Collective Impact as Disruptive Illumination

10 PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND NEXT STEPS IN COLLECTIVE IMPACT Collective Impact as Disruptive Illumination Tom Klaus and Liz Weaver Introduction Now, more than five years after its introduction, how are we to make sense of Collective Impact within the field of community development? For the authors, this single question has fueled email exchanges, conversations, interviews, and a search of the limited but growing body of literature on CI for more than a year. The discussions have finally come together sufficiently to inform a response to this question. It is not the first, nor should it be the only and final, response. CullenLester and Yammarino (2016), writing about collective and network approaches to leadership, caution “as with any new and emerging area of research, theory is ahead of data” (p. 177). The same can be said of Collective Impact. Three methods were used to explore the question—how are we to make sense of Collective Impact within the field of community development now? The first was a review of the literature on CI with special attention paid to the academic and peer-reviewed literature. Only recently has the topic of CI begun to appear in academic writing and peer-reviewed articles. Community Development, in fact, is one of the first peer-reviewed journals to solicit and feature articles specifically on the topic of Collective Impact (Walzer, Weaver, & McGuire 2016). A simple search for the term “Collective Impact” in the ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Full Text database (the Humanities and Social Sciences Collection on Dec. 26, 2017) provided some indication of interest in the topic in academia. From 2011–2015 there was a steady annual increase in the number of dissertations submitted to ProQuest1 that contained the term “Collective Impact.” In 2011, there were 96 such dissertations and by 2015 that number had reached 188, which appears to have been a peak year. In 2016 the number fell to 155 and in 2017 it 176 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver was at 107. However, not all of these papers used the term “Collective Impact” to refer to the specific collaboration phenomenon, but only as a descriptive term. The second method used to address the question was key informant interviews. Interviews were conducted with nine individuals who were identified and selected because of their deep engagement in the world of CI. While the nine interviews are not, nor are they intended to be, representative of all involved in Collective Impact, they are not insignificant. Each person has closely worked with, researching and studying, or been thinking and writing about CI nearly since its introduction in 2011. Seven of the interviews occurred between July 5, 2016 and Oct. 13, 2016. Each was a semi-structured interview, conducted by phone, using an interview protocol of five main questions. Follow–up questions were generated in the context of the interview in discussions about participant responses to the main questions. Each interview was recorded and the authors also took notes during the interviews. One interview was a follow-up to an earlier interview with another participant. One participant was unable to provide an interview but responded in writing to each of the main questions. Finally, both authors have also been very involved with Collective Impact as early adopters, and as facilitators of community and social change throughout their careers. They employed a dialogue technique, via email, phone, and Skype, to think together and more clearly about what they have learned and experienced with CI, change, and community development. Their dialogue included comparisons and discussion of what they found in the literature search. In addition, the exercise included a review and discussion of each key informant interview. This chapter, in fact, began as an email exchange between the authors which turned into a full-on dialogue over several weeks about the nature of Collective Impact. That dialogue led to the additional inquiry methods described above and the development of this chapter. The following pages examine some of the progress by the authors and others in understanding and using the CI approach. They consider some of the challenges that are before the field of community development, especially regarding the questions that need to be addressed to provide a fuller understanding of the approach. The authors also attempt to identify some next steps, and even new directions, for Collective Impact, especially as they relate to community development and social change. Finally, the term “disruptive illumination” is proposed to offer a new perspective on CI which can be useful to help make sense of it in community development at this moment in time. A Question of Research In the months leading up to the completion of this chapter a conversation surfaced in the Collective Impact Forum questioning the quality of research underlying the CI framework (Wolff 20162; Kania & Kramer 20163). This conversation gave voice to a similar concern the authors heard expressed among academics and CI as Disruptive Illumination 177 researchers from the time of its introduction and earliest widespread adoption. Therefore, to make sense of Collective Impact within the field of community development now, it was important to explore questions about the research undergirding its framework that seem to persist. To this end, it is useful to first understand the context and intention behind Kania and Kramer’s seminal 2011 Collective Impact article. The 2011 article introducing Collective Impact resonated deeply among those working in social change initiatives and it was immediately embraced. One key informant, in an obvious understatement, said its adoption “has been exceeding expectations.” In fact, the terminology and the framework has been embraced and adopted by many different sectors in all parts of the globe at an extraordinary speed. Recently, for example, one of the authors had a student in a doctoral course whose work involved facilitating a CI initiative in a rural area of his native Malawi. The seminal article seemed to speak directly to many practitioners and funders eager for immediate, profound, and long-term social change. Consequently, they quickly adopted the CI five conditions framework. In their eagerness, though, many embraced it as a formula with, it seems, a limited understanding of the framework. However, the 2011 article did not offer a formula, but a theoretical framework based on observations made over nearly a decade of work with a broad scope of FSG clients around the world. It was the first time FSG had attempted to cohesively and publicly describe their observations under the name “Collective Impact.” Kania and Kramer concluded, “our research shows that successful Collective