Podcast

Building Transformative Partnerships with ROC the Future

In this episode, we chat with Jackie Campbell, who serves as Executive Director of ROC the Future, a collective impact education initiative that’s part of the Strive Together Network and is based in Rochester, NY. Listen in to hear how ROC the Future takes a systems lens to their work with youth, including supporting their community through the ongoing COVID pandemic and racial justice reckonings as well as uplifting parents as leading partners for their kids’ education needs.

Ways to Listen: Stream this episode below. You can also listen via Itunes, Spotify, Simplecast, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, Amazon, and other podcast apps.


Resources and Footnotes


Music

The Intro music, entitled “Running,” was composed by Rafael Krux, and can be found here and is licensed under CC: By 4.0. The outro music, entitled “Deliberate Thought,” was composed by Kevin Macleod. Licensed under CC: By.


More on Collective Impact approach to collaborate for social change:


Have a question related to collaborative work that you'd like to have discussed on the podcast? You can send it to our short podcast listener survey or at info@collectiveimpactforum.org.

Listen to Past Episodes: Listen to past episodes in the Forum resource library. You can also listen and subscribe via Itunes, Spotify, Simplecast, Sticher, iHeartRadio, Amazon, and other podcast apps.

Webinar

Shifting How We Work to Reach Transformational Change

Join us for the virtual coffee chat Shifting How We Work to Reach Transformational Change as we talk with John Kania and Juanita Zerda of Collective Change Lab.

Juanita and John share about the qualities and practices that help collaboratives reach transformational change, including building deeper, more authentic relationships and incorporating healing within our work. They also answer questions about how to support transformational change within your own work.

This virtual coffee was held on March 25, 2021.

Download a copy of the presentation at the link on the left of this page. (Logging in to your Forum account will be necessary to download.)


Presenters


Related and Referenced Resources for this Discussion 

 

Podcast

Transformational Change with John Kania and Juanita Zerda of Collective Change Lab

What practices support achieving transformational change? In this episode, we’re talking with John Kania and Juanita Zerda of Collective Change Lab to share about ways to shift how we work to reach a deeper level of relationship-building, healing, and systems change.

Ways to Listen: Stream this episode below. You can also listen via Itunes, Spotify, Simplecast, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, Amazon, and other podcast apps.


Resources and Footnotes


Music

The Intro music, entitled “Running,” was composed by Rafael Krux, and can be found here and is licensed under CC: By 4.0. The outro music, entitled “Deliberate Thought,” was composed by Kevin Macleod. Licensed under CC: By.


More on Collective Impact approach to collaborate for social change:


Have a question related to collaborative work that you'd like to have discussed on the podcast? You can send it to our short podcast listener survey or at info@collectiveimpactforum.org.

Listen to Past Episodes: Listen to past episodes in the Forum resource library. You can also listen and subscribe via Itunes, Spotify, Simplecast, Sticher, iHeartRadio, Amazon, and other podcast apps.

Webinar

Driving Systems Change Forward

Multisite, cross-sector initiatives bring together stakeholders to tackle difficult issues – housing, health, education, and more - facing communities across the United States.

In the new report Driving Systems Change Forward, authored by the Urban Institute and published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, you’ll learn key lessons from initiatives from across the country about what it takes to advance systems change forward by shifting power and promoting racial equity.

Join us for this virtual coffee chat with one of the report authors—Corianne Scally—from the Urban Institute and contributing practitioner, Andrea Akita, who leads the Communities of Opportunity Initiative for King County, Washington. They discuss the report findings and how initiatives can build on this learning to change the structures, relationships and attitudes that keep racism rooted in place and communities struggling.

Download a copy of the presentation and audio transcript at the links on the left of this page. (Logging in to your CIF account will be needed to download.)
 

Session Speakers:

  • Andrea Akita, Communities of Opportunity Director, King County Public Health
  • Corianne Payton Scally, Principal Research Associate, Urban Institute


Referenced Resources:

Webinar

Evaluating Systems Change Efforts: Where to Start

Evaluating the impact of long-term systems change work is always complex- there is no one-stop primer or resource that will truly encompass the questions that need to be asked and the data collection methods to use. Evaluating complex initiatives or evaluating programs in complex environments requires the application of a systems lens and a set of principles of practice, as well as attending to the particular contextual characteristics of each case.

Where does one start then when looking at your own systems change work and how to learn from its design and implementation? What do you need to think about when gauging your progress and the initiative’s intended effects, influence, and impact?

