Michael Thorn
Community development professional and social housing advocate Michael Thorn looks at the emerging Collective Impact approach under a much-needed critical microscope.
Since the 2010s, the Collective Impact (CI) framework has been examined as an effective community development tool and, more particularly, a solution to disconnected and uneven stakeholder participation in disadvantaged communities.
In Australia, CI has received significant attention and resourcing from both public and private sectors (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2017), achieved within a community services landscape where resources and stakeholder participation rates are limited and often restrictive. As a response to such challenges, CI has an emerging application in Australia within social housing communities, with the potential to enable equitable outcomes while minimising expenditure of community resources.
What exactly is Collective Impact?
In their article for Stanford Social Innovation Review, Kania and Kramer introduce CI as a collaborative approach toward addressing social exclusion and disenfranchisement within disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This approach involves “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem” (Kania and Kramer, 2011, p. 36).
Through identifying and then highlighting the desire for disparate community actors to work together for a common benefit, Kania and Kramer identify “five conditions for collective success” for stakeholders using CI:
- A common agent
- Utilisation of shared measurement systems by all stakeholders to track progress;
- Practice of mutually reinforcing activities as a way of progress;
- Continuous communication amongst stakeholders to retain cohesion during projects;
- The presence of ‘Backbone Support’ organisations to ensure the above mentioned four points are maintained.
"While CI proposes a new approach and encourages a renewed interest in community development practice, the real-time effectiveness of CI remains inconclusive."
While CI proposes a new approach and encourages a renewed interest in community development practice, the real-time effectiveness of CI remains inconclusive. Arising in the 2010s, the model remains new, so there is presently a lack of robust and comprehensive analysis of the application of CI strategies (Ninti One, 2015; Wolff, 2016; Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2017). CI also continues to receive minimal academic attention (Boorman et al., 2023).
This lack of extensive analysis of CI, despite emerging community interest, is a present contradiction in CI’s application that is worth exploring.
There are immediate economic benefits spurring this interest: CI offers social housing agencies across Australian jurisdictions an opportunity to leverage current staffing levels and resources without the need to make further significant investments or intensive staff recruitments, or the need to introduce entirely new community or place-based programs or plans. In these examples, costs are reduced by maximising the involvement of staff and other participants engaged within each social housing estate.
A cost-effective and collaboration-oriented model?
While the cost-benefit interests surrounding CI are apparent, levels of sustained participation that disadvantaged stakeholders might enjoy when the CI model becomes applied long-term are presently impossible to ascertain. Resolution to this uncertainty remains elusive, so it is this ongoing demand from local stakeholders for effective and sustainable community responses that acts as an incentive to find ways of ensuring greater levels of social inclusion.
Adjacent to this capacity of minimising both staffing and community resourcing costs, the potential for collaboration of disparate community actors using the CI framework looms as another driving factor.
CI is best understood as a practical method for coordinating efforts by community stakeholders, rather than as an overarching methodology, philosophy, or meta-narrative (Salignac et al., 2017). In the instance of social housing, CI can support tenants to articulate what is needed for the communities they reside within. However, for any community development initiatives undertaken, it is not clear how tenants can influence and assert community authority under the CI model (Romanin, 2013). Consequently, the cost-effectiveness of CI remains the prime incentive for housing agencies in adopting the model.
"Criticism centres on a lack of political literacy within the framework to address power imbalances among stakeholders."
This ‘blind spot’ of CI is an issue that has been identified within academic circles, with CI criticised for inability within its framework to address inequality between community participants (Wolff, 2016; Karp & Lundy-Wagner, 2016; Prange et al, 2016). Criticism centres on a lack of political literacy within the framework to address power imbalances among stakeholders. There is also the risk of CI-related projects becoming overly structured, and therefore, conceptually cumbersome for communities wishing to apply it. This can lead to communities trying to shape their networks and structures around a CI framework, giving the framework a teleological property, rather than using the framework to enable or develop strengths and potentials already present within communities.
