What are ways that funders can foster trust and support relationships with community partners? In this new episode, Fay Hanleybrown, John Harper, and Victor Tavarez of FSG stop by the podcast to share from their own experiences supporting funders doing place-based work. In the discussion, they highlight four key practices that are effective in building and sustaining trust with community partners.
Listeners can check out more in the recent article that Victor, Fay, and John wrote, titled, “How Funders of Collective Impact Initiatives Can Build Trust,” that was featured online in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, and is part of the online series Collective Impact, 10 Years Later.
Ways to Listen: Stream this episode below. You can also listen via Itunes, Spotify, Simplecast, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, Amazon, and other podcast apps.
Please find a transcript of this podcast lower down this page
Resources and Footnotes
- Article: How Funders of Collective Impact Can Build Trust
- Series: Collective Impact, 10 Years Later
- Report: Being the Change
- Report: Advancing Funders’ Openness Practices: Lessons for the Field from the Collective Impact Funder Action Learning Lab
- Resource: Power Moves
- Resource: Reimagining Capacity Building: Navigating Culture, Systems & Power
- Resource: Trust-Based Philanthropy Project
Music
The Intro music, entitled “Running,” was composed by Rafael Krux, and can be found here and is licensed under CC: By 4.0. The outro music, entitled “Deliberate Thought,” was composed by Kevin Macleod. Licensed under CC: By.
More on Collective Impact approach to collaborate for social change:
- Infographic: What is Collective Impact?
- Resource List: Getting Started in Collective Impact
Listen to Past Episodes: Listen to past episodes in the Forum resource library. You can also listen and subscribe via Itunes, Spotify, Simplecast, Sticher, iHeartRadio, Amazon, and other podcast apps.
Podcast Transcript
(Intro) Welcome to the Collective Impact Forum podcast, here to share resources to support social change makers working on cross-sector collaboration.
The Collective Impact Forum is a nonprofit field-building initiative and online community that is co-hosted in partnership by the nonprofit consulting firm FSG and the Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions.
In this episode, we’re discussing some key practices that funders can put in place to support building trust within a collaborative. These practices were first discussed in the article titled, “How Funders of Collective Impact Initiatives Can Build Trust,” that was recently featured online in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, and is part of the online series Collective Impact, 10 Years Later. We’re excited to be in conversation with the article authors as we dive deeper into this great topic. Joining this discussion is Fay Hanleybrown, John Harper, and Victor Tavarez, all of whom are a part of the U.S. consulting team at FSG, and have a lot of experience supporting funders doing place-based work. Moderating this discussion is Collective Impact Forum executive director Jennifer Splansky Juster. Let’s listen in.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Hello everyone, and welcome to today’s podcast. I’m Jennifer Juster, executive director of the Collective Impact Forum and I’m happy to be with you moderating today’s conversation with my wonderful colleagues at FSG, one of the host organizations of the Collective Impact Forum.
Over the past few months the Collective Impact Forum has partnered with the Stanford Social Innovation Review to curate the sponsored series, Collective Impact, 10 Years Later. The series has been lifting up the perspectives of collective impact practitioners, funders, thought leaders, and several intermediary support organizations highlighting lessons from work in this field over the last 10 years since the original publication of Collective Impact in the Standard Social Innovation Review. The series includes a rich range of perspectives on a variety of collective impact-related topics and I encourage you to check it out on SSIR.org.
Today I’m delighted to be hosting a conversation that will dive deeper into one of these pieces called How Funders of Collective impact Initiatives Can Build Trust. This piece explores ways in which funders of collective impact efforts can help foster trust both inside their own organizations and externally with partners to strengthen collaboration and most importantly achieve greater impact in communities.
The three authors of that piece are with me today, and I would love to introduce them. First, we have Victor Tavarez who is a senior consultant with FSG. We have John Harper, managing director at FSG, and Fay Hanleybrown, a managing director at FSG.
So, Fay, John, Victor, thank you so much for joining. I’d love to start by having each of you introduce yourselves by telling us a little bit about what brought you to the work that you are doing and to this piece. Why don’t we start with you, Victor?
