#Rb21NM

The Nuts & Bolts of Collective Impact

Jennifer Splansky JusterDirector, Collective Impact Forum, FSG

Merita IrbyChief Operating Office, the Forum for Youth Investment

Kelli ParmleyExecutive Director, Bridging RVAApril 22, 2014

#Rb21NM

Starting with the end in mind . . .Getting specific about community context

The small gear makes a big difference

#Rb21NM

Partners

Co-Catalysts

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Goals of the Collective Impact Forum: To create the knowledge, networks and tools that accelerate the adoption and increase the rigor of collective impact

Activities

• Develop a field-wide digital forum to create and disseminate effective knowledge, tools and practices that support collective impact

• Support communities of practice, convenings and other events across the country that enable practitioners and funders of collective impact to increase their effectiveness

FSG.ORG

Co-Catalysts

#Rb21NM

Agenda

Collective Impact Overview

Collective Impact Timing and Sequence

Collective Impact Structures

#Rb21NM

There Are Several Types of Problems

Source: Adapted from “Getting to Maybe”

Simple Complicated Complex

Baking a Cake

Right “recipe” essentialGives same results every time

Sending a Rocket to the Moon

“Formulas” neededExperience built over time and can

be repeated with success

Raising a Child

No “right” recipes or protocols Outside factors influence Experience

helps, but doesn’t guarantees success

The social sector traditionally treats problems as simple or complicated

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Traditional Approaches Are Not Solving Our Most Complex Social Problems

• Funders select individual grantees

Isolated Impact

• Organizations work separately and compete

• Corporate and government sectors are often disconnected from foundations and nonprofits

• Evaluation attempts to isolate a particular organization’s impact

• Large scale change is assumed to depend on scaling organizations

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Imagine a Different Approach – Multiple Players Working Together to

Solve Complex Issues

• Understand that social problems – and their solutions – arise from interaction of many organizations within larger system

Collective Impact• Cross-sector alignment with

government, nonprofit, philanthropic and corporate sectors as partners

• Organizations actively coordinating their action and sharing lessons learned

• All working toward the same goal and measuring the same things

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Collective Impact is the commitment of a

group of important actors from different

sectors to a common agenda for solving a

specific social problem.

Source: Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work, 2012

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Five Conditions for Collective Impact

Common Agenda

Shared Measurement

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

Continuous Communication

Backbone Support

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Differences between Collective Impact and Collaboration

Source: Jeff Edmondson, Strive

Collaboration Collective Impact

Convene around specific programs / initiatives

Work together over the long term to move outcomes

Prove Learn and improve

Addition to what you do Is what you do

Advocate for ideas Advocate for what works

Collective impact initiatives also are nearly always cross-sector, whereas collaborations often occur within a single sector

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

PAIR & SHARE:

Think about initiatives in your community

Can you think of one thing that fizzled and one thing that sailed?

What made the difference . . .

#Rb21NM

Agenda

Collective Impact Overview

Collective Impact Timelines & Key Steps

Collective Impact Structures

#Rb21NM

Overarching Leadership Ready by 21 Leadership Council * P-20 Council Strive Network * Children’s Cabinet * WIB

Population Focused Success By 6 * Thriving Seniors

Provider Network Out-of-school Time (OST) Network

Issue CoalitionSubstance Abuse Coalition * Teen Pregnancy

Intimate Partner Violence * Child Abuse & Neglect

A Collective Impact Approach can be taken by groups operating at different levels in a

community

Promise Neighborhoods * Neighborhood AssociationNeighborhood

Where is your work?

#Rb21NMCOLLABORATIONS

United Neighborh

ood Centers Of

Greater Roch.

Rochester‘s Child

Youth 2000

Juvenile

Justice

Council

CCSI TIER

II

Interagency

Council

Comm. Asset

Network

Board of

Health

Children & Family

Serv. Subcomm

.

School Health Leaders

hip Team

RECAP

Community Profile

Preventive

Services Coalition

RAEYC

Early Childho

od Develop

I.

Homeless

Continuum of care

Impl. Team Monroe

Cty. Sch& Comm.

Health Ed.Network

RochesterEffectiveness Partnership

N.E.T.

