THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL

COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS

for

Community Collaboratives Whitepaper
Community Collaboratives Whitepaper: 

A Promising Approach to Addressing America’s Biggest Challenges

By Michele Jolin, Paul Schmitz and Willa Seldon

Communities face powerful challenges – a high-school dropout epidemic, youth unemployment, 

teen pregnancy – that require powerful solutions. In a climate of increasingly constrained 

resources, those solutions must help communities to achieve more with less. A new kind of 

community collaborative - an approach that aspires to significant, community-wide progress by 

enlisting all sectors to work together toward a common goal – offers enormous promise to bring 

about broader, more lasting change across the nation.

By their very nature, individual nonprofit services are fragmented and dispersed, with each organization 

typically serving a limited population with specific interventions. Funders then measure success at the 

organizational level, not for the broader community. To be sure, these efforts are critical to the lives and 

well-being of individuals in those communities and are important “pockets-of-success” to demonstrate that 

progress is possible. But overall, these approaches are not resulting in significant change at a 

community-wide level, which is frustrating to all: taxpayers, funders, policymakers, providers and the 

beneficiaries themselves. 

Consider Milwaukee as an example. For the past two decades, public and private funders have made 

major investments in after-school programs, mentoring programs and school reform. Only a fraction of 

today’s programs and services existed in 1992. Many of these programs are achieving successful 

outcomes for the children they serve. Yet, despite a host of new organizations and investments, 

Milwaukee still recently recorded the worst 4th grade reading scores for African American children in the 

country.1

But Milwaukee has another story that demonstrates the power of banding together in a common cause. In 

2006, the city had one of the highest birth rates by teen-age mothers in the nation. Civic leaders knew 

that teen pregnancy was closely linked to other issues with which Milwaukee was grappling: poor 

educational outcomes, crime and the stubborn cycle of intergenerational poverty, as well as being a huge 

financial drain on city services. Moved to action, United Way of Greater Milwaukee brought together a 

cross section of public officials, nonprofits, businesses and funders to map a detailed action plan tied to 

an ambitious goal: nearly halving the teen birth rate by 2015, bringing it in line with the national average. 

 

1 A. Hentzner, “State’s Black Fourth Graders Post Worst Reading Scores in U.S.,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 24, 2010.
2

Together, they devised innovative solutions and coordinated existing efforts. One solution was a massive, 

largely pro bono, public awareness campaign that ensured virtually every Milwaukeean, both urban and 

suburban, became aware of the teen pregnancy issue. Teens also got involved in shaping these ads to 

ensure their relevance. Meanwhile, in partnership with the Milwaukee Public Schools, the collaborative 

has trained close to 1,000 teachers to deliver age-appropriate, science-based curriculum on sexuality.

Progress has been encouraging. Data for 2010 show a 30% drop in the teen birth rate since 2006. 

“Moving the Needle” on Community Challenges

In December 2010, President Obama created the White House Council for Community Solutions to 

demonstrate the power of engaging “all citizens, all sectors working together” to address America’s needs. 

The White House Council decided to look beyond individual programs showing success with limited 

populations and instead look at where communities are solving problems together and moving the needle

in a way that improves results for the whole community.

America has a long history of community revitalization efforts that were groundbreaking and changed the 

lives of many individuals, helping shape the work of successful efforts today. (See Appendix A for more 

on that history.) Communities can point to numerous examples of collaborations created to solve local 

problems. But thus far only a few, such as the “cradle-to-career” Strive Partnership in Cincinnati and 

Northern Kentucky (profiled below), can show data that confirms a significant and measurable impact on 

the entire community. The Council recognized that cross-sector community collaboratives, such as Strive, 

could represent an emerging national trend, where communities were working together to solve their 

biggest challenges.2 The Council was interested in exploring this trend’s potential by identifying examples 

where communities were achieving needle-moving change (10%-plus progress on a key community-wide 

indicator as a clear standard for success), determining what contributed to that change and capturing the 

lessons their experience holds for other communities.3

The Council worked with The Bridgespan Group to identify the most effective needle-moving 

collaboratives, understand the keys to success and recommend ways the Council could help encourage 

more collective action, particularly to address the challenges of disconnected youth.