Furthermore, interpretations of CI can exist to potentially alienate community participants, as demonstrated with the, potentially excessive, schematic below:
The above diagram, which can be downloaded at the Collective Impact Forum (after signing onto the newsletter for the consultancy firm creating this diagram), is firmly directed to not-for-profits interested in pursuing CI when working with disadvantage communities. But what of the communities themselves? What is an applicable entry point for such communities interested in adopting CI? These challenges were first rigorously addressed in the report titled When Collective Impact has an Impact; the first robust study to actively examine and review application of CI within disadvantaged communities (Lynn & Stachowiak, 2018). This study examines 25 CI initiatives, interrogated across multiple settings, focus areas, and examining the implications of applying the CI framework.
"CI must be understood as a long-term proposition for communities."
While providing a much-needed evidence base, and informing further studies of this nature (e.g., Ennis & Tofa, 2020), the findings ultimately demonstrate that CI must be understood as a long-term proposition for communities. CI models should also accommodate reflexive and intermittent participation of various stakeholders. This report identifies CI as a ‘scaffold’ to build collaborative efforts within communities, rather than the presentation of CI as a prescriptive framework (Parkinson et al., 2022).
Sponsor Advertisement
Enhancing the evidence base for CI
Extensive studies on CI are presently limited, reflecting the need for further examination of CI’s application among diverse communities. Those initiating the model are often the upper management and other executive-level stakeholders of service providers. The consequence of this top-down approach is excluding input from the very stakeholders for which the CI model has been initiated (LeChasseur, 2016; Ennis & Tofa, 2020).
Such flaws have been acknowledged through development of ‘Collective Impact 3.0’. While this term light-heartedly likens CI to a software program susceptible to ongoing ‘upgrades’ and ‘beta testing’ per the digital parlance, the message here is of CI as an ongoing trial-and-error application process for communities (see figure below).
CI participants appear amenable to an ongoing development or ‘evolution’ of CI as a concept (Cabaj & Weaver, 2016). This enables CI to be subject to ongoing inquiry, critique, and review, allowing the framework to morph where required and introduce flexibility with co-design efforts (Preskill et al., 2014).
In Australia, dedication to the development of CI is displayed at regular national community conferences, known now as ChangeFest (Graham & O’Neil, 2014). Recently demonstrated on the international front, there is also emerging evidence of community CI projects unique to Australia (Thorn, 2018; Mission Australia, 2019; Centre for Public Impact, 2019; Allison, et al., 2020; Gwynne et al., 2022).
This is useful for social housing communities seeking inclusive methods where dissent, diversity and reflection are encouraged, and where tenants retain a sense of trust towards CI, as well as other associated community stakeholders.
It is proposed that social housing stakeholders become more aware of, not only the potential of CI as an emergent community development framework, but also the adoption of CI as part of a greater ongoing critique and improvement of community development approaches generally.
While CI does not offer magic nor permanent solutions, it does offer some renewed foundational and constructive means towards establishing ongoing collaborative practices, all needed to confront austere policy environments and reclaim community development within the public interest.
Most importantly, CI poses an immediate response to forms of ‘bricks and mortar’ social housing policy within Australia, and this requires further input within interested services, consultancies and academic circles.
References
Allison, F., Dale, A., McHugh, J. (2020), Integrating Responses to Needs and Risk of Cairns South Children and Families: Summary of findings and key forward strategies, Cairns South Collective Impact Project; The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Cairns, Qld, Australia.
Australian Institute of Family Studies (2017), written by Smart, J. (Child Family Community Australia information exchange [CFCA]), Collective impact: evidence and implications for practice, CFCA Paper No. 45, Commonwealth of Australia; Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Boorman, C., Jackson, B., & Burkett, I. (2023), “SDG localization: Mobilizing the Potential of Place Leadership Through Collective Impact and Mission-Oriented Innovation Methodologies”, Journal of Change Management, 23(1), pp 53-71.