City Violenc

e Initiati

ve

Task Force

on Violenc

e Domestic Violence

Consortium

Perinatal CommunityConsortium

Do Right byKids campaign

PerinatalSubstance

AbuseCoalition

SACSI

Counselor’sConsortium

Rochester

Children’s Collab.

Roch. Enterprise Community

Zone P.

YRBS Group

HW & Tutoring

Round Table

Student Assistance Prof.

Adult Service

s Subcom

m.

StudentAsst. Prof.

Greater Roch.Area

Transitions

Collab.

America’s

Promise

CHANGE

Continuous Improvement

Service Delivery

Advocacy

Evaluation

Positive Outcomes for

Youth & Families

Best Practice

Community Mobilization

CASASProvide

rs

Cross - Systems Change

MCTP

NBN Not Me Not Now

SDFSCA Planning Committ

eesReclaimi

ngYouth

PCIC

OASAS Preventi

on Initiativ

e

Community

Service Board

Reg. 2 Prevent

ive Provid.

N

Mentoring

Round Table

Runaway &

Homeless Youth

Ser Provider

DomesticViolence

Partnership

HealthAction

Homeless Services Network

Youth Services Quality

C.

Diversion Collabora

tive

#Rb21NM

Cascading Levels of Collaboration

Cascading Levels of Collaboration & A Range of Possible Roles

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

Shared MeasuresSteeringCommittee

Backbone

Governance,Vision and Strategy

Action Planning

Execution

Public Will

Working Groups

Partners

Community Members

Common Agenda

BACK

BON

E

ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNER

WORKING GROUP LEAD OR MEMBER

core team

COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS

COMMUNICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT

PARTNER

DATA PARTNER

FSG.ORG

Building Civic Infrastructure:The Role and Function of a Backbone Entity

Context

• 28 Member Board (K-12, Higher Education, Business, Government, Philanthropic/Civic)

• Rotating Education and Business Chairs

• 9 jurisdictions (subset of Richmond MSA)– 8 School Districts

• 5 College and University Partners

• 2 critical backbone positions funded positions supported by Virginia Commonwealth University

WHY A BACKBONE?

We believe that education is the most important

engine of individual opportunity and economic

growth in our region.

Is this Our Civic Infrastructure?

Is our engine supporting individual opportunity for

everyone?

Regional Educational Attainment

Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2012, 5-Year Estimates . Populations given are for Working Age adults, ages 25-64

19%

42%

19%

20%

Charles City County

9%

22%

23%

46%

Chesterfield County

13%

26%

17%

44%

Goochland County

5%

26%

23%

46%

Hanover County

9%

21%

21%

49%

Henrico County

11%

31%

24%

34%

New Kent County

16%

28%

22%

35%

Powhatan County

17%

22%

19%

41%

City of Richmond

Population 4,153 Population 173,965 Population 12,660 Population 53,799

Population 169,936 Population 10,897 Population 16,589 Population 108,098

Charles City County

Chesterfield County

Goochland County

Hanover County

Henrico County New Kent County

Powhatan County

Richmond City Bridging Richmond

Region

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

93%

18%

33%

29%

18%

42% 56%

9%

17%

8%

21%

29%

31%

21%

28%6%

17%

21%

18%

37%

24%19% 17%

11% 11%17%

43%

2%

16%

42%

13%

27%

62%

45%

Bachelor's degree or higher Some college or associate's degree High school graduate, GED, or alternative Less than high school diploma

Hispanic Educational Attainment by Locality

Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2012, 5-Year Estimates.

Black or African American Educational Attainment by Locality

Charles City County

Chesterfield County

Goochland County

Hanover County

Henrico County New Kent County

Powhatan County

Richmond City Bridging Richmond

Region

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9%

29%

9%

25% 23% 23%

5%12%

20%

19%

36%

15%

25%35%

22%

19%

29%

32%

39%

25%

32%

33%

30%

41%

35%

33%

30%

33%

10%

44%

17%12% 13%

42%

26%18%

Bachelor's degree or higher Some college or associate's degree High school graduate, GED, or alternative Less than high school diploma

Is our engine positioned to support economic competitiveness and

growth?