Join FSG and the Collective Impact Forum for this discussion with Hallie Preskill and Joelle Cook who lead FSG’s Strategic Learning and Evaluation practice, as we delve into how evaluating system change is different from evaluating programs, and talk about some of the core evaluation principles needed when advancing systems change work.

Webinar Presentation: Access a copy of the webinar presentation at the link on the left of this page. (Logging into your Forum account will be necessary to download.)


Webcast Guests:

Joelle Cook, Director, FSG
Hallie Preskill, Managing Director, FSG


Related Resources

Webinar

Examining Power Dynamics in Systems Change

Join the webinar discussion Examining Power Dynamics in Systems Change with FSG and New Profit as we take a deeper dive into one of the most critical systems change components – Power Dynamics, and the unique role that they play in systems change efforts. During this discussion, we hear from three social change leaders who share how power impacts their work and how they navigate power structures to achieve their goals.

Presentation: You can download a copy of the webinar presentation at the link at the left of this page. (You will need to login to your Forum account to download.)
 



Featured Speakers

  • Adam Foss, Executive Director, Prosecutor Impact
  • Chekemma Fulmore-Townsend, President and CEO, Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN)
  • Tulaine Montgomery, Managing Partner, New Profit
  • Simran Sidhu, Director, The HIVE at Springpoint


Resources Related to Power Dynamics

This online event was hosted on September 16, 2019 in partnership with the Collective Impact Forum, FSG, and New Profit.


Recommended Resources for this Webinar 

As this webinar is going a step deeper than an introduction, it’s recommended to review one or both of the below resources as reference to the discussion.

The Six Conditions of Systems Change

This webinar explores how one can tackle the concepts and conditions involved with systems change work.  

The Water of Systems Change

This article aims to clarify what it means to shift the conditions holding problems in place and provides an actionable model for those interested in creating systems change.

Shifting Mental Models to Advance Systems Change

Shifting mindsets is one of the most challenging aspects to reach systems change. This webinar shares examples from the field as well as a primer on mental models.  

Unsticking Stuck Mental Models: Adventures in Systems Change

This blog post summarizes some of the key points of the Shifting Mental Models webinar, including sharing strategies on how to encourage mindset shifts.

Building Relationships to Advance Systems Change

Ensuring that quality connections and communication occur among actors in the system, especially among those with differing histories and viewpoints, is challenging. This webinar highlights effective practices from the field and covers key relationship essentials needed to advance systems change efforts.

Unsticking Stuck Mental Models: Adventures in Systems Change

Posted Friday, August 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm

Recently, New Profitj, the Collective Impact Forum, and FSG co-hosted a webinar, the second in a series on systems change.  The title of the webinar was Shifting Mental Models to Advance Systems Change.  In our first webinar we shared a framework for diagnosing and addressing systems change, which you will find below.

Notably, in the first webinar we used the above framework to identify six conditions at three levels that are part of changing a system. The first level is structural in nature and includes policies, practices and resource flows. The second level is relational and includes relationships and connections and power dynamics. The third and deepest level is the domain of mental models. We identified mental models as the most transformative of the six conditions of systems change.

Experience has shown that many efforts to change systems emanating from philanthropy, government and the main stream nonprofit sector focus the lion’s share of activity on change at the first level – the structural level of systems change.  Yet successful systems change must place significant attention on the second and third levels of change – the cultural levels.

For example, the Affordable Care Act passed during the Obama administration is a systemically-focused effort that led to sweeping change at the structural level, but very little change at the cultural levels.  Inattention to the cultural levels is a large part of why we find ourselves today stuck in the middle of health care reform – neither able to move forward or backwards. A counter-example to ACA is the Marriage Equality effort, championed by the Gill Foundation and many others, that achieved significant success by placing sufficient effort against cultural change – most specifically, the narrative shift required to drive policy change.  Yet even here, while the effort was largely successful in its policy change aims, we are seeing push back on the new narrative as old mental models reassert themselves.

So we were excited to host our second webinar in this series on the topic of mental models and to include as a speaker and commentator Julie Sweetland, and expert in mental models and a Senior Advisor at the Frameworks Institute. On the webinar, Julie’s commentary was paired with stories from the field by Darrell Scott from PushBlack, and Rick Ybarra and Tammy Heinz from the Hogg Foundation. The PushBlack and Hogg Foundation’s stories can be heard on the webinar recording.

For this blog I’d like to focus on the perspectives Julie shared about Frameworks’ insights on mental models. Frameworks has worked for the last 20 years on understanding mental models related to different social and environmental issues. Julie shared that the Frameworks Institute actually refers to mental models as “cultural models,” seeing mental models as cognitive shortcuts created by people living through and experiencing years of expectations in a given culture.  According to Julie, the mental models that individuals hold tend to be automatic. They are a brain trick for thinking fast and making quick sense of lots of stimuli that come our way, all day, every day. And they are often implicit, meaning people might not realize that they hold a certain mental model. Sometimes they are conscious of it, other times they aren’t.

Strategic advantage in shifting a system begins with both understanding existing mental models around the issue you are involved with, and figuring out how to un-stick the most prominent mental models that impede change.

Easier said than done. By way of example, Julie shared three mental models that are embedded in U.S. culture and stand in the way of progress on a host of social and environmental issues:

  • Individualism: This is the assumption that problems (in particular, social problems) are actually caused at the individual level, vs societal level.  The frame also assumes that solutions to problems should occur at the level of individual choice or behavior. For instance, in substance abuse and prevention, people think the consequences of this problem are severe – but many see the problem as severe mostly for those who are experiencing the problem (e.g. those who are addicted), not for society as a whole.
     
  • Us vs. Them: This is the assumption that another social group or another category of experience is hermetically sealed from our own.  An example of this is viewing the economy and economic progress as different or opposite from the environment. Often this “us vs. them” mental model comes with a built-in bias that the other group – the “them” – possesses the deficit, or is problematic in some ways.
     
  • Fatalism: This is the assumption that the problem is so big, so dire, the players so incompetent or self-interested that the issue cannot be fixed.  Needless to say, as the U.S. becomes more polarized, many people's sense of fatalism on the rise.

These three mental models, according to FrameWorks, shape public thinking on a host of social and environmental issues and are barriers to productive conversations that can lead to collective understanding and decision making regarding solutions.  In effect, these mental models are a principle underlying cause that prevents us from getting the stuck unstuck.

So, what are effective strategies for dislodging unproductive metal models?  Well, first, let’s look at what doesn’t work. Julie shared a few thoughts on this:

  1. Correcting people’s mistakes. For example, change agents often use fact sheets, or myth buster sheets, to counteract people’s flawed assumptions. These generally backfire because they serve as reminders, reinforcements and reactivations of people’s existing mental models.
     
  2. Assuming that data, more data, and data on top of that, will shift people’s thinking. Of course change agents should be evidence-based in communications and policy work. But assuming that people’s mental models result from weighing a stack of facts on one side of the issue vs. the other side, is a flawed assumption and again misinterprets how mental models really work. People who believe strongly in a position on an issue are often more convinced of their position after being presented with a litany of counterfactuals which, similar to correcting them, only serve to reactivate their existing mental models.
     
  3. Just leave people where they are, with their existing mental models. Well of course, this leaves people stuck in their present frames and continuing with unproductive behavior and engagement!

OK, so now we’re ready to share FrameWorks’ perspective on what does work to shift and un-stick mental models:

  1. Shift people’s attention to a more productive, more accurate, fuller, and conceptually more robust mental model. A technique for redirecting attention is to build a concept and an explanation. This can be done through explanatory change as in “... this leads to that, which leads to that.” Turn the example into a compelling story of what happened, and why, so that people can see both the logic line and the overall coherence of a different way of approaching the issue.
     
  2. Sometimes this story-line explanation can be enhanced by a carefully chosen “explanatory metaphor” that gives people a more apt comparison that they can wrap their mind around. FrameWorks suggests that these should be simple metaphors people can call up quickly – blankets, toasters, cars or gardens.  Explained, Julie, “You’re basically pulling in the mental models of the other comparison, and using that to help people think through the issue.”

Here are a few examples of successful mental model shifts that, for me, follow FrameWorks’ prescription.  First is the metaphor of “toxic stress.”Many practitioners and researchers in early childhood and the youth development arena had known for years that when a child experiences severe or prolonged adversity – such as chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship without adult support – they will likely experience challenges in their physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual development.

