As a relatively new funder in the philanthropic space that has had to define from scratch its investment strategies, this concept resonates particularly well for us. We deliberately chose NOT to establish a formal application process because we wanted to seek out opportunities ourselves by understanding the nature of the work, developing relationships with all parties involved and then identifying ways to plug in—and not just with funding, but with time and talent as well. I oversee our education investments, and came across the StrivePartnership in Cincinnati, the first of now over 60 Strive communities that seek to move education outcomes through collective impact, shortly after we formed. What intrigued me the most about this work was its holistic approach—it was about aligning a program-rich environment around a set of shared goals to achieve systemic change and improved outcomes. I jumped in with both feet, somehow knowing this work was revolutionary and believing we could achieve impact at scale, while not realizing at the time that I was, in fact, embracing this concept of ecosystem investing. To me, true collective impact coupled with ecosystem investing will be the key to making inroads with our most glaring social challenges today. And for many in the philanthropic sector, ecosystem investing will require paradigm shifts in their thinking. I am thankful we chose this path from the beginning.
Why is it so difficult to attract local collaboration when policies are already given? Why is it to difficult to sell concept for inter-sector partnership? Maybe, it is already hardwired in our culture (Philippines) that funds first before plans. And, we all now that planning consumes the greater amount of funds. How can philanthropy help change this? While governments are best suited for public service, but maybe another model for effective aid to really reach the communities must also be considered. Performance based approached is a promising concept for an effective cooperation. Thank you. And, working to advocate this first: http://www.slideshare.net/nelsontenojo/environmental-education-key-to-advancing-sustainability-in-the-future.
Naming the shift that’s needed—from narrow and predictable investments to ecosystem investing—is an important way to help everyone in the ecosystem see what they, themselves, need to do. This is a great description of how our roles need to change in order to be able to create the kind of impact we aspire to in an environment that refuses to hold still long enough for replicable interventions to work.
Not all the people understand the necessity of environmental protection, especially when it comes to their money. Ecosystem investments are developing and now is the time for changes. I completed my research on this together with http://www.trustessays.com/dissertation-writing-help , it was great work. I will publish my dissertation later. A lot of my friends deny the concept of ecosystem investing and find this point an ineffective cooperation. Opinions of people depend on the published material.
I know I am preachin’ to the choir, but this is the kind of real life real story we need to get out there in the world more and more. Great piece, y’all
Over the period of 18 years that I served as CEO of The Greater Cincinnati Foundation (GCF), we evolved our thinking in both grantmaking and impact investing to a point of complete alignment with the points made so well by Jeff, Kate and Stacey in this article. When the term “collective impact” was coined in 2011, in large part based on the excellent work in Cincinnati to develop what is now known as the StriveTogether network, we realized that over a period of more than a decade we had helped to create six “backbone” organizations serving our community as catalysts for change across multiple sectors. That insight led us to create a five-year initiative, starting with this initial cohort of six backbones (including Cincinnati’s StrivePartnership) in 2012. The initiative included unrestricted core operating support, technical assistance, a peer “community of practice,” and rigorous evaluation where key elements included influence, leverage, systems change and stakeholder perceptions of value. The number of backbones has since increased to ten, and because of its success (including varying degrees of positive community-level outcomes), the initiative will likely extend beyond the original five-year scope.
As I have now transitioned from leading a community foundation to working with StriveTogether as a senior fellow and with foundations on strategic philanthropy, it is my wish and hope for the future of our communities that more foundations will see and act upon the wisdom of the approach articulated in this excellent article.
I want to focus on one angle of the many important angles that Edmondson, Mohan and Stewart raise in their piece… asking before acting. With a big push over the past several years toward evidence-based programs (and policies), what has been lost is whether the program is aligned with the actual needs and desires of the community and whether the program’s evidence was found in communities similar to the ones deciding to implement the program. As my colleagues (Emily Lin from nFocus and Amy Gerstein from the Gardner Center at Stanford) and I recently argued (http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1RkgCh~JIGjcY), “data leadership” is needed. The effective leader will be one who is embedded in the work of the community, is able to build trusting relationships with and among members of the comprehensive community initiative, and can work collaboratively with community leaders and constituents to figure out which programs are needed within the broader ecology. As we state, “That is, what types of evidence would actually a) be read and used to influence CCI strategies and actions, and b) yield, through their use, more effective operation and achievement of CCI goals, outcomes, and impacts?” As Edmondson, Mohan and Steward suggest, CCIs need to be in this for the long haul and they need to continually reflect on what will be the most effective strategies within the context of their own community.