Cabaj, M. & Weaver, L. (2016), Collective Impact 3.0: An Evolving Framework for Community Change, Tamarack Institute Community Change Series 2016; found at: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/316071/Events/CCI/2016_CCI_Toronto/CCI_Publications/Collective_Impact_3.0_FINAL_PDF.pdf, accessed 8 September 2023.
Centre for Public Impact, written by Das, M. (published 23 July 2019), “BurnieWorks – the collective impact approach putting this Australian town back to work”; found at https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/burnieworks-collective-impact-approach-putting-australia-town-back-work/, accessed 8 September 2023.
ChangeFest: National celebration of place-based social systems change; found at https://changefest.com.au, accessed 18 September 2023.
Ennis, G. & Tofa, M. (2020), “Collective Impact: A Review of the Peer-reviewed Research”, Australian Social Work, 73(1); pp. 32-47.
FSG (2015), Collective Impact Feasibility Framework; found at https://www.collectiveimpactforum.org/sites/default/files/Collective%20Impact%20Feasibility%20Framework.pdf, accessed 10 October 2020.
Graham, K. & O'Neil, D. (2014), “Collective impact: The birth of an Australian movement”, The Philanthropist, 26(1); pp. 101-123.
Gwynne, K., Rambaldini, B., Christie, V., Meharg, D., Gwynn, J. D., Dimitropoulos, Y., Parter, C., & Skinner, J. C. (2022), “Applying collective impact in Aboriginal health services and research: three case studies tell an important story”, Public Health Res Pract., 32(2); e3222215.
Kania, J. & Kramer, M. (2011), “Collective Impact”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1); pp. 36–41.
Karp, M.K. & Lundy-Wagner, V. (2016), “Collective Impact: Theory Versus Reality”, Community College Research Centre Research Brief, No 61; Teachers College, Columbia University, USA.
LeChasseur, K. (2016), “Re-examining power and privilege in collective impact”, Community Development, 47(2), pp. 225-240.
Lynn, J. & Stachowiak, S. (2018), When Collective Impact has an Impact: A cross-site study of 25 collective impact initiatives, Spark Policy Institute, ORS Impact; Denver, CO, Seattle WA, USA.
Mission Australia (2019), Claymore Fusion Evaluation Baseline Report, Mission Australia; Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ninti One (2017), Collective Impact: A Literature Review, Community Works; Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Parkinson, J., Hannan, T., McDonald, N., Moriarty, S., Nguyen, M., & Ball, L. (2022), “Using a Collective Impact framework to evaluate an Australian health alliance for improving health outcomes”, Health Promotion International, 37(6); daac148.
Prange, K. A., Allen, J. A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016), Collective Impact versus Collaboration: Sides of the Same Coin OR Different Phenomenon? University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Preskill, H., Parkhurst, M., & Juster, J.S. (2014), Guide to Evaluating Collective Impact, FSG; found at: https://www.fsg.org/resource/guide-evaluating-collective-impact/#resource-downloads, accessed 8 September 2023.
Romanin, A. (2013), “Influencing renewal: An Australian case study of tenant participation’s influence on public housing renewal projects”, Msc. Public Policy & Human Development Thesis, 20 August 2013, Maastricht Graduate School of Governance; Maastricht, Netherlands.
Salignac, F., Wilcox, T., Marjolin, A., & Adams, S. (2018), “Understanding Collective Impact in Australia: A new approach to interorganizational collaboration”, Australian Journal of Management, No. 43; pp. 91–110.
Thorn, M. (2018), “Working Together in Claymore: An Examination of Long-Term Community Works Between Local Services and Residents”, Housing Works, Vol 13(1), pp. 28-30.
Wolff, T. (2016), “Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong”, Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 7(1); pp. 1-11.
Share This Article
Other articles you may like
It is with great pleasure that we announce nominations are now open for the ahi: 2025 Brighter Future Awards .