Victor Tavarez: Thank you so much, Jen. It’s a great question. I think for me I’ve been interested in leveraging collaboration to improve system conditions for most of my adult life and have been trying to figure out the best way to do that. The way I see it, everyone has a part to play in helping others to access resources and opportunities, and so coming to write this specific piece I draw from my experience working with funders at FSG. A lot of times funders bring us into their communities to speak to their stakeholders, and a lot of times we find out that stakeholders don’t always trust who’s funding them so I wanted to write this piece to sort of just offer some helpful steps that funders can take to help rebuild that trust.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Awesome. How about you, John?
John Harper: Yeah, I’ve spent the majority of my career—oh, hey, Jen, thanks for having us. Glad to be here. I think for me the approach to this work, I’ve spent the majority of my career sort of in and around schools doing strategy development, fundraising, things of that nature, and after a while you sort of comported your respective organization enough time to fit into the right theories of change or a tack to sort of promote my single organization as the solution all the while knowing that there is no single solution to the complex problems that we’re facing. So for me really driven to this work with trying to get further upstream, trying to create those spaces where we could really collaborate and work together, understanding how these pieces fit together.
I think for me as I think about the funder piece, the most authentic relationships as I reflected back was when there was actually not so much conversations on all the ins and outs details of exactly what we were doing. That wasn’t a productive conversation. The productive conversation was when we really knew that we had a real partner across the table. We could come with our challenges, they brought their challenges, and we were involved in creative problem solving regularly. How do you create that, right? It’s a great sort of nirvana that we can all strive for but what does it look like in practice, and I think that’s why I both came to FSG, and a little bit of what we’re trying to get out of this piece as well.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Great, definitely dig into that more. Thanks, John. Before we do that, let’s turn over to Fay. Welcome.
Fay Hanleybrown: Thanks so much, Jen. It’s wonderful to be here. I would say what’s brought me to this work is I’m a true believer in collaborative work and collective action. I’ve really been just so fortunate to have the opportunity to work with so many place-based collaboratives over the last 10 plus years at FSG, and I’ve learned so much from our community partners and some others in the field including the many partners through the Collective Impact Forum.
In particular I would say some of the big learning has been around the importance of centering equity and the importance of community engagement. Early on in this work and this would be more than a decade ago, I had a very wise backbone leader who shared with me that old adage that progress happens at the speed of trust, and that has always stayed with me and has been true in every collaborative that I’ve worked with.
I know that when John and Victor and I were thinking about writing this article, we wanted to unpack that a little bit and really think about what are some of the concrete steps that we’ve seen in this work that really help funders to build trusting relationships with their partners and ultimately help collaboratives get to the results that they’re trying to get to so that’s what we were trying to do through this article.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Thank you, Fay. Progress moves at the speed of trust is such a wise adage and relevant in so much work and especially in this kind of collaborative work so I love elevating that right now. So for folks who haven’t read the article yet, can one of you give a topline summary of the key pieces, and then we’ll dive into each of them individually as we go.
John Harper: I’m happy to start there a little bit. I actually think Fay set us up. For me the article is about trying to get concrete, just thinking about the word trust, it’s kind of a sexy term just like many other sexy terms these days. The consultant in me knows there’s lots of framework defining trust, probably even some clarity on how you could measure it but where I think folks often fall down is what are the steps, what are those concrete actions one can take to get there. What are the things that I should be carrying in mind? What are those actions that live in the external space, things that a program officer might do versus what are those things that are more internal facing? How are we thinking about alignment but recognizing that all of this works together to actually to get to that nirvana? I need to come up with a better example, right? But if trust is this sexy idea that we’re all striving for, what are some actual concrete ways to get there, and what type of examples have we seen both from our partners and others of when you do this intentionally, what can it look like? It’s like that’s really the core of where we go in the article.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: That’s great, and you all elevate four key points or four key approaches to really strengthening and building trust, being a humble learner, be transparent about data and funding priorities, aligning internal expectations and practices, and developing feedback loops. So I want to let folks know where we’re going but we want to go into each of these one at a time. The first one that you really explore in the article is being a humble learner so could you tell us a little bit more about how funders go about showing up in ways that present them and help them live into being a humble learner?
Victor Tavarez: I’m happy to take this one. It’s no secret that funders have access to plenty of resources. They can hire researchers. They can hire brilliant talent. They can attend conferences to learn about the latest innovations, and despite this they don’t know everything. So the sort of advice to be a humble learner is really to lean into that, really to lean into the idea that folks who are in community, folks who are doing the work really do have a lot of perspectives and experiences and input that would allow funders to make better decisions.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Thank you, Victor. Would one of you have an example to share where you’ve really seen this take root in practice?
