totaling almost $469 million during the 2019 fiscal year.

Data collaboratives are a form of collaboration in which participants from different sectors—including private companies, research institutions, and government agencies—can exchange data and data expertise to help solve public problems.

References

  1. ↑ "NA | Collective Impact Forum". t.e2ma.net. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Collective Impact | Stanford Social Innovation Review". Ssireview.org. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  3. ↑ "Philanthropy Buzzwords of 2011 - The Chronicle of Philanthropy". Philanthropy.com. 2011-12-27. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  4. 1 2 "Needle-Moving Collective Impact: Three Guides to Creating an Effective Community Collaborative". Archived from the original on July 7, 2013. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
  5. ↑ "The Real Challenge for Collective Impact | Paul Schmitz". Huffingtonpost.com. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  6. ↑ Rubin, Hank (2009). Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships for Communities and Schools. Corwin Press. ISBN   978-1-4129-6544-6.
  7. ↑ Bornstein, David (March 10, 2011). "The Power of Partnerships". Archived from the original on 2013-08-02. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
  8. ↑ Rubin, Leonard Brock & Hank. "Rochester-Monroe anti-poverty effort more than collaboration". Democrat and Chronicle.
  9. ↑ "Understanding the Value of Backbone Organizations in Collective Impact: Part 1 | Stanford Social Innovation Review". Ssireview.org. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  10. 1 2 "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work | Stanford Social Innovation Review". Ssireview.org. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  11. ↑ "Highlights of Collective Impact Efforts | StriveTogether". Archived from the original on February 19, 2013. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
  12. ↑ "Shape Up Somerville | City of Somerville Website". Somervillema.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  13. ↑ "Working Group". Saint Louis Petlover Coalition. Archived from the original on 2013-09-11. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  14. ↑ "press-releases - Calgary Homeless Foundation". Newsroom.calgaryhomeless.com. 2011-08-12. Archived from the original on 2017-12-22. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  15. ↑ "Communities of Practice by Vibrant Communities - Poverty Reduction Across Canada". Tamarackcommunity.ca. Archived from the original on 2015-07-24. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  16. ↑ "Children's Bureau of Southern California". Archived from the original on June 4, 2013. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
  17. ↑ Nasser, Haya El (2014-05-28). "Partners in Progress: Initiative creates one-stop shops for needy families | Al Jazeera America". America.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  18. ↑ Erickson, David (2013-02-16). "Investing In What Works for America's Communities » Routinizing the Extraordinary". Whatworksforamerica.org. Archived from the original on 2017-11-02. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  19. ↑ "Citi Foundation and Low Income Investment Fund Launch Nationwide "Partners in Progress" Initiative". MarketWatch. 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  20. ↑ "The white House Council for Community Solutions : Community Collaboratives Whitepaper" (PDF). Serve.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  21. ↑ "Forum for Community Solutions". The Aspen Institute. 2015-05-21. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  22. ↑ "About Us". Collective Impact Forum. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  23. 1 2 3 4 McAfee, M., Blackwell, A. & Bell, J. (2015). Equity: The soul of collective impact. PolicyLink.
  24. 1 2 "USBC Strategic Framework".
  25. ↑ "Collective Impact Forum | Blog". collectiveimpactforum.org. 4 May 2016. Retrieved 2017-12-16.
  26. ↑ "Collective Impact Forum | Blog". collectiveimpactforum.org. Retrieved 2017-12-16.
  27. 1 2 "Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong by Tom Wolff in GJCPP Volume 7 Issue 1 2016". www.gjcpp.org. Retrieved 2017-12-16.
  28. 1 2 3 4 "Collaborating for Equity and Justice: Moving Beyond Collective Impact - Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly". nonprofitquarterly.org. 9 January 2017. Retrieved 2017-12-16.
  29. 1 2 Weaver, L. (2014). The promise and peril of collective impact. The Philanthropist, 26, 11-19.
  30. ↑ Christens, B. D., & Inzeo, P. T. (2015). Widening the view: Situating collective impact among frameworks for community-led change. Community Development, 46(4), 420-435.
  31. 1 2 Raderstrong, J., & Boyea-Robinson, T. (2016). The why and how of working with communities through collective impact. Community Development, 47(2), 181-193.
  32. ↑ Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2015). The equity imperative in collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 36-41.
  33. ↑ Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2016). Advancing the practice of collective impact. Blog: Collective Impact Forum.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.