Public systems and funding streams and most private institutions (including foundations) tend to be organized around specific topics, e.g. education, health care, economic development, environment, social welfare or the arts. One of the fundamental principles of CCIs is that distressed communities require simultaneous, coordinated interventions across each of these traditional categorical domains if we are going to really make a difference in the lives of their residents. That necessitates a different mindset and a more comprehensive vision of communities as interconnected systems. For example, one can’t simply improve the schools without considering the employment status of parents and expect to improve the lot of low-income families.

Embracing the complex ecology of communities has been an important shift in the conventional philanthropic paradigm. It has also stimulated alternative narratives, such as an emphasis on enumerating and building on local assets rather than fixating solely on measures of pathology. Funders have expanded their definitions of health and well-being to incorporate concepts like resiliency, efficacy and social capital. Accordingly, much effort has been devoted to articulating theories of change that attempt to “connect the dots” among multiple interventions, rather than “simply doing a lot of things and hoping they add up to something.”

In cases where grantee organizations and community residents have been directly engaged in those conversations, it quickly becomes apparent that traditional linear “boxes and arrows” models of change can’t begin to capture a more complicated reality that includes multiple definitions of “community,” “root causes,” and barriers to success. Indeed, achieving a shared vision across diverse constituencies that can sustain effort over a multi-year period is a formidable undertaking. While tackling complexity head on is a necessary feature of the CCI paradigm, it certainly makes things much more difficult!

One of the key lessons learned by these CCIs has been the need for a “single broker” or “keeper of the vision” (whether that’s an individual leader, an intermediary organization or a governing body) to keep the sites focused and in alignment with the original intent of the initiative…and to help everyone hold to a shared image of success. That’s easier said than done, particularly over a multi-year period. Community boundaries tend to be highly permeable in low-income neighborhoods. People (including initiative leaders) come and go, making it difficult at best to sustain engagement , let alone to track cumulative impact.

While a commitment to “comprehensive” action logically flows from adopting an ecological perspective of communities and change, it can also set unrealistic expectations and open foundations up to charges of arrogance. Particularly in communities with a history of multiple failed change efforts, will philanthropic resources (no matter how sizeable) really be sufficient to achieve comprehensive impact at the individual, family and community level? I’ll come back to this question later under the topic of Scale.

Another lesson foundations have learned through CCIs is the limits of their power. In their typical dealings with grantseekers, many foundations have become desensitized to the immense power differential that colors those relationships. Consequently, when they embark on an ambitious venture like a CCI, they not only assume a certain amount of authority but also expect to be perceived as virtuous, if not benign, actors. But every community has its own unique power structure; foundations can be naïve about how their actions affect (and are affected by) the ecology of those relationships.

After all, what community would invite such a large-scale intervention in their lives? Those with the least choice are likely to be the most compliant. Meanwhile, those with more power will seek to co-opt the Initiative for their own purposes or to steer resources to their own organizations or pet projects. The story-within-the-story of CCIs is the elaborate dance they must engage in with elected officials and other (sometimes self-appointed) community leaders and entrenched organizations to pursue the goals of the Initiative with integrity.