Using the 10% plus measure, we found a dozen examples of community collaboratives that met our 

definition of success. (See Case Studies of Effective Collaborations for detailed profiles on these 

 

2 See the seminal article Collective Impact by John Kania and Mark Kramer, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011. 3 While 10% may not seem ambitious, over time it can represent enormous progress for a community and huge savings in 

incarceration, welfare services, homeless services and other costs.
3

communities.) In addition to sharing a commitment to needle-moving change, we found these 

collaboratives had the following operating principles in common:

4

 

• Commitment to long-term involvement. Successful collaboratives make multi-year commitments 

because long-term change takes time. Even after meeting goals, a collaborative must work to 

sustain them.

• Involvement of key stakeholders across sectors. All relevant partners play a role, including 

decision-makers from government, philanthropy, business and nonprofits, as well as individuals 

and families.5 Funders need to be at the table from the beginning to help develop the goals and 

vision and, over time, align their funding with the collaborative’s strategies.

• Use of shared data to set the agenda and improve over time. Data is central to collaborative work 

and is the guiding element for collaborative decision-making.

• Engagement of community members as substantive partners. Community members maintain 

involvement in shaping services, offering perspectives and providing services to each other – not 

just as focus group participants.

GRAPHIC I

 

4 The Bridgespan Group reviewed more than 100 collaboratives and conducted extensive interviews with leaders from the 12 

exemplary ones. Bridgespan also hosted a meeting with community collaborative and community revitalization leaders and experts 

to discuss and hear feedback about what we were learning. A number of these leaders went on to take part in further discussions 

that informed our work and our recommendations.

5 We understand that these criteria do not pertain to single sector or other collaboratives, such as government initiatives or shorterterm coalitions, which may also have achieved important results in their communities. 
4

Our review found at least 80 to 100 collaboratives across the country that are actively working to move 

the needle in this way, with at least another 500 in planning or early implementation stages6. These 

community collaboratives are often connected with national organizations, such as Ready by 21, Strive, 

the United Way and others. 

Characteristics of Success

After conducting deeper research into the 12 needle-moving collaboratives, five common elements 

emerged as essential to their success. (See Graphic I.) Listed below, each element is also illustrated by 

one or more case histories: 

1. Shared vision and agenda: Finding the common denominator

Developing a common vision and agenda is one of the most time-consuming and challenging of all the 

tasks a community collaborative undertakes. It is also one of the most vital. Establishing quantifiable 

goals can catalyze support and build momentum, and developing a clear roadmap can help organizations 

look beyond narrow institutional interests to achieve broad goals. 

In the case of the Strive Partnership of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, an exemplar of collective 

impact, leaders from education, youth development, health care, business, philanthropy, government, 

academia and other sectors came together to craft a detailed roadmap to achieve cradle-to-career 

progress for each child. (see: http://strivenetwork.org/vision-roadmap)

 

Getting there was not easy. It took time to build trust among the various leaders and interests. Public 

school officials, funders, labor union heads, nonprofit executives, and civic leaders all had to create a 

shared agenda for which they would all be held accountable. Indeed, core partners grappled for several 

years to understand the research and local data before agreeing to a course of action.

In fact, successful collaboratives usually conduct extensive research and data collection to understand 

both the problem and how systems will need to shift over time. They hold focus groups, interviews and 

community meetings to gather input from residents, community leaders, funders, experts in the field and 

other stakeholders. 

Consider the case of Nashville, Tennessee, which – despite the individual efforts of more than 175 

nonprofits working to improve the city’s failing schools – was, by 2002, experiencing dismal high school 

graduation rates and poor school attendance. A study conducted by the Nashville Chamber of Commerce 

 

6 Based on information from Living Cities, Project U-Turn, Ready by 21, Strive and United Way.
5

that year described the fragmented nature of this support network. With clear data to show the way, the 

city’s business leaders seized an opportunity to coordinate the disparate efforts aimed at youth. 

Born from the business community’s investigation and analysis was Alignment Nashville. As Councilman 

Ronnie Steine told us, “Nashville, with its consolidated city-county government, has a long history of 

collaboration. Anyone trying to act on their own in this town quickly realizes they are on the wrong bus.” 

Designed as a nonprofit intermediary, Alignment Nashville began by pooling the thinking and advice of 

more than 100 nonprofit leaders and community members to develop its shared vision. A major focus was 

school attendance, which was found to be closely linked to graduation rates, school performance, youth 

crime and public safety. 

