In these eight initiatives, we are confident that the initiative’s work to cultivate a shared vision, engage in mutually reinforcing activities, and support effective multi-sector partnerships-all tenets of the collective impact approach-played an important role in achieving at least one of their population-level goals. Many initiatives were able to collectively leverage resources to advance important components of the work. Others achieved outcomes through policy changes at the state or organizational level. In many cases, stakeholders achieved these changes through the development or expansion of programs and services that reached targeted populations. (Graphic courtesy of ORS Impact)Īs noted above, we determined that collective impact undoubtedly contributed to changes at scale within initiatives’ targeted people or places. How researchers used “process tracing” across initiatives in the study. We also assessed the overall strength of each initiative’s complete “contribution story” for the ultimate question: to what degree did all the prioritized activities and outcomes add up to contribute to the ultimate change sought?

Analysts then used a methodology called process tracing to test the hypotheses about the connection between initiative activities and outcomes, assessing both the degree to which the data supported the proposed linkages and the degree to which the relationship uniquely explained the result. We collected data from a range of stakeholders to understand their “contribution story,” or how they believed their efforts or other factors led to change. In our study, target populations may be specific people within specific systems, geographic areas, or with special needs.

These initiatives demonstrated strong implementation of the collective impact approach, and had documentation of meaningful changes among the targeted population in things like improved river health, decreased rates of homelessness, and lower rates of teen births. From the original set of 25 initiatives involved in the study, we selected the eight initiatives we felt could help us most deeply explore the question about the connection between collective impact and changes among populations and places. The study results have helped deepen our thinking and altered our mindsets.Ĭollective impact undoubtedly contributed to changes in target populations or places. We entered into the study in 2017 with a healthy skepticism about the approach and a belief that a rigorous exploration would help the social sector better understand collective impact’s potential utility. While the initiatives targeted a range of issues and had different geographic reaches, all of them had been in operation for more than three years and could present evidence of implementing the collective impact approach. The study examined 25 initiatives in the United States and Canada. And, in early 2017, with the support of several prominent foundations, the forum partnered with our organizations- ORS Impact and Spark Policy Institute-to conduct a rigorous study of collective impact’s effect on institutions, such as school systems, human services organizations, and nonprofits, and target populations or environments. The Collective Impact Forum’s “Principles of Practice” resource guide, released in 2016, sought to bring in issues of equity, community engagement, shared leadership, data use, and local context.

Over the last seven years, FSG, the Collective Impact Forum, and the Aspen Institute have tried to address some of these critiques.

Collective impact