About the Australasian Housing Institute The Australasian Housing Institute (ahi) is a professional body for workers in the social and affordable housing and Specialist Homelessness Service (SHS) sectors across Australia and New Zealand. It has Branch Committees in each state and territory, as well as in New Zealand. The ahi is submitting a response to the Draft NSW Homelessness Strategy (the Strategy), representing the collective feedback of the NSW Branch Committee, with the support of the entire ahi organization. With over 2,000 members across NSW, ahi members work in both government and non-government housing organizations. The ahi has a long history of collaborating with SHS, Specialist Disability Services, and other mainstream services, including health, education, and local councils. For the past 25 years, ahi has been proudly delivering training for industry housing professionals across a wide range of areas, including tenancy management, asset management, and governance. The ahi also hosts masterclasses and networking events to support its members. The ahi provides professional development to the workforce through: Training and knowledge-building on a range of issues relevant to social housing professionals, from induction programs for new workers to advanced and specialized training in areas such as asset management, trauma-informed approaches with applicants and tenants, personal development, and community participation. A mentoring program that pairs experienced professionals with newer or younger members to help them achieve their career aspirations and goals. A certification program for social housing professionals to uphold professional standards and ensure success in their area of expertise. Leading the Annual Brighter Future Awards, which recognize excellence in the social housing industry. Promoting active, engaged, and connected membership through the delivery of topical events, seminars, webinars, masterclasses, and more. As a member-based professional body, the ahi is uniquely positioned to build trust, enhance skills, and foster relationships across both the government and non-government sectors, as well as between organizations. Summary The ahi congratulates the NSW Government on its significant investment of $6.6 billion in the 2024 budget, aimed at tackling the unprecedented housing stress and the rising numbers of individuals experiencing homelessness driven by the ongoing rental crisis in both the private rental and social housing sectors. The Strategy for 2025-2035 is highly commendable, with its three core goals—rare, brief, and non-repeated—standing out as ambitious and impactful objectives aimed at addressing homelessness. These goals are set to bring about significant changes in the social housing system and provide a clear policy framework to guide efforts toward achieving meaningful outcomes over the next decade. The ahi recognizes the importance of this Strategy and the critical role that the social and affordable rental housing system plays in meeting these goals, emphasizing the need for genuine, whole-of-government collaboration in delivering results. This approach involves collaboration across government, the not-for-profit community housing sector, and mainstream services, all supported by SHS’s within a Housing First framework and guided by a clear governance structure. It marks a shift from a deficit-driven perspective to a solution-focused, positive approach. The success of this transformation relies on collective efforts through co-design, co-evaluation, and co-delivery, ensuring the long-term effectiveness of the change. For this paradigm shift to succeed, it will require a skilled, committed, and dedicated workforce, as outlined in Principle 8 (The Workforce is Strong and Capable). Recognizing the need for a sustained, locally connected workforce is crucial to addressing the diverse needs of individuals experiencing homelessness across all three phases of their journey. In its feedback on the Strategy, the ahi emphasizes the importance of focused attention on homelessness and social housing workforce planning, professional development, industry support, and the need for culturally competent workers—both paid and voluntary—who bring diversity, inclusion skills, and lived experience. Finally, the ahi urges that Principle 8, which highlights the strength and capability of the workforce, be prioritized, particularly in supporting First Nations people experiencing housing stress and homelessness, with a long-term vision extending beyond the next 10 years. Detailed response The following is more a detailed response from the ahi to the questions outlined in the consultation paper for the Strategy. SECTION 1: The Guiding Principles of the Strategy 1. What do we need to consider as we implement services and system reform guided by these principles (total 9) over the next 10 years? As we implement services and system reform guided by these principles over the next 10 years, the ahi suggests the following approaches be prioritized: Workforce planning should be a key focus in the first rolling action plan (2025-2027), with an emphasis on forecasting the ongoing skills and competency needs throughout the life of The Strategy. This will ensure the workforce is equipped