Hi
everyone! It’s been a while since we’ve talked about collective impact, but I’ve
kept it in the back of my mind, particularly as we’ve come closer to deciding
where to aim our efforts.
During
our class discussions, we weighed the benefits of funding collective impact,
and through a poll, we found that most of the class favored the idea. However,
I felt skeptical due to my understanding of it as an enormous effort. I
definitely see how collective impact could be the best way to handle certain
situations. In this FSG
Webinar, it’s mentioned that while simple and complicated problems should
be targeted through isolated impact, complex problems should be faced in a more
collaborative effort across different sectors. Simple and complicated problems
can eventually be fixed with sure solutions that can be repeated. Complex
problems refer to those that don’t have a single, specific solution; the same
actions won’t always yield the same results.
Will
we be prepared to help face such complex issues? The same webinar made it clear
that collective impact requires significant time and investment. There are
several preconditions to be considered before taking this approach, one of the
most important being trust. Continuous communication is a vital element of
collective impact because it helps to build trust among participants. The
actors under a collective impact approach aim for a history of relationships.
This is needed to ensure a common agenda, a specific focus and way to work
towards it. Participants take months not only to find this agenda and those who
will fulfill it, but simply to answer the question, Is collective impact the
right approach? Because we only have the remainder of this semester, I don’t
believe we can answer that question in the affirmative. I think we need to take
greater consideration of our resources, in terms of both time and money. While
$10,000 isn’t a small amount, it isn’t enough to create the wide-scale change
that collective impact aims toward. Another one of the preconditions for
collective impact is urgency: an urgent need to change philanthropic strategies
because those currently in place are not effective.
Additionally,
I believe this consideration of resources should be brought to more attention in
our frequent discussion of “Heart vs Head.” When it comes to the pragmatic, we
often talk in terms of the community’s need, and much less of what we have to
offer. With limited resources, I think we shouldn’t necessarily be seeking an
issue area with the greatest depth of need, but specific goals that we could
easily help meet. Wouldn’t this also make our approach more objective, as we
all weigh the importance of varying issues differently?
It’s
always nice to consider passion, and interesting to pitch it against logic.
However, I think we can all agree we need a balance between the two. Because
both are relevant, it’s time to refine them. We must be logical not just about
what others don’t have, but what we do.
Video
link:
Calista, I definitely agree that $10,000, although generous, is not sufficient to transform Broome County overnight into a self-sustainable, problem free community, or even able to completely alleviate entirely the suffering and damage created by simply one specific issue. However, what amount of money can solve poverty? Or child welfare? Or any other issue for that matter? What is the dollar amount that will cure the world of it's faults and sufferings? Yes, $10,000 is nowhere near enough to help every impoverished or suffering individual in Broome County, but I still argue that we need to focus on what the community needs help with most. I agree that this idea is a very broad concept, however I believe we can incorporate your idea of focusing on specific goals by focusing on those specific goals which lie within the realms of what Broome County needs most help with.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, is easier said than done. The neediest issue area, per say, is relative. This is why we as a class need to come together, incorporating head and heart as you have mentioned, to decide what area or areas we will funnel our money into. I think that even this may not be enough, perspective wise. I think it would be beneficial to immerse ourselves into Broome County community and ask local residents their opinion of where Broome County is lacking the most. These perspectives I believe will be crucial to making our decision. This idea is affirmed by the article I have attached from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/nov/29/community-philanthropy-a-brave-new-model-for-development-funding
This interaction with the community, of course, requires a certain level of trust in who we are giving to. Can we trust that these local residents are thinking of what is best for the community as a whole, or are their opinions biased based off their own personal interests, agendas, or experiences? I am curious to know what you guys think about trusting local residents and incorporating them into our philanthropic process?
Allyson,
ReplyDeleteI agree that to be able to focus on a specific agenda we will need the input from the community. It is important to know what the residents themselves believe they are in need of but it is also important to compare their experience to statistics of the area. This again I believe relates to the head vs heart argument. We need to use data to analyze the problems of the area but personal experiences to find the solution. While we cannot take their word for it we should listen to their experience. However their input may not lead us to the most effective way of giving. Through this process we should use a combination of factors including but not limited to the opinions of those who will benefit from our giving. The example I like to use for this argument is that of the Hurricane Harvey victims. They were given donations of food, clothing, etc but what they truly needed was to rebuild their community. This example shows a situation where it is important to listen to those in need to find out what they need. However it is true that they may not always know best about their situation but I believe their opinions should still be taken into account.
I definitely think that the distinction between simple, complicated, and complex issues is an important one to consider. With our limited resources, we realistically don't have the ability to tackle a complex issue on our own. However, I think most, if not all of the issues we have identified as a class are complex. While we can't produce the collective impact necessary to solve any of these issues individually, what we can do is focus in on a specific aspect of any broader complex issue. In narrowing our focus to a simple problem within the broader complex one, we are contributing to a solution which, combined with the efforts of other actors also focusing on smaller issues within the complex one, could produce the collective impact necessary to affect real change.
ReplyDeleteCalista, from the perspective of a donor in the situation we students are in, I agree that perhaps we should consider donating to a cause whose goals we can help meet. On the other hand, if I were a person in the community being affected or remaining unaffected by this donation, I may disagree with this choice. If there is an outcry for help in the neediest issue area, it would not make sense to me why someone would donate to another cause. Then again, it is hard to decide what the “neediest” issue area is. Everyone in the community asked may answer differently, responding with what is most important to him or herself as an individual. Finally, I am not sure that the goal of this class donating money is to solve a problem in the community. The donation can go towards a long-term goal of a resolving a deep-embedded issue. Although it may not make as much of a measurable difference, it will still make a difference nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteCalista,
ReplyDeleteYour discussion reminded me of something that I think about a lot in class. $10,000 seems like a lot to us - college kids with light wallets and tight budgets, but in the real world $10,000 is really not that much. Sure it is almost half the annual pay that someone under the poverty line in Broome County makes, but in terms of a huge effort, this isn't a lot. A lot of the time in class discussions, it seems like people forget that we only have a certain amount of money. When people say they support something and want the money to go to that, they often forget where the money will go. If we donate this money to an organization, it might not be everyone's first choice in terms of the issue or organization, but I would rather give 10k and get the best possible outcome, then have the 10k go to "waste". In that sense, I think we need to weigh the ideas of "heart vs. head" and collective impact to make the best decision possible.