The LinC Project (Leadership in Communities)

Parliamentary Social

Services Select Committee to mental health social

services

June 21st 2016

chris@leadershiplab.co.nz alison.maccoll@redcross.org.nz

• Outside view: LinC Project objectives, deliverables and outcomes

• Inside view: Summary of emerging learnings from the LinC Project Case Study

• Benefits of collaborative funding, governance, delivery and evaluation

Session overview

How can we be sure that in 5 years, we can be even more proud of our vibrant, diverse and

resilient communities across wider Canterbury?

(as opposed to “Do you remember how fantastic our communities used to be in 2013?”)

4

people thrive in communities which thrive with leadership

who thrive with support

• To support and encourage communities to shape and lead their own recovery

• To build on capacity, knowledge and skills within the community

• To provide accessible leadership development opportunities for community leaders as well as service providers

LinC Project Objectives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPHZnzWO3AQ

LinC Project Configuration

• 95 communities from Greater CHCH over 2 years

• Facilitation/ evaluation/ governance team of 30+ people

• Collaborative funding of $500k+ over 2 years

LinC Project Scale

Claire Phillips Alison Maccoll Jenn Chowaniec Louise Edwards Tessa Sturley Steven Jones

Tim Pidsley Chris Mene Anna Russell Chris Jansen Billy O’Steen Peter Cammock

Margaret Jeffries Jason Pemberton Tammi Martin Jolie Wills Sooze Harris Tessa Dodge

Coralie Winn Ryan Reynolds Anake Goodall Stan Tawa Jane Higgins Ria Schroder

LinC Team: Governance, Facilitation, Evaluation

For team members • Positive development in knowledge, skills, behaviours

and attitudes • Increased personal confidence, networks and

relationships

For team members’ communities • Increased / strengthened positive collaborations and

partnerships at a community level • Sustained community projects that have a positive

community impact

For team members’ organisations • Increased leadership capacity at an organisational level

9

LinC Project measured outcomes

LinC Project Case Study

“A case study of multi-stakeholder partnership focussed on community capacity building in a post-

disaster context”

• Purpose of this Case Study project

– review, evaluate and document both the process of the LinC Projects development and to articulate the unique features of the collective governance, collective funding and collective facilitation model that the LinC Project has developed.

– Share these models with internal project stakeholders as well as a wider audience of other agencies, funders, grantmakers, and communities who are seeking to develop collaborative ways of building capacity.

LinC Project emerging learning

1. Determined collaboration around a compelling purpose ignites possibilities

2. Relationships are the currency that create a sustainable platform

3. Co-creation and co-design enables innovation and ownership

4. Grows networks of shared leadership rather than individuals – share the ownership

5. Solutions are innovative, influential and exponential

Benefits of collaborative funding, governance delivery and evaluation

Transformational Grant-making approaches =

Collective funding mechanisms =

Adaptive procurement

Not = Creative accounting

“Transactional” grant-making “Transformational” grant-making

(as evolved through LinC Project etc)

Identify outcomes

Funding programme

Application process and assessment

Grant or donation made

Implementation

M&E and accountability

Decisions made by Trustees

Identify need/issue

Co-design solution

Engage stakeholders

Define project Confirm

resourcing

Implementation

On

-go

ing

dev

elo

pm

en

t,

mo

nit

ori

ng

and

eva

luat

ion

Co

llab

ora

tive

go

vern

ance

Comparing grant-making approaches

Maccoll and Jansen 2016

“Transactional” grant-making

Features • Assessment against pre-

determined criteria and scope • Strong clarity of process,

accountability • Roles of funder and provider are

very distinct and separate • Well documented and familiar

process • Linear process (clear steps from

scope through to evaluation)

“Transformational” grant-making

Features • Customised to meet an identified

need or address an issue • Multi stakeholder: ie

communities/agency/funder • Authentic consultation and

participation • Ongoing co-design of “solution” • Built on partnership – trust

relationships • ‘With’ not ‘for’ • Iterative process throughout • Connection, collaboration,

collective impact

Features of each $$ approach

Maccoll and Jansen 2016

“Transactional” grant-making

Pros/cons Clear scope and process x Difficult to innovate or develop

new and alternative solutions x Difficult to adapt to respond to

changing environment x Power based because of $$$ x Potential for duplication and

multiple small projects doing the same stuff

“Transformational” grant-making

Pros/cons All parties can influence direction of

development Meets complex need in a complex

environment Possibility of collaboration Synergies – whole greater than sum

of parts Strengths based approach –

collective intelligence x Time intensive for all parties x Complex governance roles x Potential conflicts of interest,

personality, power x Results take longer to emerge – not

a quick fix

Pro’s and con’s of $$ approaches

Maccoll and Jansen 2016

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 3 LSG

LinC Facilitation

and evaluation

team

Funders

Ripple effects are influential

• Are there any synergies between the emerging findings of the LinC Project case study and your interests as a Parliamentary Select Committee?

• What suggestions do you have for future steps?

Future synergies?

www.lincproject.org.nz

www.leadershiplab.co.nz