Re-examining power and privilege in collective impact

LeChasseur, Kimberly

doi:10.1080/15575330.2016.1140664

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, as our experience and that of other CI practitioners show, the flexibility of the CI model allows users to adapt the approach to these types of situations, but only if lead organizations have the capacity to build trust and relationships between stakeholders and if they can thoughtfully integrate strategies to ensure policy-and equity-based change. Funders who are often behind the spread of CI use should require and build the capacity of CI users to incorporate these currently underemphasized adaptations of the model (LeChasseur, 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final, major criticism of the CI model is that advocates have largely failed to encourage an analysis of or strategies for addressing entrenched power and inequity, as community development and other social change models have long emphasized (Arias & Brady, 2015;Christens & Inzeo, 2015;Flood et al, 2015;LeChasseur, 2016;Williams & Marxer, 2014;Wolff, 2016). Rather, CI solutions are often discussed as universal, population-level goals without recognizing that different parts of the community may need customized engagement strategies and interventions (Arias & Brady, 2015;LeChasseur, 2016;McAfee et al, 2015;Wolff, 2016).…”

Section: Potential Unintended Impact On Inequitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, CI solutions are often discussed as universal, population-level goals without recognizing that different parts of the community may need customized engagement strategies and interventions (Arias & Brady, 2015;LeChasseur, 2016;McAfee et al, 2015;Wolff, 2016). Kania and Kramer (2015) have begun to acknowledge that issues of equity are a blind spot in their earlier writing.…”

Section: Potential Unintended Impact On Inequitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, as in any new trend in philanthropy, a focus on CI could shift funding toward large, well-coordinated entities that have the capacity to serve as backbone organizations and away from smaller, community-based nonprofits that might not be able to serve such a role. Third, because the model focuses on coordinating "CEO-level crosssector leaders" (Hanleybrown et al, 2012), such as directors of nonprofits, government agencies, and private-sector companies, it implies that the power of change rests with organizations rather than individuals, especially marginalized groups most affected by an issue (LeChasseur, 2016;Wolff, 2016). Even if organizations involved with a CI initiative work closely with communities, this could reinforce existing hierarchies of power, as most public officials and executive leaders of formal organizations are still primarily white, male and middle-class (LeChasseur, 2016).…”

Section: Potential Unintended Impact On Inequitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interconnected challenges affecting food systems are some of the most wicked, defined as problems that cross economic, social, health, and environmental realms, which require adaptive, multistakeholder solutions (Plastrik, Taylor, & Cleveland, 2014;Weber & Khademian, 2008). One strategy for addressing such systems-based challenges-Collective Impact (CI)-has been gaining popularity in nonprofit and foundation communities (Aspen Institute, 2013;Easterling, 2013;Kania & Kramer, 2013;LeChasseur, 2016;Nee & Jolin 2012;Weaver, 2014). The model has been adopted by initiatives addressing issues as diverse as juvenile justice reform, environmental protection, homelessness (Aragón & Garcia, 2015;HanleyBrown, Kania, & Kramer, 2012;Kania & Kramer, 2013), and increasingly, food systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Implementing Collective Impact for Food Systems Change: Reflections and Adaptations from Michigan

Hoey

Colasanti

Pirog

et al. 2017

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As Collective Impact (CI) gains popularity across food systems change efforts, few scholars and practitioners have evaluated whether this collaborative social-change framework is well suited to food systems work. We begin to answer this question based on our own experience applying a CI model to support statewide goals established in the Michigan Good Food Charter. Our reflections are based on the project's evaluation findings, internal staff discussions about their CI-based efforts, discussions with other food systems practitioners using CI, and a review of emerging literature where scholars and practitioners evaluate or reflect on facilitating a CI initiative. advocacy, and that, unless intentionally integrated, it has the potential to exacerbate, rather than address, inequities. However, our experience and that of other food systems practitioners also suggest that it is possible to transcend these limitations. We argue that groups expecting to make significant improvements to food systems can turn to CI as one of many social-change models that can guide their work, but only if lead organizations have the capacity to build trust and relationships between stakeholders and if they can thoughtfully integrate strategies for ensuring policy-and equity-based change.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Unintended Impact On Inequitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Unintended Impact On Inequitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Unintended Impact On Inequitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Implementing Collective Impact for Food Systems Change: Reflections and Adaptations from Michigan

Hoey

Colasanti

Pirog

et al. 2017

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Back on Track: The challenges of implementing a small place‐based Collective Impact initiative

Demant¹,

Lawrence²

2018

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues addressed Back on Track (BoT) was developed as pilot to provide an integrated service response to twenty at‐risk young people residing in a metro Melbourne housing estate. For this cohort, traditional welfare sector interventions were proving ineffective, with the siloed nature of the sector identified as a key barrier to effective engagement. Methods Developed as an offshoot of an established CI project, the Education Engagement Partnership (EEP), BoT used Collective Impact (CI) methodology to inform project development. CI was considered a means to implement systematic change whilst increasing positive health, education and justice outcomes for the target cohort. Results BoT was abandoned after start‐up due to a lack of CI model buy‐in on the part of one stakeholder. Conclusions BoT's initial success can be directly attributed to stakeholder experience of the EEP. The project's break down illuminates challenges that can emerge when the welfare sector attempts interagency collaborative practices. BoT highlights the centrality of relationship‐building for successful CI implementation and flags potential issues in collaborations between small place‐based initiatives and large statewide agencies constrained by non‐negotiable internal policies. So what? CI methodology is increasing popular in health promotion work, and there is a need to examine how the methodology translates into local level practice.

show abstract

Insights into a collective impact partnership to promote consumption of healthy drinks in North East Melbourne: A qualitative case study

Mithen,

Archibald,

Begnell

et al. 2024

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issue AddressedTo explore insights and perspectives of a collective impact (CI) partnership taking on a new project that aimed to reduce sugary drink consumption and promote water as the drink of choice across North East Melbourne.MethodsA qualitative case study was undertaken. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in the partnership. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsFourteen organisations participated in the North East Healthy Drinks Alliance. The data demonstrated that investing in developing a common agenda supported the establishment of a CI approach. The backbone organisation was found to have played a crucial role in coordinating the activities of the Alliance. This coordination was found to be particularly important in terms of ensuring that organisations were able to work on mutually reinforcing activities at their own pace. Program planning and reporting was managed through open continuous communication by the backbone organisation. The data collected pertains to the activities of the Alliance in its first 2 years, prior to the development of a shared measurement strategy, thus no data was collected on this aspect of the collective impact framework. Although some participants were found to have limited knowledge of CI, this did not seem to hinder their participation in the Alliance.ConclusionSelecting a relevant and accessible focus area and investing in developing a common agenda supported the establishment of a CI approach.So What?The CI framework offers a valuable tool for undertaking cross‐sectoral, local partnerships for health.

show abstract

Re-examining power and privilege in collective impact

Cited by 24 publications

References 58 publications

Implementing Collective Impact for Food Systems Change: Reflections and Adaptations from Michigan

Implementing Collective Impact for Food Systems Change: Reflections and Adaptations from Michigan

Back on Track: The challenges of implementing a small place‐based Collective Impact initiative

Insights into a collective impact partnership to promote consumption of healthy drinks in North East Melbourne: A qualitative case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About