10 Places Where Collective Impact COLLABORATION/COLLECTIVE IMPACT Gets It Wrong by Tom Wolff While the collective impact framework has brought renewed interest and attention to collaboration and coalition building, it is also overly reductive and it promotes top-down decision making over grassroots voice, among other shortcomings. It’s time to challenge the collective impact juggernaut and bring communities what they need and deserve.Editors’ note: This article is reprinted with permission. It was first published in March 2016 by the Global Journal ofCommunity Psychology Practice (www.gjcpp.org/en/), and was published on NPQ’s website as a Voices from the Field articleIon April 28, 2016. It has been lightly adapted for publication in this magazine.n 2011, John Kania and Mark Kramer examples of community-wide coalitions that collective impact is based on only apublished a five-page article called that moved beyond isolated impact few case studies that the authors them-“Collective Impact” in the Stanford but were not explicitly labeled “collec- selves were not involved in creating and implementing but rather observed afterSocial Innovation Review.”1 The tive impact.”2 (For one example, seearticle was a well-written summary of the exhaustive survey of literature on their development. The articles includetheir views of large-scale social change healthy communities by Tyler Norris.3) neither research nor reference to learningefforts in communities. They suggested That short publication, extensive from all the previous research, studies,five conditions of collective impact: marketing by Kania and Kramer’s con- and community experiences in the field.1. Common agenda; sulting firm FSG, and a few follow-up Observing successful coalitions provides2. Shared measurement; articles have resulted in a remarkable the observer with one basis for learning3. Mutually reinforcing activities; revolution in government and founda- about community coalitions, but being4. Continuous communication; and tion approaches to community coali- involved in successfully—or unsuccess-5. Backbone support. tion building and collaboration.4 Many fully—developing coalitions provides aIn the original article and others of these funding organizations are now deeper and more nuanced understand-that followed, Kania and Kramer were declaring that they are using a collective ing of coalitions that apparently was notexplicitly and implicitly critical of much impact approach. available to Kania and Kramer. Thus,of what came before them. In one chart, The upside of this is that attention not surprisingly, collective impact getsthey compare isolated impact with col- has once again been brought to the need much about collaboration wrong regard-lective impact as if those were the only to promote multisector collaboration in ing both the goals and processes of com-two options, omitting the numerous communities. The downside of this is munity change collaboration.S U M M E R 2 016 • W W W. N P Q M A G . O R G T H E N O N P R O F I T Q U A R T E R LY 49
COLLABORATION/COLLECTIVE IMPACT In light of the uncritical, widespread not meet the needs of the people most people in the community at the table— adoption and funding of collective affected by them, and treat people dis- the mayor, the police chief, and the impact by government agencies and respectfully in their community change school superintendent.7 As the ommu- foundations, it is necessary to examine process. nity context of the substance abuse issue and assess collective impact much became clearer, we began to see that we more critically and thoughtfully. In this Without engaging those most directly needed all sectors of the community and article, I articulate ten important issues affected, collective impact can develop the youth themselves at the table. At that and concerns that collective impact fails neither an adequate understanding of the point, the coalitions began to evolve and to adequately acknowledge, understand, root causes of the issues nor an appropri- become more effective. Unfortunately, and address. These failings have serious ate vision for a transformed community. collective impact seems stuck in the old, consequences for the engaged com- Instead, the process will likely reinforce less effective model, with CEO leader- munities. I welcome the community of the dominance of those with privilege ship central to the process. activists and scholars who are engaged and continue to support the existing non- in coalitions, partnerships, and collabora- profit organizations whose work does 3. Collective impact does not include tives to react, disagree, and/or add to the not create change based on meaningful policy change and systems change as list of concerns. community input and involvement. essential and intentional outcomes of the partnership’s work. 1. Collective impact does not address the 2. Collective impact emerges from Many coalitions in the United States are essential requirement for meaningfully top-down business-consulting focused on creating public health out- engaging those in the community most experience and is thus not a true comes (prevention of substance abuse, affected by the issues. community-development model. obesity, opioid addiction, health