Eight findings from a recent study of collective impact initiatives, including their effect on systems and population-level outcomes.
Collective impact tends to generate strong reactions. Mention it, and the person across from you will likely either extol its virtues or roll their eyes. Introduced in a 2011 SSIR article, the approach to social change came onto the scene and quickly became a buzzword and philanthropy darling. For some, it offered structure and clarity about how to operate complex, multi-sector social change processes that can otherwise feel opaque and intangible. For others, not so much.
If you Google “collective impact critique,” you’ll find many articles describing collective impact’s limitations: It’s too top down; it’s not focused enough on community, social justice, and equity; and it’s too simplistic for entrenched social problems. Critics argue it doesn‘t adequately acknowledge the work that preceded and informed it; it wasn’t backed by adequate research and evaluation; and it branded and “consult-ified” work that communities, organizers, and other researchers had been engaging in for decades.
Over the last seven years, FSG, the Collective Impact Forum, and the Aspen Institute have tried to address some of these critiques. The Collective Impact Forum’s “Principles of Practice” resource guide, released in 2016, sought to bring in issues of equity, community engagement, shared leadership, data use, and local context. And, in early 2017, with the support of several prominent foundations, the forum partnered with our organizations ORS Impact and Spark Policy Institute to conduct a rigorous study of collective impact’s effect on institutions, such as school systems, human services organizations, and nonprofits, and target populations or environments. The study examined 25 initiatives in the United States and Canada. While the initiatives targeted a range of issues and had different geographic reaches, all of them had been in operation for more than three years and could present evidence of implementing the collective impact approach.
We entered into the study in 2017 with a healthy skepticism about the approach and a belief that a rigorous exploration would help the social sector better understand collective impact’s potential utility. The study results have helped deepen our thinking and altered our mindsets.
Here are eight important findings:
-
Collective impact undoubtedly contributed to changes in target populations or places. From the original set of 25 initiatives involved in the study, we selected the eight initiatives we felt could help us most deeply explore the question about the connection between collective impact and changes among populations and places. These initiatives demonstrated strong implementation of the collective impact approach, and had documentation of meaningful changes among the targeted population in things like improved river health, decreased rates of homelessness, and lower rates of teen births. In our study, target populations may be specific people within specific systems, geographic areas, or with special needs. We collected data from a range of stakeholders to understand their “contribution story,” or how they believed their efforts or other factors led to change. Analysts then used a methodology called process tracing to test the hypotheses about the connection between initiative activities and outcomes, assessing both the degree to which the data supported the proposed linkages and the degree to which the relationship uniquely explained the result. We also assessed the overall strength of each initiative’s complete “contribution story” for the ultimate question: to what degree did all the prioritized activities and outcomes add up to contribute to the ultimate change sought?
As noted above, we determined that collective impact undoubtedly contributed to changes at scale within initiatives’ targeted people or places. In many cases, stakeholders achieved these changes through the development or expansion of programs and services that reached targeted populations. Others achieved outcomes through policy changes at the state or organizational level. Many initiatives were able to collectively leverage resources to advance important components of the work. In these eight initiatives, we are confident that the initiative’s work to cultivate a shared vision, engage in mutually reinforcing activities, and support effective multi-sector partnerships all tenets of the collective impact approach played an important role in achieving at least one of their population-level goals. This was true across different issues areas including juvenile justice, education, and health and across statewide, county, and regional efforts.
- Contribution to population-level change doesn’t always look the same. In some cases, the use of collective impact on its own could not explain the outcomes achieved. For example, one collective impact initiative supported a school district’s strategic plan. But while the initiative’s work likely contributed to academic gains, external factors such as federal funds to support school reform and the strength of the school reform model being implemented were equally important in explaining success. These results illustrate how collective impact can play a role in supporting and sometimes catalyzing other efforts versus driving the change directly.
Click here for the full article.
Digital era leadership key focus areas
2020 will go down in history as the year when people across the globe had to unite to play their part in combating the spread of COVID-19. The year has proven we live in a highly-complex, uncertain, interconnected and ever-changing world.
In this dynamic world, individuals and businesses are either disrupting or are being disrupted by prevailing megatrends. The economic, political and social disruption caused by the pandemic has been devastating, and dealing with the unforeseen challenges caused by the pandemic has taken a significant toll on people across the world.
The pandemic has and will continue to impact our lives, our careers and how we do things, in a major way. Many commentators have labelled COVID-19 as the biggest driver or accelerator of digital transformation for individuals, societies, industries and organisations.
These waves of digital transformation are affecting entire business models and at times creating new industries and business models. This has transformed our communication, ways of working, shopping and many other facets of our lives.
The pandemic has seen more businesses rapidly adopting digital solutions in order to survive and thrive during this difficult trading period. Unfortunately, some businesses haven’t survived and many people have lost their jobs. Those who have embraced technology seem to be navigating this difficult period better and are likely to future-proof their businesses.
Click here for the full article.
Also, remember to follow our updates from NGO Pulse on Twitter and Facebook
We remind you to consider using our NGO Pulse Premium Advertising Service in support of your communication and outreach activities. This highly popular and successful service integrates all SANGONeT's advertising and communication channels into a single suite of services.
Click here for more information.