Impact initiatives typically have five conditions that together produce true alignment and lead to powerful results” (2011: p. 39). More recently, John Kania described the framework as the minimum specifications needed for social change, not as a formula. Kania and Kramer elaborated on this point in their Collective Impact Forum posting on May 4, 20164: Unfortunately, some people have interpreted the five conditions of Collective Impact as a recipe or formula that is sufficient to engage in the deep and nuanced work of collaborative change. As we and many others have written since the initial article was published, while the five conditions are important foundational elements of collaborative change, they do not, in and of themselves, provide a complete and comprehensive playbook for achieving collaborative, collective change at scale. Paragraph 5 The insights in the 2011 CI article offered possibilities that were taken as a theory by some and as clear-cut solutions in a formula to others. Perhaps its misidentification as a formula rather than a theory partially explains the remarkable response to Collective Impact in so many fields and sectors. This misidentification may have been an unintended consequence of the language Kania and Kramer used to explain the origins of their framework. From their vantage point, the CI 178 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver framework emerged from what they described as “research” (Kania & Kramer 2011: p. 30). In 2011, the quest for evidence-based formulas and recipes was at a fever pitch, though today the case for “evidence-based” solutions to social problems is being reconsidered (e.g., Klaus 20155; Gopal & Schorr 2016; Schorr 2016). Therefore, simply reading there was “research” behind CI seems to have fueled its unquestioning acceptance as a new evidence-based formula for social change that had been tried and tested. The authors’ experience with a variety of CI implementers and initiatives suggests this interpretation is more accurate than not. Both have observed Collective Impact supporters and implementers fervently argue that it is an evidence-based approach supported by considerable research. The use of the term “research,” in the 2011 article, also caught the attention of academics and researchers. To this audience the use of the term “research” begged additional questions, often related to knowing more about the research methods used to ascertain the validity of the findings. These were among the questions raised by Wolff (2016) in a critique of Collective Impact, first published in the Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice and then reprinted in the Collective Impact Forum. He argued the 2011 CI article, “cites a few successful examples of community coalitions and draws their Collective Impact generalizations from them” (Wolff 2016). He adds that the 2011 article oversimplified the process of community collaboration and is not grounded in the existing literature on collaboration (Wolff 2016). Key informants interviewed for this chapter also raised questions about the number of cases that informed the development of the framework. So, it appears some confusion has been generated by the use of the term “research” in their seminal 2011 article and because of Kania and Kramer’s failing to explain what they meant by it or describing, even briefly, the research process and method. This left the term “research” open to interpretation and exposed the CI framework to criticism by other researchers. Inquiries for this chapter led the authors to conclude there has been a gap in knowledge related to the research on CI and that it is time to fill it, especially since, Collective Impact continues to generate additional scholarly research and scrutiny. As part of the research for this chapter, the authors discussed this gap in knowledge with key CI leaders at FSG. This discussion may have prompted the publication of a blog on the FSG website (FSG 2016, November 296) that attempted to answer questions about the research methods. In addition, the authors received a personal communication (2016, February 3) responding to that discussion and which further addressed the gap in knowledge about the research supporting CI: Kania and Kramer did not ground their work in deep academic research or a formalized research methodology. The framework they developed was derived from a combination of direct experience working with clients, interviews, and research to identify and understand other similar collective CI as Disruptive Illumination 179 efforts, an approach like the action research spiral (Kemmis & McTaggart 2005). Their intent was to offer inspiration and practical guidance to those engaged in funding and leading social change. They assumed that the concept would continue to evolve through practice, and were not proposing a final and comprehensive theoretical framework that met the rigorous standards of academic scholarship. In the exploration to learn more about the research undergirding the collective impact framework, the authors gained two useful insights for understanding collective impact regarding community development. First, the findings were not intended as an evidence-based theoretical framework and formula for creating social change. The “research” referred to in the 2011 collective impact article aligns most closely with action research, which is a valid, intuitive, naturalistic research method, though others may challenge it on the grounds of rigor. Patton (2002) described action research: Action research aims at solving specific problems within a program, organization, or community. Action research explicitly and purposefully becomes part of the change process by engaging the people in the program or organization in studying their own problems to solve those problems. As a result, the distinction between research and action becomes quite blurred and the research methods tend to be less systematic, more informal, and quite specific to the problem, people, and organization for which the research is undertaken. Both formative evaluation and action research focus on specific programs at specific points in time. There is no intention, typically, to generalize beyond those specific settings. p. 221 The 2011 CI article was intended to inspire, guide, and suggest collaborative principles and action, but not provide an evidence-based, rigorously developed theoretical framework or formula for community change. FSG intuitively utilized an approach like action research and began to observe the pattern of collective action emerge, which was renamed to “Collective Impact” prior to the publication of the 2011 article. Despite some criticism, key informants have credited FGS for being particularly adept at such pattern recognition. Second, while some, perhaps even many, in the field of community development have adopted the CI framework it was not developed within or specifically for the field. This is an important distinction to make. Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) describe the family of action research and differentiate its members. One of those is industrial action research which is a consultant driven model frequently used in organizational development that tends to focus on improving organizational effectiveness (Kemmis & McTaggart 2005:p. 562). More common in community development is the use of participatory action research that values shared ownership of research projects with the community, 180 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver community–based analysis of social problems and solutions, and community action (Kemmis & McTaggart 2005:p. 560). The action research behind Collective Impact has more in common with industrial action research than participatory action research. This may explain, in part, the claims by Wolff (2016), Le (20157), and others that neither the CI framework nor its implementers have given as much attention to community participation, and other core principles of community development, as needed. Collective Impact was not developed within or for the community development field. Consequently, it has sometimes been implemented in community change efforts in ways that appear to further marginalize the community it purports to serve. Le (2015), for example, writing on his experience with CI, describes nine ways that this can happen. As community development researchers and practitioners have begun to investigate and even use the CI framework, the critique that Collective Impact has the potential to do more harm than good to communities has been repeatedly raised and it has been heard. As a result, several new directions for CI have emerged which attempt to address the model’s perceived deficits in community participation, shared decision making, and equity. Some of these new directions are briefly described in this chapter. Still, CI has become an integral part of the collaboration and community development world, a fact that is not disputed, even by the most ardent critics of Collective Impact. Already, community development practitioners and researchers have made significant contributions to the framework. As more community development researchers and practitioners extend the original research and work of Kania and Kramer, Collective Impact and community development will likely find more synergies that contribute to a better understanding of both frameworks as well as more effective, long-term community change. The contributors in this book are among those who are marking some noticeable progress in understanding CI through the community development lens. Progress toward Understanding Collective Impact During the past five years, an increasing number of coalitions and collaborative efforts around the world have attempted to utilize the CI framework. Community development researchers have increasingly turned their attention to CI seeking to more deeply understand it. This volume captures some of the most recent efforts. Gillam and Counts studied implementation of Collective Impact in their organization and found that a work culture, in which relationships, curiosity, and accountability are key, is essential to successful deployment of the framework. Somekh and Yehonatan depict the challenges of implementing a CI approach in the culturally different settings of Arab and Jewish communities in Israel. Schwartz, Weaver, Pei, and Kozak described campus–community partnerships attempting to reduce poverty using a CI approach, led by Vibrant Communities, place–based community roundtables throughout Canada. CI as Disruptive Illumination 181 Considered individually and together, the chapters in this volume add to an understanding of Collective Impact and how it contributes to sense-making. This book follows contributions from various authors in Community Development, in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, Christens & Inzeo describes how CI compares to other community-led change initiatives. In 2016, a special CI issue of Community Development was published featuring a variety of authors on a range of topics related to Collective Impact and community development (see Vol. 47, No. 2). In addition to these direct contributions from the Community Development Society’s publications, others have explored CI through the lens of community development. Flood, Minkler, Lavery, Estrada, and Falbe (2015) compared and discussed the use of CI augmented by community coalition action theory for health promotion. Francis Dunn Butterfoss who, along with Michelle Kegler, is a developer of community coalition action theory, has also considered ways to integrate Collective Impact into coalition work (Butterfoss 2013). The Community Tool Box8, an online resource for community development practitioners, created and managed by the Work Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas, has a section on Collective Impact and its use in community development settings contributed by Splansky Juster of FSG. Wolff, et al. (2017) introduced six principles for collaborating for equity and justice that are intended to move groups beyond the core ideas of CI. These principles resulted in the development of the Collaborating for Equity and Justice Toolkit also found in the Community Tool Box. Several key informants remarked about the progress made in understanding CollectiveImpact in the previous five years. For example, it was recognized that CI offered a frame for a process already known under other names, yet which made the work of community development and social change more accessible to others: I didn’t learn about Collective Impact from FSG necessarily . . . but I appreciated what it offered the field, particularly in the early days. The way it has been framed has opened a lot more people to come into this field. But I also find . . . the practice is limited by that framing, which is very accessible and tight, but does not really capture some of the other core pieces of the work. In addition, the framing of Collective Impact, though it may not be wellunderstood by practitioners, has still resulted in progress in addressing important problems. One key informant described CI as being most effective when it pushes people to adopt a results orientation in the work of community change. “Collective Impact gives people language they need to feel comfortable with in the hard work of results-driven work.” While the enthusiasm for CI and its potential has been largely unbridled, increased understanding has also exposed some shortcomings. Vu Le (2015) indicated he has gained a greater understanding of how Collective Impact has 182 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver affected communities of color, though much of what he has come to understand has not been