dis- Collective impact does not set a prior- The model of collective impact is mainly parities, etc.). In recent years, led by the ity of engaging those most affected by about engaging the most powerful orga- Centers for Disease Control and Preven- the issues in their collaborative impact nizations and partners in a community tion (CDC), these coalitions have moved processes. The grassroots communi- and getting them to agree on a common in the direction of policy and systems ties most affected are not necessarily agenda. They explicitly state that collec- change as their most powerful and consulted or do not meaningfully share tive impact is about bringing “CEO-level desired outcomes.8 Certainly, in public in collective impact decision making. cross-sector leaders together.”6 In reality, health coalitions (which comprise many The result is to ignore and denigrate what community coalitions need to do of the coalitions in the United States), critical community knowledge, owner- is engage both the most powerful and following the CDC’s lead and addressing ship, and support for sustainability. This least powerful people in a community, policy change and systems change has can further result in creating solutions finding ways for them to talk and work become the gold standard of outcomes. that may not be appropriate or compat- together to address the community’s pri- Systems change is now recognized as a ible with the population being served. orities for action and the impediments to key priority and best practice in com- This is not surprising, because Kania change in institutions and organizations munity change partnerships, so this is a and Kramer come from a top-down serving the community. This is the heart serious omission in collective impact. business-consulting model. Collec- and soul of community-development tive impact never explicitly states that coalition work and seems absent in col- If we are not changing policies in order you need to engage the people most lective impact. to change systems, we are continuing to affected by the issue(s) driving the coali- do fragmented, isolated work. For years, tion. Unfortunately, collective impact’s Coalitions across the country have community coalitions addressed specific, approach is not unusual; in general, col- years of experience in bringing a wide focused issues without asking about the laboration processes used by coalitions range of community stakeholders to ecological and historical factors that of all kinds do not meaningfully involve the table, not just the most powerful. impact the outcomes. Smoking cessation grassroots community members or Often, this was not the case. Early in the coalitions taught us all this lesson dra- other stakeholders directly affected by history of substance abuse prevention matically as they went beyond smoking their work.5 This is a serious omission. work, partnerships made the top-down prevention education for young people Coalitions without grassroots voices are mistake. At the start (in 1989), the Robert to a focus on implementing antismoking very likely to create solutions that do Wood Johnson Foundation’s Fighting policies in systems across the commu- Back substance abuse prevention coali- nity—restaurants, schools, worksites, tions required having the most powerful 50 T H E N O N P R O F I T Q U A R T E R LY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG • SUMMER 2016
public buildings. And it worked! Now, 5. Collective impact, as described in COLLABORATION/COLLECTIVE IMPACTwe better understand that policies are at John Kania and Mark Kramer’s initialthe heart of the work of community coali- article, is not based on professional andtions. But where is the policy and system practitioner literature or the experiencechange in collective impact? of the thousands of coalitions that pre- ceded their 2011 article. 4. Collective impact misses the social When dealing with an issue as complexjustice core that exists in many as collective actions taken by the mul-coalitions. tiple sectors of a community, we needIncreasingly, coalitions are applying to be continually learning from thoseroot-cause analyses to understanding who came before us and from the com-their community issues. As they do this munities themselves. When I first beganand understand the concept and ramifi- working with coalitions almost fortycations of social determinants of health, years ago, even then I found valuablecritical social justice issues—such as resources from a wide range of fields,income inequality, systemic and struc- including community psychology, civictural racism, sexism, and homophobia— engagement, racial justice, public health,become clear and urgent. Collaborative political science, and organizationalefforts then must mobilize to address development, among others. Since then,these issues, which can be difficult to do the literature, experience, and tools forin top-down collaboratives; those with coalition building have grown exponen-the most power and privilege dominate tially and are used extensively by coali-and control top-down coalitions and often tions in a wide variety of circumstances.have an interest in maintaining their privi-lege and the status quo. Collective impact Here is a