Collective Impact Implementation: Getting Started · Collective Approaches to Solving Large-Scale Social Problems ... sharing lessons learned Isolated Impact Collective Impact Collective

Boston | Geneva | Mumbai | San Francisco | Seattle | Washington FSG.ORG

Session for:

Oregon Early Learning

Council

Collective Impact

Implementation:

Getting Started

August 12, 2013

FSG.ORG

2

© 2012 FSG

Goals for Today’s Workshop

Goals for the Day

Review Key Elements of CI

Discuss Components of Implementation

Q&A

FSG.ORG

3

© 2012 FSG

About FSG

FSG Overview

• Nonprofit consulting firm specializing in strategy, evaluation

and research, founded in 2000 as Foundation Strategy Group and

celebrating more than a decade of global social impact

• Partner with foundations, corporations, nonprofits, and

governments to develop more effective solutions to the world’s most

challenging issues

– Advised over 400 clients in every region of the world

– Issue areas include education & youth, global development,

global health, US health, community, and environment

• Recognized thought leader in philanthropy and corporate social

responsibility with multiple articles published in HBR, SSIR,

Chronicle of Philanthropy, and the American Journal of Evaluation

• Staff of 110 full-time professionals with offices in Boston, Seattle,

San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Geneva

– Passion and knowledge to solve social problems

– Combination of on-the-ground experience and world-class

consulting skills

FSG.ORG

4

© 2012 FSG

FSG Is Playing a Leadership Role in Accelerating Disciplined

Collective Approaches to Solving Large-Scale Social Problems

FSG and Collective Impact

• Client work in Collective Impact: FSG understands how to

enable and sustain cross-sector partnerships through our work

with clients in the following sectors:

• FSG articles paved the way for Collective Impact:

‒ Leading Boldly (2004)

‒ Breakthroughs in Shared Measurement (2008)

‒ Catalytic Philanthropy (2009)

‒ Collective Impact (2011)

‒ Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work (2012)

• Webinars

‒ Overview of Collective Impact

‒ Shared Measurement in Collective Impact

‒ Funders and Collective Impact (September 2012)

‒ Juvenile justice

‒ Teen substance abuse

‒ Economic development

‒ Education reform

‒ Environmental sustainability

FSG.ORG

5

© 2012 FSG

There Are Several Types of Problems

Source: Adapted from “Getting to Maybe”

Simple Complicated

Baking a Cake

Sending a Rocket

to the Moon

Social sector treats problems as simple or

complicated

Complex

Raising a Child

Collective Impact: Overview

FSG.ORG

6

© 2012 FSG

Traditional Approaches Are Not Solving Our Toughest –

Often Complex – Challenges

• Funders select individual grantees

• Organizations work separately and

compete

• Evaluation attempts to isolate a

particular organization’s impact

• Large scale change is assumed to

depend on scaling organizations

• Corporate and government sectors

are often disconnected from

foundations and nonprofits

Isolated

Impact


FSG.ORG

7

© 2012 FSG

Imagine a Different Approach – Multiple Players

Working Together to Solve Complex Issues

• All working toward the same goal and measuring the

same things

• Cross-sector alignment with government, nonprofit,

philanthropic and corporate sectors as partners

• Organizations actively coordinating their action and

sharing lessons learned

Isolated Impact Collective Impact


FSG.ORG

8

© 2012 FSG

Collective Impact Is a Unique and Differentiated Approach to Bringing

Actors Across Sectors Together to Work Toward a Common Agenda


It is distinct from other forms of collaboration

Type of Collaboration Definition

Collective Impact

Initiatives

Long-term commitments by a group of important actors from

different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific

social problem

Funder Collaboratives Groups of funders interested in supporting the same issue who

pool their resources

Public-Private

Partnerships Partnerships formed between government and private sector

organizations to deliver specific services or benefits

Multi-Stakeholder

Initiatives Voluntary activities by stakeholders from different sectors

around a common theme

Social Sector Networks Groups of individuals or organizations fluidly connected

through purposeful relationships, whether formal or informal

Mo

re E

lem

en

ts o

f C

oll

ec

tive

Im

pa

ct

FSG.ORG

9

© 2012 FSG

Achieving Large-Scale Change through Collective

Impact Involves Five Key Elements

Common Agenda • Common understanding of the problem

• Shared vision for change

Shared Measurement

• Collecting data and measuring results

• Focus on performance management

• Shared accountability

Mutually Reinforcing

Activities

• Differentiated approaches

• Willingness to adapt individual activities

• Coordination through joint plan of action

Continuous

Communication

• Consistent and open communication

• Focus on building trust

Backbone Support

• Separate organization(s) with staff

• Resources and skills to convene and

coordinate participating organizations

Source: Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work, 2012; FSG Interviews