By 2010, with strong leadership from the city’s mayor, Nashville had a Children and Youth Master Plan. It 

was the city’s first formal roadmap for how Nashville would actually connect youth with needed services. 

Several significant reforms emerged from that effort. For example, research showed many youth had a 

hard time literally getting transportation to school and other programs. In response, the city created new 

bus stops, instituted fare waivers for qualifying students and touted these changes with several city-wide 

marketing campaigns.

To achieve their goals, collaboratives like Nashville’s need to be more than just a collection of institutions. 

Without community members actively sharing in the process, they may pass up an opportunity to get 

better results and sustain their accomplishments over the longer run. In Nashville, youth and families 

were heavily involved in the development of the Children and Youth Master Plan. A high school student 

served as one of the three co-chairs and other students took places on the taskforce. Meetings were 

scheduled after the schools’ 3 p.m. dismissal, and transportation assistance was provided to facilitate 

student participation. Youth members also took responsibility for creating a large-scale survey of 1,000 

city youth. The broader community got actively engaged too, mainly through listening sessions involving 

hundreds of residents and youth. The taskforce employed a variety of meeting formats to gain community 

insights, such as small group discussions and one-on-one exchanges. At each, translators enabled 

participation from the Hispanic community. 

2. Effective leadership and governance: Keeping decision makers at the table

Successful collaboratives need a strong leader to fully engage stakeholders and coordinate their efforts. 

The biggest challenge is not so much bringing decision makers to the table but keeping them there for 

years of hard work ahead. To achieve such a feat, it is important for the collaborative’s leader to be highly 

respected by the community and viewed as a neutral, honest broker. In addition, the leader must work to 

create and maintain a diverse and inclusive table where both larger organizations and smaller grassroots 

organizations have a powerful voice.
6

The Milwaukee teen pregnancy prevention effort, mentioned above, is spearheaded by the United Way 

and co-chaired by two well-respected public figures: Elizabeth Brenner, the publisher of the Milwaukee 

Journal Sentinel, and Bevan Baker, the city’s Commissioner of Health. With the trust of the community, 

the power and perceived neutrality to convene leaders at the highest levels, and the independence to 

make a long-term commitment to an issue, United Way was uniquely positioned to play the convener role. 

It has also done so with a skillful touch. As CEO Mary Lou Young puts it, “We don’t own the agenda. The 

collaborative and the community own the agenda.” The agency also ensures that proper credit goes to 

partner organizations, such as the Milwaukee Public Schools. The result is a collaborative focused on 

success rather than on empire-building or credit-claiming.7

In terms of governance, the Milwaukee collaborative has only a few explicit decision rules. For example, 

the Oversight Committee’s co-chairs have veto power over any new public awareness advertisements. 

Otherwise, it operates without bylaws or formalized roles, relying on a strong culture of trust among 

participants. Milwaukee’s approach is similar to many other collaboratives: unity is achieved through 

common purpose and trust (enhanced by effective communication and clear decision-making rules), 

rather than a highly formalized governance structure.

In Milwaukee, as in many of the other effective collaboratives we observed, success has also involved 

engaging many levels of leaders. Typically, senior leaders or a subset of senior leaders sit on a steering 

committee, the decision-making body that guides the overall work of the collaborative. Mid-level 

practitioners also engage in developing detailed plans and doing work on the ground. The steering 

committee and the “working groups” meet at least monthly to engage in the work of collaboration until a 

collaboration is very firmly established and achieving results. While the honest broker role in a 

collaborative is typically filled by nonprofit leaders, university presidents, business leaders or local 

philanthropic leaders, rather than government officials, a highly engaged public sector is almost always 

critical to success. In other words, mayors, legislative leaders, school superintendents or police chiefs are 

needed to bring together city officials, influence funding and enact critical policy changes. 

