• Like
  • Save
Building social infrastructure - Centraide of Greater Montreal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Building social infrastructure - Centraide of Greater Montreal

on

  • 436 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
436
Views on SlideShare
436
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Building social infrastructure - Centraide of Greater Montreal Building social infrastructure - Centraide of Greater Montreal Presentation Transcript

    • Centraide of Greater Montreal’s experience and approach with Montreal’s neighbourhood round tables
    • Centraide of Greater Montreal and its community engagement strategy
    • Centraide’s Greate Montreal territory
    • Diverse social realities
    • Disparities within the region
    • Disparities within the region
    • Montreal’s 29 neighbourho od round tables
    • What do neighbourhood round tables do?
    • Areas of intervention OPA neighbourhood walk
    • Networks for local social development Cooperative process by the stakeholders and citizens of a local community. Improve human development outcomes Improve overall living conditions Acting from a global vision for change Comprehensive and integrated approach – • • • •
    • BOAR D OR STEERING COMMITTEE How they work Working groups: Food security Housing School success Employme nt
    • Three key roles that round tables invest in: • Facilitate ongoing communication and dialogue • Invest in building the capacity of their member groups • Reach out to and engage residents
    • What role for community agencies?
    • Achieving results : Living Places L'Acadie et Henri-Bourassa conditions Before After
    • Achieving results : Service coordination
    • Drivers behind the round table model: A meeting of “bottom-up” practices…
    • …and Drivers behind the round table model: top-down influence The Montreal s Initiative for Local Social Development 29 round tables 18 boroughs 12 local health and social service centres
    • Centraide : additional top-up and project funding to round tables Types of funding Coordination support Resident mobilization 34% 18% Neighbourhood planning Specific projects 30% 18%
    • A distinct capacity-building approach
    • What we’ve learned about conditions for success… • The importance of the multisector approach • Work to make local contexts conducive to collaboration • Develop collaborative leadership • Attend to inclusive and democratic governance
    • It takes time… Influen ce Leverag e resource s Act Plan Align Enga ge Mobili ze Evaluate, learn, adjust
    •   Centraide  of  Greater  Montreal’s  experience  and  approach  with   Montreal’s  neighbourhood  round  tables     In  Montreal,  Centraide  has  chosen  to  invest  in  a  network  approach  to  local  community   development.    A  particularly  good  example  of  this  network  approach  can  be  found  in  Montreal’s   neighbourhood  round  tables.         Since  2000,  Centraide  has  progressively  implemented  a  shift  towards  an  integrated  community   engagement  strategy.     The  vision  underlying  this  shift:     • • • A  dynamic  and  engaged  community  is  a  community  that  works  together  –  that  calls   upon  all  of  its  stakeholders  to  work  together  –  in  order  to  develop  and  act  upon  a  vision   for  itself  as  a  better  place  to  live,  work,  and  learn….  for  all  of  its  residents.       For  Centraide,  more  particularly,  it  is  a  community  that  recognizes  the  need  to  put  in   place  strategies  that  will  help  to  reduce  poverty  and  allow  its  most  vulnerable  residents   to  be  fully  included.   It  is  a  community  in  which  community  agencies  play  a  leadership  role  in  convening  and   working  with  other  stakeholders  in  order  to  implement  coordinated  actions  and   solutions  ;  one  in  which  the  culture  of  collaboration  encourages  innovation,  and  one  in   which  progress  is  made  and  can  be  measured.         Centraide’s  support  for  neighbourhood  round  tables  is  a  key  part  of  this  strategy.       