Blog

Welcome to the first in a series of conversations with experienced backbone leaders! (see this blog post describing the series.) In this chat, we’ll hear from Ellen Kahler, Executive Director at the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund (VSJF) since 2005.

Summer is upon us, and in the U.S. the weather is hot, and the days long. I spent my childhood in Alabama, where the often-unbearable summer heat made us appreciate cold drinks, shade, and air conditioning. The hot weather sapped our desire to run around outside, so in the evening we’d fire up the grill, gather fresh tomatoes from the garden, watch the lightning bugs flutter across the yard, and enjoy one another’s company. In this setting, stories were shared, wisdom was imparted, and we generally got to know one another a lot better.

In the winter of 2015, two East Coast Millennials joined the FSG team in San Francisco (just in time to miss the cold tundra of the Northeast Corridor). As a two-generation, Haitian-American, I came from Jersey City with a background in public policy and philanthropy. My colleague Miya left Massachusetts with a range of experiences in community organizing, public policy and global health; her mother is originally from Harlem, her father from Miami. We both happened to share the experience of growing up in Miami, a city known for its beautiful beaches and vibrant culture. On the other hand, Miami is increasingly known for its deep poverty, high crime, and lack of access to opportunity for communities of color and low-income communities.

My Aunt Janice’s biscuits are legendary. They are fluffy, buttery and light. Whenever we visit her in Alabama, we stop by to gorge ourselves on these delectable treats. I recently had a hankering for the biscuits so I asked for the recipe. While I’m not a huge fan of cooking, I don’t mind baking occasionally. The recipe only has four ingredients- flour, buttermilk, shortening, and butter. Simple, right?

The collective impact model of cross-sector collaboration emphasizes the use of shared measurement systems for identifying problems and needs, tracking progress, and measuring results. But to what extent are cross-sector collaborations around the country promoting data as an integral part of their work?

We appreciate Tom Wolff’s critique of collective impact and the insights he shares in his recent essay. Wolff’s years of experience in the field, and the perspectives he offers, are a valuable contribution to the arena of collective, collaborative change. We’re grateful that he’s agreed to re-post his essay alongside our response in order to create what we hope will be a productive conversation. Since writing the original article on collective impact in 2011, we and others have written about many of the dimensions that Wolff articulates in his published editorial in the Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, a peer-reviewed professional journal. In particular, we agree with Wolff’s aspirations for how collective impact can lead to better results, particularly for those whom collaborative efforts seek to serve. We share his eloquently expressed hope for "improved applications of Collective Impact” to emerge:"

In 2011 Kania and Kramer published a five page article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review entitled “Collective Impact” (2011). The article was a well written summary of their views of large scale social change efforts in communities. They suggested five conditions of collective impact: 1. common agenda 2. shared measurement 3. mutually reinforcing activities 4. continuous communication 5. backbone support. In the original article, and those that followed, Kania and Kramer were explicitly and implicitly critical of much of what came before them. In one chart (Hanleybrown, Kania, & Kramer 2012), they compare Isolated Impact with Collective Impact as if those were the only two options, omitting the numerous examples of community-wide coalitions that moved beyond Isolated Impact but were not explicitly labeled Collective Impact (for one example see the exhaustive literature on Healthy Communities, Norris, 2013).

There is a long history of experiments to align the actions and thoughts of many different organisations trying to achieve some kind of social change – better early years education; less violence; improved public health or urban regeneration. These have usually involved some combination of shared plans, targets, and commitments. They have had many names. Many books have been written about them, and many universities have run courses to make people better collaborators. People on the sharp end of social problems want those with money and power to get their act together and not work at cross purposes. Responsible funders naturally want to find ways to make their money go further, and recognise that this is bound to involve collaboration - pooling resources of all kinds with others.

Earlier this year, the Collective Impact Forum gathered feedback through its second annual survey of members who have created an online profile. The purpose of this survey was to assess the Forum’s progress to date and to better understand needs in the field.

The Integration Initiative—or “TII”—began in 2010 as a pioneering approach to community development. Living Cities designed TII, a precursor to the collective impact model, to support “bold, promising approaches that have the potential to transform the lives of low-income people and the communities in which they live.”