Hunger Free Communities: for Collective Impact Julia L. Carboni, MPA Ph.D. Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs Lilly Family School of Philanthropy Prepared for Alliance to End Hunger
This report details the collective impact strategies of Hunger Free Communities (HFCs) to end hunger in their communities. It is written for groups seeking to engage collective impact strategies for collaborative anti-hunger work. Though not formally organized as collective impact networks, HFCs are coalitions that have adopted some of the tenets of collective impact. Because collective impact is gaining traction among funders, it is important to consider how HFCs fit into the collective impact landscape. This report contains findings related to collective impact strategies of HFCs including challenges and best practices along with recommendations to maximize collective impact strategies. Data were collected from interviews with representatives of twelve HFCs, additional HFC documentation, and a general review of the literature on collective impact and organizational collaboration. Data were collected from August 2014 through April 2015. Data collection was supported by the Alliance to End Hunger and the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. What are Hunger Free Communities? Hunger Free Communities (HFCs) are broad based, multi-sector coalitions committed to ending hunger in their communities. HFCs range in size and scope and specific goals. Elected representatives champion some while others are led by local nonprofits or businesses or by citizens. What unites HFCs is their commitment to ending hunger at the local level and inclusion of a broad range of community stakeholders to meet these goals. By including diverse stakeholders, HFCs are able to reach large segments of their communities and create meaningful change in the face of hunger. The impact of HFCs includes developing a deeper understanding of hunger in communities and among political leaders; increasing capacity and coordination of emergency food assistance; and improved access to and enrollment in public nutrition programs. To facilitate learning across HFCs, the Alliance to End Hunger supports the HFC Network, a nationwide platform for HFC coalitions, campaigns, and collaborations to learn from each other and share their knowledge and experience with other hunger free organizations (hungerfreecommunities.org). What is Collective Impact? Collective impact networks are multi-organizational, multi-sector networks organized to respond to a large-scale social problem such as hunger, homelessness or poverty that require the efforts of multiple actors. While multi-organizational, multi-sector networks to solve social problems are not a new idea, recently there has been renewed focus on the power of collective action to ameliorate large-scale social problems (Kania and Kramer 2011; Popp et al. 2014). In theory, collective impact networks are characterized by centralized infrastructure, dedicated staff, and a structured process to forge a common agenda and understanding of what impact looks like. Relationships among organizations are enduring and participant commitment is long-term (Kania and Kramer 2011). There are five conditions for collective impact success: common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and a backbone support organization (Kania and Kramer 2011). This toolkit explains each of these conditions as it relates to anti-hunger coalition work and presents findings about how HFCs have incorporated these conditions into their work. Each section also contains tools and resources to build your group s strengths and address common challenges along with additional research that may be of interest to groups pursuing collective impact strategies. A summary of findings is included below. 2
Common Agenda Having a common agenda means that all collective impact participants have a common understanding of the problem, a shared vision for change and a joint approach to problem solving (Kania and Kramer 2011). In HFCs, stakeholders are committed to reducing or eliminating hunger in their communities. Most HFCs reported it was easy to agree to end hunger but that it was difficult to decide how to end hunger, particularly as stakeholders became more diverse. Diverse stakeholders conceptualize the problem of hunger and ways to combat hunger differently and reaching consensus on concrete goals and tasks was difficult. For example, there was divergence among emergency and non-emergency food assistance stakeholders about what hunger is and how to address it. These differences can- and did- cause tension in several groups. Smaller, more homogenous groups were more likely to come to consensus on defining hunger than more diverse groups. However, these HFCs struggled with developing goals and action plans when individual members of the group competed for funding or clients. Before trying to develop an action plan, it is best to build relationships and trust among stakeholder groups. HFCs reported being surprised at how long it took to build trust with some groups reporting the group building process took months or years. During the trust building process, tackling narrow goals may contribute to building trust, especially where groups are diverse. HFCs reported focusing on low hanging fruit such as getting eligible citizens involved in federal food assistance programs. Engaging with these programs was beneficial because there was an existing infrastructure and HFCs did not have to create programs and priorities from scratch. Once groups built functional relationships and trust, it was easier to develop new initiative and programs to combat hunger. Shared Measurement Systems Shared measurement systems entail collecting data and measuring results consistently across stakeholder groups participating in collective impact arrangements. It is best to measure a short list of indicators at the community level. Shared measurement systems ensure efforts remain aligned and allow participants to hold each other accountable while also learning from each other s successes and failures (Kania and Kramer 2011). Few HFCs have a single common metric to measure progress. HFCs reported difficulty in deciding on a common metric, particularly where HFCs addressed hunger as a broad social issue. HFCs with narrower focus such as closing the meal gap or ending child hunger were more likely to establish metrics. However, these groups struggled to quantify some of their work. For example, in groups focused on closing the meal gap, it was difficult to quantify capacity-building activities such as providing freezers to food pantries in terms of meals added to the system. Other groups chose to focus on readily quantifiable goals like increased participation in federal programs (i.e. - National School Lunch, Summer Servings), which tended to be geared toward solving child hunger. While respondents overwhelmingly supported increased participation in federal programs, some respondents felt this did not fully address the issue of hunger in their communities and that these programs primarily targeted children. Several respondents felt senior citizens were being left out because it is harder to identify senior hunger and quantify assistance efforts. 3