small sample of compre-is a great tool for those who already have hensive community-wide collaborationpower, but it is less suitable and more resources that are not cited (or maybechallenging for those with relatively little even known) by Kania and Kramer:power who are working to improve thelives of people and their communities. • Among the most acclaimed and used is Fran Butterfoss’s comprehensive For example, alternative partner- Coalitions and Partnerships in Com-ship models, such as the REACH (Racial munity Health, which articulates herand Ethnic Approaches to Community and Michelle Kegler’s CommunityHealth) coalition funded by the CDC, are Coalition Action Theory (CCAT).10aimed at addressing systemic racism andcreate systems-level change. The REACH • Other authors’ significant scholarlycoalitions that emerged from the Public writing about partnerships in publicHealth Commission were all required health include the previously men-to do root-cause analyses of their com- tioned Kegler, Meredith Minkler, andmunity’s issues.9 This led to understand- Nina Wallerstein.11ing the racial health disparities in theircommunities in the context of social • I n c o m m u n i t y p s y c h o l o g y,determinants of health (housing, eco- community-wide collaboration has anomic inequality, education, etc.) and the long history in the work of Seymourinstitutional racism that is part of each Sarason,12 David Chavis,13 Stephenof these determinants and their related Fawcett,14 Bill Berkowitz,15 Penniesystems. With this approach, addressing Foster-Fishman,16 Vincent Fran-structural racism became not just a pos- cisco,17 and my own writings.18sibility but a necessity. • There is an extensive literature and experience in the field of healthy communities, including two recentSUMMER 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG T H E N O N P R O F I T Q U A R T E R LY 51
COLLABORATION/COLLECTIVE IMPACT volumes of the National Civic Review and draws their collective impact gen- most compatible with the foundations’ focused on the topic, and important eralizations from them. This is a very approach to collaborative change? Or, writing about healthy communities by limited sample, and it seems that Kania could it be collective impact’s avoidance others such as Joan Twiss and Judith and Kramer only observed these coali- of addressing policy or advocacy that Kurland.19 tions and drew conclusions rather than makes collective impact coalitions a safer • There are also extensive related con- having actually been involved in the and less controversial funding bet? tributions from other fields: political messy work of creating coalitions like science (Arthur Himmelman);20 collab- the ones they note. It is actually stunning 7. Collective impact assumes that most orative leadership (David Chrislip and to realize that Kania and Kramer changed coalitions are capable of finding the Carl Larsen);21 community develop- the world of coalition building simply by money to have a well-funded backbone ment (William Potapchuk);22 and com- observing and distilling insights from a organization. munity organizing (Gillian Kaye).23 few successful coalitions, but never actu- Kania and Kramer’s call for coalitions ally tried creating, implementing, and to have a backbone organization is This rich multidisciplinary literature evaluating a coalition themselves. welcome. Finding money for the staff- teaches us that the process of communi- ing of coalitions has always been very ties working together to create collab- In my own work with hundreds of difficult. Most funders want to fund the orative change is very complex, and is coalitions, I have found that there is coalition’s change mission, goals, and impacted by multiple variables. The liter- much to be learned from the biggest, programs, but very few grantmakers ature also identifies processes, methods, best-funded top-down coalitions that want to fund coalition staffing and oper- and models that have led to the creation succeed and those that fail, as well as ating costs. It is great to see an emphasis of successful collaborations that create from the smallest that succeed and fail. on the requirement of support for these changes in programs, practices, and I understand we draw our generaliza- essential core elements of coalitions. policies in communities. Collectively, tions from the coalitions with which we we already know a great deal about the work, and I have always done so myself; Unfortunately, here, again, collec- tools necessary to do this work. One of however, the fact that collective impact tive impact gets it wrong by asking for the most comprehensive and internation- has become the gold standard for coali- too much from the backbone organiza- ally acclaimed examples is the Commu- tion building for government and founda- tion. Collective impact experts push for nity Tool Box. The Community Tool Box tions based on such a limited sample and a well-funded backbone organization provides over seven thousand pages of such limited actual experience is deeply with multiple functions that require free downloadable material on commu- disconcerting. It is fascinating to note considerable resources and staff. These nity health and development using col- that