In this issue we look forward to the biggest CCI ever in Calgary and celebrate it with the launch of the new CCI Online Learning Community. The growing interest in accelerating learning about strong communities and global change is highlighted. Canada's charitable sector is viewed through the eyes of a visiting New Zealander and the role of governance in collaborative projects is explored. We introduce you to Contribution Analysis, a method for linking activities and later community results and ask for your help in our own evaluation through the VC Learning Supports Survey. Finally, we share a delicious recipe to help enjoy the plentiful harvest of backyard gardens. Bon Appetité!
~ Paul Born
In this Issue...
Featured Articles
On October 3rd more than 240 collaborative leaders embarked on a 5-day journey of learning together and were inspired by collaborative change techniques that strengthen their cities. In Canada, cities are leading like never before, tackling issues of poverty, healthy children, strong neighbourhoods and the reduction of crime by working together across all sectors.
Leaders from Hamilton Ontario were there to strengthen their ability to make "Hamilton the best place to raise a child," Community and business leaders from Calgary were there, including Mayor Naheed Nenshi, to embark on one of this country's most exciting poverty-reduction strategies. Tom Gribbons were there representing the Saint John Business Community Anti Poverty Initiative and Lyse Brunnett shared the story of revitalizing Saint-Michel, the Montreal neighborhood which is home to Cirque du Soleil.
The Communities Collaborating Institute is Canada's most significant annual learning event that brings together leaders from almost every city in the country to form a learning community. The CCI's impact helps cities lead and innovate in tackling the major social issues they are facing.
A significant new feature of this year's event is an online space created specifically for learners and Alumni of this Institute. You can join us there at www.tamarackcci.ca to follow ongoing discussions and to view member profiles.
Related Links:
Five years ago, the members of Opportunities Niagara, a multi-sector roundtable in Niagara Region focused on reducing poverty, were reviewing their role in doubling the size of a local transitional housing complex for low income families. Around the same time, a network of agencies in Calgary was pleased to hear that the Government of Alberta had incorporated many of the changes they had recommended into an income support program for persons with severe disabilities.
The conversation in both collaborations eventually turned to one of the most vexing challenges in the evaluation of community change initiatives: How do we know if there is a link between our activities and these results? Would the apartment complex have been developed without our efforts? Would the government made the changes it did had we not worked so hard to develop and share a coherent set of recommendations? Were there other factors that influenced the type, scale and timing of each of the changes?
Getting a handle on "attribution" or "incrementality" is central to any serious community change effort. Groups unable to describe the attribution of their activities will struggle to (a) describe the success (or failure) of their efforts; (b) make evidence-based decisions on future directions; or, (c) demonstrate the value of their work to themselves or others.
The ideal method for assessing attribution is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a sophisticated research technique frequently used in the pharmaceutical industry and sometimes used to evaluate policies and programs. Basically, it involves randomly selecting a "statistically significant" number of "subjects" (e.g. program participants, targeted neighbourhoods) and placing them in either a treatment group or control group, submitting subjects in the control group to the intervention, and tracking the changes in both groups over time. The difference in the changes between the treatment and control groups over time can (theoretically) be attributable to the intervention and not some other factors.
The problem is that the RCTs are rarely feasible for programs, never mind large scale community change efforts. Few community impact tables can mobilize a statistically significant sample size of subjects and fewer have the authority to randomly assign them to treatment and control groups. While RCTs require that the activities being evaluated must be coherent and "fixed" throughout the assessment, many community change efforts tend to be a bit fuzzy and almost always fluid and emerging. Finally, RCTs typically require large evaluation budgets and evaluators with a high level of expertise. These resources are in short supply in many community-based initiatives. Even one of the best resourced evaluations of community change in North America in recent years, the Making Connections initiative funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation which involved ten cities, did not employ RCTs.
Contribution analysis is a "second-best" approach to attribution. It aims to systematically investigate the "contribution" of the various factors to an observed change (including the activities of a community change group), rather than produce definitive evidence on the attribution sought through RCTs. This is done by working through a number of steps, which include: (1) explicitly identifying the challenge of understanding contribution; (2) clearly describing the logic (or theory of change) underlying the intervention(s); (3) measuring and monitoring intervention-related changes over time; (4) discussing alternative explanations of observed outcomes and gathering alternative (and if necessary, multiple) lines of relevant evidence to support all alternatives; and finally, (5) preparing a credible "performance story" that attempts to describe all the factors likely to have led to the effects, including the activities of the intervention.
