1© FSG |

COLLECTIVE IMPACTNEBRASKA JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSOCIATION | MAY 6, 2015

2© FSG |

Agenda

1 About FSG

2 Introduction to Collective Impact

3 Douglas County experience

4 Additional resources

3© FSG |

Today’s learning objectives

Reach a shared understanding of the

collective impact approach and what makes

it different from other forms of collaboration

Share an example of how collective impact

applies to juvenile justice in NE and

discuss how attendees can use the

collective impact approach to help

advance their work

4© FSG |

FSG is a mission-driven consulting firm supporting

leaders in creating large-scale, lasting social change

MISSION-DRIVEN

We are a nonprofit consulting firm specializing in strategy, evaluation and

research, founded in 2000 as Foundation Strategy Group by Harvard

Business School Professor Michael Porter and Mark Kramer

INTERDISCIPLINARY

We partner with foundations, corporations, nonprofits, and governments

to reimagine social change in the areas of global development, health,

education, environment, and community economic development

THOUGHT LEADER

Our cutting edge perspectives on philanthropy, corporate social

responsibility and collective impact have been published in HBR, SSIR,

Chronicle of Philanthropy, and the American Journal of Evaluation

GLOBAL

Our team of 150 works in Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Washington DC,

Geneva and Mumbai, bringing a combination of extensive on-the-ground

experience in the social sector and world-class consulting skills

5© FSG |

HANDS ON SUPPORT

We work on collective impact in three mutually

reinforcing ways

Juvenile justice in Douglas County, NE

Juvenile justice in NY State

Childhood obesity in Dallas

Substance abuse on Staten Island

Cradle to career in King County

Pre-term birth in Fresno

Health in the Rio Grande Valley

Diabetes in Minnesota

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

LEARNING COMMUNITY

www.collectiveimpactforum.org

The Collective Impact Forum is a

field-wide digital resource designed to

help curate and disseminate

knowledge, tools, and best practices

that support effective collective impact

6© FSG |

Agenda

1 About FSG

2 Introduction to Collective Impact

3 Douglas County experience

4 Additional resources

7© FSG |

Introductory exercise

• Turn to your neighbor and share what

program and agency you each represent

• Each of you answer the question:

Think about a specific collaborative

you have participated in: what is one thing that

worked well and one thing that was

challenging?

8© FSG |

Working together is easy – but working together

for impact is tough and requires sustained dedication

Isolated

Impact

Collective

ImpactCollaboration

/ Coalitions

All relevant actors work

toward the same goal and

measure the same things

Cross-sector alignment,

includes “strange

bedfellows”

Organizations actively

coordinate their action and

share lessons learned

Great initiatives, projects

and pilots that do not

coordinate with one

another

Duplication of efforts and

inability to compare

results and track big

picture progress

Sense of competition and

turfs

Agreement and

excitement around a

common “topic”

Too often, parties involved

only include the “usual

suspects”

Meetings and working

groups do not typically

result in real alignment or

shared measures /

accountability

9© FSG |

The are five conditions of collective impact

Common

agenda

All participants share a vision for change that includes a

common understanding of the problem and a joint

approach to solving the problem through agreed-upon actions

1

Shared

measurement system

All participants agree on how to measure and report on

progress, with a short list of common indicators identified

and used to drive learning and improvement

2

Mutually

reinforcing activities

A diverse set of stakeholders, typically across sectors,

coordinate a set of differentiated activities through a

mutually reinforcing plan of action

3

Continuous

communication

All players engage in frequent and structured open

communication to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and

create common motivation

4

Backbone

support

An independent, dedicated staff (with funding!) guides

the initiative’s vision and strategy, supports aligned

activities, establishes shared measurement practices, builds

public will, advances policy, and mobilizes resources

5

10© FSG |

Collective impact provides a framework to move a

community plan from paper to action

Common

agenda

• A written community plan that is developed by diverse stakeholder

teams is required to access Community-based Juvenile Services Aid

• The plan must be research based, evidence informed, and identify

clear strategies

1

Shared

measurement system

• Community plans must identify how the outcomes and impact of a

program, service, or strategy will be measured

• Proposed legislation would allow for a common data set among all

grantees

2

Mutually

reinforcing activities

• Community plans serve as a central home for all strategies,

allowing stakeholders to identify duplication of services, address

gaps, or increase coordination across the system

3

Continuous

communication

• The stakeholders involved in a community plan’s focus areas

engage in frequent and structured open communication via

structures such as working groups; communities thrive when

several means of communication are used (i.e., videoconference)

4

Backbone

support

• Ideally, a backbone organization is responsible for coordinating and

holding stakeholders accountable to implementing the community

plan strategies, is separate from the writer(s) of the community plan

to avoid conflict of interest, and can be funded via Community

Based Aid

5

CI Element How this helps with community plan implementation

11© FSG |

Agenda

1 About FSG

2 Introduction to Collective Impact

3 Douglas County experience

4 Additional resources

12© FSG |

Juvenile Justice in Douglas County: a complex

system!

