Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong April 8, 2016
Posted by tomwolff in : Uncategorized , trackbackThe following was published in the Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice (www.gjcpp.com) in March 2016 .
Summary Table: Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong
Tom Wolff Ph.D
1) Collective Impact does not address the essential requirement for meaningfully engaging those in the community most affected by the issues.
2) A corollary of the above is that 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 as described in Kania and 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.
5) Collective Impact misses the social justice core that exists in many coalitions.
6) Collective Impact mislabels their study of a few case examples as “research”.
7) Collective Impact assumes that most coalitions are capable of finding the funds to have a well- funded backbone organization.
8) Collective Impact also misses a key role of the Backbone Organization – building leadership.
9) Community wide, multi-sectoral collaboratives cannot be simplified into CI’s five required conditions.
10) The early available research on Collective Impact is calling into question the contribution that CI is making to coalition effectiveness.
Tom Wolff & Associates,Leverett, MA. tom@tomwolff.com, www.tomwolff.com
http://www.gjcpp.org/en/resource.php?issue=21&resource=200
| Would love your thoughts. | Please share and disseminate. |
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?