Fay Hanleybrown: Yeah, I’m happy to share an example that we came across with—it’s actually an initiative that was focused on reducing preterm births in California. As Victor was saying, this is a funder that had access to all kinds of incredible academic researchers and information. They had actually worked with the community to gather data from all different aspects of this problem which is an incredibly complex problem. We actually did a data walk with lots of different stakeholders that were engaged in helping to reduce preterm birth rates, and that included representatives from city government. It included, again, some of these incredible leading academic researchers. It included nonprofit leaders that were working directly in the community. It included hospital administrators and nurses but I think most importantly it included mothers. It included moms that had experienced preterm births themselves, and as we walked around together to look at the data and to really interpret what it meant, I think all of us were struck by the fact that it was the moms that had the most insight in terms of where those breakages were happening in the system, where there was a lack of service, where the system was not actually working and was breaking down.
I think it was such a clear reminder that it is the people that are most impacted by social issues that have the greatest knowledge both for what the problem is and how to solve it. As a result of that, when the steering committee was created, there were three mothers on the steering committee for this initiative that had experienced preterm birth themselves, and they were critical to the success of the work.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: That’s a great example. Thanks for bringing that in. The second strategy that you all elevate in the piece is being transparent about your data and funding priorities. Can you tell us a bit more about that one?
Victor Tavarez: I’m happy to jump in here, and I think this really builds on the example that Fay just shared. Here is another example where funders can lean into their humility, is creating a space where they can both share and challenge assumptions together with community members, creating a space where the funder is looking at the same data, the same numbers, the same quotes and stories that community members are, and interpreting that data together.
This allows funders to sort of think through what are their assumptions, think through what are the assumptions of their community members and what they’re bringing into this. It also creates an opportunity for community members and grantees to weigh in on how resources get allocated in community all while giving funders the opportunity to sort of share some insight into their decision-making processes. So we think that this is a sort of helpful exercise to building trust because transparency is really one of the key elements here.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Absolutely, and I know that you all have several examples from work that you’ve done alongside clients and other folks that you’ve been in touch with in communities. Do you want to share how you’ve seen this take root in practice?
Fay Hanleybrown: This is Fay. I can share another example here as well. This one’s from United Way of Greater Triangle. They had decided in partnership with others in the community to do essentially a leadership diversity analysis within one of the counties in which they work, and in order to do that, the foundation gathered information about the individuals who were leading the key nonprofits and social sector organizations in that county. What they were doing was essentially just looking at diversity by both race and gender of those individuals who were leading those organizations. What they found, and this was actually several years ago and so may not be a surprise as we look at our current environment as well, was that White-led organizations had significantly more resources both in terms of revenue and assets than Black-led organizations in that county, in fact, 10 X if you looked across the county. They were able to use that data both to create a conversation with the community more broadly. They convened the community and had a discussion with community leaders about what the root causes might be for the huge disparities that they were seeing, and then they also used that to inform their own practices. They looked at their own grantees and thought more about their application processes and how they distribute their grants so just a really good example of transparency that Victor was just talking about both for community discussion as well as for their own work and processes.
John Harper: That really resonates, Fay. I think as an element of this but it’s not just the fact of sharing the data but the fact that the data created sort of these community conversations of a sort, an opportunity for folks to sort of align and collectively align on what’s happening here, what might we want to adjust.
The example that we used in the article came from Battle Creek which is another example of this, right? Using data to both be transparent about what’s happening but actually using that transparency as an engagement tool, a way to bring more folks around the table that could ultimately lead toward the collective impact initiative but it really starts around that engagement piece as a critical first step, and it’s interesting to see how folks use data specifically to achieve that engagement. So it’s not just the transparency piece but really how the data can be a way to bring in new partners, new folks into a conversation.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Yeah, and using that as an opportunity to build trust and deepen those relationships, exactly. Those are great examples.
This third piece that you all talk about is aligning internal expectations and practices. Tell us a little bit more about what that means and what that might look like in practice and how it contributes to trust.
John Harper: This one resonates a lot for me because I think so often when we think about building trust, many folks would say, “Oh, that’s the role of the program officer. They’re going to go out, be in community, getting things done,” but I think most program officers would say sure, yet what’s happening inside of my institution to constantly or sort of always be at risk of undermining what we’re doing out in community, right? And so if we’re thinking of this trust component as just what our external thinking needs might be in working with collaboration, what does it mean for the marketing team? What does it mean for the finance team? What does it mean for your trustees? If we all see trust as the objective that we’re striving for on the way towards community transformation, then we all likely have a role in it as well. So I think this aligning internal expectations and practices is about starting to create that clarity, that sort of collective responsibility towards building trust as opposed to it’s just a program piece, they do that really well, and I do this piece over here. There is no this piece over here.
A really good example of this is working with the Cleveland Foundation as folks might know as one of the oldest community foundations in the country, and in this instance through a strategic planning process, we certainly worked with the program team around what they might want to do more strategically around building trust but once you identify that trust is where we’re headed, what it actually looked like was much more around what can the finance team do to support this. If I’m the database manager, what sort of things should I be thinking about inside of our database that could either help or hinder this? If I sit at the front desk, what’s my job here, and so being able to go team by team and say that this is the collective goal that we all understand and seek to prioritize, then what does it look like for me to contribute to this, and having that sort of internal alignment on the priority of trust as well as the expectations of how each role can contribute to it is I think what we’re trying to get at with this idea of alignment. So often that alignment is seen at staff and bored, and while I think that is incredibly important, we talk about it often, there’s also the rest of the organization, and so how are we creating that alignment throughout the organization so we’re all in service of this trusting relationship.
Fay Hanleybrown: Yeah, I love that, John, and I might just highlight for our listeners our colleagues at FSG wrote a paper called Being the Change which really focuses on how all the different parts of a funder contribute to systems change, and I think that is really true for collaborative action as well as John just laid out so another resource for you to check out.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Yeah, check out the show notes. We will definitely share a link to Being the Change, a very concrete for our foundations and other funding institutions to think about the change that needs to happen inside the organization in order to live into the mission of systems change, trust, equity more fully. Thanks for elevating that, Fay.
So let’s see, the fourth point, the fourth and final point of the frame that you all share in the article is developing feedback loops. Tell us more about that.
John Harper: For me, I think this is really about funders. It kind of gets to that first point but how are funders learning from their partners, from the initiatives about ways they are showing up, either effectively or not. So often we think about measuring sort of what’s happening in the initiative. Is it achieving the impact that it wants to see, again incredibly important, yet this other piece of what’s my job here? So often we would ask every other participant inside of the collaborative to be having that individual reflection. What’s the role of the funder to do the same?
It takes me back to the Cleveland Foundation actually. The reason why we were able to have a conversation about what each individual’s responsibility as far as building trust is that they’re in a feedback loop. We went through a strategic planning process where we said sort of what should the future look like for the foundation, and to Fay’s point, depending on who you engage in those conversations, you’ll get a different narrative of what’s happening. Areas where the foundation had historically really built trust, created amazing change inside of the local community, and then other areas where actually they had dropped the ball, where there was distrust with perhaps other funders, distrust with specific communities, and that had to be interrogated, understood why this might be contributing to some of the long-term challenges that the foundation had been facing, more importantly that the local community had been facing.
And so that feedback loop looked like interviews. It looked like bringing in those voices. So much of the data walk that Fay described from the other example, how do we bring both types of ideas into the conversation to understand the why. Why are we going about doing this but bringing in those voices I think is the incredible piece, and I think that’s what we’re getting at by the idea of feedback loops. How are you learning not just about the impact that’s happening in the collaborative but the funder’s influence or lack thereof inside the collaborative as well.
Fay Hanleybrown: Yeah, totally agree with that, John. It’s interesting as we’ve seen funders do that both through formal and informal feedback loops. So John was just talking about a really structured set of listening conversations in Cleveland. We also worked recently with an initiative in Colorado that focused on behavioral health, improving behavioral health, and they’ve actually put together an annual survey that goes to all of the participants in that collaborative to give explicit feedback on the funder which in this case is the backbone about how they’re showing up, about how they could be more helpful or less helpful to the effectiveness of the collaborative, and then that backbone funder is using that to inform their work for the next year so that really formal feedback mechanisms like that, and then informal feedback mechanisms as well like really putting yourself out there and asking for feedback as a funder. It’s sometimes unusual for funders to ask for formal and informal feedback like that.
I guess I would add too that not only is it important to ask for feedback but it’s critically important to act on that feedback. So this is an opportunity for funders to really think about what can we change internally to respond to that feedback, and it might be internal practices. We’ve seen a lot of funders change their funding guidelines or their funding timelines as a result of feedback from community, so moving for example from one-year funding to multi-year funding, general operating funding, really building in those trust-based principles, philanthropy principles in their work. And then we’ve also seen them change in sort of how they show up in program officers spending more time in community meetings and being out in community in response to feedback that they’re getting from their community partners. So that listening and feedback loop, and then acting on it is really critical to success.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: This is really important and also some listeners may be wondering why isn’t this always how we see philanthropy showing up in this work? Why is it hard? Can you share some reflections on why this is hard for folks to do?
Fay Hanleybrown: Yeah, it’s a great question, Jen. I think change is always hard, and for funders I think there are multiple issues at play.
One is certainly power dynamics. Power dynamics are very real. Funders tend to hold positional power. They hold financial power and so it can be very difficult to get real feedback from your community partners even if you’re explicitly asking for it, and so having different ways of doing that, clearly building trusting relationships over time but also having anonymous feedback mechanisms or trusted partners that can collect feedback and then give it back to you as a funder can be really helpful but that power dynamic, I think is a very real barrier.
I would say that one of the other barriers that we’ve seen is actually boards, and the role of boards. There can be some pushback on sort of having more visibility around what your processes are or what your goals are, and also sometimes pushback on frankly the long timeframes that we know systems change takes. So there’s a lot of education that’s required often for boards around those things, and sort of bringing them along around systems change, around the importance of centering community voice in both sort of strategy-setting and decision-making, all of those things.
The last thing I would say and I would love for my colleagues to add in but having more visibility around your goals and your processes can actually lead to more accountability and that can be scary, right? If you’re more clear about what your goals are, if you’re more clear about what your processes are, that can actually lead to criticism from your community partners, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. More clarity means that your partners are clear on what your goals are, they can see whether or not they’re aligned, and that’s helpful for you as a funder but I know that can sometimes be scary if funders have not traditionally had a lot of visibility and transparency around their processes and goals.
John Harper: I also think capacity building is a real thing, right? I don’t know that historically in philanthropy that we’ve hired program officers that would say my job is to facilitate, and what I do is create spaces that bring folks together. More often than not we think about subject matter expertise or things of that nature. I’m not suggesting that it’s an either/or but I think sort of building the capacity to do this well, identifying what are those skills, solving for those gaps, it requires an intentionality just like any other skills gap or capacity gaps that might exist within your organization. Sometimes folks put this trust-building space into this sort of soft space and it just sort of happens. Either you’re good at it or you’re not, and that’s not real life. These are concrete skills. Certainly there are technical and relational components to them but I think you have to be intentional about the skills that we are expecting staff and our teams to have to ensure that we’re building those capacities and supports that enable folks to get there. Being really intentional about that as opposed to just hoping that happens because it’s soft and squishy, I think is the other sort of challenge there.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: There are definitely some great resources out there for folks who want to dive more into the topic of power. NCRP’s Power Moves is a great resource, and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations has a new resource on power and boards and trustees so definitely recommend checking those out to go a little bit deeper on some of the challenges and tensions that Fay and John were mentioning.
So this has been great. Thank you all so much. Before we wrap, I just wanted to ask is there anything that you would want to share with folks that might not have made it into the article, something you’ve talked about or advice that didn’t quite fit but you’d like to share with folks on this topic?
Victor Tavarez: I’d love to start here, and it goes back to what John and Fay had mentioned earlier on wanting to get really practical and tactical about practices so I think the article links to the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project which is an excellent resource for foundations who are looking to find practices to build trust with community. Another article that’s linked in this article that we’re discussing today is the article around Advancing Funders’ Openness Practices which was created by the folks over at the Collective Impact Action Lab so that also sort of gets to some tangible, very concrete practices that foundations can use to demonstrate transparency and thus build trust in that way.
