Collaborative Approaches for Scaling Social Impact - Internal Study

Collaborative Approaches for Scaling Social Impact Internal Study

1

Overview 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Key findings a.

Key Definitions b.

Types of Collaborations c.

Benefits & Impact Potential d.

Risks Case Studies a.

Vermont Farm to Table, U.S. b.

NUUP, Mexico c.

Indian Housing Federation d.

Seven Market Systems Innovations (selected from 80 via Rockefeller Foundation and FSG) Collective Impact: Best Practices Deep-Dive a.

Timeline b.

Key milestones c.

Budget d.

Roles e.

Funder Best Practices f.

Sustainability Pathways g.

Necessary Mindset Shifts h.

Consultants Recommended Next Steps Appendix a.

Sources of learning and questions for this study b.

Additional areas for exploration

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.

CONTEXT ● This report was created by Ashoka to understand when to adopt a collaborative approach towards systems change.

Based on examples of what has worked by others, this study was also undertaken to understand the best practices, pitfalls, and mindset shifts needed to successfully plan for and adopt collaborative approaches. ● Five major motivations for pursuing a collaborative approach for scaling social impact despite the degree of uncertainty about the success of such approaches include how it is 1. an effective way to tackle the nature of complex social problems. Certain social problems have the qualities of being large-scale, multi-sector, and constantly changing, so they require solutions that have those same qualities as well.

2. designed to remain accountable to population-level impact 3. a more efficient way to optimize resources to overcome fragmented, "service delivery chaos" 4.

An essential way to keep up with the pace of innovation and ensure sustainable value chains 5. a more realistic way to ensure sustained impact due to the deliberate attention to diversifying the stakeholders that are co-owners. (go to section)

●

Three main risks for pursuing a collaborative approach for systems change include how it is 1. resource and time intensive despite uncertain success rates. Over 70% of over 100 cases considered by comparative studies do not demonstrate clear systems impact yet. However, it’s difficult to assign a judgement about rates of success being high or low due to having a limited sample size within varying contexts, given that the length of time required may be longer than the cases in the sample have had, and given that it’s difficult to compare these rates to other approaches with similar amounts of up-front resource investment - whether for profit or non-profit 2. difficult to prove impact due to the number of stakeholders and the complexity of the approach 3. inherently difficult to achieve the best practices that have been cited as essential for success because there are incentives and sectoral norms that are preventing collaboration from already taking hold 3 (go to section)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont’d)

.

BEST PRACTICES & REQUIREMENTS ● Three mindset shifts that are necessary include ● 1. moving away from strategic planning to emergence 2. moving from hierarchy or individual firms to systems leadership and collaboration (see key definitions here) 3. moving away from solving complicated problems to designing with complex problems in mind (go to section) ● There are numerous shared best practices regardless of context, such as: a. having a long-term orientation (minimum 3-5 years) b. designing for adaptive, systems leadership c. maintaining a lean backbone (less than 10 staff) d. investing heavily in building co-ownership to tackle a shared problem e. shifting traditional measurement approaches f. shifting the role of the funder and design (go to section) ● Dedicated budget to facilitate the collaboration is necessary, although the budget size and approaches vary depending on the context of the collaboration (from $150k to multi-million dollars) ● Design for Funding Sustainability: A few strategies for sustainability within coordinating collaborative efforts includes staffing at the right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding, as well as creating a hybrid business model for playing a brokering role between corporations and other parts of the sector. (go to section) ● There are common milestones despite the requirement of emergence. Collective impact literature describes the necessity for an organic, constantly emerging process for tackling complex problems that no one group is able to tackle alone. Despite this emergent nature, there were still common milestones cited within the comparative studies and interviews (go to section); According to a review of 25 successful collective impact initiatives, the two most foundational stages were establishing backbone support as well as a common agenda. The other commonly cited characteristics were not always fully present. (go to section) 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont’d)

.

STUDY METHOD ● As a short, internal study, we drew learnings primarily from a growing body of knowledge on collaborative approaches, particularly via comparative case studies which were all published within the last six years. The earliest study used was as recent as 2012. As testament to the newness of such approaches, one study noted an uptick of approaches that identify as multi-stakeholder starting in the 2000s (go to slide). It’s important to note that collaborative approaches are built on a rich history demonstrating that the methodology itself is not new (go to slide). What may be new is the rapid adoption, shared language, and best-practices literature on collective impact. Insights were also drawn from a brief literature review, interviews of experienced consultants, and interviews of social entrepreneurs in the Ashoka network. ● Ashoka network’s experience: While the majority of learnings and cases were drawn from outside of Ashoka’s network, it’s important to note Ashoka’s own experience and bias towards collaborative approaches. Two Ashoka Fellows are noted thought leaders and pioneers in collective impact, Jeff Edmundson and Paul Born; their work is widely cited in collective impact. Our team also identified more than twenty notable Fellows that are demonstrating collaborative approaches at scale, five Ashoka collaborations through the Danone Ecosystem Fund, and two ongoing initiatives that Ashoka co-founded and have reached the stage of demonstrating impact at scale. We interviewed at least 10 leaders of different large-scale ecosystem collaborations. Lastly, collaborative approaches are also core to the vision of our founder, Bill Drayton, who describes how the only thing more powerful than a new idea in the hand of a social entrepreneur is entrepreneurs working together. ● OVERALL RECOMMENDATION ● Don’t Lead with the Approach, Lead with the Context: The specific context and assets will heavily dictate what type of collaborative effort is sought, and there should be no predetermined pathway. (go to section) When undertaking a collaborative approach to scaling impact, there are numerous best practices of initiatives that have demonstrated success that should 5 be emulated, and adopted for the unique context.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont’d) INTERNAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONVENERS: Incubators of Ecosystem Collaborations, with a minimum timeline of tracking impact for 5 years

.

Organizations focused on being conveners in the social entrepreneurship space are in a privileged position to look at innovation gaps, able to learn from its global networks of social entrepreneurs to identify where a field is moving forward and where it may be stuck. Being the backbone organization itself requires very detailed involvement in operations and consultancy, which is not a long-term fit for organizations’ whose unique value proposition is as a connector of networks. Social entrepreneurs themselves may also not the best candidates for the backbone role since the effort is very unlikely to sustain past 2 years if the entrepreneur's organization has another primary mission and way of working.

Thus, social entrepreneurship conveners are uniquely positioned to focus on setting up the conditions needed for ecosystem collaboration, including: ● ● ● ● ●

Identifying urgent emergent issue areas identifying systems leaders that are tackling different parts of a complex problem and who Recognizing gaps in the ecosystem that could benefit from facilitated collaboration (we struggle, however, in how to localize those insights, such as from the Apparel Industry mapping._ Nurturing relationships with funders committed to systems change Convening leaders across the ecosystem

An organization such as Ashoka would build on its success in having already done so in the topics of housing in India (Housing for All) and agriculture value chain in Mexico (NUUP).