Contribution analysis is a broad analytical framework, not a detailed recipe. Evaluators need to customize their research to the unique circumstances of each intervention and context, all the while ensuring that the analysis is as robust and transparent as possible.
This allows for a great deal of creativity. In the case of Vibrant Communities, for example, Tamarack and Caledon staff combined performance stories with a rating scale. Once we completed a "roughly right" description of a community change strategy (e.g. its history, key characteristics, and effect) based on interviews with key stakeholders, we asked each of them to rate the contribution of the group's activities to observed changes on a scale of 1 to 7. A rating of 1 indicated "no contribution whatsoever; the changes would have emerged at the same speed, scale without the activities of the group"; seven represented "a critical contribution" meaning the outcomes would not have emerged at all. The numbers 2 to 6 reflected the different degrees of contribution in-between.
The results of the approach provided the kind of feedback that many people in community change efforts crave. The many stakeholders involved in establishing the Bethlehem Place project in Niagara Region, rated the contribution of Opportunities Niagara at a 6.5 out of 7. While each of them had played a significant role in making the expansion possible (e.g. unions donating labour, Federal government investing grant dollars), they felt that without the brokering role Opportunities Niagara played to mobilize and weave together efforts of so many organizations, the project would not likely have happened.
On the other hand, the Alberta government officials that made changes to income-support program for persons with disabilities rated the well-organized efforts of a Calgary-based network of agencies, a 1.8 out of 7. Why? While they admitted that the group's input was constructive, and that they eventually adopted the language recommended by the network in the new policy, they felt that its net contribution to the policy shift was low because (a) the political support for making some modest changes to the policy was quite strong before the group got involved, and (b) the substance for the eventual changes reflected the input of a much larger number of other organizations, advocacy coalitions and government departments.
The "use" and "user" of contribution analysis makes a difference on how it's carried out. Members of a community impact table that use the analysis to help them determine if they need to adjust - or even radically restructure or drop - their change strategy, is one thing. A group that is using the results of the analysis to demonstrate the value of their work and/or to account for resources to funders is quite another. External audiences are apt to expect a more robust analysis, a higher burden of proof, and an assessment carried out by an outside evaluator while internal audiences may be satisfied with timely and "roughly right" feedback produced by an analysis carried out by their own staff.
Contribution analysis will never provide the robust evidence that is often (though not always) possible through random controlled trials. However, it represents a solid and practical response to the unattractive alternatives: (a) pining away for a randomized control trial that will likely never happen or (b) under-estimating or over-estimating the influence of a piece of work because the question of contribution was ignored altogether.
Related Links:
Ideas We're Following...
There is a movement building. One that exemplifies the belief - championed by Berkana and others - that "whatever the problem, community is the answer." It recognizes communities as a foundational building block of social change and acknowledges the need to learn and innovate together in order to accelerate the collective impact of this work.
Creating the Future is part of this movement. Described as a living laboratory, Creating the Future's short-term mission is to "make dramatic community improvements the norm around the world by "experimenting to find the most effective and practical ways for individuals and groups to create the healthy, vibrant future we all want for our world."
One way in which this mission is fulfilled is through a regular podcast series: Making Change. Creating the Future's co-founder Hildy Gottlieb hosts the Making Change series to engage leaders in discussions about how those who are working for the greater good can effect more social change. Recently Hildy interviewed Paul Born and profiled Tamarack's multi-sector approach to creating community change.
The recently established Global Roundtable for Community Change (GRT4CC) is another example of this growing movement. A core premise of GRT4CC is that, "all communities face very similar challenges and opportunities, even if their solutions and approaches to managing change may differ. We believe that a sharing of knowledge and experience from around the world, can be a strengthening opportunity."
The GRT4CC mandate will be to focus on the challenges and opportunities of peripheral communities around the world, and seek solutions. Their hope is that this work will lead to the development of "new approaches towards creating comprehensive, multi dimensional change based on the different types of capital (human, social, community, political and infrastructure)."
Tamarack is proud to be a long-standing member of this movement to accelerate our collective understanding of how to change the world: one community at a time. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with these two initiatives and look forward to the journey ahead.
Related Links
Back to top.
Collaborative organizations (often called alliances, coalitions, partnerships and networks) can be found in all sectors from international development to health promotion. Collaboratives are usually formed for planning, advocacy, joint service delivery and/or back office support. There is growing awareness and evidence that the governance of collaboratives is an area where many are failing to develop enough structure to support implementation of their shared vision and strategies.