encouraging. Another key informant acknowledges CI has “succeeded enormously in bringing coalition building back to the forefront” yet feels it did this in a way that has been damaging to communities. “It has come across as glib, as easy, as top down.” In 2014, during the Tamarack Institute’s Collective Impact Summit, Cabaj introduced the perspective of Collective Impact 3.0 (CI 3.0) as a useful lens through which to view and understand CI. Two years later, Cabaj and Weaver (2016) published a refined and expanded version of Collective Impact 3.0. Though only briefly described here, a fuller and updated explanation of Collective Impact 3.0 is found in Cabaj and Weaver’s article in this volume. They suggest that CI has moved through two previous stages. Collective Impact 1.0 refers to a time before the introduction of the term and framework in 2011. This period could arguably extend back several decades in coalition, collaboration, and community development work and research. It was a period of discovery, experimentation and prototyping in which diverse groups used elements of the Collective Impact framework without the language offered by the five conditions. Collective Impact 2.0 includes the five years since the introduction of the framework. During that time, many coalition and collaborative efforts either adopted the Collective Impact framework from the outset or rebranded existing efforts with the term. Both critics and proponents, including those interviewed, recognize that not all efforts bearing the name of “Collective Impact” really fit the framework. One key informant observed that in Collective Impact 2.0, “some folks do not understand the distinctions around Collective Impact and really use the term in a very loose way and that’s not particularly helpful.” This is true whether they have been newly-formed around the framework or whether existing initiatives have been “retrofitted” with the name. During this period, practitioners and researchers, including FSG, attempted to study and more clearly grasp the strengths and deficits of the framework as well as to learn more fully “how to do” CI. These efforts may have played a significant role in the rise of the next and current generation of CI initiatives, Collective Impact 3.0. Currently, practitioners, researchers, proponents, and critics are trying to apply the lessons learned from the previous period to “deepen, broaden and adapt CI based on yet another generation of initiatives” (Cabaj & Weaver 2016: p. 3). These lessons also define some of the challenges that lie ahead. Challenges of Collective Impact in Community Development The latter part of the 2.0 period brought several critiques of the process regarding equity, inclusivity, and community engagement (e.g., Klaus 20139; Le 2015; McAfee, Glover Blackwell, & Bell 2015; Raderstrong & Boyea-Robinson 2016; CI as Disruptive Illumination 183 Wolff 2016). Each area of critique continues to offer a prominent challenge. They were highlighted again in the key informant interviews in this chapter. One observed that the original Collective Impact framework failed to put sufficient focus on equity and the role of community voice. Another identified the need to include authentic community engagement in the work of CI The Oxford English Dictionary (2016) defines “equity” as “the quality of being fair and impartial.” It is sometimes linked to “inclusivity” by those speaking or writing about Collective Impact. McAfee, Glover Blackwell, and Bell define equity as the “just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential” (2015:p. 1). The current authors see equity and inclusivity as two complementary, yet distinct, ideas and prefer to keep them separate in these discussions. In this context, “equity” is seen as valuing fair and impartial access to participation in the process. As such, equity refers to an ethic held by those leading a CI initiative rather than an action. “Inclusivity” is seen as a focused, intentional action to facilitate the fair and impartial participation of those who might otherwise be excluded; especially those most affected by the issue being addressed in the initiative (see “inclusivity,” Oxford English Dictionary 2016). The authors’ experience in the field has been that equity, as an ethic or value, does not necessarily lead to the action of inclusivity. For example, a recent study of teen pregnancy prevention community initiatives showed that the value of equity alone in community coalitions was not sufficient to result in the act of including those most affected by the issue (Klaus & Saunders 2016). However, the act of inclusivity can lead to the development of the value of equity. Further, it is argued that inclusivity is a requirement of genuine equity. Community engagement, when it occurs at all levels and sectors of the community, is viewed as the tactical driver of inclusivity. It is through community engagement that inclusivity and equity can be realized in a Collective Impact initiative. This is not, however, “trickle down community engagement” which is when “we bypass the people who are most affected by issues, engage and fund larger organizations to tackle these issues, and hope that miraculously the people most affected will help out in the effort, usually for free” (Le 2015). Unless the individuals and groups in the community most directly affected by the issue being addressed are first engaged, and engaged first in an authentic relational manner, their eventual participation risks being mere manipulation, decoration, or tokenism (Shier 2001). Challenges related to equity, inclusivity, and community engagement are all areas in which community development practitioners and researchers can contribute. At the most basic level, the Community Development Society offers five core Principles of Good Practice (Community Development Society 201610): • Promote active and representative participation toward enabling all community members to meaningfully influence the decisions that affect their lives. 