As a result, a unique role can be played in: ● identifying the topic ● identifying the potential backbone spin-off (e.g. NUUP, Housing for All) ● sharing our infrastructure and supporting the launch of such initiatives ● leveraging existing funding partners to gain commitments of $200,000 - $1million to align key players and eventually enable the incubation or launch of separate backbone spin-off’s .

A sample timeline may be: ● Year 1: Startup - Initial design, mapping of stakeholders, and partnership funding; can be incubated within an existing organization ● Year 2 – 4: Pilot; initial team of 1-2 dedicated staff; brokering new collaborations ● Year 4-5: Re-design of strategy based on pilot results; finding ways to reach full scale; Re-launching as a separate entity (this can happen earlier as well); continuing to iterate as needed to scale

6

Key Findings

back to overview

7

Key Definitions Collaborative Approaches Engaging multiple parts of an ecosystem in order to achieve positive systems change at a significantly greater scale than working individually. Creating a “more than the sum of the parts” effect. - via Ashoka The intentional and structured coordination of pre-existing community assets to meet needs in a systemic, comprehensive manner Collective Impact Literature (via Columbia University) Market-Based: Encouraging or leading to an economic system based on supply and demand (Cambridge Dictionary). For the purposes of this study, this can include two different types of approaches: 1.

Incorporation of income-generation or hybrid funding models (grants and income) in order to ensure sustainability 2.

Shifting dynamics of a marketplace to ensure it is more equitable, participatory, sustainable, or stable.

Note: While businesses are typically interested in market-based approaches, engagement of the business sector via establishing co-creation partnerships between “impact first” organizations and corporations does not necessarily mean that there is a market-based model.

Systems Change: By systems change we mean an approach of tackling the root causes of a problem by identifying and creating shifts in the systems that are responsible for the problem. The goal is for the new state of the system to produce better outcomes on an ongoing basis. Ideally, these better outcomes are achieved in a more efficient way than by continuously treating the symptoms of the problem. (references - creating new equilibrium and a more detailed definition) 8

Types of Collaborations

Source: page 8, Hype Innovation and S. Leroi-Werelds, et al.

Types of Relationships One to One

One to Many

Many to Many, loose ties

Many to Many, Cross-Sectoral

Cross-Cutting Methodologies: shared value, co-creation Terms Includes: partnerships including co-creation and private-public, alliances

Includes: Open Innovation, Collective Organizing, Cooperatives

Includes: Open Source, Coalition, Collaborative

Includes: Collective Impact, Multi-stakeholder Initiatives

Market-Based Examples: E.g. Vodaphone Turkey, SAP, Merck Biophma (cf Ashoka social & business co-creation cases)

e.g. Danone Ecosystem Fund, Dairy in Gujarat, Social Impact Bond

e.g. Feeding the 5,000; Toast Ale*

e.g. NUUP Mexico*, Housing For All India* 9 *Ashoka Fellow

Benefits & Impact Potential The five major motivations for pursuing a collaborative approach despite the degree of uncertainty include how it is 1. an effective way to tackle the nature of complex social problems. Certain social problems have the qualities of being large-scale, multi-sector, and constantly changing, so they require solutions that have those same qualities as well.

2. designed to remain accountable to population-level impact 3. a more efficient way to optimize resources to overcome fragmented, "service delivery chaos" 4. an essential way to keep up with the pace of innovation and ensure sustainable value chains 5. a more realistic way to ensure sustained impact due to the deliberate attention to diversifying the stakeholders that are co-owners.

10

Benefits & Impact Potential

“

CREATES NECESSARY ADAPTIVENESS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS: ● “[Collective Impact] is the only path forward to address complex social problems—there is no Plan B.” - Jeff Edmundson, Defining Quality Collective Impact ●

“Social problems arise from the interplay of governmental and commercial activities, not only from the behavior of social sector organizations. As a result, complex problems can be solved only by cross-sector coalitions that engage those outside the nonprofit sector.” - John Kania and Mark Kramer, Collective Impact

●

[We need to ask] "How can social entrepreneurs magnify and accelerate the scale of their impact by looking beyond simply growing their organizations or replicating their service models?" -Gregory Dees, Creating Large Scale Change, Not “Can” But “How”

●

“ Larry Kramer made a similar point in his article "Against 'Big Bets,’" noting that the most promising way to promote systems-level change might not be to award large, eight-figure grants in the hope of fixing a complex problem quickly, but rather to support a number of smaller, synergistic interventions over a longer period of time.”-Odin Muhlenbein, Systems Change - Big or Small

11

Benefits & Impact Potential (cont’d)

“

DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE SYSTEMIC IMPACT: ● “A poverty reduction network identified an opportunity to reduce the number of people on a waiting list for affordable housing by 10% with no new investment. They identified the most housing-ready people on the waiting list and worked with private sector landlord” - Paul Born, How to Develop and Common Agenda for Collective Impact ● By their very nature, individual nonprofit services are fragmented and dispersed, with each organization typically serving a limited population with specific interventions. Funders then measure success at the organizational level, not for the broader community. To be sure, these efforts are critical to the lives and well-being of individuals in those communities and are important “pockets of-success” to demonstrate that progress is possible. But overall, these approaches are not resulting in significant change at a community-wide level, which is frustrating to all: taxpayers, funders, policymakers, providers and the beneficiaries themselves. -Bridgespan Group, Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives ● When we look across the broad sweep of our case studies, what we see is less about the scaling up of any one innovation and more about how a panoply of innovations comes together over time, interacting with and building on each other, in order to progress the market. Importantly, these innovations reshaped not just business models and practices, but also the formal laws, regulations, and policies that apply in the market and the informal norms that guide the behaviors of various actors. Put more simply, we see innovation in relation to both the players and the rules of the game. -FSG and Rockefeller Foundation, Shaping Inclusive Markets 12

Benefits & Impact Potential (cont’d)

“

OPTIMIZES RESOURCES ● It’s necessary to find ways to do more with less much of their work focuses on “doing better without spending more”—getting funders, nonprofits, government and business to align existing resources and funding with the most effective approaches and services to achieve their goals. -Bridgespan Group, Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives ● Fiscal constraints have contributed to an eagerness to embrace collaboration as a means to reduce duplication and unearth potential complements in services and support so that the local ecology will be more efficient in generating “bang” for the available bucks. -A review of the Literature on Local Cross-Sector Collaboration to Improve Education ● “Resource dependencies were noted as a prime motivation in all forms of public, private, and cross-sector collaborations. They are evident in the education sector, and much of the literature on education collaborations makes note in a general way of the challenges of securing stable and adequate resources. -Comubia University, Collective Impact in Context

13

Benefits & Impact Potential (cont’d) TACKLES MARKET SURVIVAL ● “Pressured by increasing competition, shorter product life cycles and increased risk, companies today see the advantages of connecting to a variety of collaborators and collaborator types. In other words, the logic of collaboration is shifting. With it, firms’ outlook, protection mechanisms, and mission are shifting too. The result? Long-term focus, less IP, and more joint strategizing.