many government agencies (federal, functions include “providing overall laborations and partnerships.24 state, local) and foundations are now strategic direction, facilitating dialogue calling for all of us to follow collective between partners, managing data collec- Collective impact flounders by failing impact as the model if we wish to be effec- tion and analysis, handling communica- to learn from all these wonderful contribu- tive and funded. Yet this is an interven- tions, coordinating community outreach, tions in the literature and the field from all tion with absolutely no evidence-based and mobilizing funding.”25 By giving all the above disciplines. How can collective research. Aren’t these the same govern- those responsibilities to the backbone impact propose converting a whole field ment and foundation organizations that organization, collective impact inevi- with a five-page article that has virtually demand evidence-based research from tably creates a top-down organization no references to the concepts and findings us in all their program applications? versus a truly collaborative one where of others? And how can government agen- leadership and responsibility are dis- cies and foundations uncritically adopt One has to wonder what makes funders persed. The collective impact concept such a model that mislabels observations so attracted to collective impact. Could it of a backbone organization is predicated about a few examples of community col- be that the five simple collective impact on coalitions with extensive resources; laboration as valid research? components allow funders to believe that however, in the hundreds of coalitions I coalition building can be simplified and have created, consulted with, or trained, 6. Collective impact mislabels its study that they finally have the key to success very few can even afford paid leader- of a few case examples as research. for these messy multivariable entities ship, much less a $100,000 backbone The Stanford article cites a few success- called coalitions? Or, could it be that col- organization. ful examples of community coalitions lective impact’s top-down approach is 52 T H E N O N P R O F I T Q U A R T E R LY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG • SUMMER 2016
8. Collective impact also misses a key facilitates ownership and leadership For example, the first condition of COLLABORATION/COLLECTIVE IMPACTrole of the backbone organization— by the members. We have seen power- collective impact is creating a commonbuilding leadership. ful, charismatic coalition leaders who agenda, and this is highly desirable andIn well-run coalitions, the key role of the can energize a coalition but who then necessary. When we assist communitybackbone organization must be to build fail when they cannot organize the coalitions through visioning exercises—coalition leadership, as opposed to being energy that they stir up nor delegate the including root-cause analysis—andthe coalition leadership. This is based on responsibility. provide guidance that helps membersthe shared value of instituting collabor- develop a shared common agenda, it is anative leadership as well as democratic 9. Community-wide, multisectoral col- important accomplishment. However, wegovernance and decision making for a laboratives cannot be simplified into col- need to acknowledge that in some com-coalition. lective impact’s five required conditions. munities the conflicting self-interests Coalitions are complex, constantly can be insurmountable and the common Collective impact barely discusses the changing, and influenced by multiple agenda is either not achievable oridea that leadership in a collaboration is variables. Having worked with numerous requires a long time to come into being.different from ordinary organizational coalitions, I cannot imagine any five con- Collective impact can frustrate thoseleadership. Again, there is excellent lit- ditions that could apply universally. In led to believe that complex activities,erature that provides a guide to demo- The Power of Collaborative Solutions, I such as developing a common agendacratic and collaborative governance. identify six principles and effective tools (often called a mission statement), canAlmost twenty years before collective for consideration rather than prescrip- be achieved simply and quickly. The dif-impact, David Chrislip and Carl Larsen’s tive conditions: ficulties in this kind of collaborative deci-Collaborative Leadership helped dis- sion making can be even more frustratingtinguish the unique characteristics and 1. Engage a broad spectrum of the when collective impact does not supplypractices of collaborative leadership in community; the community stakeholders with thecoalitions, including the skills and func- tools that we know work.tions of a collaborative leader and how 2. Encourage true collaboration as thethey differ from traditional hierarchical form of exchange; 10. The early available research on col-leadership.26 lective impact is calling into question 3. Practice democracy; the contribution that it is making to Coalition leaders themselves often 4. Employ an ecological approach that coalition effectiveness. emerge from traditional, top-down “The Collective Impact