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 -

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000 326,724 Current (45% attainment)

Projected Industry Demand (49%)

Projected Degree Gap (2030) Based on Industry Mix :27,106 Degrees

Sources: Weldon Cooper Center; U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2012; Chmura’ JobsEQ®; BLS Employment Projections. Projections assume that future degree requirements for occupations remain close to current requirements-- higher education requirements for occupations, to replace experience, for example, would create a larger gap.

27,106DegreesBy 2030

Current (45% attainment)

Projected Industry Demand (49%)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

55% Attainment Current Rate (45%) 65,405 DegreesNeeded

NEED: 55% of Population with at least an Associate’s Degree by 2030

Source: Weldon Cooper Center; U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2012, Chmura Economics & Analytics

(46%) (48%) (52%) (55%)

65,405 DegreesNeeded

1. Facilitate a shared agenda 2. Support the alignment and coordination

of activities3. Establish shared measurement practices4. Build public will to take action5. Advance policy solutions and changes6. Mobilize resources both human and

financial across public and private sectors in support of the agenda

How: Six Functions of a Backbone

FSG.ORG

Build Civic Infrastructure

Local Data (Community and

focused local trends)

Community Voice (Lived

expertise)

National Research(Summarize

and translate)

The formal and informal processes and networks through which

communities make decisions and attempt to solve problems.

Alignment

 

Improving – Collect and analyze data and evidence to improve outcomes

Mobilizing – Coordinate the efforts and capitalize on the unique strengths of diverse organizations to help people along the path to college- and career-readiness

Focusing – agree upon a common result and action based on shared metrics and evidence

Focusing

Mobilizing

Improving

Local Data

ResearchCommunity

Voice

--Develop Community and Intermediate Indicators

--Research to support indicator selection

--Regional Data Advisory Committee--Identify Priorities

--Deeper analysis of local data to support strategy development

--Identify effective, scalable strategies and performance measures

--Focus groups of practitioners and community members

--Develop capacity to share data--Improve human capacity to do analysis

--Best practice in continuous improvement and evaluation

--Leadership engagement for advocacy--Focus groups and quality surveys

Regional Goals and Indicators

Two Regional Action

Networks

Identify Human

Capital Gaps for Analysis and Results Facilitation

Results

3. Shared Measurement

1. Common Agenda;

6. Mobilize Resources

2. Align and

Coordinate

4.. Build Public Will;

5.. Policy Solutions/Changes

Action Networks

Local Data (Community and

focused local trends)

Community Voice (Lived

expertise)

National Research(Summarize

and translate)

a group of diverse and committed individuals all focused on one specific community indicator to promote and scale what

is working

Two Components:

I. Broad Regional Strategies

II. Focused Pilot

#Rb21NM

Cascading Levels of Collaboration

Cascading Levels of Collaboration & A Range of Possible Roles

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

Shared MeasuresSteeringCommittee

Backbone

Governance,Vision and Strategy

Action Planning

Execution

Public Will

Working Groups

Partners

Community Members

Common Agenda

#Rb21NM

Collective Impact Infrastructure:Structuring for Intentionality and Uncertainty

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

partner-driven action

strategic guidance and support = community

partner (e.g., nonprofit, funder, business, public agency, resident)

Ecosystem of Community Partners

Backbone Support

(organizations that collectively play backbone

function)

Steering Committee

Work Group

Work Group

Work Group

Work Group

ChairChair

Chair

Chair

Chair

Chair

Chair

Chair

Common Agenda and Shared Metrics

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

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

“Backbone for backbones”

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Backbone Organizations Engage in Six Important Activities

1. Guide vision and strategy

2. Support aligned activities

3. Establish shared measurement

4. Build public will

5. Advance policy

6. Mobilize funding

6 Activities of Backbone Organizations

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Backbone Support Organizations: Diagnostic

Do you have the Skills?6 Activities of Backbone Organizations

1. Guide vision and strategy

2. Support aligned activities

3. Establish shared measurement

4. Build public will

5. Advance policy

6. Mobilize funding

Backbone Organization

Is it a Fit?