184 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver • • • • Engage community members in learning about and understanding community issues, and the economic, social, environmental, political, psychological, and other impacts associated with alternative courses of action. Incorporate the diverse interests and cultures of the community in the community development process; and disengage from support of any effort that is likely to adversely affect the disadvantaged members of a community. Work actively to enhance the leadership capacity of community members, leaders, and groups within the community. Be open to using the full range of action strategies to work toward the longterm sustainability and well-being of the community. Each area—equity, inclusivity, and community engagement—is explicitly or implicitly cited as essential elements of these core principles of practice. Minimally, the use of the Collective Impact framework in community change efforts should be informed by and animate these principles. There has been a growing chorus of voices for Collective Impact to be placed more squarely in the broader tradition of community change and development. Thus, an opening exists for community development practitioners and researchers to contribute to an expanded understanding of the CI framework. Possible research and practice questions suggested by key informants included: • • • • • • • • • • • How do we effectively integrate both the “grass tops” and the “grassroots” in a Collective Impact initiative in a meaningful way that is mindful of the power dynamics at play? What is it going to take to get those most affected by an issue involved in a Collective Impact effort to address it? How do you help those most affected by an issue learn, understand, and utilize the data in decision making for change? How do we do CI in a rural or a tribal context? How do we do CI with immigrant communities? What is the role of a coalition in CI? How do we grow a Collective Impact initiative out of a coalition—rather than tack one on after the initiative has already begun its work? What does it take for people with formal authority in CI initiatives to adopt a servant leadership style? Which inclusive and democratic governance models fit well with CI? How can these inclusive and democratic governance models be made to work effectively in a Collective Impact initiative? How can business and government be more deeply engaged without marginalizing, while ensuring meaningful participation, those individuals and groups most directly affected by the issue? The swift and widespread uptake of the CI framework as well as the emergent concern for the place of equity, inclusivity, and community engagement creates a CI as Disruptive Illumination 185 unique space and opportunity for the role of community development. It is not useful to wholly and uncritically adopt the Collective Impact five conditions without infusing the insights, principles, and practices of community development. Neither, though, is it wise to ignore the CI framework given its widespread use by diverse social change efforts. The overall challenge is to animate the principles of community development in CI initiatives even as the CI framework informs and strengthens development efforts. New Directions for Collective Impact within Community Development Each key informant was asked: How does Collective Impact need to evolve over the next five to ten years to remain vital and relevant to social change, especially on the community level? While equity, inclusivity and community engagement were highlighted by several along with suggested new directions for CI, there was a diversity of responses. These included the need to: broaden ownership of CI beyond the originators (FSG); continue deepening, building, and sharing practice; reconsider and possibly upgrade the five conditions of CI; increase the evidence base for CI and its five conditions; understand how funders can effectively play a backbone role that is not distorted because of their role as funders; address the misunderstanding and misapplication of Collective Impact; improve evaluation at the system and population levels; make CI more about its practice rather than its language; and demonstrate it works by consistently generating measurable results that show a correlational, if not causal, relationship to CI. The research for this chapter identified three recent and new directions for CI as it relates to community development: Collective Impact Principles of Practice (Brady & Splansky Juster 2016); the Tenacious Change Approach (Klaus & Saunders 2016); and Collective Impact 3.0 (Cabaj & Weaver 2016). Each builds upon, extends, and illuminates aspects of the original five conditions of Collective Impact but also recognizes that the original five conditions alone are not sufficient for the future. Furthermore, each acknowledges that CI has had an immense and, likely, lasting effect on the field of community development. The widespread adoption of the term and implementation of the framework, even without complete fidelity to that framework, has sufficiently changed the landscape for practitioners, researchers, funders, and communities as to become a permanent part of the scenery. Each of these new directions focuses on looking ahead to improving the theory and practice of Collective Impact. Collective Impact Principles of Practice (Brady & Splansky Juster 2016) The eight Collective Impact Principles of Practice outlined in Brady & Splansky Juster (2016) are solidly anchored in, and are to be implemented within, the 186 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver original five conditions framework described in the 2011 CI paper. The principles emerged from observations of practitioners in the field, many of whom participate in the Collective Impact Forum. The Collective Impact Principles of Practice were created from a growing recognition by FSG and partners “that while the five conditions Kania and Kramer initially identified are necessary, they are not sufficient to achieve impact at the population level” (Brady & Splansky Juster 2016: p. 1). The eight principles are: • • • • • • • • Design and implement the initiative with a priority placed on equity. Include community members in the collaborative. Recruit and co-create with cross sector partners. Use data to continuously learn, adapt, and improve. Cultivate leaders with unique system leadership skills. Focus on program and system strategies. Build a culture that fosters relationships, trust, and respect across participants. Customize for local context. It should be apparent, even from these eight short headings, that the Collective Impact Principles of Practice (CI PoP) attempt to address gaps in the original approach and its implementation. The focus on equity (1), inclusion of community members (2), collaborative leadership cultivation (5), establishing trusting and respectful relationships (6), and local customization (8) should be especially welcome improvements to those with experience and expertise in community development. As early adopters of the Collective Impact framework, the authors understood these CI PoP were implicit in the framework from the outset. However, they observed the phenomenon of widespread adoption, even institutionalization, of the original five conditions framework but without the more nuanced awareness and understanding of these principles by many implementers. This situation contributed to the insight offered by one key informant: “In the U.S. there is as much misapplication of the language, misrepresentation of the work as there is actual Collective Impact work going on.” The CI PoP make explicit what was implicit in the original framework. Those