Above all, the activity of an organization is no longer about individual wellbeing. Today, there is more and more talk about ensuring the survival of the whole.” HYPE Innovation ● “We cannot work for healthier choices and lifestyles without caring about the health and wellness of our communities. This Manifesto embodies the Group commitment to build an alimentation revolution for the health of Danone, the health of our planet and our whole ecosystem, the health of current and future generations” - Danone €100 million Ecosystem Fund

“ “

MORE PRACTICAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINED IMPACT ● “The other and most optimistic possibility is that the contemporary manifestations of local cross-sector collaboration, while familiar in broad strokes, represent a new and improved version of what has gone before. Three elements of the contemporary movement, although not in themselves dramatic innovations, have the potential to add up to a more pragmatic and self-conscious approach to sustained incremental progress and collective learning. Two of these—the emphases on the importance of a lead or backbone organization and a strong focus on measureable outcomes—are prominently referenced in the collective impact literature. A third—the contemporary movement’s predilection for establishing networks to create and sustain cross-city/district forums for sharing ideas and learning—has received less explicit attention but may prove to be at least as important a distinguishing attribute. -Collective Impact in Context

14

Risks

“

Collaboration should never be the pathway of choice. People collaborate because they need to do so and/or benefit from it, as collaborating is lengthy, complicated, risky, expensive and bound to fail more often than not” -Jessica Graf, Lefil Consulting

RESOURCE AND TIME INTENSIVE Requires dedicated, multi-year resources (see resource requirements section) OVER 70% OF CASE STUDIES NOT DEMONSTRATING CLEAR SYSTEMS IMPACT YET ● In the comparative studies reviewed (see appendix), each generally started from a base of about 80-100 case studies that were leveraging a collaborative approach to systems change, but found between 7 - 25 as having demonstrated systemic impact. Assuming these had similarly rigorous standards for systems change, chose from a diverse, representative sample of options, and from approaches that have had a chance to be active long enough to reasonably expect impact, that’s a 9 - 25% impact success rate of efforts so far. ● However, it’s difficult to assign a judgement about rates of success being high or low from the available case studies due to having a limited sample size within varying contexts, given that the length of time required may be longer than the cases in the sample have been around, and given that it’s difficult to compare these rates to other approaches with similar amounts of up-front resource investment - whether for profit or non-profit. ● One interviewee of a high-profile collaborative approach (preferring anonymity) described how the original strategy for the coalition changed to a degree that a number of original partners no longer remained engaged. The direction changed as the result of listening to the partners and based on the decision of the new executive director for the coalition.

DIFFICULT TO PROVE IMPACT Even when there is demonstrated impact, because of the collaborative, ecosystemic nature of the efforts, it is difficult to attribute impact to specific activities or partners’ roles.

15

Risks The three main risks for pursuing a collaborative approach for systems change include how it is 1. resource and time intensive despite uncertain success rates. Over 70% of over 100 cases considered by comparative studies (link) do not demonstrate clear systems impact yet. However, it’s difficult to assign a judgement about rates of success being high or low due to having a limited sample size within varying contexts, given that the length of time required may be longer than the cases in the sample have had, and given that it’s difficult to compare these rates to other approaches with similar amounts of up-front resource investment - whether for profit or non-profit 2. difficult to prove impact due to the number of stakeholders and the complexity of the approach 3. inherently difficult to achieve the best practices that have been cited as essential for success because there are incentives and sectoral norms that are preventing collaboration from already taking hold

16

Risks (cont’d)

“

DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR SUCCESS “Sites without demonstrated population changes differed in some key ways.

Among the study sites, five sites had no population change. These sites had less strong implementation of the collective impact conditions, had significantly fewer early changes related to partnerships, and had significantly fewer policy changes, practice improvements, and systems changes within one or similar organizations. Importantly, they had also been implemented for less time. They had also faced some specific challenges, including: difficulties establishing a common agenda; more difficulty measuring impact; some site-specific challenges with internal processes like staffing or the backbone; or external challenges due to political constraints, transitions, and competing initiatives.” -When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018) Funders cannot ignore the possibility that by putting too much reliance on local stakeholders whose interest and vision may be narrower and more self-serving than hoped for, support for cross-sector collaborations might end up distorting efforts. This could happen, for example, if local partners, in their eagerness to demonstrate adherence to the prescribed model, rush to adopt outcome measures without first engaging in thoughtful and public deliberation, rigidly pursue specific fixed outcomes at the expense of programmatic adjustment to changing conditions, or short-circuit the development of broad and deeply inclusive coalitions in pursuit of local elite-centered focus and coherence. Such risks are of special concern if cultivating a tighter relationship between networks and funders preempts that between local leader and their local constituencies. -Collective Impact in Context | Columbia University

“

IT MAY DISSIPATE AS AN APPROACH WITHIN A FIELD AFTER FUNDERS INTERESTS SHIFT Signs that today’s local cross-sector collaboration efforts are merely education’s “next new thing” would be that early momentum is not sustained, that founding enthusiasm and creativity are replaced with mechanical repetition, that initial philanthropic funding is not parlayed into more regularized and dependable sources of revenues, that loss of funding leads to lowered expectations and loss of appetite, that coalitions crumble with shifts in leadership, that initial collaboration is followed by bickering and a narrowed scope of true involvement, and that rhetoric outstrips actual change with a shift from ambitious and measurable goals to more superficial initiatives coupled with slick public relations and media strategies.” -Collective Impact in Context | Columbia University

17

Case Studies

back to overview

18

Case Study Vtfarmtoplate.com | United States

Vermont Farm to Plate Farm to Plate is Vermont’s food system plan being implemented statewide to increase economic development and jobs in the farm and food sector and improve access to healthy local food for all Vermonters.

What's at stake For Vermont, there are over 38 million consumers within a 200-mile radius of its borders but climate change and oil addiction are threatening the long-term viability of Vermont’s food system.

The Collaboration Strategic plan in implementation statewide by more than 350 member organizations The Impact ● Increases in local food purchases: from $89 million to $189 million (between in 2010 and 2014) ● 11% increase in the number of jobs in the food system, from 58,000 to 64,084 (between 2009 and 2015)(between in 2010 and 2014) ; 206% increase in the tons of food rescued from Vermont food enterprises, from 600 tons in 2011 to 1,800 tons in 2016.

Source: When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018)

19

Case Study (cont’d) Ingredients for Success ● Critical Role of Backbone and Extensive Listening for Co-creating Strategic Plan: supported an extensive process to create an overarching strategic plan that included creating a strategic planning process team, hosting eight regional food summits to collect input from the public, conducting six focus groups with food system experts, and holding six work sessions with industry leaders to understand system dynamics. Continues to oversee implementation of the plan by supporting communication and coordination between partners. ● Tried Experiments or Temporary Strategies Led By/Primarily in One Organization: tried out a matchmaking forum and training programs designed to help local food producers understand how they can contract with large food service providers in the state. ● Modeled Formal Changes within a Single Organization that Ripple Across Multiple Organizations - changed its process for food pick up/food rescue, affecting how other organizations engaged with the foodbank and the resources available in the community. ● Coordinated Multiple Organizations Making the Same Change - changed their production techniques to have animals processed year-round instead of just during a few months of the year ● Build Capacity Among Community and Partners - Originally provided a lot of direct support, which absorbed much of their available capacity. Shifted to establish a new structure where workgroup chairs come together and receive capacity building support/training from the backbone, have signed contracts, and receive stipends for their role, which include tracking accountability and facilitating meetings. The backbone still plays a direct role in moving the work forward when needed.