An  overview  of  Centraide’s  Greater  Montreal  territory:           1)  Three  different  administrative  regions:       • Montreal  (island)  –  population  1  886  485  (1,9  M)   • Laval  (island)  –  population  401  555  (0,4  M)   • Part  of  Montérégie  (vast  area  that  encompasses  the  urban  south  shore  of  Montreal,   suburban  municipalities,  rural  zones  that  range  all  the  way  between  the  St.  Lawrence   River  to  the  U.S.  border)    -­‐  population  1,4  M   • Centraide’s  territory  doesn’t  cover  this  entire  administrative  region  (0,8  M  or   57%  of  the  entire  population  of  Montérégie)       There  are  different  municipal  realities  within  each  region:     • Montreal  island  has  the  amalgamated  City  of  Montreal,  and  15  municipalities  that  opted   to  remain  independent   • Laval  is  one  city     • Centraide’s  part  of  Montérégie  has  6  urban  municipalities  and  41  smaller  communities   located  within  5  rural  or  semi-­‐rural  counties       1  
    • 2)  Social  development  planning  happens  in  different  ways  in  each  of  these  regions,  i.e.   responsibilities  are  distributed  and  taken  up  differently  within  each  one.      By  and  large,  though,   it’s  safe  to  say  that  there  is  no  one  central  social  planning  authority  in  any  of  the  3  regions…       I’m  going  to  be  focusing  the  rest  of  my  presentation  on  Montreal  and  on  its  29  round  tables.    I’m   choosing  this  focus  today  because  these  round  tables  have  some  key  common  features  and  a   longer  collective  track  record  –  and  they  lend  themselves  to  a  cohesive  demonstration.         But  before  I  go  on  I  do  want  to  mention  that  Centraide  also  provides  funding  support  to  a   handful  of  similar  “round  table”  entities  in  the  Greater  Montreal  area.    These  are  indicated  on   the  map  by  stars…       Montreal  and  its  neighbourhoods…     …  span  diverse  social  realities,  ranging  from  high  and  concentrated  poverty/disadvantage  to   more  hidden  and  dispersed  poverty/disadvantage     Overall,  Montreal  Island  has  a  median  after-­‐tax  household  income  of  just  under  40  000$  (39   897$).     It  has  a  relatively  diverse  population:  1/3  born  outside  Canada,  over  8%  are  newcomers  who   arrived  in  the  country  after  2005.     As  with  any  city,  the  averages  hide  disparities…   This  map  (slide  #5)  shows  the  distribution  of  material  disadvantage  (an  index  devised  using   statistics  on  income,  employment  rates  and  educational  levels).    In  the  dark  orange  sections,   60%  to  100%  of  the  population  is  in  the  lowest  quintile  of  material  disadvantage….     These  disparities  also  show  up  in  terms  of  life  expectancy.    Here,  people  who  live  in  the  orange-­‐ shaded  parts  have  a  significantly  lower  life  expectancy  than  the  regional  average.    The  gap   between  the  highest  and  lowest  life  expectancies  on  the  island  is  11  years.       Centraide  supports  29  neighbourhood  round  tables  within  the  city  of  Montreal.         These  29  “neighbourhoods”  are  quite  diverse:   - They  cover  the  older  neighbourhoods  of  Montreal’s  dense  urban  core,  as  a  well  as  a   number  of  communities  with  more  suburban  characteristics.   - They  range  in  size  from  10  000  to  100  000  residents.     What  is  the  social  development  planning  landscape  in  Montreal?         To  give  an  overview:   - In  the  public  sector  –  and  most  particularly  the  City  of  Montreal  and  Public  Health  which   reports  to  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  Social  Services  –  there  are  complex,  multi-­‐layered,   and  overlapping  responsibilities  and  mandates  (that  play  out  at  both  the  regional  level   and  within  local  jurisdictions)     2  