13© FSG |

Where did we start?

Collective impact in Douglas County

Douglas County Stakeholder Quotes (June 2014)

• “Collective impact has been a part of our conversation for years. But we

haven’t had the structures to support its full implementation”

• “We need a more collaborative approach to help us find a

common goal”

• “We need to better engage the community in the change process

– today that is hit or miss”

• “In the past, people show up to meetings, but there is a lot of wheel

spinning, not consensus building. There is a lack of leadership

buy-in for change”

14© FSG |

How did we get there?

Collective impact in Douglas County

Douglas County Stakeholder Quotes

(April 2015)

• “Investment in collective impact

structures – especially the backbone– will ensure our success”

• “The level community voice in this

effort is unprecedented”

• “CI’s strength-based approach has

allowed diverse stakeholders to build on

what’s working to achieve a common

goal”

• “The diversity of people at the table has allowed me to make more

connections and will ensure our success”

Building critical structures,

including establishing a

backbone

Engaging the community

Developing a shared vision for

success (i.e., common agenda)

Working together differently for the long-term

SUCCESS FACTORS

15© FSG |

= community

partner (e.g.,

nonprofit, funder,

business, public

agency, parent)

Backbone

support

• Guides strategy

• Supports

aligned activities

• Establishes

shared

measurement

• Builds public will

• Advances policy

• Mobilizes

resources

Steering

committee

Work

group

Work

group

Work

groupWork

group

ChairChair

Chair

Chair

Chair

Chair

Chair

Chair

* Adapted from Listening to the Stars: The Constellation Model of Collaborative Social Change, by Tonya Surman and Mark Surman, 2008.

Youth Council

Structures: Collect impact involves diverse

stakeholders playing different, complementary roles

16© FSG |

Structures: all of these stakeholders must act as

“system leaders”

Backbone Executive Director | Program Manager | Data Analyst

Steering

committee

20 leaders from

• County government

• Juvenile court

• Legal community

• Probation

• Detention

• Law enforcement

• Service providers

• Philanthropy

• School system

Youth Council

15-20 former or current

system involved youth

Work

group

Chair

Chair

7 Work Groups with a

total of over 120 people

• Families

• Schools

• Prevention

• Case processing

• Equity

• Data

• Policy

Community

Over 300 stakeholders

engaged through

• Interviews

• Focus groups

• Community events

• Site visits

• Online forum

17© FSG |

Structures: the backbone serves an neutral role

“behind the scenes” in six ways

What the backbone is NOT:

ₓ sets the agenda for the group

ₓ drives the solutions

ₓ receives all the funding

ₓ is self appointed rather than

selected by the community

ₓ is “business as usual” in

terms of staffing, time, and

resources

Functions of the backbone:

Guide vision and strategy

Support aligned activities

Establish shared measurement

practices

Build public will

Advance policy

Mobilize resources

18© FSG |

Structures: there is no “one size fits all” approach to

structuring the backbone

Single Backbone Multi-Backbone /

Multi-Funder

Individual(s) Housed

within Existing Org

• One organization working

towards a Common Agenda

• Single or multi-funder support

• Single or multiple issue area

focus

• Multiple organizations working

towards one Common Agenda

• Multi-funder support

• Each organization/initiative

focused on area of expertise

• Individual(s) resides within and

leverages the infrastructure of

an existing organization

• Single or multi-funder support

• Single or multiple issue area

focus

1 2 3

Example Backbone Configurations

19© FSG |

Discussion: establishing collective impact structures

What have been your challenges in

establishing structures to support

collective impact and community

planning? What might you do

differently based on our discussion

today?

20© FSG |

Community engagement: community engagement

is done using diverse tools to support different goals

. . . Can support different goals

• Understand pressing systemic

community challenges

• Co-create solutions

• Verify the direction

• Expand the reach of involvement

• Build community capacity to lead

and sustain change

Community engagement approaches. . .

• Stakeholder interviews

• Focus groups

• Town halls

• Human-centered design experiences

• Community café discussions

21© FSG |

Common agenda: Douglas County’s common agenda

achieved common understanding among actors

Across Douglas County, our vision is a comprehensive,

coordinated, and community-wide approach to juvenile

services that eliminates the need for youth involvement with our

justice system while maintaining public safety.