devoted and committed to the original five conditions will find this new direction especially appealing. It will allow them to remain fully faithful to the CI framework while engaging in the work of CI in a way that is more consistent with the Principles of Good Practice in community development (Community Development Society 2016). The Collective Impact Principles of Practice can also be viewed as a governance tool that guides a group into integrating the Five Conditions into the actual work of doing collective impact. The danger of the Collective Impact Principles of Practice is that they will be treated as a checklist, in much the same way that the five conditions have been treated as a formula (Klaus 201611). Nonetheless, these eight principles are a welcome addition to the evolutionary process of CI0. CI as Disruptive Illumination 187 Tenacious Change Approach (Klaus & Saunders, 2016) Like the Collective Impact Principles of Practice, the Tenacious Change Approach (TCA), remains faithful to the original five conditions of CI. Unlike the Collective Impact Principles of Practice, TCA situates and animates the five conditions within an overall community development approach. TCA operationalizes Klaus and Saunders’ Roots to Fruit of Sustainable Community Change (R2F) research-based model. R2F is grounded in the hypothesis that community engagement guided by a high-performing infrastructure leads to sustainable community change which progresses through a measurable sequence. In TCA and R2F, the “roots” refer to the establishment of a high-performing infrastructure that emphasizes community readiness, community participation, collaborative change leadership (via CI or another collaboration framework which animates the five conditions of Collective Impact), and continuous learning and improvement of the infrastructure. The “fruit” refers to community change that occurs as the infrastructure engages in the change work of community engagement and mobilization to action. Change occurs in four stages of community transition. It progresses through awareness raising and education via community engagement to legitimization of the change initiative and its leadership. This leads to broad transformation within the community by leveraging increasing community support to enlist late adopters. Normalization occurs as the changes are adopted and become part of the fabric of the community. The stages of community transition can be monitored and measured using the Tenacious Change Assessment and Monitoring tool (TCAM) developed and tested by Klaus and Saunders (2016). The Tenacious Change Approach focuses on developing leadership and group competencies and capacity needed to establish the “roots” infrastructure and implement the tasks related to producing the “fruit” of community change. TCA and R2F integrates the CI framework (Kania & Kramer 2011; Hanleybrown, Kania & Kramer 2012; Turner, Merchant, Kania, & Martin 2012) with several other salient models and ideas. These approaches include: a psychosocial model of community readiness (Chilenski, Geenberg, & Feinberg 2007); inclusive approaches to decision-making and governance (Buck & Villines 2007; Guo & Saxton 2010); complexity theory (Begun, Zimmerman, & Dooley 2003); diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers 2003); and Klaus and Saunders’ (2016) original description of the stages of community transition. The Tenacious Change Approach will appeal to those devoted and committed to a community development approach yet embrace the original Collective Impact five conditions. Because TCA prioritizes community participation early in the process of community change, it may take longer for a community initiative to build infrastructure and momentum toward change. The developers claim, however, that time invested early in creating community participation is wellspent. By establishing solid community participation, it can take less time to move through the stages of community transition and can create longer lasting support (sustainability) for the initiative (Klaus & Saunders 2016). 188 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver Collective Impact 3.0 (Cabaj & Weaver 2016) The Collective Impact 3.0 framework is based in the original five conditions of Collective Impact, but offers a reframe “of the basic ideas and practices due to the limitations of the original framework, the insights of other frameworks, our own experience, and FSG’s own work” (Cabaj & Weaver 2016: p. 3). Likening the original CI five conditions framework to a computer “operating system,” they claim it is time for an upgrade—to Collective Impact 3.0. The upgrade proposed starts with a paradigm shift, from seeing CI as a managerial paradigm to a movement–building paradigm. They acknowledge that the management approach can generate results but “in a movement-building approach, by contrast, the emphasis is on reforming (even transforming) systems where improvements alone will not make a difference” (Cabaj & Weaver 2016: p. 4). They propose: • • • • • Upgrading continuous communication to include authentic community engagement. Authentic community engagement means “to put community at the centre of the change process (Cabaj & Weaver 2016: p. 5). Upgrading common agenda to include shared aspiration. Shared aspiration is more than a common agenda, “it requires would be collaborators to find (or create) common ground despite their very different styles, interests, and positions” (Cabaj & Weaver 2016: p. 6). Upgrading shared measurement to include strategic learning. This upgrade is based on the insight “that CI participants have more success with shared measurements if they treat them as one part of a larger system of learning and evaluation” (Cabaj & Weaver 2016: p. 7). Upgrading mutually reinforcing activities to include a focus on high-leverage and loose/tight working relationships. The upgrade would mean that participants in a CI initiative would have permission to work as closely or loosely as required by the community context allowing them to focus more on strategies that have greater leverage to facilitate change. Upgrading backbone support to include a container for change. The authors argue that Collective Impact 3.0 will require a “strong container,” rather than a backbone, “for change that support participants to dig deep when tackling stubborn social challenges” (Cabaj & Weaver 2016: p. 11). Collective Impact 3.0 will appeal to those who have come to feel the original CI five conditions, in both their framing and operationalization, are inadequate for the future and need a major overhaul. Collective Impact 3.0 significantly extends the original CI framework intact. Like the Collective Impact Principles of Practice and Tenacious Change Approach, it is an effort to bring the lessons learned from Collective Impact 2.0 forward and to more explicitly prioritize