1. Partnership’s vision matches your vision

2. Geographic Scope – similar to Partnership

3. Geographic Levels – neighborhood, city/county state

4. Leadership Levels – respected by grasstops and grassroots

5. Credibility – are you seen as the natural leader in this space?

Do you have the bandwidth?

1. Dedicated Staff (with skills)

2. Organizational buy-in

3. Sustainability potential

4. Start-up flexibility – willingness to serve in interim or time limited role

#Rb21NM

Backbone Diagnostic

Are there key partners in your community playing backbone functions? Who is doing what? How do you relate?

Individually:Who would you list?

Pair:How could you use a backbone diagnostic?

#Rb21NM

Agenda

Collective Impact Overview

Collective Impact Timing & Sequence

Collective Impact Structures

#Rb21NM

CI Efforts Tend to Transpire Over Four Phases

Phase IVSustain Action

and Impact

Components for Success

Identify champions and form cross-

sector group

Create infrastructure (backbone and

processes)

Convene community stakeholders

Facilitate community outreach

Engage community and build public will

Map the landscape and use data to

make case

Create common agenda (common

goals and strategy)

Hold dialogue about issue, community

context, and available resources

Facilitate community outreach specific to

goal

Analyze baseline data to ID key issues

and gaps

Establish shared metrics (indicators, measurement, and

approach)

Facilitate and refine

Continue engagement and conduct advocacy

Support implementation

(alignment to goal and strategies)

Collect, track, and report progress

(process to learn and improve)

Determine if there is consensus/urgency to

move forward

Phase IIIOrganize for

Impact

Phase IIInitiate Action

Phase IAssess Readiness, Facilitate Dialogue

Governance and Infrastructure

Strategic Planning

Community Involvement

Evaluation AndImprovement

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Timing for Each Phase Varies by Initiative

The implementation time taken for collective impact efforts is determined by the local context of each initiative

May 2010 – Dec 2010(7 months)

Sept 2010 – Feb 2011(5 months)

Jan 2011 – Dec 2011(12 months) Jan 2012

May 2011-Oct 2011(5 months)

Initiative

Feb 2011 – Nov 2011(9 months)

Nov 2011 – May 2012(7 months)

Nov 2011

June 2012

Source: FSG Interviews and Analysis

Phase IIISustain Action & Impact

Phase IIIOrganize for Impact

Phase IIInitiate Action

Phase IVSustain Action & Impact

FSG.ORG

One Framework: “Start Up” to “Systems Change”

Exploring (July 2009 – August 2013)

Emerging (January 2014)

Sustaining (July 2014)

Systems Change

#Rb21NM

Launching a Collective Impact Initiative Has Three Prerequisites

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

Financial Resources

• Committed funding partners• Sustained funding for at least 2-3 years• Pays for needed infrastructure and planning

Influential Champion

• Commands respect and engages cross-sector leaders• Focused on solving problem but allows participants to figure

out answers for themselves

Urgency for Change• Critical problem in the community• Frustration with existing approaches• Multiple actors calling for change• Engaged funders and policy makers

!

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

The recurring steps of

Community Change Management

Take Shape

Structural Alignment

Take StockShared

Diagnosis

Target ActionMutually

Reinforcing Activities

Take AimGoal

Alignment

Track Progress

Shared Measurement

A Big Picture Approachto Action Planning & Community Change

#Rb21NM

The recurring steps of

Community Change Management

Take Shape

Structural Alignment

Take StockShared

Diagnosis

Target Action

Take AimGoal

Alignment

includes

for a

Track Progress

FSG’s Five Conditions

Shared Measurement

Mutually Reinforcing

Activities

A Big Picture Approachto Action Planning & Community Change

Common Agenda

Shared Measurement

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

Continuous Communication

Backbone Support

Shared Measurement

#Rb21NM

The recurring steps of

Community Change Management

Take Shape

Structural Alignment

Take StockShared

Diagnosis

Target ActionMutually

Reinforcing Activities

Take AimGoal

Alignment

Track Progress

Shared Measurement

A Big Picture Approachto Action Planning & Community Change

Process & Standardsthe “nuts & bolts” of collective impact

#Rb21NM

Standards for . . .

