We have the honor of working with sites all over the country looking embrace the concept of collective impact and establish cradle to career civic infrastructure to achieve better outcomes for children.  Unfortunately, the energy around this work has led to a new political challenge in many communities:  jockeying among partners to become the “backbone”[1].  In one community that reached out to us they noted they had NINE backbone organizations in the education space!  As we all know, a body that has nine backbones is really going to struggle to move forward effectively.   The same is the case for a community working to improve outcomes in a specific issue area like education.  We fully embrace that a community may likely need multiple backbones for multiple issues – health, public safety, housing, education, etc. – but we strongly advise against having multiple backbones in just one issue area.

So how might we think about the different roles organizations looking to take up a leadership can play in order to capitalize on all of this interest?  We have developed one way to think about this that has helped numerous communities find a way through this challenge.  The visual below captures the concept at a high level, but the key is to differentiate between the role of backbone organizations and conveners.   The primary difference is that a single backbone entity is needed to help support the overall development of civic infrastructure to have collective impact.  Conveners, on the other hand, are focused on working with the relevant partners – practitioners and other interested stakeholders – to build comprehensive and data driven outcomes around a single outcome along the continuum.  See a summary of the roles in the visual below:

Backbone vs. Convener

The Role of the Backbone

The key roles of a backbone organization are outlined in detail below.  Before going into the roles, it is important to note that while the backbone is often perceived as a position with the most power in a collective impact effort, it is most effectively played by an entity that embraces the principles of servant leadership.  In essence, the backbone needs to play a very quiet and behind the scenes role, lifting up others who are doing the work so they get the well deserved credit for the data-driven work they are doing on the ground to support children.   In the end, an entity willing to take this servant oriented stance – instead of being more visible – will be able to play the following roles much more effectively as partners across all sectors and at all levels will feel respected for the contributions to the partnership vision:

  • Connect and Support Leaders:  The core function of the backbone is to ensure leaders at all levels playing a variety of roles within the community keep the vision, mission, and outcomes of the partnership front and center when making major decisions.  This takes regular meetings with any and all key stakeholders that contribute to the vision so they feel supported by the work of the partnership instead of threatened.  This also means addressing political fires that that regularly emerge when partners are struggling to communicate or unexpected drama emerges in the press.
  • Establish the Data Management Infrastructure:  At an early meeting in a community we have partnered with to take on this work, one of the funders in the core group of leaders was almost in a state of shock at the end of the civic infrastructure overview.  It turned out she was worried that she and her peers were going to be asked to pay for data experts and systems to work in each and every individual non-profit and related partner in town.  But she quickly realized the backbone enables you to avoid such an expense by centralizing the development of the data management system and supporting partners to help collect, manage, and report data effectively.
  • Advocate for Technical Support:  As practitioners work together to build action plans, invariable challenges emerge related to items such as engaging key partners, getting access to data and other key resources, and challenges communicating the work.  The backbone can help advocate with leaders to help address the issues or offer technical supports like facilitation or experts from the business community to help overcome what can seem like small, yet show stopping hurdles.
  • Marshal Investments:  When The Strive Partnership was started in Cincinnati, we heard from directors of non-profits that many spent over 90 percent of their time fundraising.  Over time, as action plans emerge from practitioners to improve specific outcomes, the backbone can help reduce this burden on individual providers by advocating with public and private investors to support comprehensive and cohesive action plans where each partner plays a clearly defined role.

The Role of the Convener

The convener, on the other hand,plays a much more specific and frequently more visible role in building action plans.  Because practitioners are looking to bring attention to their work, the convener can be out front with the work they do to help develop comprehensive action plans because it will invariably raise awareness both for the importance of the work and the contributions of the partners.  So entities looking to be more visible and play a leadership role may very well be better positioned to become a convener to do the following:

  • EngagePractitioners – Practitioners have more than enough work to do on a daily basis that adding the work of a network initially can be burdensomeThe convener can focus more on the specific needs of practitioners to actively engage in this work, while ensuring they are willing and able to use data to shape their individual and collective action plans.  In the end, the convener is focused on making it as easy as possible for partners to actively engage, helping them to overcome specific obstacles, and ensuring the necessary incentives are in place to make this worth their while.
  • Facilitate Multi-Sector Networks – Once Networks are formed with practitioners and other relevant stakeholders to focus on a specific outcome, expert facilitation is needed to ensure the partners use data to build an action plan that is focused on scaling what works.  Conveners help to ensure this support is in place, often in the form of expert facilitation, so the Network stays focused and develops an action plan the full partnership can advocate for among a host of critical local and national stakeholders.
  • Update Action Plans – Once the action plan is completed, it can’t just sit on a shelf.  It is critical to update the plan every time new data becomes available to inform decisions around what is working to improve the outcomes the partnership has embraced.  It is this continuous improvement of action plans that leads to the long-term, disciplined use of data that is at the heart of making civic infrastructure valuable. 

It is important to note that in each of these roles, the backbone and the convener, the entities in question must be a) un-biased toward specific partners or strategies, b) willing to use data to drive decisions and navigate the many challenges that come with such a role, and c) have resources to fund the basic staffing roles needed to do the work.  This can often narrow the pool of potential players to fill these roles.  But if partners can meet these criteria, they can find a way to lead.  Not everyone has to be the backbone.  In the end, given the state of the outcomes most communities hope to move, there are plenty of leadership roles to play to realize the improvements we all so desire.