3. Alignment of resources toward what works: Using data to continually adapt

Regardless of their breadth, successful collaboratives pursue a logical link between the goals they seek, 

the interventions they support and what they measure to assess progress. Collaboratives are by nature 

adaptive – adjusting their approaches based on new information, changes in conditions and data on 

progress against goals. At times, collaboratives may push for new services to fill in gaps. But much of 

their work focuses on “doing better without spending more” – getting funders, nonprofits, government and 

 

7 In the case of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire (profiled in this paper), designed to address youth violence in the 1990s, one 

consequence of its success was that various stakeholders tried to claim credit for the achievement. Police, probation officers, social 

workers and the minister-led Ten Point Coalition all thought they stood to gain by being seen as responsible for the nationally 

acclaimed “Boston Miracle,” even though it was really the sum of their efforts which made the difference. Credit-claiming in part 

caused the collaborative to stumble. 
7

business to align existing resources and funding with the most effective approaches and services to 

achieve their goals. In many cases, this will mean working together to target efforts towards particular 

populations, schools or neighborhoods rather than operating in a more ad hoc manner. 

Take, for example, Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Responding to an epidemic of youth homicides tied to 

gang activity and crack cocaine, Boston created Operation Ceasefire in 1995. A working group of 

community participants – including the police force, educators and front-line practitioners – sought to 

develop a viable solution for the gun-related slaughter among the city’s urban youth. Relying on data that 

showed that while only 1% of Boston youth actually participated in youth gangs, these youth generated at 

least 60% of youth homicide in the city. Operation Ceasefire applied a radically different approach to gun 

violence, focusing on direct deterrence of youthful offenders. The working group began by identifying 

gangs with the highest risk of gun-related violence and then contacted their members. In face-to-face 

confrontations, Operation Ceasefire communicated an unequivocal warning: if violence continued, 

authorities would ensure an immediate and certain response. The approach made use of existing 

authorities – such as police, parole officers and the like – to aggressively prosecute violent actions and to 

create a strong deterrent. Family members, community leaders and nonprofits also engaged directly with 

gang members to communicate a moral message against violence and to offer help to those willing to 

accept it.

Living up to its name, Boston’s Operation Ceasefire was associated with significant reductions in youth 

homicides and gun assaults. Youth homicides dropped to 15 in 1997, about one-third of the 1991-1995 

average. Due to its achievements, the Operation Ceasefire model was institutionalized as the Group 

Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS) and since 2000 has been replicated in many other communities 

under a variety of names. Operation Ceasefire discontinued operations in 2000 due to loss of key 

leadership, shortages of manpower and political wrangling. In the mid-2000s, as Boston found itself faced 

with a resurgence of youth violence (though nowhere near previous levels), the city has focused on 

reinvigorating some of the same strategies and bringing some of the same key stakeholders back to the 

table. Boston has since experienced a decline in youth homicides. An important lesson is if collaboratives 

are disbanded too early, hard-won gains may not be sustained.

Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, like all the effective collaboratives we studied, made extensive use of data 

at every stage of its work – to define the problem (in this case, the need to focus on a relatively small 

group of gang-involved individuals who were driving the violence problem), to set and collect output 

measures (such as the number of “chronic gang offenders” engaged) and to provide an agreed-upon set 

of outcome measures that would be used to define success. 
8

4. Dedicated staff capacity and appropriate structure: linking talk to action 

“Nothing happened between meetings. If the mayor had not appointed a full-time staff person to lead 

the work, this could not get done.” 

In our research, we heard more than a few such comments underscoring the key finding that having a 

dedicated staff is critical to success, as is a staff structure appropriate to the collaborative’s plan and 

goals.

A good example is Philadelphia’s Project U-Turn collaborative, created to tackle the city’s dropout crisis. 

When conceived, only about half of the entering public school ninth graders slated to graduate from high 

school actually did on time. Through the support of a 10-year grant from the William Penn Foundation, the 

Philadelphia Youth Network, the collaborative’s lead agency, was able to hire a vice president to focus on 

the daily operations of Project U-Turn. She creates agendas, facilitates the steering committee, pushes 

the work ahead between meetings, keeps members informed about current progress and maintains 

relationships with the broader partner group. The foundation also funds a policy analyst within the 

mayor’s office, a director of a re-engagement center at the school district and a data analyst, who is vital 

to a project that focuses so closely on key metrics. Between 2004 and 2011, the Project U-Turn 

collaborative saw a dramatic 12 percentage point increase in four-year graduation rates in Philadelphia’s 

public schools. 