Source: When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018)

20

Nuup.co | Mexico

page 1 of 3

About NUUP bridges smallholder farmers to buyers to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing. It’s work is centered around the pillars of collaboration and Communication, facilitating different types of social enterprises, NGOs, and companies to collaborate with each other, information flows, providing information about prices as well as also purchasing conditions, and transparency, creating a scoring system of what it’s like to work together.

The Impact ●

●

Creating more inclusive agriculture value chains by facilitating 15,000 smallholder farmers that are organized into 100 different groups. This includes 15-20 NGOs and 20 buyers connected.

10-15 large buyers that represent the purchase of half the tomatoes in mexico have been collaborating to connect with farmers and begin mapping what they can change in order to become more inclusive.

The Collaboration institution builders (Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation)

NUUP convenes

15,000 small holder farmers organized in 100 groups

15-20 NGO’s

20 buyers

(e.g. TechnoServe, Rainforest Alliance)

(e.g. Walmart, Danone, national companies)

21 Source: Interview Malu Luque, May 2018, NUUP co-founder, former Ashoka staff

Nuup.co | Mexico

page 2 of 3

The Collaboration (continued) To do so, NUUP bridges the following stakeholders together via funded and market-based relationships: ● Foundations willing to make institutional investments and interested in ecosystem solutions e.g. The Kellogg Foundation ● Large NGO’s that are not as strong in the access to market aspect but would like to get started ● Companies that are interested in inclusive value chains; NUUP includes a condition within the partnership that NUUP can invite other buyers and publish activities publicly in order to encourage the transformation of marketplace norms.

Ingredients for Success ●

●

The Critical Role of Patient Relationship and Common Agenda Building: ○ Workshops that bridge different stakeholders only come after 6-8 months of work and individual conversations to focus on prioritizing access to markets in particular. Malu Laque, co-founder of Nuup describes, “We really stress that we know there are many important things. But what are the main 5 things that we will do together Many times people feel that the things we are putting in the agenda. They think maybe they have to change what they are doing, but we stress that here is what we are doing together.”

Building Trust Across Multiple Levels of Organizations: Malu Luque, co-founder of Nuup describes how “Sometimes you build only with the leadership - but it involves people with all levels of the organization - so they might not understand the bigger picture or it requires changes even though they have been involved for many years. So it’s not that we are telling them that they are wrong, but that things can be improved. Maintaining trust is just as important “ Source: Interview Malu Laque, May 2018, NUUP co-founder, former Ashoka staff

22

Nuup.co | Mexico

page 3 of 3

Key Milestones ● ●

● ● ●

2008 - 2012: Initiatives launched by Ashoka and partners to improve the livelihoods of small-scale farmers through “Hybrid Value Chains” ( Walmart, Danone, Gamesa part of Pepsicola, V Por Mas Bank, RootCapital and Mexican social entrepreneurs) 2013 -2104: Accenture conducted a pro-bono study for Ashoka, interviewing key players from social enterprises, NGOs and companies (purchasing teams of WalMart, Dannon, and many more buyers) to understand what their challenges were when accessing markets 2014: Collaboration workshop hosted by Ashoka to co-design an intervention model: NUUP was born 2015: NUUP launched with USD 120,000 for 1 year of funding to launch. Spin off from Ashoka.

2016: Expanded to 5 full time people with half the team focused on data and technology, and the other half to facilitating partnerships

Ingredients for Success ●

●

The Critical Role of Patient Relationship and Common Agenda Building: Workshops that bridge different stakeholders only come after 6-8 months of work and individual conversations to focus on prioritizing access to markets in particular. Malu Laque, co-founder of Nuup describes, “We really stress that we know there are many important things. But what are the main 5 things that we will do together Many times people feel that the things we are putting in the agenda. They think maybe they have to change what they are doing, but we stress that here is what we are doing together.”

Building Trust Across Multiple Levels of Organizations: Malu Luque, co-founder of Nuup describes how “Sometimes you build only with the leadership - but it involves people with all levels of the organization - so they might not understand the bigger picture or it requires changes even though they have been involved for many years. So it’s not that we are telling them that they are wrong, but 23 that things can be improved. Maintaining trust is just as important “ Source: Interview Malu Laque, May 2018

page 1 of 3

What's at stake In India, more than 19 million families do not own their own home for reasons such as not being able to afford what is available in the market even when they have a steady source of income, or due to not being able to prove their income due to informal jobs. However, the estimated demand for affordable housing in India translated to market value of around US$250 billion. The Indian Housing Federation (IHF) brings together real estate developers, housing mortgage providers and CSO’s to ensure millions of Indians with low-income can begin to own their own affordable homes.

The Impact ●

●

●

Brokered partnerships that lead to 16,000+ affordable homes enabled for the low-income community by new collaborations brokered by IHF as of 2013 Commitment for developing 200,000 homes by 2020 through support to the State Housing mission including a new statewide policy co-drafted by IHF for the state of Assam Indirectly, a national policy shift to enable more companies to offer mortgages for low-income people, enabling lenders to expand their reach; the number of lenders supported increased from 5 to 25

The Collaboration institution builders (Ashoka, Tata Trust Fund, Hilti Foundation)

state & national gov’t

IHF convenes

mortgage providers families w/ low-income

social entrepreneurs housing developers

24

page 2 of 3

The Collaboration (continued) After initial incubation and founding support from Ashoka, the Hilti foundation, and the Tata Trust Fund, IHF began facilitating affordable housing at scale by building mutually beneficial relationships between each of the following stakeholders and roles: ● Social Entrepreneurs leverage their experience serving local communities to build new relationships as reliable customers as buyers of new housing from developers and as new mortgage holders from financial institutions. ● Mortgage Providers/Financial Institutions are open to accepting alternative ways for families to prove their income in return for offering loans to informal sector workers at a slightly higher than market rate of interest ● Developers pay a small fee to the citizen sector organisation to bring in new customers ● Community members have new access to affordable housing ● Government writes new housing policies that enables mortgages for low-income and informal workers

The Journey ● ● ● ● ●

2009: Startup - Initial design, mapping of stakeholders, and partnership funding from the Hilti Foundation for four years 2010-2013: Pilot by Ashoka, brokering new relationships that enable the development of 16,000 affordable homes 2014: Re-design of strategy. After reviewing results from the pilot, finding ways to reach the full scale of the market, which is the millions of people who didn’t have an income statement to prove they had income and quality for the mortgage needed to afford a home 2015: Re-launched as a separate organization, the Indian Housing Federation; funded at $500k by the Tata Trust Fund and an additional $150k in funding.