to meet evolving demands. Increasing the supply of dwellings to address crisis, transition, and permanent housing needs must be matched by a parallel increase in the workforce. This includes expanding both paid employees and volunteers within social housing, community housing organizations, and Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS). A well-supported workforce is essential to ensuring the successful and sustainable delivery of outcomes envisioned by the Strategy. Skilling workers who assist First Nations people experiencing homelessness should be prioritised. This requires a culturally competent workforce at all levels to provide high-quality services and ensure that First Nations people do not experience repeated homelessness. By focusing on cultural competence, we can foster better outcomes and long-term stability for these communities. 2. Which Principle should be prioritized and why? The ahi fully supports all nine Principles, with particular emphasis on Principle 8: Workforce is Strong and Capable, as being foundational. Addressing homelessness is a person-centered solution that requires culturally competent employees and volunteers who can establish strong, supportive networks with wraparound services at the local community level. This is essential to meeting the evolving needs and remains a high priority in the First Action Plan (2025-2027). Ongoing professional development for workers is crucial to ensuring long-term success in meeting the changing social, economic, and environmental needs of those living in quality housing. It is also vital for ensuring tenants not only live well but stay connected to their communities. Supporting the workforce’s safety and wellness is key to maintaining a capable, resilient workforce, which in turn ensures the best possible quality of housing, management, and support for tenants. SECTION 2: Strategy focus areas: 1. To make homelessness rare, what should NSW prioritise for action and why? The ahi believes that adequate funding for SHS’s is essential to ensure they are properly resourced to assist individuals at risk of or in a crisis state of homelessness at the point of need. The ability to identify risks and allocate resources effectively for intake assessments and service coordination is key to early intervention and prevention. A triage system is vital for facilitating positive outcomes, aiming to make homelessness a one-off experience. The ahi also supports dedicated funding for staff training and development in this field, recognizing its importance in preventing homelessness from becoming a long-term issue. Investing in training allows for timely and appropriate interventions, helping to break the cycle of homelessness early on. 2. What opportunities and risks are there for implementing actions under this outcome? Delaying action in assisting individuals experiencing homelessness can lead to a loss of faith and hope in the NSW housing system, pushing them toward the justice system or, in the case of older people or women escaping domestic violence, even premature death. Implementing this outcome presents an opportunity to build a culturally competent, and trauma-informed workforce, a key factor to transforming lives while simultaneously increasing the supply of housing. Supporting a resilient workforce, where high job satisfaction is fostered, creates committed and effective workers who can make a lasting difference. 3. What types (s) would be most useful to measure our impact and why? A key target in the First Action Plan (2025-2027) is to reduce the number of people on the social housing waitlist during the reporting period. This measure will serve as an indicator of success and validate the effectiveness of early intervention policies in preventing homelessness. Additionally, setting targets for the number of employees and volunteers in the social housing and SHS sectors, as well as tracking turnover rates, is essential to assessing the success of building a stronger, more capable workforce. 4. To make homelessness brief, what should NSW Priorities for action & why? Domestic violence, family abuse, and coercive control are major causes of homelessness among women, with the number of homeless women and children increasing according to the latest data. Adequate funding for this vulnerable group is a top priority. Supporting these women has a profound impact on their recovery, resilience, and ability to raise their children, leading to positive generational outcomes in the long term. The rising trend of older women experiencing homelessness for the first time also requires early intervention to prevent premature death. 5. What opportunity and risks are there for implementing actions under this outcome? The continued trend of women dying as a result of domestic violence and family abuse is deeply concerning. In 2024, 14 older women aged 55 and over were killed, a distressing statistic according to the Commissioner for Domestic and Family Violence, Michaela Cronin. These women are at a higher risk of vulnerability, often with no support systems to rely on. Implementing actions under this outcome presents a crucial opportunity to save lives, reduce the number of women experiencing both domestic violence and homelessness, and help them rebuild their lives. 