COLLECTIVE IMPACT

Fall Leaders Forum October 2015 Jill Schumann – LeadingAge Maryland

Collective Impact article by John Kania and Mark Kramer in 2011Stanford Social Innovation Review

Discussed how sectors and organizations might work together for needle-moving social change

Used examples of Strive in Cinncinati, Elizabeth River Project in Virginia, and Shape Up Somerville in Massachusetts

Article stimulated further exploration, critique and work

Collective Impact

Collective Impact contrasted with: the sum of isolated individual efforts, scaling a successful model, looking for the new model that will change everything.

Focuses instead on aligning all stakeholders including affected community members, nonprofits, businesses, funders, government around a common goal. Each group contributes to the goal in its own way. Gaps are identified and filled.

Goes beyond collaboration

Collective Impact

1. Common agenda2. Shared measurement systems3. Mutually reinforcing activities4. Continuous communication5. Backbone support organizations

Five Conditions of Collective Success

Shared understanding of the problem to be tackled

Shared idea of what a joint approach to addressing that problem might look like

Getting to a common agenda is difficult and time consuming, but essential

Requires patience & engagement with process; funders can be helpful

Common Agenda

Define how success will be measured Collect data and measure results on a short

list of indicators Web-based technologies enable

measurement Evidence-based decision making allows for

continuous improvement (Six Sigma, etc.) Data review allows for continual course

correction

Shared Measurement Systems

Power of collective action comes not from large number of participants or uniformity of efforts, but from coordination of differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action

Collective impact approach is best applied to complex, multi-factorial problems

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

Trust is a key ingredient for success – nurtured through transparency and fairness in using data for decision making

Early investment of time by CEO-level individuals yields results

Successful projects find multiple ways to keep communicating throughout the years

Continuous Communication

Kania and Kramer insist that these large scale efforts require a separate organization to coordinate, schedule, facilitate, measure, and communicate to keep work on track

Three key roles for backbones: project manager, data manager, facilitator

Embody principles of adaptive leadership Funders need to take a long view of change

Backbone Support Organizations

Influential champion Adequate financial resources Sense of urgency for change

Preconditions for Collective Impact

Initiate Action◦ Identify champions and form cross-sector group◦ Map the landscape & use data to make the case◦ Facilitate community outreach◦ Analyze baseline data to identify key issues & gaps

Organize for Impact◦ Create infrastructure (backbone & processes)◦ Create common agenda (goals & strategy)◦ Engage community & build public will◦ Establish shared metrics

Sustain Action and Impact◦ Facilitate & refine◦ Support implementation◦ Continue community engagement and advocacy◦ Collect, track and report progress

Phases of Collective Impact

1. Start with a focus on outcomes you want to achieve

2. Draw a picture big enough so that existing efforts can see how they can connect and why

3. Identify where there is more efficiency in working together than alone

4. Clarify the lines of communication and accountability

5. Work through turf issues

Keys to Successful Alignment

Who is involved: ◦ get ALL the right eyes on the problem, including those

with lived experience of the issue◦ different views lead to stronger results

How people work together: ◦ the relational is as important as the rational; “change

happens at the speed of trust”; ◦ structure is as important as strategy; collective seeing,

learning and doing; cascading levels of collaboration◦ sharing credit is as important as taking credit

Maintaining the integrity of the collective impact approach

Mindset Shifts

How progress happens:◦ pay attention to adaptive work, not just technical

solutions to solve complex social problems as answers are not known at the outset

◦ look for silver buckshot not the silver bullet Evaluation is essential and focuses on

both process and results

Mindset Shifts

StriveTogether Theory of Action- national network based on Cincinnati experience

Stages: exploring, emerging, sustaining, systems change

Four principles◦ Build culture of continuous improvement◦ Eliminate disparities- disaggregate data◦ Leverage existing assets◦ Engage local expertise and community voice

Quality Collective Impact

To achieve large scale change collective impact efforts disrupt the status quo

Systems resist change Road Map Project in Seattle:

◦ Know your context◦ Test for favorable wind conditions◦ Build collective power◦ Develop alliances between unusual bedfellows by

focusing on common goals◦ Apply pressure from the inside and outside- working

together for those common goals; formal and informal power are both necessary for change

◦ Use data to accelerate change

Power Dynamics

Strive, Shape Up Somerville, Elizabeth River Varied geographic scope Many focused on youth – especially Forum for

Youth Investment Ready by 21, opportunity youth, education, Communities That Care

Some focused on health – Livewell Colorado, NE Iowa Food and Fitness

Poverty, job creation, environment, homelessness

Multi-problem – Memphis Fast Forward

Case Studies

Northern Kentucky – multiple overlapping initiatives streamlined and aligned

Multiple action teams move projects forward Cascading levels of collaboration This is really long term work Collaboration requires capacity & process Funders can be key, but must shift perspectives Emergent opportunities: resource from outside

community applied locally; locals work differently & find new solutions; local strategy that is working is spread more widely

Ongoing Learning- Collective Impact Forum

Coordination and collaboration may reduce the kinds of innovation competition may engender

Can overpower and overshadow needed immediate efforts on the ground

Funders can be uneasy about the evolutionary nature of a collective impact process

Focus on measurement may trap groups into doing most measurable activities rather than the right ones

Can be organization focused rather than community focused

Criticisms of Collective Impact

What are the biggest issues and challenges for people aging in Maryland ?

What collaborations regarding aging in Maryland already exist?

Are there insights from the Collective Impact approach that might be useful?

What significant difference might LeadingAge Maryland members, in partnership with others?

Questions to Consider