Following the Wrong Map

Rochester's anti-poverty initiative RMAPI (Rochester-Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative) is in the news again. In a story in the December 31 2017 Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Internal Documents reveal early challenges for Rochester anti-poverty initiative, reporter Patti Singer details some of the struggles RMAPI has had clarifying it's program and aims and in implementing them. Almost three years after the initiative was announced in Jan 2015 there are few if any results. Poverty in Rochester has declined 1% in the past few years but is still among the highest in the nation. Although City officials and RMAPI claim this as a success there is no real evidence that would lead us to conclude that this small amount of decline is the result of RMAPI programs or other factors like a steady if slow growth in the economy in the Obama years.

Many in the community have begun to wonder just what RMAPI does and where the money has gone. And as the title of the article indicates the exact nature of the RMAPI program remains unclear. Investigative journalists like Rachel Barnhart have attempted to find out exactly how RMAPI operates, how much money it gets and where it goes. These and others are important efforts to shed light on processes that are hidden behind layers of an organization that is not especially transparent.  What we also need however, is critical analysis of the aims of RMAPI programs.

In light of this questioning RMAPI director Leonard Brock tried to clarify the role of RMAPI.  It is not a social service agency that is it does not carry out any social work or other activity. Nor does it distribute money. It is not a 501(c)(3) corporation and does not administer funds although it has an influence over funding. According to Barnhart's research it does not even have a bank account. RMAPI is closely allied if not a part of the United Way. much of the grant money seems to go through the United way. Because it is not a nonprofit however it is not accountable to the public.

RMAPI understands itself more as an operating philosophy than a social service agency. Put another way it is an organization that aims at implementing an operational framework across a variety of agencies.  It is the tool of that policy. According to Brock that policy is something called collective impact It brings together stakeholders who he defines as leaders from business education and government to address the problems of racism and poverty.

Thus, the idea of collective impact is at the core of the RMAPI project. When we understand how collective impact operates we will more clearly understand what RMAPI does. But what is the idea of collective impact? Does it in fact provide such a powerful organizational vision that we should adopt it as the model to address poverty. Brock seems to think so. He says the RMAPI project is to be the model for all of New York State. Like other managerial catchphrases such as TQM and best practices, however.  their actual  meaning has to be unpacked carefully

The notion of collective impact is a relatively new organizational philosophy. It was first introduced in a 2011 article by John Kanis and Mark Kramer in Stanford Social Innovation Review. Collective Impact was a method of collaborative organization that is meant to address complex social problems. According to the authors it is "the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem" Collective impact is meant to be an organizational tool for bringing about change in sectors where older methods have proved ineffective. Thus, while the idea in its most direct form seems to be much like older forms of collaboration the authors argue it is a more intensive and organized form of collaboration. "Unlike most collaborations, collective impact initiatives involve a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants." This sounds a lot like the ideas behind RMAPI. They state that all agencies and stakeholders like government and business be linked under a central directive or coordinating agency behind a common goal. It is supposed to be the centralized infrastructure to serve as what the authors call the "backbone agency."

The Collective impact outlook is based in diagnosis of the problems of social service and social change agencies in a neo-liberal era. The shrinking of state services has often lead to the outsourcing and privatizing of social services. This leads on the one hand to a fragmentation of services in isolated groups who are not coordinated or connected. On the other hand, it leads to a competition in which winners and losers are designated and governments and foundations try to guess what agencies will be best to carry out these functions. Critics of outsourcing and privatizing in the non-profit sphere have been quick to point out the destructive effects of these policies. Not only does the constant competition for funding take up an inordinate amount of time, they also change the goals of the social service sector to serve the demands of the funders who often serve more middle class and elite aims. These “reform” are ways of disciplining and shaping social service providers so they don't get too progressive or too out of line and they limit their social justice agendas. The neo-liberal outsourcing of services then can't be seen independent of certain poltical aims. Power is employed to change the goals of social services. It takes power away from groups that often have more direct grass roots contact with the poor and from justice projects and transfers it to funding agencies which often have quite different more middle-class concerns.

The collective impact outlook understands itself as an alternative to this fragmenting process, but critics are not sure that it really makes a meaningful change. The aims are not changed, just the process. Collective impact is a way of making the operation of social services more efficient and more effective. Even if we were to grant its claim that it is a better way to organize services, (something I will dispute later) it does not really have a lot to say about the goals of social services. And this is crucial. If as critics say neo-liberal policies have changed the ability of nonprofit to define these goals how does it achieve a change in goals. Further should we assume that the social problems that collective impact theorists want to address are really the result of fragmented or uncoordinated social services. Collaboration is a good thing when done correctly but it is hardly a panacea absent a clear notion of the processes and goals of social change.