For all youth who do enter our justice system, our goals are to

provide effective, compassionate and individualized support

that empowers youth and their families to succeed and to build

an environment of mutual trust and accountability.

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

8,000

Douglas County

arrest rate per

100,000 juveniles

4,367

6,684

National

Douglas County

2011 arrest rate

per 100,000

juveniles

We hope everyone in this effort will:• foster a culture of trusting collaboration and will be ready

to engage in open, honest and respectful debate

• commit to learning and knowledge sharing, always

keeping an open mind and a willingness to be vulnerable• commit to building on the success of existing local

efforts rather than trying to reinvent the wheel or duplicate

efforts• agree that upholding and honoring youth dignity should be

at the forefront of our juvenile justice system

• support equity for minority youth in our system and remain

vigilant of disproportionate contact

• believe that our system can and should change the life

trajectories of youth in the system for the better

Clear goal for change

A description of the problem (informed by

data)

A portfolio of strategies to drive change

A set of principles that guide the group’s

behavior

1 2

3

4

Stakeholder interviews

revealed:

• Bright spots exist – DC’s

diversion program has

a 90% success rate

• Arrests are

disproportionate among

African Americans

• The leading cause of

contact with the system

is truancy

22© FSG |

Common agenda: getting to “common” is hard!

A establishing a shared vision for change can be challenging due to:

• Setting boundaries: establishing boundaries for what issues, players,

geographies and systems to engage in the project is essential to its successful

execution, but it is hard to put an initial stake in the ground

• Siloed perspectives: stakeholders are accustomed to tackling the day to day

challenges of their organization’s work and are not as familiar with solving

system-wide issues such as connections across players or gaps in service

• Distrust: stakeholders may not be aware that they share similar motivations to

others in the system, especially when they may compete for funding or hold

conflicting philosophies; past failed attempts at collaboration further fuel distrust

• Misaligned incentives: stakeholders are often not incentivized to collaborate

with others to improve systems and share a vision for success; a common

agenda requires stakeholders to go beyond the next “silver-bullet” program to

longer term strategies for system change

23© FSG |

Discussion: getting to the common agenda

What have been your challenges in

moving beyond collaboration around

a topic to shared understanding of

how to solve a problem? What might

you do differently based on our

discussion today?

24© FSG |

Working together differently: a focus on facilitation

and strategy development leads to systems change

• Implementing quick wins that:

– Help the group learn how to work

together and gain momentum

– Show outcomes within 3-6 months

– Require limited resources

– Are aligned to one of the broader,

long term strategies

• Implementing systems-changing

strategies and aligning activities

for the long term through the

following strategy types

– Learning through a pilot

– Increasing coordination

– Enhancing services

– Advocating for policy change

Facilitation serves as a

strong foundation for:

• Achieving the “intangibles” of collective

impact, which include:

– Navigating politics and turf wars

– Building trust and relationships

– Prioritizing process and decisions

over products and deliverables

• Developing systems leaders that are

able to:

– See the larger system in which

individuals are embedded

– Foster reflection and generative

conversation among stakeholders

– Shift focus from reactive problem

solving to co-creating the future

Strategy development is

the goal of collective impact

and must balance:

25© FSG |

Questions?

26© FSG |

Agenda

1 About FSG

2 Introduction to Collective Impact

3 Douglas County experience

4 Additional resources

27© FSG |

Additional resources

Foundational research on Collective ImpactThese articles are available at www.ssir.org

• Collective Impact (Winter, 2011) – Defines the five core conditions of Collective Impact and provides

examples of successful initiatives in several sectors

• Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work (January, 2012) – Offers advice on implementing the

principles of collective impact, using examples from the field

• Understanding the Value of Backbone Organizations in Collective Impact (July, 2012) – Draws on FSG’s

work with six backbone organizations to explore their role in supporting collective impact

• Embracing Emergence: How Collective Impact Addresses Complexity (January, 2013) – Explores the roles of

reflection, learning, and adaptation in the context of collective impact

Recent research on the practice of Collective Impact

• Collective Insights on Collective Impact (August, 2014) www.collectiveinsights.ssireview.org

A collection of thought pieces from 22 practitioners, funders, community organizers considering topics such

as public policy, power, and community engagement

• Guide to Evaluating Collective Impact (May, 2014)

www.collectiveimpactforum.org

Offers advice on performance measurement and evaluation in the context of collective impact. Includes four

mini-case studies as well as sample evaluation questions, outcomes, and indicators

• Collective Impact for Opportunity Youth (2012)

www.fsg.org

Provides a framework for using collective impact as an approach to improving outcomes for Opportunity

Youth (youth between the ages of 16-24 who are neither enrolled in school nor participating in the labor

market)