Model and Itsnonprofit organizations and need to emphasizes the individual in his/her Potential for Health Promotion,” bylearn a new style of leadership that setting; 5. Take action; and 6. Engage your spirituality as your compass for social change. Summary Table: 10 Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong1. Collective impact does not address the essential requirement for meaningfully engaging those in the community most affected by the issues.2. Collective impact emerges from top-down business-consulting experience and is thus not a true community-development model.3. Collective impact does not include policy change and systems change as essential and intentional outcomes of the partnership’s work.4. Collective impact misses the social justice core that exists in many coalitions.5. Collective impact, as described in John Kania and Mark Kramer’s initial article, is not based on professional and practitioner literature or the experience of the thousands of coalitions that preceded their 2011 article.6. Collective impact mislabels its study of a few case examples as research.7. Collective impact assumes that most coalitions are capable of finding the money to have a well-funded backbone organization.8. Collective impact also misses a key role of the backbone organization—building leadership.9. Community-wide, multisectoral collaboratives cannot be simplified into collective impact’s five required conditions.10. The early available research on collective impact is calling into question the contribution that it is making to coalition effectiveness.S U M M E R 2 016 • W W W. N P Q M A G . O R G T H E N O N P R O F I T Q U A R T E R LY 53
COLLABORATION/COLLECTIVE IMPACT Johnna Flood et al., is among the first resources designed to assist people and Kramer, “Embracing Emergence: How Col- published scholarly assessments of the communities improve their well-being lective Impact Addresses Complexity,” Stan- strengths and weaknesses of the collec- by engaging the grassroots communi- ford Social Innovation Review, January 21, tive impact approach.27 The authors note ties themselves and creating a vision of 2013. the lack of resident involvement and the transformative change. I am hopeful that, 5. Arthur T. Himmelman, “On Coalitions absence of policy and advocacy in the if communities using collective impact and the Transformation of Power Relations: collective impact model, suggesting that: and funders promoting it address the ten Collaborative Betterment and Collaborative “Since many community coalitions are shortcomings discussed in this article, Empowerment,” American Journal of Com- deeply concerned with advocacy and we will see improved applications of col- munity Psychology 29, no. 2 (April 2001): policy change, this omission can be prob- lective impact emerge: 277–84. lematic.” The study indicates that seeking 6. Hanleybrown, Kania, and Kramer, “Chan- a common agenda “will not be successful • Where those most affected by the neling Change.” if done through coercive compromise” issues lead the effort and share the 7. Irene Wielawski, “The Fighting Back and without a backbone organization decision making and the power; Program,” in The Robert Wood Johnson that has a “point of view” and a “broader Foundation Anthology: To Improve Health mission, vision and values.”28 The study • Where the collaborative action is and Health Care: Volume VII, S. L. Isaacs also notes that the collective impact based on an understanding of the and J. R. Knickman, eds. (San Francisco: model does not provide detailed advice social, political, and social justice Jossey-Bass, 2003). (nor tools) to help coalitions create the context in which the issues of the 8. Thomas R. Frieden, “A Framework for necessary continuous communication or community are embedded, and Public Health Action: The Health Impact common agendas. In its conclusion, the addresses these issues head on; and Pyramid,” American Journal of Public study states, “As our case study applica- Health 100, no. 4 (April 2010): 590–95. tion suggests, collective impact appears • Where the collective impact work is 9. Nashira Baril et al., “Building a Regional to have utility as a conceptual framework more thoroughly based on the exist- Health Equity Movement: The Grantmak- in health promotion but one that may be ing fields of coalition building and ing Model of a Local Health Department,” usefully augmented by some ‘tried-and- community development, learning Family and Community Health 34, no. S1 true’ insights and strategies from CCAT from the acquired knowledge, expe- (January/March 2011): S23-S43. (Community Coalition Action Theory).”29 rience, and available tools. 