In spite of their proven benefits, inter-organizational collaboration presents many challenges for these members and for the leadership of collaboratives. The most daunting is that, outside the work of the collaborative, members are often competitors who now are expected to co-operate, share information and resources. Collaboratives need to be able to normalize and resolve conflict and an appropriate governance structure is the mechanism to do so. This is one of the reasons why, the governance of a collaborative is even more important than in the day-to-day operation of a non profit organization and that it be consciously organized to support the unique realities and differences of collaborative work.
Here are 10 governance traps that I encounter in my role as a consultant and trainer to collaboratives:
-
Many members believe they are just there to share information or act in some kind of advisory role. They believe they don't make decisions.
If the mandate of the collaborative is to solve or improve a complex social issue or problem, the collaborative has a lot of decision-making to do. Collective decisions must be made, including: defining what the problem is; identifying its underlying causes; seeking possible solutions; and, coming together with a plan that addresses the problem. And when the planning is complete, the collaborative then has to put the plan into action by pooling their resources or seeking funding.
-
Members are not clear about just what the problem or issue is they are there to work on.
Unless there is a clear program planning or intervention process which begins with the collaborative defining the problem or issue, many collaboratives move directly into planning or action without agreeing on what the nature or scope of the problem that has bought them together. For instance, a complex problem like homelessness needs to be refined and boundaries drawn around what piece of the problem the group will work on. A collaborative formed to work on the problem needs to study the problem in their locale and decide on the underlying problem and conditions. Is homelessness a matter of people living rough on the streets or public spaces or is it youth leaving the parental home, or is it veterans returning with no place to land on their feet? For each of these situations there will be different contributing factors and probably different solutions.
-
The collaborative does not clarify the decision making method they will use.
Many groups that I have worked with do not consciously decide on how they are going to make decisions. The collaborative needs to decide whether are they going to use a voting process with majority rule (50 + 1) or are they going to use a consensus process which requires everyone to put forth their contribution to a discussion and then agree to a course of action. A decision-making process should be agreed to at the first meeting of any committee or collaborative.
-
The collaborative does not stick to the agreed decision making process.
Then there are collaboratives that do define their decision-making process (in a Terms of Reference) but then do not stick to the agreed-to process. Commonly this happens when the group has adopted a consensus based process but then take votes on motions.
-
Collaborative members do not know there is a need for something called governance.
In the non profit sector there are now many collaboratives whose member representatives are no longer executive directors but rather front-line staff or supervisors with no previous exposure to governance. Many are unaware of the role of their organization's board and that they are now in a similar strategic decision-making role in the collaborative.
-
The collaborative is not clear about what they have control over in terms of decision-making.
Power has become a dirty word in our society. Many people associate power with corruption and even violence and avoid talking about it. This fear of talking about power has created a catch 22 situation in daily life and is especially problematic during the development of a collaborative. Power issues underlie the key questions a collaborative must address including:
- Who has power here?
- What power do we need for what needs to be done?
Do we have the power to decide or does some other body have that power?
An open discussion of these questions can answer the question of what kinds of decisions the collaborative has to make and ensure that these parameters are understood, and supported by their respective organizations.
- The collaborative fails to answer basic governance questions.
Basic questions regarding governance need to be answered by the whole group and the decisions must be recorded in a governance document for members and stakeholders. The governance document or framework needs to answer questions such as:
- What is our purpose or our mission?
- Who are members?
- How do we select members?
- What do we expect of our members?
- What kind of leadership and organization structure have we adopted?
- Who are we accountable to? How do we comply with this accountability?
- The collaborative does not systemize decision-making by adopting and recoding policies.
Often I find conversations can go round and round without a group ever taking a decision that can provide them with direction. Organizations adopt policies so they don't have to make the same kind of decision over and over again. Policy-making is a tool to gather multiple perspectives from the members into one decision. Once a policy is adopted the group speaks with one voice. Critical policies for any collaborative to adopt include financial, human resource, communication, and conflict of interest. If there is a lead agency or trustee you need to clarify its role and decide whether the collaborative will adopt any of its policies to abide by.
- Member organizations do not integrate the work they do in the collaborative into their own governance and management frameworks!
Many organizations have not considered the need to have an organizational policy on inter-organizational collaboration that can instruct staff as to what kinds of decisions they are empowered to participate in at the collaborative table. By not having an organization policy that provides direction to staff, the member organization helps to create an avoidance dynamic (a situation where collaborative members avoid making decisions or assuming responsibility for decisions or work) at the collaborative table. An organizational policy can also outline the expectations of staff to represent the collaborative to their home organization.
Many NPO staff, especially those in community development or health promoter positions, can spend up to 90% or their time working on collaborative projects. Because it's hard to take clear credit for work done by staff working outside an organization's borders, much of the effort does not get recognized in performance reviews or organizational annual reports. Organizations need to recognize staff effort and take credit for the collaborative's successes.
- The Collaborative fails to identify that it is accountable to more than its funders!
Collaboratives composed of non-profit organizations are used to reporting on activities and outcomes to fulfil their accountability to funders. Year end or project reports are standard procedures. But what about its accountability to the target group it intends to serve? The collaborative can also benefit from hearing and integrating the perspectives of the end user of the service while reporting to the service users. Along with the mechanisms of broad community accountability such as websites and annual reports, collaboratives can hold an annual general meeting for its membership (if there is a membership or begin to create one) or can hold what are called report-back meetings to the community it hopes to serve?
You also need to clarify accountability with respect to member organizations. If member organizations are expected to implement a strategic plan how do they give formal approval? If member organizations are expected to invest resources (staffing or funds) how do these resources get managed? These kinds of issues are best addressed in a collaborative agreement which is a formal contract between member agencies and the collaborative.
Collaboratives can avoid falling into these governance traps by becoming aware of the need for a governance framework and taking steps to build a governance structure. There is no perfect way of doing it as with all aspects of collaborative development we are inventing it as we go along. But collaboratives are a complex form of organization designed to deal with complex issues and therefore they need enough structure to be developed to deal with the particular challenges of cross-boundary decision making and multiple members.
Related links:
Back to top.
People often say New Zealand and Canada are very similar - both are relaxed, vista-rich, green, and living alongside larger, slightly more overstated neighbours. But how do our community sectors compare?
I recently had the great privilege of spending time with a number of organisations in Canada, and attending the jointly hosted Imagine Canada/Volunteer Canada's Business and Community Partnerships Forum.
My role as the National Advisor Capability at the New Zealand Charities Commission includes a specific focus on growing stronger relationships between businesses and charities, to build capacity within the charitable sector.
As in Canada, the charitable sector in New Zealand is the temperature-gauge of the health of our society. It is a NZ$14.4 billion sector (excluding the value of volunteer time), constituting 8.5% of GDP. It employs 121,217 full-time equivalent staff, which is 6.4% of New Zealand's workforce.
The charitable sector is twice the size of our agricultural industry, and three times the size of our forestry sector. The sector is made up of around 26,000 registered charities - a small part of the estimated 97,000 Not-for-profit organisations in New Zealand.
When I first arrived, there were some fundamental contrasts that I noticed straightaway:
- The density of charities per capita - Canada has approximately one charity for every 420 people. New Zealand has approximately one for every 172 people.
- New Zealand has a national government, and regional councils. The extra layer of federal/provincial government in Canada took a little bit to understand (as I am told it does for many people who have lived in Canada for years!)
With this in mind, it was interesting to note that organisations at the leading edge of capability-building in Canada (including Tamarack) are focused on multi-sectoral engagement (government/business/community), recognising the value of outcomes to society, and supporting these through collaborative engagement. The more traditional ‘master/servant' ‘us/them' relationship approach that can disadvantage charities has been updated to a strengths-based collaborative approach focused on contribution to the shared cause. The Muttart Foundation's work in bringing stakeholders together from different geographic and sectoral backgrounds to explore shared challenges was a particularly inspiring example of this more modern approach.
For an environment with an even higher density of charities than Canada, this seems like extremely valuable learning.
It was interesting to observe that some Canadian funders (including government and business) are shifting their focus from the traditional funding model, to understanding and relieving the root causes of social issues to cause systemic change. Some argued that the traditional funding model perpetuates an increasing number of charities, and fragmentation within the sector. This is certainly food for thought for our country, which is predominantly grant-focused and slowly adopting more high-trust/multi-year arrangements.
As in New Zealand, Canadian charities are also experiencing declining government support following the global financial crisis, a limited ‘pot' of donations, and increasing numbers of charities competing in the same space - all of which seems to be rapidly increasing the focus on social enterprise. Quantifying the ‘value' of outcomes is a complex task, but as Jason Saul presented at the conference, it is an increasingly critical aspect of future sustainability for charities.
Reassuringly, Canada - like New Zealand - seems to have more than its fair share of social innovators, who breathe life and hope into the thriving social glue of our countries.
I'd like to thank all the fantastic Canadians who gave up their time to meet with me and offer such great insights. The Charities Commission looks forward to developing our ongoing relationships, and sharing experiences and learning for the benefit of both our communities.
Ka kite anu (until I see you again)
Related links:
Back to top.
I love gardening… the freshness and beauty of the produce, including red peppers which are really the "queen" in my garden. I get great joy showing my family, neighbours and friends all that's alive and growing in my garden. We share our abundance with them - of course, when the zucchinis are out of control I am not sure they welcome this part so much. Lock those screen doors!
The idea of a community garden also really appeals to me and I feel that such gardens really offer one of the best ways for neighbours to get to know each other. There is something so very real about working in the dirt, watching new life blossom, and marvelling in the diversity of tastes that emerge all from the same communal dirt.
I also love soup and one of my favourite recipes is this very healthy and lean Red Pepper soup. At this time of year the red peppers are in abundance and so it's the perfect time to make a big pot to enjoy. Putting left over chicken and or rice on the bottom of the bowl makes it a filling meal.
Red Pepper Soup
Ingredients:
- 12 oz - 16 oz (about a lb) of red peppers cut and seeded
- 1 small chopped onion
- 4 cups of low sodium chicken broth (any broth will do)
- 4 cups of water - or more chicken broth
- 2 - 3 tsp tomato past
- 1 - 2 gloves garlic
- 1 tsp paprika or more
- ¼ tsp cayenne or more - we like it hotter
- ¼ tsp thyme - or more
- ½ tsp basil - or more
- ½ tsp oregano
- Salt and pepper to taste
- Olive oil or Pam cooking spray
Steps:
- Sauté onion garlic and paprika in a pot with the oil.
- Add red peppers and season with salt and pepper and then add the rest of the ingredients and sauté until soft.
- Pour in chicken broth and water and mix in tomato paste.
- Purée soup in the blender (if you like it a bit chunkier you can blend less or use a hand blender).
I rarely weigh ingredients and will often put as much red pepper into the mix as I can and cover it with broth later. If it is too thick, just add more broth. As is often the case with soup, this one tastes better the next day and freezes well. We often serve red pepper soup as a meal. Place leftover rice, chicken and other veggies in the bowl first and ladle hot soup over. And, one final hint: Sour cream or yogurt always makes soup like this taste like heaven. Enjoy!
Related links:
Vibrant Communities Across Canada Updates
-
Winnipeg Learning Accounts
Students from Winnipeg's inner city will have the chance to put aside up to $8000 for post-secondary studies, available to them up to the age of 25, thanks to the "You Can Do It" Awards program, developed by representatives of the Winnipeg School Division, The Winnipeg Foundation, Manitoba Advanced Education, and the Winnipeg Poverty Reduction Council(WPRC). WPRC is raising matching dollars for over 300 awards of $1,000 a year for five years. Learn more in
WPRC's 2011-2012 Report to the Community.
More>>
-
Youth, $ and kitchens in St. John's
Fundraisers, donated gala tickets, community kitchens and online safety for kids are some of the new activities at
Vibrant Communities St. John's in Newfoundland and Labrador. VCSJ has also trained 12 organizations in leadership training for 13 to 14 year-olds in a program called EASY-E - Educating and Supporting Youth in Education. The goal is to increase high school completion rates for youth in low income neighbourhoods. This mentoring, encouragement and enhancement program will focus on targeting youth in grades 6 and up to support them in school and provide opportunities to enhance their educational and learning experiences.
More>>
-
Poverty, Innovation and Inspiration in Calgary
Calgary's City Council
voted in July to take funds from an innovation fund to begin a multi-year process of drafting a Municipal Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS). The United Way of Calgary and Area has matched the dollars and is partnering with the City. Read the community's "big ideas" for battling poverty, or share your own, on
Calgary's Social Voice, an interactive site set up to gather input. And check out how Vibrant Communities Calgary's Dan Meades connects poverty and inspiration in this
video.
More>>
Back to top.
Back to top.
Vibrant Communities is a community-driven effort to reduce poverty in Canada by creating partnerships that make use of our most valuable assets – people, organizations, businesses and governments.