2016: Scaling - Began government partnerships to shift housing policies and create impact at scale; confirmed a partnership with the state of Assam to build 200,000 homes and beginning collaboration with India’s central government to shape housing policy. Establishing 625full Sources: Interview Vishnu, April 2018, Housing For All director, Ashoka staff | “Affordable Housing in India”, June 2014 time staff, including a director and CEO.

page 3 of 3

Key Ingredients for Success ●

●

●

Strike the Balance between Convening, Execution, and incubation: Collaborative approaches must strike the right balance between between setting up the conditions to enable change versus primarily delivering on the intended change. The different activities that IHF balances between include: ○ Convening & Identifying Patterns: IHF plays a critical role in identifying patterns on gaps and opportunities based on offering thought leadership, convening of stakeholders, and facilitating the co-creation of solutions. ○ Execution: IHF has also found that it needs to create initial proofs of concept as well as getting hands on with negotiating and supporting on the delivery of new collaborations in order to reach greater scale of impact. Navigating this balance between setting up the conditions to enable change versus actively creating the conditions is a constant but necessary balance to navigate. ○ Incubation: IHF has also found it critical to find new CSOs that can carry forward initiatives that have passed initial proof of concept, such as pilots they created to create better data on the marketplace or to educate customers on the new, affordable home mortgage options. This is critical to ensure that IHF, as a collaboration convener, can continue to stay focused on finding new ways to solve social problems at scale.

Plan to Invest Heavily in Building trust: Collaborative approaches must invest dedicated time and resources for building trust between new partners. IHF found that the path for CSOs and private companies to become equal partners requires careful facilitation. it was only possible to bring new parties to the same table for collabrationfter co-creating something tangible together and delivering value to each partner.

Keep focused on scale: It’s critical for collaborations to take take account, and adjust its strategy based on asking whether it has reached the salce of market. When IHF paused to evaluate its impact, it shifted its strategy to include partnerships with government and the influencing of policy. Its next shift includes searching for partners that can extend credit at the scale of $100 million in order to meet the demand at the scale of millions of homes.Sources: Interview Vishnu, April 2018, Housing For All director, Ashoka staff | “Affordable Housing in India”, June26 2014

Case Studies: Market Systems Innovations “When we look across the broad sweep of our case studies, what we see is less about the scaling up of any one innovation and more about how a panoply of innovations comes together over time, interacting with and building on each other, in order to progress the market.

Importantly, these innovations reshaped not just business models and practices, but also the formal laws, regulations, and policies that apply in the market and the informal norms that guide the behaviors of various actors. Put more simply, we see innovation in relation to both the players and the rules of the game.�

27 Source page 8-9: Rockefeller Foundation, FSG (2017)

Collective Impact Deep-Dive: Best Practices

back to overview

28

Best Practices Overview There are numerous shared best practices regardless of context, such as: a. having a long-term orientation (minimum 3-5 years) b. certain milestones, particularly establishing a backbone organization and common agenda c. dedicated budget to facilitate the collaboration is necessary, although the budget size and approaches vary depending on the context of the collaboration (from $150k to multi-million dollars) d. maintaining a lean backbone (less than 10 staff) e. investing heavily in building co-ownership to tackle a shared problem f. shifting the role of the funder g. shifting traditional measurement approaches h. designing for adaptive, systems leadership

29

Requirements: Timeline 3-5+ Years Initially No exact path The exact timing and nature cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.

“ “

-How Collective Impact Addresses Complexity | FSG | (2013)

Long term orientation is necessary The factor of time seems essential to determine MSI [multi-stakeholder initiative] performance: the longer the process unfolds, the bigger the chances for success as well as the chances that success is gradually undermined. -review of 17 international cases | Ownership dynamics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives | Third World Quarterly | (2018)

Many issues collective impact initiatives take on can take 10+ years to address, given how deeply rooted the issue is, and so see the timeframe as a guide and not a given.

--via 18 years coaching experience How to Develop a Common Agenda for A Collective Impact | Tamarack Institute (2017) Minimum commitment: 3-5 years

“

Many of the study sites achieving population-level change have been around for more than a decade, and none for fewer than three years. Not surprisingly, the study confirms the often-stated belief that collective impact is a long-term play, not a quick-win game.”

-review of 25 initiatives | When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018)

I encourage networks to write a 5-year community plan. I know [...] many are used to developing 3-year strategies. [...] It takes a year to really implement the plan. By year 2 you move toward peak outputs. Year 3 and 4 are peak output years and when you get most of your results, and year 5 is for wind-down, transition or renewal. [...] -How to Develop a Common 30 Agenda for A Collective Impact | Tamarack Institute (2017)

Key Milestones

.

Collective impact literature describes an organic, constantly emerging process for tackling complex problems that no one group is able to tackle alone. Despite the emergent nature, common milestones cited within the comparative studies and interviews included:

Pre-Launch Select topic that would convene people with a sense of urgency

Year 1 Launch 1-3 convenings of top influencers/local system leaders skilled at collaboration should be a strong collective representation of leaders and sectors (NGO, business, government community, etc.)

Setup initial steering committee/backbone team (1-2 staff, max 5-10) Listening ~4-6 months of focus groups, interviews and Conduct assets mapping community meetings to gather input from residents, community leaders, funders, experts in the field and other stakeholders, especially those most affected by the issue. (500 - 1,000 people)

After Year 1 Co-create initial plan Working groups tackling different parts of the complex problem

Year 1 - 3 Shared activities

Year 3+ Impact: earliest population-level results, although much more likely in later years

Year 5 Wind-down, transition or renewal.

Craft a shared understanding of the problem which may be rooted in specific data Short-term (6 month) action teams/working groups to test ideas and achieve “quick wins� (increased resources, partnership quality, collaboration, or awareness of the issue, changes to core institutions, etc.)

31

Milestones Cont’d: Backbone & Common Agenda Foundational According to a review of 25 collective impact initiatives, the two most foundational stages were establishing backbone support as well as a common agenda. The other commonly cited characteristics were not always fully present. (source: When Collective Impact Has an Impact, ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute)

32

Requirements: Budgeting Estimates (anecdotal) The estimates cited by 4 interviewees vary widely, with local efforts cited as lean as a 5 person team in Latin America at $150,000 (NUUP-Mexico) per year (with at least 3 years before launching activities and five years before evaluating impact) to 30 person, multi-million effort. Regardless, investing in a bridge-builder function is repeatedly cited as critical. As John Kania of FSG said, “If you don’t think of someone who is thinking about the ecosystem then it dissipates quickly.”

Item

Description

Amount

Backbone Staff -Executive Director Level

Note: There is no predetermined right size for a collaborative’s staff.

Effective staff teams can range from one full-time strategic planning coordinator to as many as seven staffers for more complex, formalized operations.