What we learned is that there is no predetermined right size for a collaborative’s staff. Effective staff 

teams can range from one full-time strategic planning coordinator to as many as seven staffers for more 

complex, formalized operations. In general, dedicated resources must focus on the following roles:

• Convening: A leader brings and keeps partners together and maintains a cohesive vision for the 

group. This person could be the head of the local community foundation, a university president, a 

nonprofit leader or a public official. The backbone organization (the organization that is 

responsible for the collaborative’s operations) leader also plays an important role in keeping the 

collaborative efforts coordinated and moving forward. 

• Facilitation: The collaborative needs a day-to-day person to maintain momentum, guide 

participants to the right questions and facilitate the group towards agreement and action. 

• Data collection: Collaboratives frequently take responsibility for data aggregation and analysis. 

Depending on the extent of the data, a dedicated analyst may be required. Some collaboratives 

use staff from a participating organization or hire staff or outside consultants to fulfill this capacity.

• Communications: Someone must manage internal and external communications to make sure 

that participants are kept well-informed. Collaborative leaders intentionally highlight the progress 
9

of partners, as opposed to seeking credit for the collaborative itself, and coordinate 

communications with partners to seek opportunities to advance the collaborative’s agenda.

• Administration: With many moving parts and many partners, collaboratives typically require 

significant administrative support. 

A formal collaborative structure allows for meaningful engagement of partners, but formats vary based on 

the issues being addressed. All collaboratives tend to have a steering or oversight committee. 

Collaboratives with a narrow focus also tend to have a few working groups, but those tackling more than 

one issue (for instance “cradle-to-career” collaboratives such as Strive Cincinnati) often maintain many 

separate subgroups or committees. Strive’s 30-member executive committee oversees five strategy 

teams focused on the five core priorities of the partnership. The Strive Partnership also has 10 related 

“collaboratives” – networks of providers and school officials focused on specific goals, such as early 

education. These provide specific interventions in line with Strive’s roadmap to success and receive 

support from the Strive staff in facilitation and coaching, data analysis, communications, advocacy and 

grant-writing.

 

5. Sufficient funding: Targeted investments to support what works 

Collaboratives require funding both to maintain their dedicated staff and to ensure that nonprofits have 

the means to deliver high-quality services. Even though the first job of most collaboratives is to leverage 

existing resources, in every truly needle-moving collaborative we studied, there was at least a modest 

investment in staff and infrastructure. This investment often included in-kind contributions of staff or other 

resources from partners. Sustainable funding itself becomes one of the collaborative’s key objectives, as 

does “funder discipline” – sticking with the plan rather than developing individualized approaches or 

continuing to fund activities that aren’t part of the strategy.

The history of an Atlanta collaborative shows how well-managed funding can work. By the mid-1990s, 

Atlanta’s East Lake neighborhood was in trouble: murders averaged one a week and the crime rate was 

18 times the national average. To create new opportunities for its besieged residents, a prominent real 

estate developer, Tom Cousins, started the East Lake Foundation in 1995 with the goal of transforming 

the neighborhood. East Lake Foundation’s eventual strategy focuses on three essential goals: cradle-tocollege education, safe and affordable housing and community wellness.

The East Lake Foundation provided the funding and personnel for the initial two-year planning phase, 

which culminated in the replacement of the public housing project with a mixed-income development. 

With three of its seven non-programming staff members dedicated to fundraising and a fourth focused on 

marketing and communication, the Foundation is able to attract resources from a variety of major partners. 

These include the Coca-Cola Company, the supermarket chain Publix, Georgia State University, Atlanta 

Public Schools and the Atlanta Housing Authority. The Foundation’s dedicated fundraising team, 
10

combined with a patient long-term approach to investments and a commitment to tracking and publicizing 

progress on neighborhood metrics, attracts additional funds from local public and private funders and 

directly contributes to the sustainability of the collaborative’s efforts. 

East Lake’s many years of collaborative work have led to more than just fundraising success – violent 

crime in the neighborhood has dropped by an astonishing 95%, and educational attainment among East 

Lake’s young people has risen significantly. Today, through an initiative called the Purpose Built 

Communities network, East Lake is sharing its hard-won knowledge with other communities.

What do collaboratives need to thrive? 

Most of the ingredients for a successful collaborative must be locally grown. But to thrive, they can benefit 

from several key resources provided by institutions beyond the community such as state and federal 

government, national networks and national philanthropy. Here’s how:

1. Increasing the visibility and legitimacy of a collaborative’s work

As one leader of a community collaborative put it, “Even more than resources, I need some outside group 

with credibility to point to this model and say ‘this is a great thing to do.’ That would help me get the local 

partners and resources to the table.” Government, philanthropy and other regional and national 

institutions can be vital sources of such external credibility – through awards, reports and other formal or 

informal forms of support and encouragement. 