[1] See definition in “Collective Impact” by Kania and Kramer at http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact/

Share

{ 1 comment }

I just read a fascinating opinion piece in the New York Times entitled “No Rich Child Left Behind.”  I wasn’t surprised by what I was reading.  There is a significant gap in education success between high-income families and those of lower socio-economic status. This we know and have known for years.  What did surprise me is how much the gap has grown over the past few decades.  The author, Sean Reardon, found the gap in test scores is around 40 percent larger than it was 30 years ago. He also found that the income test score gap is considerably larger than the black-white test score gap.  “Family income is now a better predictor of children’s success in school than race.”

I found this shocking and disturbing, given what has seemed to be a great deal of focus and resources dedicated toward closing the achievement gap over the years.  But, as I continued reading, what I found even more surprising was the author’s conclusion for why this rapid widening of the gap has occurred.  After reviewing a significant amount of historical data, particularly related to family income, he found that the academic gap is widening because the rich keep getting richer.  As income inequality rises (which it has substantially over the past decade) rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than even middle-class students, much less poorer students.  Which means that wealthier students are not only better prepared to succeed in their first years of schooling, but ultimately better prepared to succeed in life as a whole. This supports what we know about the critical importance of early childhood education as building the foundation for education success.

So, could it be that we, as a nation, have been focusing on the wrong issues when working to eliminate these educational disparities? Much of the strategies to close the achievement gap have focused on improving teacher quality and failing schools and we have made some great progress, yet the gap continues to widen and at such a rapid pace.  The author suggests that we must also focus on the relationship between family income and educational success and he makes some suggestions for how to address these challenges.  In reviewing his suggestions, it is clear that our work to build cradle to career cross-sector education partnerships is particularly relevant as it will take the combined efforts of business, philanthropy, government and education sectors to close these gaps or better yet, prevent them from occurring.

First, improving outcomes in early childhood education must continue to be a focus for cradle to career partnerships.  If states and the federal government are not going to do the right thing and increase investments in this area, then it is imperative that local partnerships really dig into the early childhood data, identify what is working and align resources to expand these practices, with a specific focus on ensuring greater access and equity when it comes to high-quality early childhood experiences.

Next, cross-sector cradle to career partnerships are uniquely well-positioned to advocate for more family-friendly policies, such as more generous maternity and paternity leave policies or access to high quality childcare.  These types of policies will enable parents to have the flexibility and resources to spend more time supporting and teaching their children.  In fact the business partners at the table of cradle to career partnerships could set the precedent by implementing these policies for their own employees.

There are so many things that partnerships can do to help prevent and eliminate gaps, but what is perhaps the key lesson learned from this particular issue, and so many other education issues, is that it all starts with data.  Just as the author of this piece used data to understand the growing problem of income disparities, cradle to career partnerships must take the finest cut at the data – digging into student data and monitoring important contextual data in order to get at the root cause of the issue and address it head on before the gaps occur.  Only when we have looked at disaggregated data as a community, can we be prepared to have the tough conversations and take the appropriate action that are so critical to reversing this trend.  If the achievement gap begins well before children reach kindergarten, then an ounce of prevention is most definitely worth a pound of cure.

Share

{ 0 comments }

Quality Benchmarks for Cradle to Career Collective Impact

April 23, 2013

When the Collective Impact article appeared in the Stanford Social Innovation Review back in early 2011, our phones began ringing off the hook with communities wanting to learn more about the work of building cradle to career civic infrastructure.  Thanks to support from Living Cities we had already worked to capture lessons and work with other [...]

Share
Read the full article →

One Lesson from Atlanta

April 9, 2013

There is so much we can learn from the recent indictments of so many administrators in the Atlanta public schools around scrubbing data.  I would like to focus on just one:  as long as we use data for punitive rather than constructive purposes we can expect to keep seeing these types of situations no matter [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Is “Cat Herding” the Best Analogy for Collective Impact?

March 11, 2013

Back in 2006 when we started the work in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky on The Strive Partnership, we came to the realization this work was in great part an engineering challenge as much as anything else.  There were many moving parts and they all needed to be “corralled” in such a way that we could [...]

Share
Read the full article →

The Challenge of Funding the Backbone

March 4, 2013

As we work with sites across the country to build cradle to career civic infrastructure, we are learning a great deal about how communities are overcoming both the adaptive issues that are so fundamentally critical for changing culture to align limited resources and the technical solutions for improving supports for children on the ground.  Perhaps [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Bill Gates Doing His Part to Make Data Cool

February 25, 2013

In his 2013 Annual Letter Bill Gates, Co-Founder and Chairman of Microsoft, talks about the importance of using measurement to improve the human condition; incredible progress can be achieved when you set a clear goal and find a measure that you can directly connect interventions to in order to continuously improve and ultimately move the [...]

Share
Read the full article →

We Can’t Be Program Rich and System Poor

January 24, 2013

Jeff Edmondson, Managing Director of Strive, is guest blogging for Forbes about how we can make smarter social investments.  In the second post of this series, he shares how we cannot program our way to better educational outcomes for students. To read the full blog post click here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2013/01/24/make-smarter-social-investments-we-cant-be-program-rich-and-system-poor/    

Share
Read the full article →

How focused, accountable collaboration can tackle big problems

January 20, 2013

Ben Hecht, President & CEO of Living Cities recently published a Harvard Business Review blog that highlights concrete ways that organizations can work together to tackle big, societal problems. It’s collaboration, not competition that will help solve problems like poverty, unemployment, homelessness and failing schools. Collaboration isn’t a new concept, but it takes focus, accountability, [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Why underserved students need support

December 23, 2012

Today’s New York Times features a front-page story about a South Texas trio that is academically able, but who face a litany of challenges as they seek to get a college education. It’s a story that is repeated way too often in the United States, where a college education can open the door to the [...]

Share
Read the full article →