However, consistent with the societal mental model of individualism, many assumed this was an individual problem related to the deficits of specific children or their parents, and not a societal problem.  Then, the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University coined the term “toxic stress.” The comparison of stress hormones to chemical toxins helped people think about the myriad of negative externalities that a child can be exposed to – it gave people a way to wrap their minds around the relevance of structural causes that affect child development. By building up the mental model that conditions shape development, change makers created shifts within the early childhood, education and youth development fields. Policy, practice, and resource flows were affected: for instance, programs now place greater emphasis on responding to childhood adversity through trauma-informed approaches; funding has been directed to reduce and buffer toxic stress; and policies at the institutional, state, and federal levels have been adopted and implemented.

Another mental model shift referenced earlier in this blog is the work done to change the narrative related to marriage equality. For years the marriage equality movement was focused on the value of rights: they argued that “same sex individuals should have the same rights and access to marriage as others.”  This was not compelling to many people – perhaps because it allowed the mental model of Us vs. Them to drive opinions.  After dozens of legislative defeats, the movement re-grouped and made numerous shifts in strategy.  One key change was shifting to the values of love and commitment. They shifted their narrative to a message of “all people who are in love should have access to marriage.” As advocates exercised the mental model that love is love, public opinion shifted, helped fuel the widespread adoption of new marriage equality legislation in a number of states, and ultimately yielded a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court. 

Both of these “success stories” also show the durability of mental models. Change makers were successful in building up productive mental models (conditions shape development, love is love.) That doesn’t mean that the pre-existing, unproductive models went away entirely. The belief that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger is still used to dismiss or resist attention to childhood adversity.  Marriage equality is under renewed attack in some states as the archetypal “Us vs Them” mental model is evoked with increased intensity.

Of course, taking all this into account, it’s important to recognize that on any given issue there is never just one mental model. Julie estimated, based on FrameWorks’ research into mental models on different issues, that advocates can expect to encounter 20 to 30 widely shared mental models at play on a given issue.  That’s a lot - but it’s also finite. Change agents should have a long-term strategy for navigating these models. FrameWorks advises that advocates identify the most prominent mental models shaping people’s thinking, and then, scrupulously avoid reinforcing unproductive ones, while finding ways to build up or create new mental models that are consistent with the cause.

Mental models are tough to get unstuck, but not impossible.  As challenging as the task is, unsticking negative mental models is essential work for those attempting the adventure of systems change.

Click play below to view the full recording of the webinar..

 

This post was originally published on Amplify, New Profit's blog, on July 31, 2019.

Webinar

Building Relationships to Advance Systems Change

In this webinar, we take a deeper dive into one of the most critical systems change components – Relationships, and how to strengthen connections between your stakeholders and communities. From Staten Island, New York to Eastern Kentucky, we’ll be hearing stories from the field about what’s worked (and what hasn’t) when working together across different experiences and viewpoints to reach one’s goals.

Presentation: You can download a copy of the webinar presentation at the link at the left of this page. (You will need to login to your Forum account to download.)

 

Featured Speakers

  • Louis Bruschi, Principal I.A., I.S. 49 Berta A. Dreyfus
  • Tanisha Franks, Teacher and Educational Liaison – Staten Island, United Federation of Teachers
  • Scott McReynolds, Executive Director, Housing Development Alliance
  • Hayling Price, Associate Director, FSG
  • Gerry Roll, Executive Director, Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky
  • Kim Syman, Managing Partner, New Profit

This online event is hosted on August 28, 2019 in partnership with the Collective Impact Forum, FSG, and New Profit.

Recommended Resources for this Webinar 

As this webinar is going a step deeper than an introduction, it’s recommended to review one or both of the below resources as reference to the discussion.

The Six Conditions of Systems Change

This webinar explores how one can tackle the concepts and conditions involved with systems change work.  

The Water of Systems Change

This article aims to clarify what it means to shift the conditions holding problems in place and provides an actionable model for those interested in creating systems change.

Shifting Mental Models to Advance Systems Change

Shifting mindsets is one of the most challenging aspects to reach systems change. This webinar shares examples from the field as well as a primer on mental models.  

Unsticking Stuck Mental Models: Adventures in Systems Change

This blog post summarizes some of the key points of the Shifting Mental Models webinar, including sharing strategies on how to encourage mindset shifts.

Tangible Impact from Systems Change

Posted 2 years ago at 10:36 am

Hello,

I am looking for a tangible (i.e., measurable) example of how a systems change effort has resulted in impact.  Does anyone know of a good case study?  Even better would be a rigourous evaluation.

Thank you!