    • - - There  is  a  strong  civil  society  presence  with  deep  roots  (I  don’t  have  an  accurate  number   at  my  fingertips,  but  according  to  a  government  portal,  over  1000  agencies  on  the  island   of  Montreal  qualify  for  some  kind  of  government  funding)   There  is  currently  a  lack  of  a  regional  planning  and  coordinating  body,  although   Montreal’s  Social  Development  Forum  is  in  the  process  of  re-­‐emergence.   Centraide  is  an  important  player  within  this  arena,  as  both  a  funder  (to  360  agencies  and   initiatives  in  Greater  Montreal)  and  a  regional  partner  in  planning  initiatives.             Within  this  complicated  landscape,  what  do  the  round  tables  do?       They  convene  and  mobilize  stakeholders  at  the  neighbourhood  level  (I’ll  give  examples  in  a   moment  of  who  these  stakeholders  are),  in  order  to  achieve  :   - integrated  social  development  planning,     - strategic  coordination  of  action  on  locally  determined  priorities  in  order  to   achieve  collective  impact;   …  and  to  design  and  manage  joint  projects  that  are  part  of  the  collective  impact  effort.     Areas  of  intervention  can  include:     - access  to  services/adapting  services  and  infrastructure,     prevention  and  promotion  strategies  (e.g.  early  childhood,  families),     employment  and  economic  development,     housing  and  food,     urban  development     Networks  for  local  social  development     The  round  tables  act  as  the  hubs  of  a  network  that  comes  together  to  improve  conditions  for   the  residents  of  a  community  –  and  especially  its  most  vulnerable  residents.    This  last  piece  is   always  a  core  concern  –  it  is  central  to  the  round  tables’  understanding  of  their  mission.       Does  this  correspond  to  the  network  of  care  model  that  you  folks  are  thinking  about?  I  believe   that  it  does…  But  I  believe  that  it  goes  even  further.    For  us  in  Montreal,  the  round  tables  are   carrying  out  local  social  development  mandates:   Local  social  development  is  a  cooperative  process  that  is  conceived  and  carried  out  by  the   stakeholders  and  citizens  of  a  local  community.       - It  seeks  to  improve  human  development  outcomes  at  an  individual  and  collective  level,   and  to  improve  overall  living  conditions  with  regards  to  their  social,  cultural,  economic   and  environmental  aspects.     - This  development  process  requires  acting  from  a  global  vision  for  change,  and  relies  on   a  comprehensive  and  integrated  approach  that  recognizes  that  all  these  dimensions  of   development  are  interrelated,  and  that  we  must  seek  complementarity  in  our  actions  to   address  them.             3  
    • How  they  work:     All  of  the  round  tables  are  themselves  incorporated  nonprofits,  but  they  do  not  function  like   classic  social  service  agencies.    Their  role  is  to  bring  together  and  leverage  the  collective  capacity   of  local  stakeholders  for  the  betterment  of  the  neighbourhood.         There  is  a  diversity  of  models,  but….  a  typical  neighbourhood  round  table  might  be  structured   like  this:   - A  membership  that  seeks  to  bring  together  a  broad  cross-­‐representation  of  local   stakeholders  (community  agencies,  institutions  such  as  schools,  local  health  &  social   services  and  borough  government,  residents,  even  local  businesses);   - A  board  of  directors  or  steering  committee  that  is  representative  of  this  diversity   - Working  groups  which  may  be  made  of  members  and  other  collaborators  that  have   expertise  or  resources  to  contribute;  their  role  is  to  develop  and  carry  out  action  on   specific  development  priorities  that  have  been  collectively  identified  (e.g.’s  to  use:   healthy  food  access,  housing,  employment,  school  success).  Like  the  board,  the  working   groups  are  answerable  to  the  membership.  