2. Supporting policy and environmental change

A variety of state and federal policies and practices influence what happens at the local level, especially 

what happens with funding. Allowing the use of federal, state and local funding for collaborative staff and 

infrastructure would make a significant difference in existing capacity. Government agencies also tend to 

fund in narrow streams tied to particular programs. But more flexible funding could be especially valuable 

in supporting the work of multi-sector collaboratives, as could government requests for proposals (RFPs) 

for grant applications that encourage existing and new collaboratives (not just individual organizations) to 

apply. Other types of government policy changes that would support the work of collaboratives include 

establishing realistic timetables for outcomes. These timetables should account for the extended time 

required to get to ultimate outcomes from intermediate gains. Indeed, government policy should favor

efforts that articulate clear intermediate outcomes and collect data to gauge and improve the quality of 

those outcomes. 

3. Providing knowledge and implementation support

One of the most heartening trends we have seen is the way in which networks such as Promise 

Neighborhoods, Strive and others are using knowledge gleaned from past efforts – both failures and 

successes – to support this next generation of collaborative work. After all, it took the initial Strive effort in 
11

Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky almost six years to fully develop its “cradle-to-career” approach and 

tools. Targeted support for implementation, made available when needed, has the potential to move 

collaboratives more quickly toward meaningful community change. Based on feedback from collaborative 

leaders, we identified several key knowledge and practice gaps. 

On the management side, the most prominent and pervasive challenge was finding (and training) the right 

talent to manage accountable partnerships and collaborations. Other critical issues include: developing or 

discovering efficient and effective ways to identify, collect and use data from disparate sources to manage 

and improve performance; building strong backbone organizations that can support a growing number of 

collaboratives; and authentically incorporating community participation, resident voice and the dynamics 

of race and power in the initiative’s strategy and work. 

On the programmatic side, the primary need may be for help in identifying what works or what shows 

promise of working in critical areas such as addressing the needs of disconnected youth or identifying the 

best early childhood supports.

The White House Council on Community Solutions worked with Bridgespan to develop a toolbox that 

provide guidance for both collaboratives focused on improving results and for new efforts. (See 

Community Collaboratives Toolbox).

4. Funding for collaborative infrastructure and implementation support

Even if the primary purpose of a collaborative’s work is to align existing funding to effective interventions 

and strategies, communities still need extra funding to support their collaborative infrastructure. While 

much of this is usually provided locally, national philanthropists have a stake in helping bring about more 

success stories and supporting efforts to streamline collaborative work, for example in helping to foster 

data systems that are useful to collaborative efforts. In addition, national intermediaries such as Ready by 

21 and Strive play a critical role in providing knowledge and implementation support. These 

intermediaries require additional resources if they are to address the burgeoning demand from 

communities that are interested in learning how to increase the effectiveness of their existing 

collaborative efforts or begin new ones. 

5. Pushing for greater community partnership 

Finally, there is much to be learned about ways to engage community residents beyond being focus 

group participants and sources of input. Rather, they must become integral members of community 

collaboratives and providers of service and impact to address their own challenges. As described earlier, 

youth were integrally involved as leaders and participants in the development of Nashville’s Child and 

Youth Master Plan and its collaborative efforts. (See Case Studies of Effective Collaborations)
12

Beyond engaging beneficiaries as participants, community collaboratives also could benefit from seeing 

residents as “natural allies” that could be tapped as producers of service and impact. Robert Putnam, in 

Bowling Alone and Better Together, highlights the role social capital plays in building community, 

suggesting that the quality of relationships is central to creating long-term community health. Community 

collaboratives and other community revitalization initiatives can learn much from this research on how 

peers, parents, extended family and faith-based leaders can be engaged in being supportive allies of 

achieving community goals. Programs, such as the Family Independence Initiative, based in Oakland, 

have demonstrated how community members can self-organize to increase family income and stability, 

improve their children’s academic results and connect with each other in ways that advance opportunity

* * *

In today’s resource-constrained environment, communities are struggling to find ways to better address 

their greatest challenges and achieve more impact. Community collaboratives represent a growing trend 

that offers real hope that more can be achieved – that high school graduation rates can rise, teen 

pregnancy rates fall and communities beset by violence see a renewal of peace. 