Another practice I’ll mention that I wish we had more space to write about is really around building bridges with community. We oftentimes advise funders, FSG advises funders to consider using their space as a venue for community events, consider hiring community liaisons or program officers that are from the community they’re hoping to serve. Sometimes we encourage leadership and staff to take public transportation or volunteer within the community. The more sort of ties that you can build into the community, the more you can demonstrate that you’re actually with them, and so that’s a great way for funders to sort of build trust as well.
John Harper: So for me I think the example is really about—or not the example but rather the thing that didn’t quite make it in is the importance of striking good balance between the big gesture and the small component. So often we are driven to make that big gesture, this proclamation that we are now focusing on trust, and we fail to acknowledge all the small ways that we are either supporting or hindering that proclamation, and so I would just want to make sure that folks are thinking about both aspects of that. The proclamation is certainly important. It’s helpful but I think it’s really also important that we acknowledge the small ways along the way that we are either helping or hindering the sort of commitment towards moving to more trusting relationships.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Fay, would you like to add anything?
Fay Hanleybrown: I think we’ve covered a lot of ground in this conversation, and maybe just one other idea that I would add is the opportunity for funders to influence their peers, their peer funders, around adopting trust-based philanthropy practices.
One of the things that we’ve seen is that peers can be incredibly influential, particularly amongst funders, and as we talked about earlier, there are a lot of challenges to shifting what are really ingrained practices in philanthropy to more trust-based practices. So there’s a real opportunity for funders to reach out to fellow funders to essentially create communities of accountability and learning. Some of the capacity building that John was talking about earlier may be easier to do in partnership with other funders.
One example that comes to mind was a cradle to career education initiatives that we were working with where one of the funders was focused just on the early childhood piece of that cradle to career education continuum but they recognized that there was a lot of disconnect between the different funders that were working, and so they did a really simple survey that put together—of the funders to see where people were funding and what their interests were, and they realized that there were real gaps in the cradle to career spectrum and there were also real gaps in terms of geography, where the different funders were working. By doing something as simple as that, it allowed all those funders to get onto to the same page together. It allowed them to talk more about how to have more effective distribution of resources in a region around education but even more importantly it created a community of practice for those funders to really begin to center community voices, not just in the collaborative strategy but also in their own individual funding strategy.
So when you can create a group of funders like that that really can look at the whole, and importantly really focus on centering community voice and building those trusting relationships with community leaders and with residents, that can be incredibly powerful. We know that this is a learning journey. A lot of the practices that we’ve been talking about on this call don’t happen overnight but they’re really important steps to take, and we’ve seen through our work how important building trust is to really making progress against complex issues.
Jennifer Splansky Juster: Thank you all. Those parting thoughts just really round out what was included in the article so thank you for bringing those in as well.
With that I want to thank you, Fay, Victor, and John, not only for your time today and your time writing the article but for the support that you’re providing to the philanthropy sector on behalf of the collective impact field. So it’s been a pleasure having you with us today. We hope to have more conversations with you, and really again thank you. We wish everyone a good day out in your work.
(Outro) And this closes out this episode of the Collective Impact Forum podcast. If you are interested in learning more about what was discussed, you can find links to resources in the footnotes of this podcast, including a links to the SSIR series Collective Impact: 10 Years Later where the article discussed today is featured.
We would like to acknowledge that this episode was produced and edited on the unceded, traditional lands of the Coast Salish people, including the Duwamish, Suquamish, Stillaguamish, and Muckleshoot tribes. We honor with gratitude the land itself and the past, present, and futures of these tribes.
The Intro music for this episode was composed by Rafael Krux and our outro music is composed by Kevin Macleod.
And our recent news is that registration is now open for our virtual Collective Impact Action Summit that will be held on April 26-28, 2022. The Action Summit is our biggest learning event of the year, with over 25 virtual sessions focusing on topics like culture and narrative change, shifting power, data, and sustainability.
And one big plus for being virtual is that we’re recording many of the sessions and sharing those recordings with attendees after, so you’ll be able to plan a schedule that fits best with you, and watch other sessions later.
We hope you can join us this April. Please visit the Events section of CollectiveImpactForum.org to learn more about this year’s Collective Impact Action Summit.
This is Tracy Timmons-Gray, Associate Director here at the Collective Impact Forum, and your podcast host. I want to say thank you so much for listening, and we look forward to connecting with you more in our next episode. Until next time, we hope you are safe and well.