10. Frances Dunn Butterfoss, Coalitions and Additional thoughtful and insightful col- Partnerships in Community Health (San lective impact critiques are emerging in Let us hope that we can muster the Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007); and see blogs and other online media from Mark courage to challenge the collective Frances Dunn Butterfoss and Michelle C. Holmgren,30 Vu Le,31 and others. impact juggernaut and bring our com- Kegler, “Toward a Comprehensive Under- munities what they need and deserve. I standing of Community Coalitions: Moving • • • know we have the desire to do this, and from Practice to Theory,” in Emerging The- now we need the will. ories in Health Promotion Practice and I would concur with the view that there Research: Strategies for Improving Public are some helpful contributions in the Notes Health, Ralph J. DiClemente, Richard A. writings of Kania and Kramer. They bring 1. John Kania and Mark Kramer, “Collective Crosby, and Michelle C. Kegler, eds. (San fresh eyes to the work of collaboration. Impact,” Stanford Social Innovation Review Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002), 157–93. They have certainly brought coalition (Winter 2011). 11. Michelle C. Kegler et al., “Factors That building back to the forefront for grant- 2. Fay Hanleybrown, John Kania, and Mark Contribute to Effective Community Health makers and many others with influence Kramer, “Channeling Change: Making Collec- Promotion Coalitions: A Study of 10 Project in the government and foundation/non- tive Impact Work,” Stanford Social Innova- ASSIST Coalitions in North Carolina,” profit sectors. Now we have to make sure tion Review, January 26, 2012. Health Education and Behavior 25, no. 3 that collective impact does not proceed 3. Tyler Norris, “Healthy Communities at (June 1998): 338–53; Meredith Minkler, ed., without addressing the ten points noted Twenty-Five: Participatory Democracy Community Organizing and Community above. Let’s work to improve collective and the Prospect for American Renewal,” Building for Health and Welfare, 3rd ed. impact so that it can take its place along- National Civic Review 102, no. 4 (Winter (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University side many other valuable models and 2013): 4–9. 4. Hanleybrown, Kania, and Kramer, “Chan- neling Change”; and John Kania and Mark 54 T H E N O N P R O F I T Q U A R T E R LY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG • SUMMER 2016
The Nonprofit Quarterly Digital Books Collection Gain access to the nonprofit resources you need at the swipe of a finger. Visit npqmag.org to purchase these and other digital books. Nonprofit Communications: Managing the Message in a 21st Century Environment Does everyone understand your organization’s mission and needs? This 71-page digital collection of writings from 13 experts discusses the theory and practice of modern nonprofit communications. Price: $39.00 Board with Care: Perspectives on Nonprofit Governance Existing systems are seldom built to fit each organization; instead, we often “borrow” governance structures and bylaws from other organizations. NPQ delves into these problematic practices. Price: $24.95 Strange Accounts: Understanding Nonprofit Finance This collection of articles selected from the Nonprofit Quarterly explores the strangeness of nonprofit finance, and provides best-practice approaches so that the reader may become as skillful a strategist—as manager or board member—as he or she should. Price: $24.95 NPQ’s Reader on Executive Transitions This reader on nonprofit executive transitions includes almost a decade’s worth of well-researched and insightful articles on what can be a difficult and risky moment for many organizations. The sector has been blessed with a small but talented group of thinkers on this topic, and most of them are published here. Price: $24.95
COLLABORATION/COLLECTIVE IMPACT Press, 2012); and Meredith Minkler and and Practice, F. B. Balcazar, M. Montero, and Impact Model and Its Potential for Health Nina Wallerstein, “Improving Health through J. R. Newbrough, eds. (Washington, DC: Pan Promotion: Overview and Case Study of a Community Organization and Community American Health Organization, 2000), 17–34. Healthy Retail Initiative in San Francisco,” Building: Perspectives from Health Educa- 18. Thomas Wolff, “Healthy Communities Health Education and Behavior 42, no. 5 tion and Social Work,” in Minkler, Commu- Massachusetts: One vision of civic democ- (October 2015): 654–68. nity Organizing, 37–58. racy,” Municipal Advocate 14, no. 2 (Spring 28. Judith Bell, in Flood et al., “The Collective 12. Seymour B. Sarason and Elizabeth 1995): 22–24; Thomas Wolff, “Community Impact Model and Its Potential for Health Lorentz, The Challenge of the Resource Coalition Building—Contemporary Prac- Promotion.” Exchange Network (San Francisco, CA: tice and Research: Introduction,” American 29. Butterfoss and Kegler, “Toward a Com- Jossey-Bass, 1979). Journal of Community Psychology 29, no. prehensive Understanding of Community 13. David M. Chavis, Paul Florin, and Michael 2 (April 2001): 165–72; Thomas Wolff, “The Coalitions”; and Flood et al., “The Collective R. J. Felix, “Nurturing Grassroots Initiatives Healthy Communities Movement: A Time for Impact Model and Its Potential for Health for Community Development: The Role of Transformation,” National Civic Review 92, Promotion.” Enabling Systems,” in Terry Mizrahi and no. 2 (Summer 2003): 95–111; and Thomas 30. Mark Holmgren, “Part One: Community John D. Morrison, Community Organiza- Wolff, The Power of Collaborative Solutions: at the Core of a Theory of Change,” Collec- tion and Social Administration: Advances, Six Principles and Effective Tools for Build- tive Impact: Watch Out for the Pendulum Trends, and