6. What types of target(s) would be useful for measuring our impact and why? Reducing the number of women who die as a result of domestic violence and family abuse during the First Action Plan (2025-2027) is an important metric to track and report, demonstrating the efficacy of The Strategy. Individual success stories are powerful testimonies that show the goals of the Strategy are benefiting both individuals and the housing system. The skills required for employees and volunteers in this area demand dedicated funding and training resources. Implementing a measure to evaluate the outcomes of training courses would be valuable, helping to refine and improve the content and application of these programs. 7. To ensure homelessness is not repeated, what should NSW prioritize for action and why? First Nations people are overrepresented in experiencing homelessness and face significant challenges in breaking the cycle. Priority should be given to this group under the Housing First Principle, supported by skilled and capable staff and volunteers, to empower them and prevent repeat homelessness. Rental tenancy laws in NSW should be reviewed, particularly regarding the cessation of tenancy due to prolonged absences. Cultural customs related to death and bereavement (Sorry Business) should be recognised as acceptable reasons for absences and incorporated into tenancy policies. 8. What opportunities and risks are there in implementing actions under this outcome? The risk of not achieving the goals outlined in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap for the NSW Government is significant if priority is not given to properly housing and supporting First Nations people. There are valuable opportunities in collaborating with Aboriginal leaders through a co-design, co-evaluation, and co-delivery approach. Their collective commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can lead to positive outcomes in housing, health, education, employment, justice, safety, and inclusion. 9. What types of target(s) would be most useful to measure the impact and why? Increase the number of Aboriginal workers with certified qualifications across various areas of the Aboriginal housing sector. Aboriginal tenants depend on highly qualified and culturally competent workers and volunteers to help build their resilience and prevent repeated homelessness. Regular customer satisfaction surveys should be conducted to measure tenants’ satisfaction levels and identify areas of strength and improvement. Conclusion The ahi supports an ambitious supply growth program throughout the life of the Strategy to address homelessness in NSW. With 63,260 households (based on 2023-2024 data) currently on the waiting list, it is crucial to reduce this number over the next 10 years through the rolling action plans. Successfully delivering the Strategy will require a skilled, trauma-informed, and competent workforce to implement an integrated housing system. While workforce planning is mentioned as one of the nine principles, its lack of detailed planning is concerning. The ahi strongly suggests that the principles of co-design, co-evaluation, and co-delivery be incorporated from the outset in developing the rolling action plans. The ahi thanks the NSW Government for the opportunity to submit feedback and for its ongoing consideration of building a strong and capable workforce that is recognised and supported by a broad range of industries. The value of including people with lived experience and their unique knowledge and skills cannot be overlooked as an essential voice in this transformative process. Contact NSW Branch Committee - Australasian Housing Institute admin@housinginstitute.org www.theahi.com.au (02) 6494 7566 Date submitted: 11/2/25 Submitted to: Homelessness.strategy@homes.nsw.gov.au
Australasian Housing Institute (the Company) wishes to announce that effective from today, 24th October 2024, Accounting & Audit Solutions Bendigo (AASB) has been appointed as auditor of the Company. The change of auditor has occurred due to the resignation of Kelly Partners (Sydney) as the company’s auditor. The company received approval from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to change its auditors in accordance with section 329(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Accordingly, the Company has accepted the resignation of Kelly Partners (Sydney). AASB’s appointment is effective until the next Annual General Meeting of the Company. In accordance with section 327C of the Corporations Act, a resolution will be put to members at the 2025 Annual General Meeting to appoint AASB as the Company’s ongoing auditor.
Stay up to date with the latest news and events.
We acknowledge the Wathaurong, Yuin, Gulidjan, and Whadjuk people as the traditional owners of the land where our team work flexibly from their homes and office spaces. Ahi Australia recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia and the traditional custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work. Ahi New Zealand acknowledges Māori as tangata whenua and Treaty of Waitangi partners in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Copyright © 2023 Australasian Housing Institute
site by mulcahymarketing.com.au