$70k - 100k

In-Person Convenings (1-3)

Infrastructure

$30k - $150k

Includes data monitoring, communications

Shared Activities

$50k - $850k TOTAL: $150k-$1.1 million+ to launch, more funds to sustain

(optional) Capacity Building Consultant for 8 months - 2 years

Can help to identify and would train backbone to continue after they withdraw, including training on how to be sustainable

$320k - $1.2 million 33

Requirements: Sample Roles Backbone

Working Group

Team must focus on on the following roles: • Convening: A leader brings and keeps partners together and maintains a cohesive vision for the group.

This person could be the head of the local community foundation, a university president, a nonprofit leader or a public official. The backbone organization (the organization that is responsible for the collaborative’s operations) leader also plays an important role in keeping the collaborative efforts coordinated and moving forward.

• Facilitation: The collaborative needs a day-to-day person to maintain momentum, guide participants to the right questions and facilitate the group towards agreement and action.

• Data collection: Collaboratives frequently take responsibility for data aggregation and analysis.

Depending on the extent of the data, a dedicated analyst may be required. Some collaboratives use staff from a participating organization or hire staff or outside consultants to fulfill this capacity.

• Communications: Someone must manage internal and external communications to make sure that participants are kept well-informed. Collaborative leaders intentionally highlight the progress of partners, as opposed to seeking credit for the collaborative itself, and coordinate communications with partners to seek opportunities to advance the collaborative’s agenda.

-review of 12 successful collaborations out of 80 | Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives | Bridgespan Group (2012) •Fundraising: the backbone requires someone at the right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding or to a hybrid business model for playing a brokering role between corporations and other parts of the sector.

Working groups are most successful when they constitute a representative sample of the stakeholders. This leads to emergent and anticipatory problem solving that is rigorous and disciplined and, at the same time, flexible and organic. -source: Embracing Emergence, FSG

Business Sector

-source: Business Aligning for Students: The Promise of Collective Impact | Harvard Business School (2015)

34

Funder Best Practices

“

Investing in Backbone Staff & Infrastructure is Critical “Collaboratives require funding both to maintain their dedicated staff and to ensure that nonprofits have the means to deliver high-quality services. Even though the first job of most collaboratives is to leverage existing resources, in every truly needle-moving collaborative we studied, there was at least a modest investment in staff and infrastructure.

This investment often included in-kind contributions of staff or other resources from partners.”

Establish Realistic Timetable for Outcomes “These timetables should account for the extended time required to get to ultimate outcomes from intermediate gains. Indeed, government policy should favor efforts that articulate clear intermediate outcomes and collect data to gauge and improve the quality of those outcomes.”

Engage At the Co-Creation Table “Involvement of key stakeholders across sectors. All relevant partners play a role, including decision-makers from government, philanthropy, business and nonprofits, as well as individuals and families. Funders need to be at the table from the beginning to help develop the goals and vision, over time, align their funding with the collaborative’s strategies.”

Plan to sustain beyond initial success “Even after meeting goals, a collaborative must work to sustain them. [... ]An important lesson is if collaboratives are disbanded too early, hard-won gains may not be sustained.”

Source: review of 12 successful collaborations out of 80 | Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives | Bridgespan Group (2012) 35

Funder Best Practices (Cont’d)

“

Track Grant’s Multiplier Effect “Strive, for example, has a $1.5 million annual budget but is coordinating the efforts and increasing the effectiveness of organizations with combined budgets of $7 billion. -Collective Impact | FSG (2011) Measure Ultimate Outcomes at the Population Level instead of at Organizational Level By their very nature, individual nonprofit services are fragmented and dispersed, with each organization typically serving a limited population with specific interventions. Funders then measure success at the organizational level, not for the broader community. - needle moving collaboration Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives | Bridgespan Group (2012)

36

Best Practice Tip: Sustainability & Funder Exit Strategy Design for Funding Sustainability: A few strategies for sustainability within coordinating collaborative efforts includes staffing at the right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding, as well as creating a hybrid business model for playing a brokering role between corporations and other parts of the sector.

37

Best Practice Tip: Sustainability & Funder Exit Strategy

“

Hire for Roles Dedicated to Fundraising "[A resource that is typically necessary is a] good, experienced director who is full time and is able to talk to top managers of big companies and development agencies and that can bring a budget for investment of multi-millions" -Simon Brossard Interview, co-author of Toilet Board Coalition Lessons Learned by Hystra

“The East Lake Foundation provided the funding and personnel for the initial two-year planning phase, which culminated in the replacement of the public housing project with a mixed-income development. Three of its seven non-programming staff members dedicated to fundraising and a fourth focused on marketing and communication, the Foundation is able to attract resources from a variety of major partners. -Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives Build Co-Ownership Amongst Wide Range of Stakeholders “Adopting a systems-wide umbrella structure that incorporates multiple kinds of service deliverers holds out the promise of increasing efficiency through coordination and the elination of fdupblicative efforst. Incorporating formal government (e.g. by way of including mayors and superintendents), which is another defining element of collective impact, addresses the sense that foundations need to leverage their donations by influencing public policy.

Incorporating civic organization and community-based groups holds out the prospect of creating an advocacy voice and a vehicle for sustaining initiatives when formal leadership turns over and eventually when the foundation moves on to other places and priorities. Partnering with a “backbone” organization gives foundations a trusted on-the-spot partner to whom they can delegate the responsibility for the kinds of day-to-day decisions that are dictated by local context and change. And stressing the importance of measured outcomes aligns with foundations’ growing commitment to accountability and confidence and comfort with the notion that social progress can be measured and needs to be if progress is to be maintained.” -Putting Collective Impact in Context

38

Best Practice Tip: Sustainability & Funder Exit Strategy

“

(cont’d)

Set sustainability as an objective “Sustainable funding itself becomes one of the collaborative’s key objectives, as does “funder discipline”—sticking with the plan rather than developing individualized approaches or continuing to fund activities that aren’t part of the strategy. -Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives Plan to sustain beyond initial success Even after meeting goals, a collaborative must work to sustain them. [... ]An important lesson is if collaboratives are disbanded too early, hard-won gains may not be sustained. -Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives Develop a Hybrid Business Model for the Backbone’s Role as a Broker “[One of our type of funder includes companies interested in inclusive value chain, [however, when we establish the fee-for-service partnership] we have the condition that we will invite other buyers and we will publish whatever we do' we don’t face pushback on this. -Malu Luque Interview, co-founder NUUP Mexico

39

Necessary Mindset Shifts Three mindset shifts that are necessary include 1. moving away from strategic planning to emergence 2. moving from hierarchy or individual firms to systems leadership and collaboration 3. moving away from solving complicated problems to designing with complex problems in mind

40

Necessary Mindset Shifts

“

Shift from Strategic Planning to Adaptive Co-Leadership We need to move away from a strategic planning mentality and move toward that which allows us to think together.