Other  neighbourhoods  might  choose  to   organize  their  working  groups  according  to  populations:  children  and  youth,  seniors,   newcomers…   For  those  of  you  who  have  read  any  of  the  collective  impact  articles  popularized  by  Kania,  Kramer  &   Fay  Hanleybrowne  of  FSG,  the  round  tables  function  like  collective  impact  “backbone  organizations”.         These  backbone  organizations  perform  6  essential  functions:   • Guide  vision  and  strategy     • Support  aligned  activities     • Manage  data  collection  and  analysis  (establish  shared  measurement  practices)   • Coordinate  community  outreach  &  handle  communications   • Promote  change  in  policy  and  institutional  practices  at  the  local  and  regional  levels   • Mobilize  funding       In  order  to  achieve  this  kind  of  capacity  for  collective  action,  there  are  3  key  roles  that   the  round  tables  need  to  invest  in:     1  –  It  is  critical  that  they  work  to  facilitate  ongoing  communication  and  dialogue   amongst  neighbourhood  players.         Thus,  outside  of  the  periodic  planning  exercises  (every  3  to  5  years),  they  convene  ongoing   forum  spaces  with  members  and  partners  where  information  is  shared,  issues  and  ideas  are   discussed,  follow-­‐ups  are  decided  upon,  progress  is  reported  upon  and  monitored.         This  generally  takes  two  forms:     a)  -­‐  The  convening  of  regular  assemblies  or  forums:  ranging  from  monthly  to  several   times  a  year,  open  to  members  or  to  the  broader  community     4  
    • -­‐  Their  purpose  is  to  share  information  about  programs  and  projects,  discuss  issues  as   they  emerge  and  involve  and  impact  residents  and  service  providers,  track  the  progress   of  joint  initiatives…   -­‐  These  assemblies  or  forums  usually  have  decision-­‐making  or  direction-­‐setting  powers.       b)  -­‐  The  development  of  ongoing  communication  tools  to  facilitate  one-­‐way  or  multi-­‐ directional  information-­‐sharing  amongst  round  tables  members  and  partners,  and   residents   -­‐  At  the  very  least,  this  means  producing  electronic  newsletters  on  a  monthly  or   quarterly  basis;  but  more  and  more  round  tables  now  curate  websites  that  serve  as   community  information  clearinghouses;  they  model  transparency  by  having  all  of  their   own  diagnostics,  planning  documents  and  reports  freely  available  on  the  site….       2  –  They  very  often  need  to  invest  in  building  the  capacity  of  their  member  groups  to   engage  in  the  network  and  to  contribute  to  action  on  neighbourhood  priorities.         Two  examples  of  this:     1. In  the  neighbourhood  of  Montreal-­‐North,  housing  was  identified  as  a  priority  area  of   intervention;  however,  there  were  very  few  resources  offering  services  in  the  area.    The   round  table  there  led  a  process  with  member  groups  to  collectively  prioritize  that  new   funding  to  the  neighbourhood  should  flow  to  the  small  and  struggling  agency  that   provides  assistance  to  tenants  living  in  poor  housing  conditions.     2. At  one  point  in  the  St-­‐Michel  neighbourhood,  the  family  resource  centre  was   experiencing  serious  management  difficulties  to  the  point  that  Centraide’s  continued   funding  was  called  into  question;  this  was  an  agency  located  in  an  isolated  and  high-­‐ needs  part  of  the  neighbourhood.    The  round  table  convened  its  family  support  working   group  to  devise  an  assistance  plan  for  this  agency  in  overcoming  its  difficulties.    When   the  problems  proved  to  be  too  great  and  Centraide  announced  that  it  was  going  to  have   to  terminate  its  funding,  this  working  group  then  decided,  collectively,  which  agencies   would  be  best  positioned  to  fill  the  gaps  in  services  in  this  sector,  and  they  helped   Centraide  to  identify  the  two  agencies  that  we  would  redirect  our  funding  towards.     In  both  of  these  cases,  the  round  table  recognized  that  the  neighbourhood  needed  to  have  solid   agencies  capable  of  providing  services  in  key  areas  (referring  both  to  geographical  sectors,  and   to  areas  of  intervention).     