FSG.ORG

10

© 2012 FSG

A Champion, Funding, and Urgency for Change Are Key to Launching a

Collective Impact Initiative

Influential Champion

Financial Resources

Urgency for Change

$

• Commands respect and engages cross-sector

leaders

• Focused on solving problem but allows

participants to figure out answers for themselves

• Committed funding partners

• Sustained funding for at least 2-3 years

• Pays for needed infrastructure and planning

• Critical problem in the community

• Frustration with existing approaches

• Multiple actors calling for change

• Engaged funders and policy makers


Collective Impact: Enabling Conditions

FSG.ORG

11

© 2012 FSG

Thought Exercise: Is Your Network Ready for Collective Impact?

Is the Right Infrastructure in Place:

Credible Champions / Catalysts exist to drive CI discussions

Neutral Convener exists and is looked to by the community

Backbone Support Structure exists or key staff positions can be filled

Are the Conditions Accommodating:

Significant resources and attention are focused on addressing the problem

Existing collaborative efforts are present that can be taken to the “next level,” and with tools and

processes in place

Funder Alignment of local funders (public and private) willing to financially support / partner on an effort

Potential to Engage a Board, Cross-sector set of community players

Internal and external circumstances point to Issue “Ripeness” to the urgency of the issue at hand

Within the community, there is a shared understanding of why there is an Urgency for Change, often

driven by data

Interest exists or effort is underway to Understand the Problem, key players, and / or evidence-based

strategies

Collective Impact: Enabling Conditions

FSG.ORG

12

© 2012 FSG

Determining Readiness Requires Assessment Across Many

Dimensions

Collective Impact Readiness Factors

Weaker Supporting Environment

for CI Assessment

Stronger Supporting

Environment for CI

Credible champions

/ catalysts

Few credible champions / catalysts exist

to drive CI discussions

Credible champions / catalysts exist to

drive CI discussions

Neutral convener No existence of or potential for neutral

convener

Neutral convener exists and is looked

to by the community

Backbone support

structure

Backbone support structure does not exist

and no logical organization could take on

Backbone support structure exists or

key staff positions can be filled

Resources /

attention

Limited resources / attention are focused

on addressing the problem

Significant resources / attention are

focused on addressing the problem

Existing

collaborative efforts

Limited collaboration exists, with tools and

processes to be developed “from scratch”

Deep collaboration exists, which can

be taken to the “next level,” and with

tools and processes in place

Funder alignment Local funders (public and private) are

unwilling to commit to financially

supporting or partnering on an effort

Local funders (public and private) are

willing to financially support / partner

on an effort

Potential to engage

cross-sector work

Limited potential to engage multiple

sectors

Potential to engage a broad, cross-

sector set of community players

Issue “ripeness” Different issues within one community may be at different stages of ripeness

Urgency for change Community players lack data and / or

sense of urgency for change is not shared

among community players

Community players have a shared

understanding of urgency for change,

often driven by data

Understanding of

the problem

Limited interest exists in understanding

the problem, key players, and / or

evidence based strategies

Interest exists or effort is underway to

understand the problem, key players,

and / or evidence-based strategies

Readiness Assessment

FSG.ORG

13

© 2012 FSG

Phase II

Organize for Impact

Phase III

Sustain Action and Impact

Develop group;

structure

communication and

decision making

Map the landscape

and use data to

make case

Facilitate

community

outreach

Create infrastructure/

backbone and

processes

Facilitate and refine

Analyze baseline

data to ID key

issues and gaps

Components

for Success

Create common

agenda (common

goals, strategy)

Engage community,

build public will

Establish shared

metrics, indicators,

measurement

approach

Support

implementation;

alignment to

goal/strategies

Continue engagement,

conduct advocacy

Collect/track/report

progress; process to

learn and improve

Phase I

Initiate Action

Governance &

Infrastructure

Strategic

Planning

Community

Involvement

Evaluation &

Improvement

Collective Impact Efforts Tend to Develop Over Three Key Phases

Evolution of a Collective Impact Initiative

FSG.ORG

14

© 2012 FSG

Timing for Each Phase Varies by Collective Impact Initiative

Phase II

Organize for Impact

Phase III

Sustain Action and Impact

May 2010 – Dec 2010

(7 months)

