THERE is a lot of talk about the complexity of our world today.

It has always been thus, the difference in the 21st century being the pace of change and the expansion of our consciousness from our village or neighbourhood to the entire Earth and its population (both human and non-human). These paradigm shifts bring benefits while creating new challenges to be addressed.

The digital age has initiated powerful new ways of fostering human connection while at the same time increased screen time is disrupting patterns essential for health and ageing such as sleep, social engagement and physical activity.

A good example of a challenge arising from this digital age is the rate at which mental ill health in young people has increased over the past 20 years, attributed to many factors including the rapid pace of social and technological change and heightened awareness of global problems such as climate change.

A recent report on youth mental health noted that, in Australia, mental disorders have increased by 50% since 2007 among young people (aged 16-24), with a prevalence of nearly 50% among young women of that age cohort.

Numerous studies have concluded that social media has increased the exposure of young people to content related to suicidal ideation, body dissatisfaction and self-harm; in the US, 64% of adolescents have reported exposure to content that is hate-filled, while cyberbullying has been shown consistently to have increased depression in young people.

Mental ill health among young people is not a problem that can be solved by one intervention or even one sector, such as the health system.

Complex or ‘wicked’ problems such as youth mental health – and others including changing climate patterns, ageing population, or global economic instability - require multi-faceted and integrated solutions.

Improving the health and wellbeing of our young people requires concerted effort and investment from governments, families and neighbours, schools and universities, social and entertainment venues, and many other actors.

Collective impact has been defined as “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem”.

The collective impact approach provides a conceptual structure for collaboration to address complex and systemic challenges.

Collective impact initiatives bring together organisations or individuals who might otherwise compete or seek to address challenges on their own, based on the theory that working together creates synergies for greater impact than is achievable by working individually.

Kania and Kramer, in their seminal 2011 article from which the above definition is taken, outline five conditions for successful collective impact:

1. A common agenda: choosing to work together on common goals.
2. Shared measurement systems: agreeing common indicators and applying consistent data systems to measure progress across all member organisations.
3. Mutually reinforcing activities: aligning member actions to address shared goals.
4. Continuous communication: developing collaborative and trusting relationships.
5. Backbone support organisations: dedicated structures and staff to build and reinforce a cohesive partnership.

Collective impact requires not just that organisations work together but that they create these mechanisms to support the collective itself.

It is this foundation of the five elements that differentiates this methodology from collaboration, in which each organisation brings its own resources to the work but does not invest in a central structure to support the partnership.

Does it work?

Collective impact is still a relatively new concept and while it has been implemented successfully in the United States there are fewer examples in Australia of its operation or effectiveness .

That may be because creating a collective impact organisation is not easy. It requires diverse organisations to come together and set aside their own ways of doing things to contribute their expertise in a new way. Current systems of government tendering can create a climate of competition amongst agencies all seeking to access funding for their own solutions to a problem.

A collective impact initiative instead brings together various actors to solve a long-standing, complex and intractable problem, with each partner organisation committing to contribute to a solution that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Performance measurement and accountability are crucial components of any effective organisation, and this is no less true for a collective impact initiative. A hallmark of any collective impact endeavour is the extent to which a wide range of organisational (public and private) and community actors are included to ensure a wholistic and systemic perspective is gained for the development and implementation of strategy.

To demonstrate the outcomes of the collective impact itself, an evaluation methodology must focus not solely on the outputs of the collective but on its organisational dynamics and operations. Change manifests not just through the outputs of the collective but the way in which the process itself increases local engagement, builds relationships, and improves outcomes.

An evaluation of collective impact in 15 communities seeking to improve educational outcomes in the United States concluded that investing in civic infrastructure – the pillars supporting collective efforts – leads to positive change. Furthermore:

The ability to measure civic infrastructure provides an opportunity to identify, address, and improve how individuals and organizations work and work together to improve outcomes for children and youth.

Our world faces many intractable and long-standing challenges. The only way to solve them is to work together. Collective impact offers one way to create positive change for a better future.

By Linda Kurti PhD, managing director at www.stillpointstrategy.com.au