Envisioning a “New Normal”: Systems-Based Approaches for Achieving the Next Generation of Development Goals

Posted Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 8:22 pm

International development is in the midst of a sea change, broadening from a general focus on project-based outcomes to production of sustainable, embedded change. Worldwide, leaders at all levels are calling for development outcomes that go beyond “short-term technical assistance” and direct service provision, and looking to integrated approaches that foster self reliance and resilience.

In every country, professionals who remember the “community development” movement of the seventies are excited to hear what some describe as a call for “community development 2.0.” (And we worry that development writ large won’t boldly capitalize on this opportunity, this reopened door.) We see new openness to arguments that integrated, locally-led change can foster self-reliance, deliver development results efficiently, promote peace and stability, and help turn the tide on increasing inequity. Substantial momentum is being generated by:

  • The Sustainable Development Goals, the UN’s multifaceted, interconnected vision for ending extreme poverty by 2030.
     
  • USAID’s Journey to Self Reliance, which envisions progress that is made by supporting partner capacity and commitment.
     
  • The emergence of practical and powerful systems-based, complexity-aware approaches to producing social change, like Collective Impact, The Water of Systems Change, and Asset-based Community Development.


Considering the status quo. Imagine leaving behind silo-ed, problem-based approaches which critics charge with producing diminishing returns, unsustainable results, and even causing harm by highlighting deficiencies and undermining agency.

We’re heard the repeated narrative: an international development project ends and...the pump breaks, or the teacher stops showing up, the clinic shelves empty, the power goes out, the drought results in hunger, women and other marginalized people are ignored, children fail to thrive. Local government doesn’t seem to be able to help. The local human capacity, in its many and powerful forms, and other local assets, are unable to realize their full potential. The lack of community mobilization systems, experiences and know-how keep people from effectively harnessing their many resources to achieve a new level of common good. Instead, resignation prevails.

This is not to say that sector-specific development efforts are not important: all people and communities benefit from strong economies, good nutrition, clean water and sanitation, quality health services, electricity, productive agriculture, proper education, and so forth. Huge progress has been made in all of these areas, to the credit of so many inspirational people and institutions around the world. Now we need to ensure that those on the painful end of increasing inequity get the access to dignity and justice that is their right.


What’s missing?To sustainably enable access to these basic rights, new (well, old) mechanisms are called for: those that foster individual and community voice and agency, inclusive leadership, and productive relationships with functional governments who provide good services, all within an enabling environment.

At the Movement for Community-led Development, our 57 member organizations and partner communities share wisdom borne of successfully doing “community development 2.0” for decades. Some countries have even scaled community-led development (CLD) nationally. But elsewhere, including across Africa, we see how CLD has been underutilized. Perhaps because, as noted in The Water of Systems Change, “Real and equitable progress requires exceptional attention to the detailed and often mundane work of noticing what is invisible to many.” *

At the Movement, our members seek to shine a light on CLD. We are synthesizing a substantial body of knowledge on CLD: we’ve gathered 350+ evaluations from our members for a meta-synthesis, our first step in establishing a solid and evolving CLD evidence-base. The findings--as well as the methodological innovations we are creating to produce them--will produce guidance on how to do more and better community-led, integrated development, at scale (and offer new tools to continue to monitor, evaluate and learn about it.)


Unpacking Community-Led Development. Our initial review of the state of CLD surfaced six aspects critical to understanding CLD. While these may seem patently obvious to wise and successful communities and social changemakers around the world, they haven’t yet been systematically delineated within international development. At the Movement we see the need to do this because “we treasure what we measure.” These and many aspects of systems- and community-based development are hard to measure or evaluate (especially via methodologies originally designed to test clinical, linear, or short-term technical interventions.)

As our meta-synthesis progresses, so too will the nuance and depth of CLD evaluation efforts. In the meantime, these six aspects are jump-starting the discussion.

  1. The context of CLD is unique, every time. What works in one place may or not work in another--or even in the same place during a different time. We can still take what we’ve seen work and try it elsewhere--but promising practices will need to be locally vetted, tailored, adapted, and even discarded if necessary. (See points 4 & 5)
     
  2. CLD is driven by intangibles. Depending on the program, these may include: mindsets, aspirations, social capital, social cohesion, gender norms, marginalization of certain groups, political economies, adaptive capacities, voice, agency, and dignity. From an M&E point of view, the first temptation is to translate these into numbers and scales, but the fact is there will always be complex and nuanced aspects of CLD that need to understood and tracked qualitatively.
     