Here are four ideas for doing just that.: 1) From writing a plan to building a common commitment 2) From involving experts to involving everyone who cares 3) From a planning mentality to arousing and following our curiosity 4) From a quick plan to taking the time for broad engagement -How to Develop a Common Agenda for Collective Impact | Paul Born, Tamarack Institute (2017)

Shift from Identifying Solution to Identifying Shared Problem & Goals “Collective impact efforts often expect that the process begins by finding solutions that a collective set of actors can agree upon. They assume that developing a common agenda involves gaining broad agreement at the outset about which predetermined solutions to implement. In fact, developing a common agenda is not about creating solutions at all, but about achieving a common understanding of the problem, agreeing to joint goals to address the problem, and arriving at common indicators to which the collective set of involved actors will hold themselves accountable in making progress. -Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives | Bridgespan Group (2012)

41

Necessary Mindset Shifts (cont’d)

“

Design for Emergence and for Complex, not Complicated, Problems “Inspired by the long arc of change in each of the case studies, this approach also acknowledges that the market systems we engage with have already been evolving and will continue to evolve. When we approach a market system, we should not think that we are bringing change to an otherwise static system. In reality, we are joining a system in motion, at a point on its journey, and with a range of possible future paths and outcomes. Certainly, we should not fall into the trap of believing that the first day of our intervention is also the first day of change for everyone else in the system. - Seven market-based systems change examples, selected from 80 - Shaping Inclusive Markets | FSG and Rockefeller Foundation | (2017)

Chart: Approach Must Match the Type of Problem

-Image Source: Everyday Kanban and A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making by David Snowden, HBR (2007)

42

Collective Impact Consultants

Excellent meta-study published in SSIR, highly recommended by Ashoka Fellow Chris Underhill | link

7 years experience | link

15 years experience, Ashoka Fellow, Case Study by FSG | link

Established thought leaders and conveners | link

10+ years experience, Recommended by Simon Brossard, Hystra, Toilet Board Coalition | link

Education specific | link 43

Consultants: Example Relationship with a Collective Impact Consultancy FAQ with Collective Impact Consultancy (anonymous) May 7, 2018 What to Have in Place to Engage with Consultancy At minimum ● A sense of urgency: if there isn’t a sense of urgency in the community then it’s really hard to get it going well ● A funder to invest in in the initial launch including common agenda development and the operations for the backbone Optional ● 1-2 staff that can form the backbone team (i.e. steering committee), although this consultancy does capacity building to help identify and build that role, and/or serve that role while building capacity for the hand-off. The largest the backbone team might ever get is up to 10 people; ideally this includes a leader at the executive level that can conven other senior leaders [and fundraise] ● Local systems leaders that know how to influence and are effective at collaborating; Ideal to have cross-sectoral representation from from NGO, business, government community, etc.

Timeline ● This consultancy is typically involved anywhere from 8 months to 2 years even though there is no hard and fast statement of “this is when results occur.” Even 3 years is a really aggressive estimate of when early results might occur.

This consultancy is more commonly involved for about 14 months, since that just seems to be the level and the process and the work that they can guide people through. This includes: launching the ffort, engaging stakeholders, identifying a common vision, developing a specific blueprint or understanding to address the problem, chunking into working groups, and looking for the self-sustainability plan. The major overall focus throughout is on capacity building, enabling the entity - typically an NGO - to continue independently.

Budget ● 4-5 people - Senior person, 2 consultants, 40-50k per month Reach ● Part of the process includes looking for the self-sustainability plan 44 ● This consultancy is doing coaching mainly on domestic U.S. engagements, although has done some work in Israel

Consultant: Example Approach

source: Collective Impact in Context

45

Conveners for Collective Impact/Backbone Organizations

link

link

link

46

Recommendations

back to overview

47

Recommendations â—? â—?

Don’t Lead with the Approach, Lead with the Context: The specific context and assets will heavily dictate what type of collaborative effort is sought, and there should be no predetermined pathway. (go to section) Design for Funding Sustainability: A few strategies for sustainability within coordinating collaborative efforts includes staffing at the right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding, as well as creating a hybrid business model for playing a brokering role between corporations and other parts of the sector. (go to section)

48

Recommendation: Lead with Context, Not Approach Many interviewees stressed the importance of understanding the specific context of stakeholders an initiative is trying to engage with, along with what incentives and motivations initiatives might have for collaborating together (pooling resources or influence, exchanging learnings, creating value chain efficiencies, etc.)

Sample questions to ask in order to determine whether a collaborative, ecosystem approach is appropriate include:

“

Learn from templates but avoid ‘standardized’ application...design in favour of applying the principles... tailored to the situation.” - Global Development Institute Source: Global Development Institute

49

Recommendation: Collaboration Dimensions to Consider

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

relationship formality: informal <> formal network approach: one to one relationship <>many to many timeline: short <> long activities: independent <>,shared engaging community members: consulted <>co-creators strategy: predetermined <>emergent problem tackled: simple (scale technical solution) <> complex (design for emergence coordination: centralized <> distributed market based component: includes income generating activities <> shifting market dynamic sustainability model: fundraising staff <> business model

50

Example: How Context Influences Strategy

Source: M. Cabaj 51

Excerpt: Alternatives to Collective Impact/Multistakeholder Initiatives

Source: Global Development Institute

52

Appendix 1: Source of Learning for this Study

back to overview

53

Study Method ●

As an short study, we drew learnings primarily from a growing body of knowledge on collaborative approaches, particularly via comparative case studies which were all published within the last six years; the earliest study was as recent as 2012 and one study noted an uptick of deliberate, multi-stakeholder approaches starting in the 2000s (go to slide). A study 2018 study by ORS Impact and Spark Policy Institute (link) was an especially rich source of specific best practices,and was based on in depth study of 25 initiatives shortlisted from 200 recommendations.

It’s important to note that collaborative approaches are built on a rich history of such approaches and the methodology itself is not new (go to slide) even while the adoption, shared language, and best-practices literature appear to be new. Insights were also drawn from a brief literature review, interviews of expert consultants, and interviews of social entrepreneurs in the Ashoka network.

●

Ashoka network’s experience: While the majority of learnings and cases were drawn from outside of Ashoka’s network, it’s important to note Ashoka’s own experience and bias towards collaborative approaches. Two Ashoka Fellows are noted thought leaders and pioneers in collective impact, Jeff Edmundson and Paul Born, and their work is widely cited in collective impact. Our team also identified more than twenty particularly notable fellows that are also demonstrating collaborative approaches at scale, five Ashoka collaborations through the Danone Ecosystem Fund, and two ongoing initiatives that Ashoka co-founded and have reached the stage of demonstrating impact at scale.

54

Learning Questions for This Study What are collaborative approaches that are able to engage multiple parts of an ecosystem in order to achieve positive systems change at a significantly greater scale than working individually? How, if at all, should our partnership undertake the same?

More detailed learning questions we have include: What are the different types of approaches?

What are the best practices and pitfalls?

What are the major shifts needed to be effective?

What is the evidence that this leads to results at scale that would not have been achieved alone?

With this definition in mind, the qualities we would look for in particular include: i.

Collaboration across multiple actors in an ecosystem ii.

Common problem to tackle iii.