The recurring steps of

Community Change Management

Take Shape• Form

• Connect

Take Stock• Assess• Analyze

Target Action

• Visualize• Align

Take Aim

• Engage• Frame

Track Progress

• Track• Improve

Partnership Structures

Backbone Support Organizations

Linking to Existing Efforts

Engagement Strategy

“Big Picture” Frameworks

Identifying Needs & Resources

Analysis Techniques

Selecting Targeted Goals & Indicators

Issue Integrated Logic Models

Intervention Design & Selection

PartnershipEvaluation

Reflection & Improvement

Shared Action & Accountability Communicating

Big Goals

#Rb21NM

Take Shape

Take Aim

Take Stock

Target Action

Track Progress

Benefits of the Big Picture Approach• Adaptable Roadmap

• Connections between steps

• Tackle more than one issue at a time

• Helps to clarify roles

• Builds on evidence of what works

meeting leaders where

they are

what’s

“good enough” to go forward?

by looking at “whole person”

taking aligned action at

different levels of work

it can be done!

#Rb21NM

Take Shape

Take Aim

Take Stock

Target Action

Track Progress

Overarching Leadership

Population Focused

Provider Network

Issue Coalition

Structural Alignment

Goal Alignment

Shared Diagnosis

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

Shared Measurement

Neighborhood

Ready by 21 Leadership Council * P-20 Council Strive Network * Children’s Cabinet

Success By 6 * Thriving Seniors

Out-of-school Time (OST) Network

Substance Abuse Coalition * Teen PregnancyIntimate Partner Violence * Child Abuse & Neglect

Promise Neighborhoods * Neighborhood Association

#Rb21NM

In Catalyzing Social Change, Collective Impact also Depends on Essential Intangible Elements for its Success

• Fostering Connections between People

• Creating a Culture of Learning

• Relationship and Trust building

• Leadership Identification and Development

Collective Impact’s Intangible Elements

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

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Stay Connected

• Presentation materials will be posted at www.readyby21.org/nationalmeetingonline

• Tweet about your session! #Rb21NM

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

HANDOUTSFSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

There Are Five Conditions to Collective Impact Success

Common Agenda

Shared Measurement

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

Continuous Communication

Backbone Support

All participants have a shared vision for change including a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed upon actions

Collecting data and measuring results consistently across all participants ensures efforts remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable

Participant activities must be differentiated while still being coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action

Consistent and open communication is needed across the many players to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and appreciate common motivation

Creating and managing collective impact requires dedicated staff and a specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative and coordinate participating organizations and agencies

Source: FSG SSIR Collective Impact Article, Winter 2011; FSG Interviews

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Backbones Differ Depending on Local or

Issue-Specific Context

Types of Backbones Description Examples Pros Cons

Funder-Based• One funder initiates

CI strategy as planner, financier, and convener

• Ability to secure start-up funding and recurring resources

• Ability to bring others to the table and leverage other funders

• Lack of broad buy-in if CI effort seen as driven by one funder

• Lack of perceived neutrality

New Nonprofit

• New entity is created, often by private funding, to serve as backbone

• Perceived neutrality as facilitator and convener

• Potential lack of baggage• Clarity of focus

• Lack of sustainable funding stream and potential questions about funding priorities

• Potential competition with local nonprofits

Existing Nonprofit

• Established nonprofit takes the lead in coordinating CI strategy

• Credibility, clear ownership, and strong understanding of issue

• Existing infrastructure in place if properly resourced

• Potential “baggage” and lack of perceived neutrality

• Lack of attention if poorly funded

Government• Government entity,

either at local or state level, drives CI effort

• Public sector “seal of approval” • Existing infrastructure in place if

properly resourced

• Bureaucracy may slow progress• Public funding may not be

dependable

Shared Across Multiple

Organizations

• Numerous organizations take ownership of CI wins

• Lower resource requirements if shared across multiple organizations

• Broad buy-in, expertise

• Lack of clear accountability with multiple voices at the table

• Coordination challenges, leading to potential inefficiencies

Backbone across backbones

• Senior-level committee with ultimate decision-making power

• Broad buy-in from senior leaders across public, private, and nonprofit sectors

• Lack of clear accountability with multiple voices

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

CI Efforts Tend to Transpire Over Four Phases

Phase IVSustain Action

and Impact

Components for Success

Identify champions and form cross-

sector group

Create infrastructure (backbone and

processes)