  3. Accountability should be to communities, not funders. Logically and too often, implementers are ultimately accountable to funders, not in-country partners. Communities should be holding implementers and funders accountable as part of agency and self reliance. M&E (as well as funding structures and processes) need to support this shift
    .
  4. CLD is built on complexity. Systems-based approaches are built on the reality that social change is dynamic and unpredictable, and that many actors will are needed to make it happen, over many years. Workplans, strategies, and theories of change will need to evolve. Substantive outcomes will not be attributable to any one actor, but contributions to that outcome may be. Evaluations should employ complexity-aware framing and tools, like Outcome Harvesting.
     
  5. With complexity comes adaptation. Multifaceted capacities to adapt--of communities, of governments, of donors--are critical for self-reliance and resilience. For example, a community may have an agreement with their local government regarding provision of services or women’s political representation, but what happens later, when the laws or resource flows change? An adaptive community should have a way to know about the changes, processes to inclusively craft a response, skills to effectively re-negotiate, and a system to monitor changes.
     
  6. Sustainability of gains, self-reliance, and resilience are interwoven and distinct, both means and ends. Improvements need to be maintained, within a changing environment, and possibly shocks. Shocks come in many forms, with implications for broad-based preparation and response. Community capacities needed for all this are overlapping, but not fully. Illuminating the dynamic interplay between the three can help support progress toward each one.


Complementary, systems-based approaches: connecting the dots to magnify impact. Community-led development offers integrated, values-based, human-centered framing, and comes with many practical tools, e.g. for addressing mindsets. The Water of Systems Change is an example of an elegant tool and set of ideas to enable actors to come together to collectively describe a complex system, at any level, and decide what needs to change. Collective Impact then offers a guide for how to collaborate to make the changes happen, probably over the course of many years.

As tested systems-based approaches come to the fore and we learn how to fit them together, organically and responsively within each setting, new ways to foster sustainable change emerge. Each tailored response is sophisticated, accessible, and responsive to each unique context, primarily crafted and wholly owned by the people at the center of it.


Bright spots. Just because it’s locally driven, CLD doesn’t have to roll out one community at a time--and support for CLD comes in many forms.

  • Governments represent CLD’s greatest potential for impact. The most dramatic example comes from Indonesia: the fourth most populous country in the world has grown what started as a successful World Bank project into a national program, complete with presidential endorsement, guiding policies and laws, a government-funded US $7 billion annual budget, and reach to 73,000 villages. Indonesia’s CLD evolved along with Indonesia itself.  Once plagued by violence, widespread poverty, and political turmoil, Indonesia has transformed into a peaceful, democratic, economically thriving country and a world leader in CLD. CLD has also been rolled out nationally or at large scale in many other places, including Afghanistan, the Philippines, Peru, Sierra Leone, and dating back to 1960, South Korea.  


Donors and others are offering influence, resources, and global technical support. 

  • DFID increasingly builds an “inception period” in projects, during which the international implementer has time to partner locally to co-create a shared vision and workplan.
     
  • USAID’s internal transformation, and self-reliance policy framework and learning agenda offer technical, operational, and moral support. USAID asks us all to “engage with local and other relevant systems” and elicit their “voices, priorities, and contributions” as indispensable to the ultimate goal of international development: self-reliance. 
     
  • USAID has also launched innovative guidance via systems-based approaches including The Local Systems Framework and Capacity 2.0.
     
  • FSG and others keep the Collective Impact and other flames burning, fostering dialogue and nuance around the “how” of effective design and implementation systems-based approaches to change, and by supporting a meaningful evidence base, including this recent multi-site study on the effectiveness of Collective Impact.


Implementers are coming together to share knowledge and support effective CLD. with a unified voice. All 57 members of the Movement support and/or implement community-led development, including large scale community partnerships that last for as many years are needed, often around eight. A sampling:


Amplifying local voices is possible, even at the global level.

  • Global Giving’s global platform enables local civil society organizations around the world to tell their stories and access funding, tools, connections, and capacity development.
     
  • United Cities and Local Governments speaks on behalf of communities, including successfully helping to advocate for Sustainable Development Goal #11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

Across the board, let’s continue to come together to make the most of this opportune moment--let’s align behind integrated, human-centered development, including community-led development.


Footnotes

1- Wong, Susan and Scott Guggenheim. Community-Driven Development: Myths and Realities. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8435. May, 2018. 36 Pages Posted: 10 May 2018

2- Levy, Brian, Working with the Grain. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Pages