Shared focus on positive systems change/large scale impact

55

Related Terms

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

[The collective impact model] while compelling and currently dominating the contemporary discourse, is not the only possible or possibly valid approach for pursuing cross-sector collaboration -A review of the Literature on Local Cross-Sector Collaboration to Improve Education | Columbia University (2015)

Initiative (underline indicates initiatives with strong literature/momentum) -Alliance -Adaptive Leadership -Coalition -Co-Creation -Collaborative -Collective action -Collective impact -Community revitalization -Comprehensive community initiatives (CCI via prominent foundations and Clinton administration) -Continuous improvement -Cross-Sector Collaboration -Ecosystem of shared value -Market Systems Innovation (via Rockefeller Foundation) -Multi-stakeholder initiative (via Sustainable Development Goals) Open Innovation -Networks -Performance accountability -Shared Value

Central Team Anchor facilitators Backbone Convenors Co-ordinators Facilitators Host Lead Organisations Steering Committee Market systems innovators Orchestrators Secretariats

source: Bridgespan Group p. 17

56

Source of Learning 1: Comparative Studies 1.

25 initiatives - When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018)

2.

case studies of 17 international MSIs - Ownership dynamics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives| Third World Quarterly (2018)

3.

30 funders and implementers - More than the Sum of Its Parts: Making MSIs Work | Global Development Institute (2016)

4.

12 collaborations that had demonstrated needle-moving success, chosen from 80-100 Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives, by Bridgespan Group (case studies here) (2012)

5.

interviews with 70 business and Collective Impact (CI) leaders and the first national survey of CI initiative leaders and business participants, Business Aligning for Students: The Promise of Collective Impact | Harvard Business School (2015)

6.

Putting Collective Impact in Context: A review of the Literature on Local Cross-Sector Collaboration to Improve Education | Columbia University (2015)

7.

Seven market-based systems change examples, selected from 80 - Shaping Inclusive Markets | FSG and Rockefeller Foundation | (2017)

57

Sources of Learning 2: Additional Readings The following list is alphabetized according to organizational affiliation How-Toâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s & Tools Needle-Moving Collective Impact: Three Guides to Creating an Effective Community Collaborative | Bridgespan Group (2012) Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity Evaluation Tool | MSI Integrity (2017) Impact: Six Patterns to Spread Your Social Innovation, By Al Etmanski | Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (2015) How to build a Common Agenda for Collective Impact, By Paul Born | Tamarack Institute (2017) What We Know So Far about the Strategy Continuum, By Mark Cabaj | Tamarack Institute Articles & Reports Case Series on Social & Business Co-Creation | Ashoka (2016) Catalyzing Ecosystem-level Change through Hybrid Value Chains (Unpublished) | Ashoka Power Dynamics in Collective Impact, By Mary Jean Ryan | Collective Impact Forum (2014) Roundtable on Community Engagement and Collective Impact | Collective Impact Forum (2014) Aligning Collective Impact Initiatives, By Merita Irby & Patrick Boyle | Collective Impact Forum (2014) Learning in Action: Evaluating Collective Impact. By Marcie Parkhurst & Hallie Preskill | Collective Impact Forum (2014) Achieving Collective Impact for Opportunity Youth, By Lili Allen, Monique Miles, & Adria Steinberg | Collective Impact Forum (2014) Essential Mindset Shifts for Collective Impact, By John Kania, Fay Hanleybrown, & Jennifer Splansky Juster | Collective Impact Forum (2014) Making Public Policy Collective Impact Friendly, By Thaddeus Ferber & Erin White | Collective Impact Forum (2014) Embracing Emergence: How Collective Impact Addresses Complexity | FSG (2013) Collective Impact, By John Kania & Mark Kramer | FSG (2011) Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work, By Fay Hanleybrown, John Kania, & Mark Kramer | FSG (2012) The Ecosystem of Shared Value, By Mark Kramer & Mark Pfitzer | FSG (2016) Are You Sure You Should Be Launching Another Partnership?, By Darin Kingston, Andrew Stern, & Joanne Ke | Global Development Institute (2016) Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong, By Tom Wolff | Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice (2016) The Role of Grantmakers in Collective Impact, By Lori Bartczak | Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (2014) Cracking the Network Code, By Jane Wei-Skillern | Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (2010) The Four Main types of Business Collaboration, By Oana-Maria Pop | Hype Innovation (2017) Creating large-scale change: Not 'Can' but 'How', By Gregory Dees | McKinsey What Matters (2010) It's About Results at Scale, Not Collective Impact | Stanford, By Jeff Edmondson & Ben Hecht | National Cradle to Career Network (2017) 58 Defining Quality Collective Impact, By Jeff Edmondson & Ben Hecht | National Cradle to Career Network, Living Cities (2014)

Sources of Learning 3: Interviewees ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Chris Underhill (Basic Needs) Giovanna Lauro on behalf of Gary Barker (Promundo) Jessica Graf (Lyfil Consulting; Toilet Board Coalition) John Kania (FSG) Malu Luque (NUUP) Rikin Gandhi (Digital Green) Simon Brossard (Hystra, Toilet Board Coalition) Tristram Stuart (Toast Ale) Vishnu Swaminathan (Ashoka; Housing For All India)

59

Tool Example: Designing Learning for *Complex* Problems

Source: Tamarack Institute 60

Tool Example: Collaboration Spectrum

Source: Tamarack Institute

61

Additional Best Practice Topics ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

Futher variations within collective impact approach The role of emergence, learning & data Best practices for backbone The critical role of leadership and relationships The role of affected community members Engagement of stakeholders prior to finalized plans, from the very beginning Common pitfalls Impact Measurement Shifts The varied role of governance The importance of beginning only once you know what type of problem/context you are working within Prioritization of resources/activities that yield impact Leading Funders (“Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities initiated by the Clinton administration to promote neighborhood revitalization following the Los Angeles riots of 1992 (Rich & Stoker, 2014), the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s multi-site New Futures project, the Hewlett Foundation’s Neighborhood Improvement Initiative in the Bay Area, the Enterprise Foundation’s Community Building in Partnership in Baltimore, and the Surdna Foundation’s Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program in the South Bronx. Another well-documented and studied set of CCIs was the Ford Foundation’s Neighborhood and Family Initiative, which was launched in 1990 and had projects in four cities, Detroit, Memphis, Hartford, and Milwaukee, targeting a low-income neighborhood in each city.” -Collective Impact in Context Etc.

62

Acknowledgements Study Team: Analysis by Reem Rahman; Thought Partnership by Carla Rivero, Dani Matielo, Maria Zapata, Nadine Freeman, Stephanie Schmidt and Valeria Budinich; Thank you to the generous time and insights of interviewees: Chris Underhill (Basic Needs) Giovanna Lauro on behalf of Gary Barker (Promundo), Jessica Graf (Lyfil Consulting; Toilet Board Coalition), John Kania (FSG), Malu Luque (NUUP), Rikin Gandhi (Digital Green), Simon Brossard (Hystra), Tristram Stuart (Toast Ale), Vishnu Swaminathan (Co-Founder of Housing for All) Report made possible via support by the Swiss Development Corporation and Hystra May 2018

back to overview

63