Jewish Funders Network February 16, 2012 Collective Impact

© 2011 FSG 2 FSG.ORG There is a Fundamental Mismatch Between the Complexity of Social Problems and Philanthropy’s Typical Focus on Individual Programs Solving social problems requires understanding the interaction of many organizations within a larger system Progress depends on working toward the same goal and measuring the same things Large scale impact depends on increasing cross-sector alignment and learning among many organizations Government and corporate sectors are essential partners Collective Impact Funders select individual grantees that offer the most promising solutions Grantees work separately and compete to produce the greatest independent impact Evaluation attempts to isolate a particular grantee’s impact Large scale change depends on scaling a single organization Corporate and government sectors are disconnected Isolated Impact Collective Impact

© 2011 FSG 3 FSG.ORG Five Conditions For Collective Impact Success Collective Impact Common Agenda Shared Measurement Mutually Reinforcing Activities Continuous Communication Backbone Organization All participants have a shared vision for change including a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed upon actions Collecting data and measuring results consistently across all participants ensures efforts remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable Participant activities must be differentiated while still being coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action Consistent and open communication is needed across the many players to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and appreciate common motivation Creating and managing collective impact requires a separate organization with staff and a specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative and coordinate participating organizations

© 2011 FSG 4 FSG.ORG Mutually Reinforcing Activities 3 Strive is an Education Collective Impact Initiative in Cincinnati Specialized Measures: Each type of activity requires a different set of measures, but all organizations engaged in the same type of activity report on the same measures. Problem Definition: Improving educational outcomes from “cradle to career” Key Levers for Change: 21 key interventions anchored around five transition points Meetings: Networks have been meeting regularly for more than three years. To keep communication flowing among and within the networks they use web-based tools, such as Google Groups. Organizational Structure: Strive has 8 staff members with $1.5M annual budget that supports action networks with technology, training of facilitators, and communications Network organization: Actors work in 15 action networks meet in biweekly learning sessions facilitated by trained coaches and facilitators Collective Impact Common Agenda 1 Shared Measurement 2 Continuous Communication 4 Backbone Support Organization 5 Strive is a subsidiary of the KnowledgeWorks Foundation

© 2011 FSG 5 FSG.ORG The Majority of Educational Progress Indicators Tracked by Strive Have Shown Steady Improvement Education Indicators Strive Community-Level Progress IndicatorsScorecard from Strive’s 2 nd Annual Progress Report Strive provides an annual community “report card” on ten key indicators of success Copyright owned by Strive, a subsidiary of the KnowledgeWorks Foundation

© 2011 FSG 6 FSG.ORG 11 taskforces created around 3 activities: 1.Increasing healthy nutrition (in restaurants, at home, school) 2.Healthy transportation (walking, biking) 3.Healthy habitats in school (physical exercise, etc.) Measures: After community- wide discussions, the following were agreed upon to be measured: -Increase in energy expenditure s(EE) beyond increases in EE and energy -BMI z-score and weight Shared Measurement 2 Focus Groups: During pilot phase, focus groups were formed and community meetings organized to talk about issue and gather input on solutions Steering Committee of 25 stakeholders meets monthly to discuss activities and opportunities Continuous Communication 4 Organizational Structure: Since 2002, 3 positions within city government to support the work: 1.Part-time planner 2.Full-time Coordinator 3.Full-time Director. Backbone Support Organization 5 Mutually Reinforcing Activities 3 Shape Up Somerville Uses Collective Impact to Address Childhood Obesity Shape Up Somerville Problem Definition: In % of Somerville, MA youth overweight or obese. Solution: Increase daily physical activity, healthy eating through programs, infrastructure improvements, and policy work. Common Agenda 1 1.Increase daily physical activity 2.Increase healthy eating through programs 3.Infrastructure improvements, and policy work