Despite these questions the wave of collective impact has taken the nonprofit sector by storm. The authors promoted it extensively through their own consulting business. It has become the next big thing in the nonprofit sector. It is, however largely a top down business model. Governments, educational institutions and others have adopted it as way of organizing projects. Many foundations now require that applicant formulate a collective impact plan before getting a grant. So, no doubt this influence has trickled down to the RMAPI program. The savvy grant applicant quickly learns the latest buzz words and perhaps even believes them. This is unfortunate because as critics point out the evidence for the effectiveness and success of collective impact was based on a slim thread of two small case studies not even carried out by the authors. More recent studies have found collective impact of more limited effectiveness. Hardly the kind of robust support an idea sweeping non-profit sector would seem to require. One of the cases, an obesity reduction program in the state of Massachusetts hardly seems relevant. it focused on the changing individual behavior of students to get them to reduce their level of obesity. Perhaps in this example the focus on individual behavior can work to an extent, but it is difficult to see how a primary focus on the individual is going to be very effective in addressing the two-headed beast of race and poverty. From low wages to inaccessibility of good jobs to housing shopping and financial sector issues, not to mention structural racism, individuals face barriers that are embedded in institutional rules and practices. The individualizing approach which stresses personal qualities and responsibility is more a feature of neo-liberalism than progressive change.

Other critics of collective impact like Tom Wolff have pointed not only to its slim evidential base but to many flaws in its basic approach. It ignores years of evidence that practitioners in the field have accumulated regarding collaboration and community development. Some of these criticisms are pretty telling. First, the decision-making process that is proposed is a very top down one. It audience is the social and poltical elite who they assume are the crucial policy makers more than the community. Kramer and Kanis focus explicitly on these leaders and social service agencies as the members of their collaborative group. One practitioner claims that collective Impact is about bringing “CEO-level cross-sector leaders together”

 We have seen this problem at work in RMAPI too. Community members were included only after pressure. However, the inclusion of a few community members does not a democratic process make. A related problem with the centralization of power concerns the ability to set rules and set agendas for all. Collective impact theory tends to ignore the experience of past collaborative efforts by community organizers, Rules and agendas can often be set in a top down almost technocratic way. Just as in the neo liberal model, the top down procedure tends to exclude or discount this set of insights and act more to discipline groups.

The model of collaboration used by collective impact theories then tends to favor the status quo over change. The members of governments and businesses have interests in retaining certain elements of the status quo, or to develop leaders who follow a top down approach. While a collective impact approach tends to be limited to efficiencies with the system, the social justice component found in much traditional social work is limited. A social justice perspective is normative, or value oriented it deals with an end or goal like social equity. THat is why the problem of measuring progress is not always cut and dried. The measurement of such a value is not independent of the goal.  True social justice approaches seek social change by changing policies and process to make them more responsive and more open to problem of injustice.

Too often the kind of foundation support that is the backdrop for these efforts is sponsored by elite groups with their own agendas. Some of the foundations that have been mentioned by RMAPI have been formed by hedge fund managers who for example have interests in gentrification. While not every foundation grant is suspect, this reinforces the conception that the agenda for collective impact projects like RMAPI are driven by external interests with their own agendas.

 The biggest problem with the collective impact theory is that leaves out the major group effected by impact the people themselves. In contrast to collective impact theories community development theories look to organize and empower those who are affected by problems. They not only have to have a seat and the table they must have to power to act to set agendas and propose alternatives. Genuine collaboration also means allowing existing social service groups to make authentic contributions and contribute their experience without having their ideas rendered moot by a clumsy central agency. Collaboration must be a fair process. Wolfe and his cohorts have recently stated this clearly "We believe that efforts that do not start with treating community leaders and residents as equal partners cannot later be reengineered to meaningfully share power. In short, coalitions and collaborations need a new way of engaging with communities that leads to transformative changes in power, equity, and justice."

Taking the D And C article at face value it appears that some of the problems critics raise about the collective impact have come home to roost in RMAPI. More than 2 years after its formation the top down centralized authority seems to have great difficulty getting all groups on board. Older groups according to Brock seem unwilling to buy in to the RMAPI version of collaboration but this could just as easily be an example of the leadership disregarding the past experiences of existing groups with collaboration, The social justice issue arises in conflicts with County Executive Cheryl DlNolfo. She seems unwilling to accept the idea that structural racism exists or should be addressed by RMAPI.  Questions of efficient services and collaboration will however, not get very far without a value consensus that collaborative impact theories do not address.