The group with the most success in developing shared measurement systems was focused on ending child hunger. The group developed a sophisticated data tracking system that was used to let individual HFC participants know what progress they were making in real time. The coordinator of this group and several participants felt immediate feedback kept participants engaged with and excited about HFC initiatives because they understood the importance of their individual contributions to ending child hunger. Mutually Reinforcing Activities Participant activities must be differentiated while still being coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action. In collective impact arrangements, each participant should complete tasks and activities it excels at in a way that supports and is coordinated with the work of other stakeholders (Kania and Kramer 2011). Because HFCs involve a diverse set of stakeholders, it does not make sense that all stakeholders perform the same work. Instead, they should contribute what they do best to the overall effort to end hunger. In HFCs, much of the work is done by committees or individual participants that report back to the larger HFC. There is not a standard work plan or process for HFCs and HFC structure vary widely. This is due in part to the diversity of participants across HFCs. Because HFCs are made up of different types of actors, each HFC evolves to capitalize on the skills, talents and interests of individual participants. For example, in HFCs dedicated to ending child hunger, school districts play a large role in getting children enrolled in food assistance programs. Other HFCs might prioritize reaching out to food banks and food pantries to figure out how to increase the amount of food in the system. It is important to differentiate work in HFCs so participants can offer their skills and expertise and also do work that advances the interests of their own organization. Assign tasks to individuals and committees who have relevant skills and expertise. For example, school districts are well suited to increasing utilization of federal school meal programs are not well suited to addressing elderly hunger. Because smaller groups worked more efficiently than larger groups, HFCs should explore a subcommittee structure where subcommittees focus on specific goals that relate to the overall agenda. For example, one subcommittee might focus on child hunger and another might focus on elderly hunger. Continuous Communication Consistent and open communication is necessary to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and create common motivation among diverse stakeholders (Kania and Kramer 2011). Establishing trust and mutual objectives was the hardest part of coalition building for most HFCs, especially where participants did not have preexisting relationships, participants came from diverse sectors, or there was pre-existing competition for funding or clients. In general, respondents felt surprised by how long it took to establish trust and mutual objectives with some groups reporting it took months and years. 4
However, communication was essential to establishing trust, developing HFC goals and making progress. Successful HFCs report that regular meetings among participants are crucial and that these meetings provide opportunities to report committee or individual progress to the larger group. Faceto-face meetings provide HFCs with a physical space to establish and maintain relationships and trust, which are crucial to HFC functioning. Meetings provided a space to communicate and establish trust. Groups most successful with face-to-face meetings had a person to coordinate the meetings. The coordinator also worked behind the scenes to build trust and relationships among participants and to repair relationships if things did not go well at meetings. Backbone Support Organizations Creating and managing collective impact requires a separate organization(s) with staff and a specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative and coordinate participating organizations and agencies (Kania and Kramer 2011). While, collective impact literature advocates a separate organization to serve as the backbone of collective impact arrangements, in many HFCs, a lead organization or individual within an HFC organization takes on the backbone support role. This is similar to other types of goal directed coalitions and networks (Provan and Kenis 2007). The key finding is that a dedicated, paid coordinator is necessary to sustain HFCs but this coordinator can be embedded in a participating HFC organization. Some HFCs relied on an executive leader to coordinate the network while others relied on administrative staff. In the lead agency model, some participants from non-lead agency organizations reported feeling unheard or marginalized in favor of lead agency goals. One respondent reported feeling frustrated that their agency was doing a large part of the HFC work but that it was only included in HFC related marketing materials when it was convenient for the lead agency. The respondent felt their organization did not receive adequate credit for their work and that it might affect funding relationships outside the HFC because they were not given status as a key play in anti-hunger efforts. Having a person or organization to coordinate HFC activities is crucial for sustaining the HFC and making progress on goals. The executive leadership model works well because it signifies the importance of HFC initiatives. Executive leaders had the added benefit of being able to make decisions on behalf of their organization. When relying on administrative staff to coordinate the HFC, it is important to have a champion for the HFC. This champion may be an organizational leader or political actor. A champion also sends the message that HFC priorities are important for the community. Other Key Findings In addition to findings related to collective impact, other coalition characteristics were also positively associated with HFC success. In particular, financial support and political champions were 5
important for making progress on anti-hunger goals, as was incorporation of non-food assistance actors such as business, philanthropy and school districts. References Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011 Issue. Popp, J., Milward, H.B., MacKean, G., Casebeer, A. & Lindstrom, R. (2014). Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for the Business of Government Collaborating Across Boundaries Series. Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. Contact Information For questions about this report, please contact Dr. Julia L. Carboni at jcarboni@iupui.edu. For information about Hunger Free Communities, please contact Minerva Delgado, Director of Coalitions & Advocacy, Alliance to End Hunger at mdelgado@alliancetoendhunger.org or go to www.hungerfreecommunities.org. 6