© 2011 FSG 7 FSG.ORG Meetings: Working groups used meetings to monitor progress and revise strategies Strategic Advisers used meetings to review and advise, consider proposals, and to advocate for policy and systems change Problem Definition: New residents needed skills for economic and personal growth Solution: Opportunity Chicago established urgency for helping 5,000 residents prepare for and find work in 5 years 8 working groups addressed challenges, best practices, employer engagement, and data Small implementation group met regularly to continue to integrate systems and leverage resources to expand employment of CHA residents Measures: Data was collected and used to make mid-course improvements Metrics measured include: residents completing or participating in other job skills training, number of residents placed in jobs Organizational Structure: Chicago Jobs Council, a non- profit, leads and administers Opportunity Chicago Chicago Jobs Council helped clarify partner roles and responsibilities and to generate momentum Common AgendaShared Measurement 2 Continuous Communication 4 Backbone Support Organization 5 Mutually Reinforcing Activities 3 Opportunity Chicago Used Collective Impact to Connect 5,000 Low Skilled, Low Income Public Housing Residents to Quality Jobs 1 Can public housing offer connections to work? Can connections to work transform public housing? Opportunity Chicago

© 2011 FSG 8 FSG.ORG Backbone Organizations Require a Unique Skill-Set to Support Collective Impact Efforts Collective Impact: Backbone Support 1.Project Management 2.Facilitation 3.Data Collection & Analysis 4.Communication 5.Community Engagement* 5. Funder mobilization Key Functions of Backbones Influential champion Neutral convener Dedicated staff Create and sustain a sense of urgency Frame issues as opportunities Use measurement and evaluation process as a tool of learning Backbones must balance the tension between leadership and staying behind the scenes to preserve collective ownership Highlights of Successful Backbones *These skills can exist within a single organization or within another organization in the effort.

© 2011 FSG 9 FSG.ORG Collective Impact Efforts Tend to Transpire Over Three Key Phases Collective Impact: Process Overview Source: FSG SSIR Collective Impact Article, Winter 2011; FSG Interviews Phase I Initiate Action Phase II Organize for Impact Phase III Sustain Action & Impact Develop group of key champions/advisors; Identify and structure group communication and decision making processes Create the support infrastructure and processes, i.e. backbone (if it does not already exist ) Facilitate group processes and refine when needed Governance and Infrastructure Map the landscape of players, strategies, and work underway Create Common Agenda: support stakeholders in establishing common goals to build system level theory of change and action roadmap Identify and support implementation of action strategies; Promote alignment of organizations and funders to goal/strategies Strategic Planning Gather baseline data in order to make the case for change Facilitate community outreach Invite community engagement, public will building Expand community engagement, public will building, advocacy Community Involvement Analyze baseline data in order to develop an understanding of key issues and gaps in the local landscape Support stakeholders in establishing a set of key shared metrics; Develop data infrastructure and indicators Collect/Track/report progress; Actively promote the use of data for learning and improvement Address ongoing data needs Evaluation and Improvement

© 2011 FSG 10 FSG.ORG Implications Of Collective Impact No single organization or sector can solve complex social issues Engage with corporations and government Redefine your role within a larger context for impact Coordinate agendas with other partner organizations to reinforce activities Communicate regularly and openly with collaborators Collect and analyze relevant data for shared measurement Implications For Non-Profits Focus on the overall issue, not the individual grantees Engage with corporations and government Pay attention to the relationships between organizations rather than the capacity of a single organization Think about long term process and gradual impact rather than short term solutions Build knowledge and alignment through shared measurement systems, regular meetings, and backbone organizations For Funders

© 2011 FSG 11 FSG.ORG Collective Impact Requires a Change of Mindset Collective Impact Adaptive vs. Technical Problem Solving No Silver Bullets.… But we do have Silver Buckshot Credibility vs. Credit Allowing answers to come from within Supporting common agenda building, information sharing and coordination/ alignment Many small changes implemented in alignment can add up to large scale progress Creating new incentives to work collaboratively vs. competitively Collective Impact is a hard, slow and messy process – but it brings results and a new sense of hope to the participants