User:A.novack/sandbox

Critique of Collective Impact (CI)
Tom Wolff, psychologist and collaborative solution consultant, appreciates Kania and Kramer's definition of Collective Impact for promoting multi-sector collaboration and for igniting government and foundation-lead high-impact movements, but criticizes it for its lack of attention critical community components. Wolff lists 10 places where CI gets it wrong in a 2016 issue of the Global Journal of Community Society Practice :
 * 1) Collective Impact does not address the essential requirement for meaningfully engaging those in the community most affected by the issues.
 * 2) A corollary of the above is that Collective Impact emerges from a top-down business consulting experience and is thus not a community development model.
 * 3) Collective Impact does not include policy change and systems change as essential and  intentional outcomes of the partnership’s work.
 * 4) Collective Impact misses the social justice core that exists in many coalitions.
 * 5) Collective 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.
 * 6) Collective Impact mislabels their study of a few case examples as “research.”
 * 7) Collective Impact assumes that most coalitions are capable of finding the funds to have a well-funded backbone organization.
 * 8) Collective Impact also misses a key role of the Backbone Organization – building leadership.
 * 9) Community-wide, multi-sectoral collaboratives cannot be simplified into Collective Impact’s five required conditions.
 * 10) The early available research on Collective Impact is calling into question the contribution that it is making to coalition effectiveness.