equity, inclusivity, and community engagement. The choice of these new directions for any community development effort is dependent upon many factors. Community context is always key, as is the CI as Disruptive Illumination 189 implementer’s knowledge and understanding of the framework relative to the context. The implementer’s familiarity and comfort with the ideology of the framework is also a factor. The capacity and skill to operationalize any of the frameworks is important as well. Finally, the parameters set by resources and funders’ interests will further inform the choice. Regardless of which new direction is chosen, each represents important progress toward the alignment of the Collective Impact framework with the Principles of Good Practice in community development. A New View: Collective Impact as Disruptive Illumination It is time to return to the question that opened this chapter: How are we to now make sense of Collective Impact within the field of community development? The authors’ effort to answer this question began in an email debate about whether CI is a disruptive innovation or business-as-usual. Those discussions triggered an exploration that included deeper conversation about experiences with CI, an examination of the scarce but growing body of literature, and interviews with key informants closely tied to Collective Impact. The theory of disruptive innovation in the business world was introduced by Bower and Christensen (1995). Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles, and Sadtler (2006) later applied the theory to social change. They argued that social-sector problems, such as infant mortality, life expectancy, and mathematical literacy among students, were not effectively addressed in the United States because of “misdirected investment” when “too much of the money available to address social needs is used to maintain the status quo, because it is given to organizations that are wedded to their current solutions, delivery models, and recipients” (Christensen et al. 2006: p. 93). Though they may do well at serving the needs of a well-defined constituency, they will not likely reach larger and broader populations that are in need. This is true even when the needs of that broader population could be effectively satisfied with “simpler offerings” (Christensen, et al. 2006: p. 96), if those were available. What is needed, they proposed, are disruptive innovations focused on social change at a national scale. Disruptive innovations, in this case, would be those initiatives that offered simpler, “good enough solutions to inadequately addressed social problems” that exceeded the status quo (Christensen et al. 2006: p. 96). Alternatively, “business as usual” refers to the maintenance of the status quo which is continuing to address social problems by analyzing current constituents’ and stakeholders’ needs with the services and products that are typically used (Christensen et al. 2006). Organizations attempting social change doing “business as usual” are those that try to do so using current methods, models, and solutions. For example, Collective Impact might be seen by some as an attempt to provide new, simpler, “good enough” solutions that affect broader social change, even as it changes the field of community development, while others may see it as just a group of well-known and widely-used strategies, models, and solutions under a new name. 190 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver The current authors put this question to the key informants interviewed: Is Collective Impact a disruptive innovation or business as usual? Here are some of their responses: • • • • • “It is meant to be a disrupter and transcend business as usual. That said, it can often be misapplied to reinforce status quo.” It may be “evolution more than a revolution” from other forms of community change. “I think it is both. I think it is ending up as business as usual.” “I think it is a disruptive innovation but I think the problem is that sometimes people think it has to be new to be innovative . . . The main difference about Collective Impact. . .is the emphasis on holding a cross–sector group of leaders accountable to a set of results in a way that they are collaborating collectively.” “If it isn’t results oriented, it is business as usual . . . It is a disruptive innovation to the point that it challenges people to face how their intervention, their work, connects to a result.” Clearly, there was no consensus among the group of interview participants on the question: Is Collective Impact a disruptive innovation or business as usual? However, one response did resonate with the authors findings: I don’t think it is either. Clearly it is not business as usual. This structured approach to collaboration does not happen naturally. At the same time, I’m not sure it is a disruptive innovation because it was already happening in some places and it builds on decades of previous experience in community work. I say it is neither. If it is neither, what, then, is it? Conclusion It is a “disruptive illumination” that has grabbed attention like a beacon and focused it anew on the quest to more clearly understand and practice effective social change and community development. Collective Impact has triggered more thorough examinations of assumptions that have guided community change efforts. This examination has generated blogs, dissertations, popular articles, research, and peer reviewed articles, such as those in this volume. The examination has affirmed, for some, the validity of their assumptions and the knowledge and experience that undergird them. For others, it has triggered deeper questioning and renewed efforts to improve current social change practice. Some practitioners have concluded, upon closer examination, that the framing and implementation of Collective Impact should be rejected as business as usual. Those working in social change and community development have been compelled CI as Disruptive Illumination 191 to join the examination and conversation because CI has become so widespread as to be inescapable. It is, therefore, clear that Collective Impact has changed the conversation about social change and community development. Will it ultimately change and improve practice? That is yet another question which will be better answered in the future. Notes 1 Accessed December 26, 2017 at www.proquest.com 2 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://collectiveimpactforum.org/blogs/100061/tenplaces-where-collective-impact-gets-it-wrong 3 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://collectiveimpactforum.org/blogs/51306/ advancing-practice-collective-impact 4 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://collectiveimpactforum.org/blogs/51306/ advancing-practice-collective-impact 5 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://nonprofitgp.com/2015/02/24/beyond-thecomfort-of-what-we-think-we-know 6 Accessed December 31, 2017 at www.fsg.org/blog/developing-collective-impactframework 7 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://collectiveimpactforum.org/blogs/77371/whycommunities-color-are-getting-frustrated-collective-impact 8 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://ctb.ku.edu/en 9 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://nonprofitgp.com/2013/04/04/when-collectiveimpact-isnt-part-2-2 10 Accessed December 31, 2017 at www.comm-dev.org/latest/item/86-principles-ofgood-practice 11 Accessed December 31, 2017 at http://nonprofitgp.com/2016/05/09/how-is-yourcollaborative-posture References Begun, J. W., Zimmerman, B. J., & Dooley, K. (2003) Health care organizations as complex adaptive systems. In S. S. Mick & M. E. Wyttenbach (Eds.), Advances in health care organization theory, 253–288. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Born, P., Harwood, R., Savner, S., Stewart, S., & Zanghi, M. (2014, Fall) Roundtable on community engagement and collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [Online] 12–14. Available from: www.ssireview.org Bower, J. L. & Christensen, C. M. (1995) Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73 (1), 43–53. Brady, S. & Splansky Juster, J. (2016) Collective impact principles of practice. [Online] Available from-http://collectiveimpactforum.org/resources/collective-impact-principlespractice [Accessed September 21, 2016]. Buck, J., & Villines, S. (2007) We the people: Consenting to a deeper democracy. Washington, Sociocracy.info. Butterfoss, F. D. (2013) Ignite: Getting your community coalition “fired up” for change. Bloomington, AuthorHouse. Cabaj, M. & Weaver, L. (2016) Collective impact 3.0: An evolving framework for community change. Tamarack Institute. Community Change Series 2016. Chilenski, S. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Feinberg, M.E. (2007) Community readiness as a multidimensional construct. Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3), 347–365. 192 Tom Klaus & Liz Weaver Christens, B. D. & Inzeo, P. T. (2015) Widening the view: Situating collective impact among frameworks for community-led change. Community Development, 46 (4), 420–435. Available from: doi: 10.1080/15575330.2015.1061680 Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006) Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 93–101. Community Development Society. (2016) Principles of good practice. [Online] Available from www.comm-dev.org. [Accessed September 19, 2016]. Cullen-Lester, K. L. & Yammarino, F. J. (2016) Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction. Leadership Quarterly. [Online] 27 (2), 173–180. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.001 Flood, J., Minkler, M., Lavery, S. H., Estrada, J., & Falbe, J. (2015) The collective impact model and its potential for health promotion: Overview and case study of a healthy retail initiative in San Francisco. Health, Education, & Behavior. [Online] 42 (5), 654–668. Available from: doi: 10.1177/1090198115577372 FSG (2016, November 29) Developing the collective impact framework. [Online] Available from: www.fsg.org Gopal, S. & Schorr, L. B. (2016, June 2) Getting “Moneyball” right in the social sector. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [Online]. Available from: www.ssir.org Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010) Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1 (1). Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J. V., & Kramer, M. R. (2012) Channeling change: Making collective impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [Online] 1–8. Available from: www.ssireview.org Kania, J. V., & Kramer, M. R. (2011) Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [Online] 36–41. Available from: www.ssireview.org Kania, J. V. & Kramer, M. (2016, May 4) Advancing the practice of collective impact. [Online] Available from: www.collectiveimpactforum.org Kania, J. V., Hanleybrown, F., & Splansky Juster, J. (2014, Fall) Essential mindset shifts for collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [Online] 2–5. Available from: www. ssireview.org Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005) Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Klaus, T. (2013, April 4) When collective impact isn’t (part 2). [Online] Available from: www.nonprofitgp.com Klaus, T. (2015, February 25) Beyond the comfort of what we think we know. [Online] Available from: www.nonprofitgp.com Klaus, T. (2016, July 15) How’s your collaborative posture? [Online] Available from: www.collectiveimpactforum.org Klaus, T. W. & Saunders, E. (2016) Using collective impact in support of communitywide teen pregnancy prevention initiatives. Community Development, [Online] 47 (2), 241–258. Available from: doi: 10.1080/15575330.2015.1131172 Le, Vu. (2015, December 1) Why communities of color are getting frustrated with collective impact. [Online] Available from: www.collectiveimpactforum.org McAfee, M., Glover Blackwell, A., & Bell, J. (2015) Equity: The soul of collective impact. PolicyLink. Oxford Living Dictionaries. (2016) [Online] Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries. com/definition/equity [Accessed September 20, 2016]. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. CI as Disruptive Illumination 193 Pyrczak, F. (2013) Evaluating research in academic journals: A practical guide to realistic evaluation (6th ed.). Glendale, Pyrczak Publishing. Raderstrong, J. & Boyea-Robinson, T. (2016) The why and how of working with communities through collective impact. Community Development, 42 (2), 181–193. Available from: doi: 10.1080/15575330.2015.1130072 Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, The Free Press. Schorr, L. B. (2016, January 8) Reconsidering evidence: What it means and how we use it. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [Online] Available from www.ssir.org Shier, H. (2001) Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities, and obligations. Children & Society, 15, 107–117. Available from: doi: 10.1002/CHI.617 Turner, S., Merchant, K., Kania, J., & Martin, E. (2012) Understanding the value of backbone organizations in collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [Online] 1–12. Available from: www.ssireview.org Walzer, N., Weaver, L., & McGuire, C. (eds). (2016, May) Special issue: Collective impact. Community Development, 47 (2), London, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Wolff, T. (2016, May 4) Ten places where collective impact gets it wrong. Available from: www.collectiveimpactforum Wolff, T., Minkler, M., Wolfe, S. M., Berkowitz, B., Bowen, L., Christens, B. D. Butterfoss, F. D. (2017, January 9) Collaborating for equity and justice: Moving beyond collective impact. Nonprofit Quarterly. Available from: https://nonprofitquarterly.org