Annual Conference April 2015 Jill Schumann – LeadingAge Maryland

 Collective Impact article by John Kania and Mark Kramer in 2011Stanford Social Innovation Review  Discussed how sectors and organizations might work together for needle-moving social change  Used examples of Strive in Cinncinati, Elizabeth River Project in Virginia, and Shape Up Somerville in Massachusetts  Article stimulated further exploration, critique and work

 Collective Impact contrasted with: the sum of isolated individual efforts, scaling a successful model, looking for the new model that will change everything.  Focuses instead on aligning all stakeholders including affected community members, nonprofits, businesses, funders, government around a common goal. Each group contributes to the goal in its own way. Gaps are identified and filled.  Goes beyond collaboration

1. Common agenda 2. Shared measurement systems 3. Mutually reinforcing activities 4. Continuous communication 5. Backbone support organizations

 Shared understanding of the problem to be tackled  Shared idea of what a joint approach to addressing that problem might look like  Getting to a common agenda is difficult and time consuming, but essential  Requires patience & engagement with process; funders can be helpful

 Define how success will be measured  Collect data and measure results on a short list of indicators  Web-based technologies enable measurement  Evidence-based decision making allows for continuous improvement (Six Sigma, etc.)  Data review allows for continual course correction

 Power of collective action comes not from large number of participants or uniformity of efforts, but from coordination of differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action  Collective impact approach is best applied to complex, multi-factorial problems

 Trust is a key ingredient for success – nurtured through transparency and fairness in using data for decision making  Early investment of time by CEO-level individuals yields results  Successful projects find multiple ways to keep communicating throughout the years

 Kania and Kramer insist that these large scale efforts require a separate organization to coordinate, schedule, facilitate, measure, and communicate to keep work on track  Three key roles for backbones: project manager, data manager, facilitator  Embody principles of adaptive leadership  Funders need to take a long view of change

 Influential champion  Adequate financial resources  Sense of urgency for change

 Initiate Action ◦ Identify champions and form cross-sector group ◦ Map the landscape & use data to make the case ◦ Facilitate community outreach ◦ Analyze baseline data to identify key issues & gaps  Organize for Impact ◦ Create infrastructure (backbone & processes) ◦ Create common agenda (goals & strategy) ◦ Engage community & build public will ◦ Establish shared metrics  Sustain Action and Impact ◦ Facilitate & refine ◦ Support implementation ◦ Continue community engagement and advocacy ◦ Collect, track and report progress

1. Start with a focus on outcomes you want to achieve 2. Draw a picture big enough so that existing efforts can see how they can connect and why 3. Identify where there is more efficiency in working together than alone 4. Clarify the lines of communication and accountability 5. Work through turf issues

 Who is involved: ◦ get ALL the right eyes on the problem, including those with lived experience of the issue ◦ different views lead to stronger results  How people work together: ◦ the relational is as important as the rational; “change happens at the speed of trust”; ◦ structure is as important as strategy; collective seeing, learning and doing; cascading levels of collaboration ◦ sharing credit is as important as taking credit  Maintaining the integrity of the collective impact approach

 How progress happens: ◦ pay attention to adaptive work, not just technical solutions to solve complex social problems as answers are not known at the outset ◦ look for silver buckshot not the silver bullet  Evaluation is essential and focuses on both process and results

 StriveTogether Theory of Action- national network based on Cincinnati experience  Stages: exploring, emerging, sustaining, systems change  Four principles ◦ Build culture of continuous improvement ◦ Eliminate disparities- disaggregate data ◦ Leverage existing assets ◦ Engage local expertise and community voice

 To achieve large scale change collective impact efforts disrupt the status quo  Systems resist change  Road Map Project in Seattle: ◦ Know your context ◦ Test for favorable wind conditions ◦ Build collective power ◦ Develop alliances between unusual bedfellows by focusing on common goals ◦ Apply pressure from the inside and outside- working together for those common goals; formal and informal power are both necessary for change ◦ Use data to accelerate change

 Strive, Shape Up Somerville, Elizabeth River  Varied geographic scope  Many focused on youth – especially Forum for Youth Investment Ready by 21, opportunity youth, education, Communities That Care  Some focused on health – Livewell Colorado, NE Iowa Food and Fitness  Poverty, job creation, environment, homelessness  Multi-problem – Memphis Fast Forward

 Northern Kentucky – multiple overlapping initiatives streamlined and aligned  Multiple action teams move projects forward  Cascading levels of collaboration  This is really long term work  Collaboration requires capacity & process  Funders can be key, but must shift perspectives  Emergent opportunities: resource from outside community applied locally; locals work differently & find new solutions; local strategy that is working is spread more widely

 Coordination and collaboration may reduce the kinds of innovation competition may engender  Can overpower and overshadow needed immediate efforts on the ground  Funders can be uneasy about the evolutionary nature of a collective impact process  Focus on measurement may trap groups into doing most measurable activities rather than the right ones  Can be organization focused rather than community focused

 What are the biggest issues and challenges for people aging in Maryland ?  What collaborations regarding aging in Maryland already exist?  Are there insights from the Collective Impact approach that might be useful?  What significant difference might LeadingAge Maryland members, in partnership with others?