To achieve such goals, government, community members, nonprofits, philanthropy and business must 

pull together. They must create common goals and singleness of purpose around what works, supported 

by adequate resources and outstanding leadership. So far, a growing number of effective multi-sector 

collaboratives – proof points for success – are showing the way.

The time is ripe for such efforts to build momentum. We have the benefit of learning from previous 

generations’ efforts, and a growing body of knowledge about effective approaches. Public and private 

sources are beginning to dedicate funding to support community collaboration. And across the country we 

have seen that there is a broad constituency for change, a shared sense of purpose and a renewed 

opportunity to include those left out of the American dream.

Michele Jolin is a Member of the White House Council for Community Solutions and a Senior Fellow at 

the Center for American Progress. Paul Schmitz is a Member of the White House Council for Community 

Solutions and CEO of Public Allies. Willa Seldon is a Partner at The Bridgespan Group.
13

APPENDIX A

A Long History of Community Revitalization Efforts in the United States

Efforts to transform American communities date back at least to the settlement house movement of the 

late 19th century. Designed to assimilate immigrants into American society, organizations such as Hull 

House in Chicago provided adult classes, daycare, shelter for the homeless, public baths and other social 

services, and also served as advocates for an ambitious social reform agenda. 

Since then, private citizens, business, philanthropy, and government have often come together in efforts 

to revitalize communities. These included federally supported efforts as part of the 1960s War on Poverty, 

such as Model Cities and the Community Action Program.

Federal funding for distressed communities fell during the 1970s and 1980s, while responsibility for 

distributing the remaining funds shifted to local governments, which tended to pay more attention to 

sparking economic development than to tackling social problems. At the same time, community 

development corporations (CDCs), which had initially focused on helping residents develop economic 

self-sufficiency, increasingly took on housing development as their primary activity. Support for social 

services that would supplement public funds largely fell to nonprofits and foundations, whose activities 

tended to focus on smaller scale programs which were designed to target specific issues. While new 

ideas and innovative practices emerged from these efforts, the results overall led to only limited change 

and fragmented delivery systems that disintegrated social problems, populations, and even 

neighborhoods as they sought to provide isolated interventions to specific populations. 

In the 1990s and 2000s, the pendulum began to swing back toward an approach that included social 

services, child care programs and workforce development, as well as housing. Community participation 

and capacity-building figured largely in this generation of “comprehensive community initiatives” (CCIs), 

as did a preference for focusing on the community’s assets (rather than its deficits) as a platform for 

change. Despite the comprehensive nature of these approaches, they resulted in changing the lives of 

some individuals but ultimately did not result in community-wide change. Today, a new wave of efforts to 

break the cycle of poverty and revitalize distressed communities is building and attracting interest, 

engagement and support from every segment of society. These include such emerging national networks 

as the Building Sustainable Communities initiative of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), 

Living Cities, Promise Neighborhoods (based on the example of the Harlem Children’s Zone), Purpose 

Built Communities and Strive. 
14

The following chart summarizes some of the more notable landmarks in the more than 100 year history of 

community revitalization and collaboration: 

While collaborative efforts have a long history, the work remains immensely challenging – with a record of 

many more failures than successes. Today, a new generation of multi-sector community collaboratives 

across the United States is seeking to learn from previous efforts, build on what works and use 

collaboration as a fulcrum for generating community-wide change. 

Community development 

“experiments”

• Gray Areas: Ford Foundation 

• Community Action Agencies: 

Johnson administration

Community Development 

Corporations

• Housing development focused 

change efforts

• Often includes economic and 

job development programs

System reform efforts

• Attempts to reform existing 

systems rather than creating 

competing ones

Comprehensive Community 

Initiatives

• Holistic change efforts spanning 

a wide variety of services

• Emphasis on community 

participation and social capital

“Next Generation” 

Community Revitalization

• Data-driven change efforts 

with clear target outcomes for 

tightly defined geographies

• Many modeled after the 

Harlem Children’s Zone

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Settlement

Houses (1890+)

• Efforts to serve the urban poor 

by living among them

• Sought to develop effective 

programs to transfer to gov’t