Blog

We talk a lot about the importance of a backbone organization in collective impact, but moving from the conceptual idea of a backbone into making it a reality requires key decisions around three important pieces: size & structure, selection process, and funding sources.

The Collaborating to See All Constituents Reach Their Full Potential memo by GEO and the CI Forum, observes that developing and applying an explicit focus on equity to community collaborative work and the work of philanthropy is not easy. Incorporating an explicit focus on equity requires a consistent and intentional effort to create the time and mechanisms that help us to examine whether we are actually changing our practices, processes, policies, and systems so that “equity” does not become just another buzz word.

When I’m not trying to get philanthropy to be more proactive around embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion, I’m working to get my Ph.D. at the University of Chicago. Though the emphasis of my dissertation is on philanthropy and social movement dynamics, there are moments when my day job comes up particularly with respect to how foundations facilitate change and the kind of data and analysis they use to support their strategies and approaches.

As conversations around race and equity gain prominence in the national dialogue, it seems the philanthropic sector is increasingly recognizing the ways in which a long history of segregation, systemic racism and inequality hinders our ability to build strong and equitable communities. In the words of Malala Yousavsai, “we cannot all succeed when half of us are held back.”

It’s become increasingly clear that large scale social change efforts need to directly tackle structural racial inequality in order to be truly impactful and effective. For this reason, racial equity has become a central focus of the work at Living Cities, especially within its collective impact portfolio which focuses on changing the systems in cities that consistently produce poor outcomes for many city residents.

No organization (or issue) is an island, and central to collective impact is the recognition that achieving real impact means changing complex and dynamic systems. Yet, too much work happens in isolation. While funders might like to see more collaboration among their grantees, the reality is that too many nonprofits lack the opportunity and resources to engage in collective work. In the process of securing sufficient funding, mapping out sustainability plans, cultivating a “brand” and seeking recognition, the necessary work of collaboration often goes to the wayside.

While many acknowledge that collective impact isn’t a panacea to addressing every social problem, it’s often difficult to understand how to predict the situations in which collective impact would be most feasible, and thereby successful.

There has been increasing buzz about “equity” and “racial equity” in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors and among cross-sector collective impact efforts. This is a good thing and our nation’s persistent and rising racial and economic disparities demand it. Many groups are applying an “equity lens” to look outward at social problems and solutions, disaggregating data and seeking to differentiate opportunities and services to reduce disparities. But our organizations and collective efforts must begin by looking inward, using an “equity mirror” to examine our own composition, culture, and policies that reinforce and perpetuate societal disparities. To do equity, we must also be equity.

It can be a painful experience to hear that someone isn’t happy with our work. Many of us working in non-profits, government, or in collective impact efforts do this work because we want to see positive changes in our communities and when someone questions our intention or work it can feel like a blow to the work and the cause. But it is important to put on our wading boots and jump into the conversation.

In the past few months, I have heard many practitioners in the social sector discussing how continuous learning is integral for successful collective impact (CI) efforts. Although its importance is understood, practitioners say they are struggling with how to implement continuous learning processes effectively.