3  –  They  need  to  develop  the  means  to  reach  out  to  and  engage  residents.       In  any  given  neighbourhood,  the  nonprofit  and  public  stakeholders  that  are  part  of  a  round  table   are  all  working  in  their  own  way  to  improve  the  lives  of  some  or  all  of  the  neighbourhood’s   residents.    Some  agencies  might  be  thinking  more  in  terms  of  “clients”  or  “service  users”,   government  services  or  elected  officials  might  be  thinking  in  terms  of  “citizens”,  “voters”  or   even  “taxpayers”,  but  everyone  has  some  sort  of  stake  in  serving  and/or  working  with  the   resident  population.         Given  this,  it  only  makes  sense  to  reach  out  to  residents  themselves  and  to  include  them  in  the   processes  that  involve  identifying  priority  needs  and  planning  and  carrying  out  actions  to     5  
    • address  them.    Over  the  past  10  year,  this  has  become  part  of  the  DNA  of  most  round  tables’   practices.       This  takes  a  variety  of  forms:   • Many  of  the  “neighbourhood”  units  that  we  are  talking  about  here  are  geographically   quite  large  –  remember  that  the  largest  have  a  population  of  100  000,  and  so  the  round   tables  will  often  work  in  subsectors  (voisinages),  door-­‐knocking,  holding  informal  “urban   cafés”  on  different  themes  that  speak  to  day-­‐to-­‐day  concerns  that  residents  may  have,   such  as  neighbourhood  safety,  transportation  and  transit  issues,  access  to  day  care,   etc…   • As  the  next  slide  illustrates,  member  agencies  also  play  a  key  role  here  in  mobilizing   their  own  user/participant  base;   • A  number  of  round  tables  include  residents  in  their  governance  structures,  including  the   Board  (they  deal  with  issues  of  representation  in  different  ways…);   • Following  some  round  tables’  neighbourhood  forums,  some  of  them  support  action   committees  that  are  citizen-­‐led  and  citizen-­‐driven.       What  role  do  community  agencies  play  within  the  neighbourhood  round  tables?     In  any  given  neighbourhood,  Centraide  funds  between  4  and  10  agencies  as  well  as  the  round   table.    Centraide  expects  these  agencies  to  work  together  and  to  contribute  to  the  accomplish  of   the  neighbourhood  plan  according  to  what  they  are  best  equipped  to  do;  we  communicate  the   expectation  that  they  approach  their  mission  with  a  “wide-­‐angle  lens”  –  a  focus  on  the  change   they  aim  to  contribute  to  as  opposed  to  a  more  narrow  focus  on  programs  and  services.         1  -­‐  Agencies  contribute  their  expertise  according  to  their  mission  and  the  issues  that  they   engage  with  (e.g.  a  newcomer  settlement  agency  would  bring  its  knowledge  of  its  clientele  and   the  particular  issues  they  are  confronted  with).     2-­‐  They  “mobilize”  their  client  base,  ensure  that  their  voice  is  represented  (this  becomes   especially  critical  when  agencies  are  working  with  the  most  vulnerable  segments  of  the   population,  whose  perspectives  might  not  otherwise  be  heard….       3  -­‐  They  become  lead  agencies  for  neighbourhood  initiatives,  whether  this  be  as  en  extension  of   their  existing  programming,  or  whether  it  involve  developing  new  activities.      As  an  example,  a   community  centre  in  the  St-­‐Michel  neighbourhood  took  on  a  new  mandate  to  develop  a  housing   information  and  tenant  assistance  service,  because  it  was  a  collectively  identified  and  prioritized   need.                   6  