We deliberately chose NOT to establish a formal application process because we wanted to seek out opportunities ourselves by understanding the nature of the work, developing relationships with all parties involved and then identifying ways to plug in—and not just with funding, but with time and talent as well. I oversee our education investments, and came across the StrivePartnership in Cincinnati, the first of now over 60 Strive communities that seek to move education outcomes through collective impact, shortly after we formed writing help uk
COMMENTS
BY Leslie Maloney
ON September 1, 2015 06:28 AM
As a relatively new funder in the philanthropic space that has had to define from scratch its investment strategies, this concept resonates particularly well for us. We deliberately chose NOT to establish a formal application process because we wanted to seek out opportunities ourselves by understanding the nature of the work, developing relationships with all parties involved and then identifying ways to plug in—and not just with funding, but with time and talent as well. I oversee our education investments, and came across the StrivePartnership in Cincinnati, the first of now over 60 Strive communities that seek to move education outcomes through collective impact, shortly after we formed. What intrigued me the most about this work was its holistic approach—it was about aligning a program-rich environment around a set of shared goals to achieve systemic change and improved outcomes. I jumped in with both feet, somehow knowing this work was revolutionary and believing we could achieve impact at scale, while not realizing at the time that I was, in fact, embracing this concept of ecosystem investing. To me, true collective impact coupled with ecosystem investing will be the key to making inroads with our most glaring social challenges today. And for many in the philanthropic sector, ecosystem investing will require paradigm shifts in their thinking. I am thankful we chose this path from the beginning.
BY Nelson T. Enojo
ON September 2, 2015 12:18 AM
Why is it so difficult to attract local collaboration when policies are already given? Why is it to difficult to sell concept for inter-sector partnership? Maybe, it is already hardwired in our culture (Philippines) that funds first before plans. And, we all now that planning consumes the greater amount of funds. How can philanthropy help change this? While governments are best suited for public service, but maybe another model for effective aid to really reach the communities must also be considered. Performance based approached is a promising concept for an effective cooperation. Thank you. And, working to advocate this first: http://www.slideshare.net/nelsontenojo/environmental-education-key-to-advancing-sustainability-in-the-future.
BY Marilyn Darling
ON September 3, 2015 04:27 AM
Naming the shift that’s needed—from narrow and predictable investments to ecosystem investing—is an important way to help everyone in the ecosystem see what they, themselves, need to do. This is a great description of how our roles need to change in order to be able to create the kind of impact we aspire to in an environment that refuses to hold still long enough for replicable interventions to work.
BY Tina Murphy
ON September 8, 2015 07:18 AM
Not all the people understand the necessity of environmental protection, especially when it comes to their money. Ecosystem investments are developing and now is the time for changes. I completed my research on this together with http://www.trustessays.com/dissertation-writing-help , it was great work. I will publish my dissertation later. A lot of my friends deny the concept of ecosystem investing and find this point an ineffective cooperation. Opinions of people depend on the published material.
BY Paul Shoemaker
ON September 11, 2015 08:32 AM
I know I am preachin’ to the choir, but this is the kind of real life real story we need to get out there in the world more and more. Great piece, y’all
BY Kathy Merchant
ON September 15, 2015 10:24 AM
Over the period of 18 years that I served as CEO of The Greater Cincinnati Foundation (GCF), we evolved our thinking in both grantmaking and impact investing to a point of complete alignment with the points made so well by Jeff, Kate and Stacey in this article. When the term “collective impact” was coined in 2011, in large part based on the excellent work in Cincinnati to develop what is now known as the StriveTogether network, we realized that over a period of more than a decade we had helped to create six “backbone” organizations serving our community as catalysts for change across multiple sectors. That insight led us to create a five-year initiative, starting with this initial cohort of six backbones (including Cincinnati’s StrivePartnership) in 2012. The initiative included unrestricted core operating support, technical assistance, a peer “community of practice,” and rigorous evaluation where key elements included influence, leverage, systems change and stakeholder perceptions of value. The number of backbones has since increased to ten, and because of its success (including varying degrees of positive community-level outcomes), the initiative will likely extend beyond the original five-year scope.
As I have now transitioned from leading a community foundation to working with StriveTogether as a senior fellow and with foundations on strategic philanthropy, it is my wish and hope for the future of our communities that more foundations will see and act upon the wisdom of the approach articulated in this excellent article.
BY Jonathan Zaff
ON September 20, 2015 11:43 AM
I want to focus on one angle of the many important angles that Edmondson, Mohan and Stewart raise in their piece… asking before acting. With a big push over the past several years toward evidence-based programs (and policies), what has been lost is whether the program is aligned with the actual needs and desires of the community and whether the program’s evidence was found in communities similar to the ones deciding to implement the program. As my colleagues (Emily Lin from nFocus and Amy Gerstein from the Gardner Center at Stanford) and I recently argued (http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1RkgCh~JIGjcY), “data leadership” is needed. The effective leader will be one who is embedded in the work of the community, is able to build trusting relationships with and among members of the comprehensive community initiative, and can work collaboratively with community leaders and constituents to figure out which programs are needed within the broader ecology. As we state, “That is, what types of evidence would actually a) be read and used to influence CCI strategies and actions, and b) yield, through their use, more effective operation and achievement of CCI goals, outcomes, and impacts?” As Edmondson, Mohan and Steward suggest, CCIs need to be in this for the long haul and they need to continually reflect on what will be the most effective strategies within the context of their own community.
BY julia dave
ON October 14, 2015 05:10 AM
We deliberately chose NOT to establish a formal application process because we wanted to seek out opportunities ourselves by understanding the nature of the work, developing relationships with all parties involved and then identifying ways to plug in—and not just with funding, but with time and talent as well. I oversee our education investments, and came across the StrivePartnership in Cincinnati, the first of now over 60 Strive communities that seek to move education outcomes through collective impact, shortly after we formed writing help uk