Emerging Principles (Bing- ing Healthy Communities (San Francisco, Swing and Other Challenges (Waterloo, hamton, NY: Haworth Press, 1993): 41–68; CA: Jossey Bass, 2010). Ontario: Tamarack Institute, 2015). and David M. Chavis, “The Paradoxes and 19. Joan M. Twiss et al., “Twelve Years and 31. Vu Le, “Collective Impact—Resistance Promise of Community Coalitions,” Ameri- Counting: California’s Experience with a is Futile (Point of Vu),” Blue Avocado can Journal of Community Psychology 29, Statewide Healthy Cities and Community (October 2012), blueavocado.org/content no. 2 (2001): 309–20. Program,” Public Health Reports 115, no. 2–3 /collective-impact-resistance-futile-point-vu. 14. Stephen B. Fawcett et al., “The Commu- (March-June 2000): 125–33; Norris, “Healthy nity Tool Box: A Web-Based Resource for Communities at Twenty-Five;” and Judith Tom Wolff is a nationally recognized, Building Healthier Communities,” Public Kurland, “Coalition-Building: The Promise award-winning consultant on coalition build- Health Reports 115, no. 2–3 (March-June of Government,” American Journal of Com- ing and community development, with over 2000): 274–78. munity Psychology 29, no. 2 (2001): 285–91. thirty years’ experience training and consult- 15. William R. Berkowitz and Tom Wolff, The 20. Himmelman, “On Coalitions and the ing with individuals, organizations, and com- Spirit of the Coalition (Washington, DC: Transformation of Power Relations.” munities across North America. His clients American Public Health Association, 2000). 21. David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larsen, Col- include federal, state, and local government 16. Pennie G. Foster-Fishman and Erin laborative Leadership: How Citizens and agencies, foundations, hospitals, nonprofit R. Watson, “Action Research as Systems Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference (San organizations, professional associations, Change,” in Handbook of Engaged Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994). and grassroots groups. He is a Fellow of the Scholarship: Contemporary Land- 22. William R. Potapchuk, “Building an Infra- American Psychological Association, and scapes, Future Directions: Volume Two: structure of Community Collaboration,” has held academic appointments at the Uni- Community-Campus Partnerships, Hiram National Civic Review 88, no. 3 (Autumn versity of Massachusetts School of Public E. Fitzgerald, Cathy Burack, and Sarena D. 1999): 165–70. Health, the University of Massachusetts Seifer, eds. (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State 23. Gillian Kaye and Thomas Wolff, From the Medical School Department of Family Medi- University Press, 2010): 235-56; and Pennie Ground Up! A Workbook on Coalition Build- cine, and Community Health and Wellesley G. Foster-Fishman and Erin R. Watson, “The ing & Community Development (Amherst, College’s Stone Center. His most recent pub- ABLe Change Framework: A Conceptual and MA: AHEC/Community Partners, 1996). lication is The Power of Collaborative Solu- Methodological Tool for Promoting System 24. Fawcett et al., “The Community Tool tions: Six Principles and Effective Tools for Change,” American Journal of Community Box.” Building Healthy Communities. Psychology 49, no. 3–4 (June 2012): 503–16. 25. Hanleybrown, Kania, and Kramer, “Chan- 17. Jerry Schultz, Vincent T. Francisco, and neling Change.” To comment on this article, write to us at Adrienne Paine-Andrews, “A Model of Health 26. Chrislip and Larsen, Collaborative [email protected]. Order reprints from Promotion and Community Development,” in Leadership. http://store.nonprofitquarterly.org, using Health Promotion in the Americas: Theory 27. Johnna Flood et al., “The Collective code 230209. 56 T H E N O N P R O F I T Q U A R T E R LY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG • SUMMER 2016
HUMAN SERVICES PROTECTION NON - PROFIT/ FOR PROFITMILLIONS OF PEOPLE SERVED. 1 SHARED RESPONSE.PHLY helps ensure that our Human Services customers continue A.M.Best A++ Ratingto gain positive feedback from the millions of people they serve. Ward’s Top 50 2001-2015We offer customizable package policies, along with superior 96% Claims Satisfactioncustomer service, and a free risk management plan toolkit 100+ Niche Industriesto help meet the ever growing needs of non-profits.Call 855.411.0797Or visit ThinkPHLY.com/HumanService Non-Profit/For Profit Human Services | Mental Health | Substance Abuse | Home Health Care | Home Medical EquipmentPhiladelphia Insurance Companies is the marketing name for the property and casualty insurance operations of Philadelphia Consolidated HoldingCorp., a member of Tokio Marine Group. All admitted coverages are written by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company. Coverages are subjectto actual policy language.
BEYOND build your best future“StratusLIVE software has put us on the path to makebetter, faster decisions about our donoracquisition and retention efforts...”- Caroline Itoh, Senior Directorof Supporter Operations,The National WildlifeFederationRelationship Management Cloud-Based SoŌware for NonprofitsBusiness Intelligence 757.273.8219 | [email protected] MarketingOnline FundraisingSocial EngagementMicrosoft CRM Platform
Search
