COLLECTIVE IMPACT - Nebraska Juvenile Justice Association€¦ · • “Collective impact has been...
Transcript of COLLECTIVE IMPACT - Nebraska Juvenile Justice Association€¦ · • “Collective impact has been...
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)