Sept 2010 – Feb 2011

(5 months)

Jan 2011 – Dec 2011

(12 months) 2012

May 2011-Oct 2011

(5 months)

Initiative

Feb 2011 – Nov 2011

(9 months)

Nov 2011 – May 2012

(7 months)

Nov 2011

June 2012

Phase I

Initiate Action

The implementation of any collective impact effort is determined by the

specific local context of the initiative

Evolution of a Collective Impact Initiative

FSG.ORG

15

© 2012 FSG

Developing a Common Agenda Requires Creating Boundaries for

the Initiative

• “What’s in” and “What’s out”: Establishing boundaries for what

issues, players, and systems to engage in the project is essential to its

successful execution

• No Set Playbook: Determining boundaries is a situation-specific

judgment call

• Loosely-Defined and Malleable: Boundaries change over time and

subsequent analysis or activity may draw in other issues, players, or

systems

• Apply to Geography: Discerning geographic boundaries requires

same type of judgment (e.g., city, state, national or global

engagement)

Source: Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work, 2012

Common Agenda

FSG.ORG

16

© 2012 FSG

While the Common Agenda Tells Us Where We are Going, the

Strategic Action Framework is the Roadmap for Getting There


Clear Goal for

Change

A Description of

the Problem

(Informed by

Research)

A Portfolio of Key

Strategies to

Drive Large Scale

Change

A Set of

Principles that

Guide the

Group’s Behavior

An Approach to

Evaluation that

Frames Strategy

for Receiving

and Integrating

Feedback

1

2

3

4 5

Common Agenda

FSG.ORG

17

© 2012 FSG

Shared Measurement Is a Critical Piece of Pursuing a Collective

Impact Approach

Shared Measurement

Identifying common metrics for tracking progress toward a common agenda across

organizations, and providing scalable platforms to share data, discuss learnings,

and improve strategy and action

Improved Data Quality

Tracking Progress Toward a Shared Goal

Enabling Coordination and Collaboration

Learning and Course Correction

Catalyzing Action

Definition

Benefits of Using Shared Measurement

Source: Breakthroughs in Shared Measurement and Social Impact, FSG, 2009

FSG.ORG

18

© 2012 FSG

There are Three Phases to Developing a

Shared Measurement System for Collective Impact

Design Develop Deploy

1 2 3

• Shared vision for the

system and its relation to

broader goals, theory of

change or roadmap

• View of current state of

knowledge and data

• Governance and

organization for

structured participation

• Identification of metrics,

data collection approach,

including confidentiality/

transparency

• Development of web-

based platform and

data collection tools

• Refinement and

testing of platform

and tools

• Staffing for data

management and

synthesis

• Learning forums and

continuous

improvement

• Ongoing infrastructure

support

• Improve system based

on a pilot, review,

refinement, and

ongoing evaluation of

usability and impact

Creating a Shared Measurement System

Source: FSG Analysis

Shared Measurement

FSG.ORG

19

© 2012 FSG

Shared Measurement Provides a Common Language for Organizations

to Use to Drive Continuous Learning and Improvement across the Field

Shared Measurement

Share Results Against

Common Metrics:

• Through continuous learning

and improvement,

organizations are able to gauge

their performance against a

Shared Measurement strategy’s

common benchmarks and

evaluate their impact at the

system level

Refine Individual and

Collective Work:

• Organizations refine their strategies

based upon key insights from the field

• Collective Impact is sustained through

the harmonized impact of individual

organizations

Learn from Each Other:

• Organizations are able to share

best practices through a

common language of results

and learn from each other’s

experiences


Shared Measurement

Fuels Collective

Impact through the

Continuous Learning

& Improvement

Process

FSG.ORG

20

© 2012 FSG

Key Success Factors in the Development of Shared

Measurement Systems

Shared Measurement for Collective Impact

Source: Breakthroughs in Shared Measurement and Social Impact, FSG, 2009

Effective

Relationship

with Funders

Strong leadership and substantial funding (multi-year)

