What networks need from municipal and county leaders

From collective impact to collaborative cities, many communities urge local organizations to coordinate their programs or services. These communities are further encouraged by federal agencies that increasingly call for network approaches to social concerns in education and health.

After the success of the federally funded Area Agencies on Aging, other federal agencies offered their own incentives to collaborate. HUD introduced Continuums of Care in 2010. CMS is promoting Medicare 1115 waivers to address the social determinants of health. As part of the new Hannon Act, the Fox grants program encourages a network approach to address veteran suicide. And the LINC act, under consideration, would create new network approaches to a broad range of human services.

Municipal and county leaders are now thrust into the role of network leaders. These roles require different skills and new knowledge. Put simply, network leadership is harder than leading a single organization. Unless they are designed and managed well, networks are a more costly solution to communities’ social problems than independent action. But, with the proper management and resources, networks can and do offer solutions to some of the most challenging problems facing American communities today. For example, research on both Continuums of Care in the United Statesand networks to reduce criminal recidivism in the Netherlands demonstrate that networks can make a population-level difference in addressing social problems.

Networked social impact refers to outcomes that occur across a community or environment because of organizations working together. In our book, “Networks for Social Impact,” we argue that social impact doesn’t result from a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, different designs are needed to address different contexts. This commentary draws attention to the designs our research suggests are most likely to succeed in small rural communities versus larger urban ones.

Network leadership in rural communities

In smaller, more rural communities, effective networks create new programs and services. This theory of change works for rural communities but not for larger, more urban communities has to do with the scale of the change required to address the social issue. A collection of new programs makes a more considerable difference in a rural community than in a large urban community. Municipal leaders may convene project-based networks. Often, they encourage staff to sit on different task forces or working groups. Through their participation, new programs reach larger audiences and incorporate unique knowledge.

The Campaign for Grade-level reading in Grinnell, Iowa, is a good example. Their efforts have led to better than statewide increases in both 4th grade and 8th-grade reading. Using Americorps Service members, they staff task forces around school readiness, summer learning, attendance, nutrition and wellness, and after-school enrichment. These task forces have created several programs that have moved the needle for this town of less than 10,000. The school district and the public health department have several representatives on these task forces.

Network leadership in urban communities

In larger and more urban communities, networks are more successful when combining learning and system alignment theories of change. A learning theory of change focuses on helping organizations perform their programs and services better through learning evidence-based practice and continuous quality improvement initiatives. When this learning is combined with systems alignment, it is potent. Systems alignment describes when an organization’s services are aligned. For example, consider the AmericaServes networks, which provide a host of social services to veterans and military families. Their joint referral systems allow multiple veterans serving organizations to address co-occurring needs for clients. Most veterans who request help have more than one need, so they receive help from multiple agencies that provide different benefits, programs, services. And these services are coordinated through a care center that tracks whether the veteran has received services and can route their request to a different agency if one is overcapacity.

Municipal and county leaders in urban communities play a critical role in network success. Whether they convened the network or joined as a participating organization, they are the essential linchpin to the data and evaluations systems needed to make these networks function. For learning and systems alignment networks to function, evaluation systems are needed that capture data at the population level, can track the use of benefits and services across agencies, and allows evaluators to make accurate comparisons among those who receive benefits or enroll in programs and those that don’t. The nonprofit sector and private businesses cannot perform these essential roles. In short, without the data and evaluation resources of municipal and county leaders, these networks are unlikely to make a social impact.

Based on our research, there are two essential practices for municipal and county leaders in urban areas:

As counties and municipalities turn increasingly to network approaches to solve community-level problems, local leaders have important roles to play in their success. Choosing the right tools for their network enables leaders can see a difference in their communities.

Michelle Shumate is the Delaney Family University Research Professor at Northwestern University. She is the founding director of the Network for Nonprofit and Social Impact and the owner of Social Impact Network Consulting. Katherine R. Cooper is an assistant professor at DePaul University. They are the co-authors of the recent book, “Networks for Social Impact” (Oxford University Press).