Table A2.

Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets it Wrong

1Collective Impact does not address the essential requirement for meaningfully engaging those in the community most affected by the issues
2A corollary of the above is that Collective Impact emerges from top-down business consulting experience and is thus not a true community development model
3Collective Impact does not include policy change and systems change as essential and intentional outcomes of the partnership’s work
4Collective 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
5Collective Impact misses the social justice core that exists in many coalitions
6Collective Impact mislabels their study of a few case examples as “research”
7Collective Impact assumes that most coalitions can find the funds to have a well-funded backbone organization
8Collective Impact also misses a key role of the Backbone Organization – building leadership
9Community wide, multi-sectoral collaboratives cannot be simplified into Collective Impact’s five required conditions
10The early available research on Collective Impact is calling into question that contribution that Collective Impact is making to coalition effectiveness

Source(s): Adapted from Wolff’s Editorial “Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong”

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal