Approaches to place-based change: Collective impact and other models to address systemic challenges

You will be hard-pressed to find a community that does not desire change or is having change imposed upon it. But what is the process behind that change? Can community change be self-determined, intentional and structured? Or is change an inevitable outcome of coincidence and external pressures?

This post reflects on "how" place-based change happens. The overview is informed by the development of Ready Communities, an emerging place-based program supporting Australian regional communities. Ready Communities incorporates several community change frameworks, including collective impact, appreciative inquiry, and Asset-Based Community Development, along with models such as clusters and ecosystems. The application of these frameworks and models is intentional, integrated, and complementary.

This post aims to provide insights for program participants, act as a reference for those involved in place-based transition, and invite conversation for practitioners and providers of programs using related change models.

Framework, model, and program caveats

A few words need to be said upfront about frameworks, models, and programs (all referred to as frameworks from here on). Frameworks help us make sense of complex situations and invisible concepts. They provide a shared language, enable replication of what works and correction for what doesn't, and create a structure to bring resources together in a shared direction.

However, frameworks also come with caveats.

First, while frameworks are helpful in describing and informing reality, there is a risk that they will become a reality at the expense of the situation they describe. Frameworks can sometimes impose roles that don’t align with how government or business actually function in a specific context. Approaches to clusters that worked a decade ago may not apply to changes in communication, technology, and social structures. A backbone structure from a collective impact framework may be imposed on a community that already has suitable collaborative structures.

Second, there is a risk that frameworks become an ideology or religion by those who facilitate their delivery. Frameworks can be positioned like religious denominations, where following one approach precludes the use of another. Those implementing the framework can do so with a zeal that places greater importance on the framework than the outcome it is designed to achieve. Feedback from the community that does not support the framework gets rejected or changed to align with the framework rather than the framework adapting to the feedback.

Statements such as "the map is not the territory", "the use of frameworks as dogma", and "over-simplifying complexity" popularise the critique of an overreliance on frameworks.

A third point is that it can be tempting to do away with frameworks altogether in favour of top-down, directive approaches by a single institution. There is a case for non-collaborative approaches in times of emergency or crisis, when dealing with low uncertainty and major physical, financial, and regulatory infrastructure. However, if a top-down approach is used by default, then every situation is a perpetual crisis. Such directive approaches are not sustainable, particularly where there are multiple systemic, embedded, long-term, and complex challenges. Collaborative change models can augment and align directive approaches even in a crisis.

Finally, a framework is not necessary for outcomes. Communities were changing and adapting long before someone came up with a model. However, the application of one or more frameworks helps share lessons from others, manage risks, and avoid pitfalls.

Frameworks are helpful for change at all levels, including individuals, organisations, and communities. Personal change frameworks include psychological models like cognitive behaviour theory, narrative therapy, and positive psychology. Organisational change models include Kotter's change model, Lewin's forcefields, blue ocean strategies, balanced scorecards, and more. Similarly, several frameworks have been developed for place-based change.

Personal discovery towards collective impact

I first read about collective impact as a place-based change framework during my PhD research into how innovation hubs contribute to community resilience. It was 2017, and I had been running a local government-funded innovation hub during the 2015 'Ideas Boom' era of Australian government innovation policy investment. I felt a tension between a financial remit to create new wealth and economic diversification, a pull toward the community's practical social needs, and a necessity to 'build the innovation ecosystem' in which the hub operated.

So I hit the road for over 90 days, asking hundreds of people across Australia about whose role it was to address complex challenges in the community. I asked every role about every other role, including government (federal, state, local), economic development organisations, business networks and chambers of commerce, industry bodies, corporates, local businesses, universities, philanthropy, schools, service providers, investors, and incubators.

Some said that change was everyone's responsibility, others referred to a particular role as being responsible for the change, some pointed to a particular person who acted as a local hyper-connector and change-maker, and some, by default, left it up to the government. It seemed from my conversations that there was a missing 'species' in the ecosystem that worked to support complex change in the space between existing institutions.

Narratives about solutions being 'government-led' or 'industry-led' appeared to risk corruption, create siloes, and abdicate leadership. Other approaches, such as clusters or public-private partnerships, appeared to either lack structure or be overly transactional and exclusive. There seemed to be a need for a different structure that provided for contributions by those with a vested and shared interest in the outcomes.

Collective Impact primer

Collective impact is a framework outlined by John Kania and Mark Kramer in the?Stanford Social Innovation Review in 2011. The approach is based on the idea that sustainable solutions for complex challenges require more than the capability of any single individual, organisation, or institution.

The approach proposes five conditions that contribute to the success of collaborative efforts:

1. Common agenda - organisations involved align around a common purpose and related outcomes.
2. Shared measurement - there is a shared understanding, management, and reporting of data, key indicators, and contribution to outcomes and impact
3. Mutually reinforcing activities - The activities of each organisation support (and do not work in opposition to) the activities of other organisations in the collective.
4. Continuous communication - There are some forms of continuous communication, including regularly scheduled meetings and other shared digital platforms.
5. Backbone support - a structure focused on coordinating, facilitating, and leading the collective impact outcomes

The backbone has six further functions, designed to:

1. Guide vision and strategy;
2. Support aligned activities;
3. Establish shared measurement practices;
4. Build public will;
5. Advance policy; and
6. Mobilize funding

A backbone structure can be a loosely formed committee, a dedicated special-purpose organisation, a public agency such as a government department, or a primary funder such as a philanthropic foundation or corporation. Each structure has pros and cons depending on the context. A backbone can also be in transition; for example, where a government or primary funding agency auspices the development of a backbone as it transitions from a public agency or primary funder to a special-purpose organisation. Backbones can include a steering committee, a data or research partner, a leadership and operational team, and a number of working groups.

Collective impact has been applied towards challenges such as early childhood development, the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social impact firms, health-related impacts such as disease and well-being, place-based transformation, and environmental impacts, including climate response and decarbonisation.

While adaptable, collective impact also comes with stipulations and caveats. Collective impact requires good faith engagement by key roles, sufficient and sustained support for the backbone, a degree of clarity and focus on the central challenge(s), and a shared need for change. Collective impact can be weaponised by top-down institutions using the collaborative model as a pretence for a pre-defined outcome. Other concerns include activity being a proxy for outcomes, the attraction of free riders seeking to leverage goodwill for competitive advantage, short-term activities lacking long-term systemic change, an inability to mobilise local investment, and a focus that lacks benefit for social inequalities. The Harwood approach warns about the risk if community is not at the centre of collective impact. Collective impact also requires a leadership style that is both visionary and influential while also reflecting humility.

Examples of resources available for collective impact in Australia include:

• Understanding Collective Impact in Australia: A new approach to interorganizational collaboration: A 2018 research paper highlighting success factors for collective impact based on a review of 20 case studies.
• Collective Impact literature review: A 2017 report by Ninti One and Community Works.
• Stronger Places, Stronger People: An Australian Government Department of Social Services community-led, partnership initiative designed to improve the lives of children and their families.
• Vic Health Collective Impact Resouce Centre: A collection of toolkits and guides for collective impact
• Data and community: How Collective Impact initiatives in Australia use data to support action: A 2017 report focused on the use of data in the collective impact process.
• Our Packaging Future A Collective Impact Framework To Achieve The 2025 National Packaging Targets: A collaborative approach to packaging waste driven by the industry body.
• Power and Collective Impact in Australia: A 2021 reflection from Collectiv Impact's original publisher, Stanford Social Innovation Review
• Let's Talk Collective Impact: Amplifying Your Project's Reach Through Collaboration: A 2024 overview from the Western Australia Community Impact Hub.
• Rethinking Community Development: What does Collective Impact offer?: A 2020 University of South Australia Australian Alliance for Social Enterprise report informed by 36 surveys plus interviews and a roundtable. Findings affirmed the need for guiding principles over a purist approach.
• Collective impact: Evidence and implications for practice: A 2017 Australian Institute of Family Studies report for Child Family Community Australia.

Other frameworks and place-making in Australia

Collective impact is one of several frameworks for place-based change. Others include:

• Public-Private Partnerships (PPP): Often applied in infrastructure, World Bank country profile for Australia; Performance of PPPs and Traditional Procurement in Australia 2010 industry body report.
• Clusters: Collaborative groups working towards an outcome; examples include TCI Oceana industry body for Australia; Clustering lessons from Australia 2020 post; cluster examples for the Square Kilometre Array, food and agribusiness, hydrogen;, climate.
• Precincts: Multifunction geographic centre of activity, often with a focus such as circular economy, state-based innovation (NSW, QLD, VIC, SA WA, TAS, National), real estate and property and green buildings, health, and a CSIRO overview of Australian global precincts.
• Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD): A strengths-based mapping and convening approach; examples include a 2018 Australian Institute of Disaster Resilience case study, a 2021 Gladstone Regional Council case study, an overview on Community Door, and the peak network for ABCD Asia Pacific.
• Participatory action research (PAR): An approach to research that emphasises participation by those being researched and most impacted. Australian references include the 2015 Australian Institute of Family Studies Practice Guide, the 2012 Department of Social Services Guide to Best Practice, a 2018 collaborative university research project with training curriculum, a 2020 Lowitja Institute Indigenous methodology, a 2012 research paper on PAR use in Australian planning.
• Social or Living Labs: Mission-focused co-creation and open innovation approaches to community and social change. Australian expressions include research programs at Monash, CSIRO urban labs, Western Sydney University, Swinburne, QUT, RMIT, University of Melbourne, Victoria University, Edith Cowan University, University of Newcastle, UNSW, and Swinburne. Other place-specific labs include the City of Casey VIC, Northern Rivers NSW, and the Adelaide Living Lab Toolkit from the Low Carbon CRC. Also to note the 2019 chapter on The role of Fab Labs and Living Labs for economic development of regional Australia.
• The Harwood approach: a community-focused approach that emphasises civic faith, turning outward, change through ripples and includes an index of five stages of community life. The approach provided training in Australia in 2014 and innovation labs in 2017, engaged Blue Mountain City Council in 2016, was applied in the FRRR IRCF program highlighted in the 2024 impact report, and has a dedicated team in Australia.
• Regenerative Development: A broad inclusion of concepts emphasising sustainable practice, examples developed by US-based Regensis and England-based Doughnut Economics. Related applications included South Australia's National Centre for Social Innovation, Regen Melbourne, and Regen Sydney.

The list is far from exhaustive, and I do not profess to be an expert on all models. Others, including?the Paul Ramsey Foundation,?QCOSS,?and the?Australian Institute of Family Studies, have produced reports on place-based approaches in Australia. In March 2024, I also consolidated a map of place-based approaches in Australia. Also worth noting the recent announcement of the national collaborative structure PLACE (Partnerships for Local Action and Community Empowerment).

The aim of this post is to help make sense of different frameworks for place-based development. Collective Impact has gained popularity in Australia and around the world, but it is also one of many complementary approaches a community might apply. Each framework prescribes multiple functions and is focused on one or more desired outcomes, such as industry transition, general resilience or adaptability, or diversification and prosperity.

The diagram above does not comprehensively list frameworks, functions, and outcomes. Attempts to show which functions are used in which frameworks are problematic, given that they are shared across frameworks. The reality is that there is unlikely to be a 'pure' application. Programs such as the federal Department of Social Services Stronger Places, Stronger People, the philanthropic FRRR Investing in Rural Community Futures Program, and Ready Communities adapt frameworks in a structured approach based on community needs.

Practical application and what's next

No single framework provides a one-size-fits-all solution to place-based change. Effective approaches integrate multiple frameworks, adapting to local needs and capacities.

I often refer to the Ready Communities program as "scaffolding" for community-led outcomes. The scaffolding provides a loose structure, which can include other place-making programs and complementary frameworks. Ready Communities was founded partly by co-founder Kerry Grace and my work in providing individual functions and one-off frameworks. We both saw the need for a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to support community change.

A number of frameworks are applied in Ready Communities. Frameworks such as collective impact, Asset Based Community Development, and appreciative inquiry are used as a starting point and adapted based on the state of the community. Some communities may have an emerging or established backbone that needs support with evaluation and governance, while other communities may have a number of backbones with a need for greater coordination and collaboration. Some communities may have done significant mapping work but need support in leveraging the data, while others have limited clarity on who does what.

Frameworks are used to inform activities in the Ready Communities program across the three stages of Discovery, Activation, and Evaluation. Activities are designed with the community to realise five outcomes: Clarity, Connection and connectivity, Capability and capacity, Collaboration for purpose, and Advocacy and promotion. These activities support the national Social Impact in the Regions conference followed by a 12-month support program.

When we work in communities, we expect to collaborate with others who develop clusters or precincts, engage in a Howorth-based consultation, facilitate participatory action research, and support regenerative development. All of these can be experienced simultaneously in the same community. Part of our work is to raise awareness of who is doing what, align where practical and productive, build capability, and support others in advocacy and capacity.

This post has been in development over the past year in response to communities asking about collective impact and how frameworks relate to each other across programs. It also provides a foil for others involved in placemaking to add to the narrative or challenge assumptions. The intent is not to present a definitive outline but a point in time for ongoing conversation.

With that in mind, feedback, clarifications, and comments are welcome as we collectively advance the discussion on how best to support community change.