Convene community stakeholders

Facilitate community outreach

Engage community and build public will

Map the landscape and use data to

make case

Create common agenda (common

goals and strategy)

Hold dialogue about issue, community

context, and available resources

Facilitate community outreach specific to

goal

Analyze baseline data to ID key issues

and gaps

Establish shared metrics (indicators, measurement, and

approach)

Facilitate and refine

Continue engagement and conduct advocacy

Support implementation

(alignment to goal and strategies)

Collect, track, and report progress

(process to learn and improve)

Determine if there is consensus/urgency to

move forward

Phase IIIOrganize for

Impact

Phase IIInitiate Action

Phase IAssess Readiness, Facilitate Dialogue

Governance and Infrastructure

Strategic Planning

Community Involvement

Evaluation AndImprovement

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Timing for Each Phase Varies by Initiative

The implementation time taken for collective impact efforts is determined by the local context of each initiative

May 2010 – Dec 2010(7 months)

Sept 2010 – Feb 2011(5 months)

Jan 2011 – Dec 2011(12 months) Jan 2012

May 2011-Oct 2011(5 months)

Initiative

Feb 2011 – Nov 2011(9 months)

Nov 2011 – May 2012(7 months)

Nov 2011

June 2012

Source: FSG Interviews and Analysis

Phase IIISustain Action & Impact

Phase IIIOrganize for Impact

Phase IIInitiate Action

Phase IVSustain Action & Impact

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

AppendixFSG.ORG

• Each Stakeholder and group Plays a Specific Role

• A Backbone’s Scope and Budget May Grow Over Time, Primarily Reflecting Staff Additions And Available Resources

• Every Backbone Needs Funding; Backbone Budgets Can Range From Around $400K to Upwards of $800K

• Selecting a Backbone Is an Important Process that Should Build the Credibility of the Backbone and the Initiative

• A Strong Steering Committee Is Important for Building the Initiative’s Credibility and for Bringing Other Stakeholders to the Table

• Steering Committee Members Should Be Carefully Recruited

• Representative Collective Impact Timeline: The First 18 Months

#Rb21NM

Each Stakeholder and Group Plays a Specific Role

Community partner

Stakeholder / Group Description and Role

Work Group(a.k.a. network, action team)

• Individual organizations and members of the community (e.g, nonprofit, funder, business, public agency, student, parent, resident)

• Partners should have access to a variety of opportunities to learn about and engage in the initiative

• Comprised of cross-sector community partners targeting particular element of common agenda (e.g., early childhood, K12, postsecondary, OST, data, policy, funding)

• Designs and implements a targeted action plan, involving non-work group members as needed

• Led by two co-chairs willing to invest time and (ideally) staff capacity• Some groups or networks serve slightly different functions, e.g., funders group (to

identify opportunities for alignment), or inclusive community network to raise awareness about project and provide mechanism for vetting actions

Steering Committee (Strategy Group)

• Comprised of cross-sector community partners (representative of the large ecosystem)

• Provides strategic direction for the initiative and champions the work• In some cases, committee members are chairs for action teams

Backbone Organization

• Provides dedicated staff • Supports the work of partners by assisting with strategic guidance, supporting

aligned activity, establishing shared measurement, building public will, advancing policy, and mobilizing funding

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

A Backbone’s Scope and Budget May Grow Over Time, Primarily Reflecting Staff Additions And Available

Resources

* The resources required by the Backbone vary with the needs of the initiatives. In some instances budgets have remained flat or declined; in others, FTEs and budgets have grown with the changing requirements of the role

FSG.ORG

Source: FSG case work and analysis

EstimatedBudget:

TypicalResponsibilities:

• Guide vision and strategy• Liaise with Working Group and

Strategy Groups• Build public will / awareness• Begin implementation of

strategies and shared measures

• Guide vision and strategy• Support and coordinate

aligned activities• Deepen shared measurement

practices• Build public will / awareness

• Expand priority strategies and partners based on data

• Build public will / awareness• Communicate progress• Advance policy• Mobilize funding