Independence from funders in devising indicators, managing system

Broad engagement during design by organizations, with clear

expectations about confidentiality/transparency

Voluntary participation open to all organizations

Broad and

Open

Engagement

Effective use of web-based technology

Ongoing staffing for training, facilitation, reviewing data accuracy

Testing and continually improving through feedback

Facilitated process for participants to share data and results, learn,

and better coordinate efforts

Infrastructure

for

Deployment

Pathways for

Learning and

Improvement

FSG.ORG

21

© 2012 FSG

Several Challenges Can Occur When Developing and Implementing

Shared Measurement Systems

Difficulty in coming to agreement on common outcomes and indicators

Concerns about relative performance / comparative measurement across

providers working in the same space

Limited capacity (time and skill) for measurement and data analysis within

participating organizations

Alignment among funders to ask for the common measures as part of their

reporting requirements

Time and cost of developing and maintaining a system, both for human capital

and technology

Challenges

Overview of Shared Measurement

FSG.ORG

22

© 2012 FSG

There Are a Number of “Tips and Tricks” to Bear in Mind When

Developing Shared Measures

Overview of Shared Measurement

Collecting and

Presenting Data

• Set specific and time-bound goals and report progress relative to

targets

• Include data on whole populations (vs. a sample) where possible

• Use numbers as well as percentages to make goals more tangible

Identifying

Indicators

• Limit “top-level” indicators to a manageable number (~15), with

additional contributing indicators if needed

• Establish a set of criteria to guide the identification and prioritization

of potential indicators

Leveraging

Existing Efforts

and Expertise

• Form a voluntary team of data experts to advise on the design,

development, and deployment of a shared measurement system

• Develop a crosswalk of what partners are already measuring

• Consider leveraging existing indicators adopted by relevant efforts

at the local, provincial, or federal level

FSG.ORG

23

© 2012 FSG

Collective Impact Is Best Structured with Cascading Levels of

Collaboration

Shared Measures

Backbone

Governance,

Vision and Strategy

Action Planning

Implementation

Public Will

Common Agenda

Steering

Committee

Community Members

Partners

Working Groups

Structuring a Collective Impact Initiative

24

© 2012 FSG

FSG.ORG

• Build a common understanding of the problem

• Provide strategic guidance to develop a common agenda

• Ensure mutually reinforcing activities take place:

– Coordinate and facilitate communication and collaboration

– Convene partners and key external stakeholders

– Catalyze or incubate new initiatives or collaborations

– Provide technical assistance

– Create paths for, and recruit, new partners

– Seek opportunities for alignment with other efforts

• Collect, analyze, interpret, and report data

• Catalyze or develop shared measurement systems

• Provide technical assistance for building partners’ data capacity

• Build public will, consensus and commitment:

– Create a sense of urgency and articulate a call to action

– Support community member engagement activities

– Produce and manage external communications

• Advocate for an aligned policy agenda

• Mobilize and align public and private funding to support goals

Backbone Organizations Provide Six Key Functions

Backbone Activities

Guide Vision and Strategy

Support Aligned Activities

Establish Shared

Measurement Practices

Build Public Will

Advance Policy

Mobilize Funding

25

© 2012 FSG

FSG.ORG

Many Types of Organizations Can Serve as Backbones

Types of Backbones Examples

Funders

New Nonprofit

Existing Nonprofit

Government Agency or School District

Shared Across Multiple Organizations

Steering Committee Driven

Backbone Organizations

FSG.ORG

26

© 2012 FSG

Working in Collective Impact Requires a Mindset Shift

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: Mindset Shifts

FSG.ORG

27

© 2012 FSG

In Catalyzing Social Change, Collective Impact also

Depends on Essential Intangible Elements for its Success

• Fostering Connections between

People

• The Power of Hope

• Relationship and Trust building

• Leadership Identification and

Development

• Creating a Culture of Learning

Collective Impact’s Intangible Elements


Collective Impact: Intangibles

FSG.ORG

28

© 2012 FSG

Collective Impact: Key Takeaways

1. Common Agenda

2. Shared Measurement

3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities

4. Continuous Communication

5. Backbone Support

1. Guide Vision and Strategy

2. Support Aligned Activities

3. Establish Shared Measurement

Practices

4. Build Public Will

5. Advance Policy

6. Mobilize Funding

• Relationship and Trust Building

• Fostering Connections between People

• Leadership Identification and Development

• Creating a culture of Learning

• The Power of Hope!

FSG.ORG

29

© 2012 FSG

Thank You!

To talk more with FSG about Collective Impact:

• Jeff Cohen, Director

[email protected]

Collective Impact resources available on FSG’s website: http://fsg.org/KnowledgeExchange/FSGApproach/CollectiveImpact.aspx

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Collective Impact Implementation: Getting Started · Collective Approaches to Solving Large-Scale Social Problems ... sharing lessons learned Isolated Impact Collective Impact Collective