Getting to Collective Impact: How Funders Can Contribute Over the Life Course of the Work

Keywords: Collective impact, collaboration, networks, strategic philanthropy, Central Appalachian Network, wealth creationFoundations and Collective ImpactAs foundations mature and gain experience, they often come to realize that their core activity - making grants to nonprofit organizations - only rarely leads to the "real change" that the board and staff had in mind. Thus it is not at all surprising that many foundations have become intrigued with the concept of "collective impact" that John Kania and Mark Kramer introduced in 2011.Collective impact begins with the premise that "large-scale social change comes from better cross-sector coordination rather than from the isolated intervention of individual organizations" (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 38). The model identifies five specific conditions that allow collaborating actors to achieve large-scale impact: a common agenda, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, a shared approach to measuring progress, and a "backbone support" organization that coordinates the work. The first three of these elements are included in nearly all models of collaborative problem-solving, dating back to the early 1990s (e.g., Mattessich & Monsey, 1992; Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1993; Lasker, 1997; Lasker & Weiss, 2003). Collective impact advances these earlier models by paying explicit attention to shared measurement and a backbone organization.One of the most important unresolved questions for collective-impact initiatives (and for collaborative problem-solving more generally) is, "How can foundations be most constructive in supporting collaborative work that leads to collective action and generates large-scale impact?" The most common approach is for funders to convene the collaborative group, either directly or by encouraging a local actor to play the convening role. In a typical initiative, the funder or its agent calls together nonprofit and government agencies under the banner of a lofty goal, and then offers the prospect of grant dollars to motivate the group to develop a bold new solution to a big entrenched problem (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995; Hallfors, Cho, Livert, & Kadushin, 2002; Gallagher & Drisko, 2003; Trent & Chavis, 2009; Meehan, Hebbeler, Cherner, & Peterson, 2009; Kubisch, Auspos, Brown, & Dewar, 2010).At least in theory, there are sound reasons for foundations to play a lead role in organizing comprehensive community initiatives and collectiveimpact efforts. Collaborative problem-solving is a time-consuming, often frustrating process with an uncertain payoff. Kania and Kramer (2011) point out that cross-sector collective action does not naturally arise without leadership by an actor who brings a larger frame of reference. In their view, foundations are uniquely positioned to play this sort of role because a foundation is typically familiar with, and has influence over, many of the organizations that are working on the target issue.Kania, Kramer, and their colleagues at FSG have described a number of cases where funder-led coalitions have generated communitywide impacts, including the Strive Partnership in Cincinnati and the coalition to end homelessness in Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Hanleybrown, Kania, & Kramer, 2012). Although funder-driven collaboration sometimes leads to breakthrough solutions, foundations have also pushed nonprofit organizations and other actors into artificial, awkward, and unsustainable efforts.In a recent study of networks involved in rural economic development, Paul Castelloe, Thomas Watson, and Katy Allen (2011) found that one of the major obstacles to success was "funders trying to direct or run the network" (p. 68). One of the nonprofit leaders interviewed in the study lamented the many problems that arise when a funder brings organizations together with a preset agenda.When they come in and force them and it's not an organic situation, I don't think I've ever seen any that have been successful. …