PotentialStaff:

1. Executive Director2. Data Manager3. Facilitator4. Project Coordinator5. Communications Manager6. Office Manager / Assistant

1. Executive Director2. Data Manager3. Facilitator4. Project Coordinator

1. Executive Director2. Data Manager3. Facilitator

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3 On*

$3-400K $5-600K $7-900K

#Rb21NM

Every Backbone Needs Funding; Backbone Budgets Can Range From Around $400K to

Upwards of $800K

Expense CategoryBudget ($)

DescriptionLow High

Salaries 80,000 155,000 1 FTE Executive Director

55,000 100,000 1 FTE Facilitator/Coordinator

65,000 100,000 1 FTE Data/Operations Manager

25,000 65,000 .5-1 FTE Admin. Support

Benefits 45,000 84,000 At 20% of salaries

Professional Fees 90,000 105,000 Consultants, R&E, Recruiting, Data Collection

Travel and Meetings 7,000 30,000 Workshops, events, retreat

Community Engagement 0 35,000 Space rental, youth stipends

Communications 36,500 90,000 Reports, materials design, paid media

Technology 0 4,900 In kind hardware, software, IT

Office 0 74,000 In kind/paid rent, utilities, supplies

Other 0 6,500 Staff training, miscellaneous

Total Expenses 403,500 849,400 Covered by grants and fees

Source: Adapted from Strive Network, TYSA, & CCER

Illustration of a Backbone’s Budget:

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Selecting a Backbone Is an Important Process that Should Build the Credibility of the Backbone and the Initiative

Conduct landscape scan of key players, including the “usual suspects” and beyond

Build understanding of the role of a backbone among early initiative leaders

Approach high-potential backbone organizations to assess their interest in serving as a backbone

Issue an RFP

Interview applicants

Steering Committee and/or funder(s) selects backbone

An “early backbone” helps guide the initiative from the beginning, including helping to select the Steering Committee

6-12 months after the first SC meeting, a determination is made to either make the early backbone into a permanent backbone, or open the process to other backbones

Based on existing knowledge of key players, backbone is “named,” usually by the initiative’s funders

The backbone helps recruit a Steering Committee, potentially with the help of an early “advisory group” or funders

PredeterminedSemi-Open Process

Open Process

Pros: Transparent, builds credibility, open to many organizations with different skill setsCons: Takes time, must work through potentially difficult decisions

Pros: Quick, avoids difficult conversations in the short-term (though may arise in the long-term)Cons: May not have high credibility, may not find the org. with the best skill set, assumes funders know best

Pros: Allows for a backbone “try out,” backbone staff available from beginning of initiativeCons: May be politically difficult, and inefficient to switch backbones

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

A Strong Steering Committee Is Important for Building the Initiative’s Credibility and for Bringing Other Stakeholders

to the Table

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Steering Committee Members Should Be Carefully Recruited

1. Decision Maker. CEO/President Level - Able to drive systems change relevant to effort

2. Representative. Geographic coverage of effort (counties and subregional steering committees) as well as sector

3. Influential Champion. Commands respect of broader set of stakeholders (and perceived so). Can bring stakeholders to the table and keep them there. Can champion the strategy with the broader community

4. Content Expertise/Practitioner. Familiar with subject matter to contribute substantively

5. Passion and Urgency. Passionate about issue and feels real urgency for the need to change

6. Focused on the Greater Interest. Represents need of their own organization but able to think and act in the greater interest of the community

7. Commitment. Willing and able to commit time and energy to attend meetings and get work done

Sample Traits

FSG.ORG

#Rb21NM

Representative Collective Impact Timeline: The First 18 Months

0 3 6

Conduct “landscape and readiness assessment”

ID and recruit Steering Committee Develop common agenda

Develop initiative-level shared measures

Identify and build capacity of backbone organization

Create work groups; build their capacity

Conduct outreach to key stakeholders (gather input, build understanding, build support)

6 12 18

Conduct outreach to key stakeholders, as needed

Develop strategy-level shared measures

Develop common agenda

Initiate Action

Organize for Impact

Analyze baseline data, understand the problem, “make the case”

FSG.ORG

Develop shared measurement system