    • Examples  of  what  neighbourhood  round  tables  can  accomplish       A.    Improving  living  conditions     1. Collective  empowerment  &  impact  in  the  face  of  a  critical  housing  situation  (Places   l’Acadie/Henri-­‐Bourassa)     Places  l’Acadie/Henri-­‐Bourassa  (PAHB)  was  a  780-­‐dwelling  high-­‐rise  complex  that  originally   housed  almost  2000  vulnerable  residents  (82%  below  LICO  in  2008,  almost  90%  immigrants  and   60%  newcomers,  42  different  languages  spoken).    By  the  early  2000s  the  dwellings  had  fallen   into  a  state  of  serious  disrepair…  situation  which  only  got  worse  over  the  following  8-­‐9  years:   broken  plumbing  and  heating  systems,  vermin,  mould,  serious  structural  damage.    The  landlord   refused  to  carry  out  building  repairs  despite  multiple  inspections  and  multiple  fines  from  the   City.    The  residents  were  particularly  vulnerable  and  isolated,  and  in  no  position  to  organize   themselves  to  have  their  basic  rights  as  tenants  respected.    PAHB  had  gained  a  bad  social   reputation,  as  well;  the  police  was  regularly  called  in  to  intervene  in  conflicts.           The  round  table  of  the  Bordeaux-­‐Cartierville  neighbourhood,  where  these  high  rises  were   located,  initiated  an  eight-­‐year  collective  intervention,  which  sought  to  empower  the  residents   of  PAHB  and  to  obtain  improvements  to  their  housing  situation.    It  was  a  collective  intervention   because  it  brought  together  25  partners  (community  groups,  residents  and  local  institutions   including  schools,  the  police,  the  borough,  health  and  social  services).    The  partners  worked  with   the  residents  to  build  a  sense  of  community  within  the  complex,  bringing  in  a  variety  of  services   and  activities  (information,  counseling  and  referral,  homework  help  for  school-­‐age  kids,  second   language  training,  youth  programming…  ).           This  collective  approach  yielded  results:  the  residents  developed  a  stronger  voice  together,  and   together  with  the  other  partners  mobilized  around  this  project,  they  were  able  to  exert  a   stronger  pressure  on  the  City  to  purchase  the  land  and  have  the  site  redeveloped  in  a  way  that   responded  to  a  number  of  the  community’s  wishes  (by  2008,  the  buildings  were  too   deteriorated  to  be  renovated  and  so  the  site  was  entirely  redeveloped).    Through  this  initiative,   neighbourhood  agencies  learned  about  adapting  their  services  to  specific  realities  and  needs   within  their  community,  and  learned  how  to  work  together  to  offer  coordinated  services  in  one   high-­‐needs  pocket  of  the  larger  neighbourhood.         2.  Bringing  healthy  eating  opportunities  to  a  food  desert     In  2006,  the  round  table  for  the  Rosemont  neighbourhood  (total  population  83  500)  organized  a   social  forum  in  which  residents,  community  groups  and  local  institutions  came  together  to   decide  on  neighbourhood  development  priorities  and  to  launch  an  action  plan  to  move  things   forward.    One  of  the  issues  identified  was  that  the  eastern  part  of  the  neighbourhood  was   “devitalized”  –  services  and  businesses  tended  to  be  concentrated  in  the  western  part  of  the   neighbourhood,  and  yet  there  were  several  pockets  in  the  east  where  low  income  and  other   forms  of  social  disadvantage  were  concentrated.    Along  with  these  problems,  the  sector  was   identified  as  a  “food  desert”;  according  to  a  mapping  exercise  carried  out  by  Montreal’s  Public   Health  Department,  there  were  no  vendors  of  fresh  foods  within  an  easy  access  radius.         7  
    • A  Food  Access  Action  Group  was  created,  which  in  2011-­‐12  counted  7  organizations  and  4   residents.    Alongside  a  number  of  shorter-­‐term  and  more  partial  measures  (such  as  bringing   seasonal  farmers’  markets  to  this  sector),  they  worked  to  create  a  more  permanent  solution  to   the  problem.    In  2012,  a  new  greengrocer  social  enterprise  (Le  Petit  Marché  de  l’Est)  opened  its   doors  in  the  eastern  sector  of  the  neighbourhood.    Its  primary  aim  is  of  course  to  improve  fresh   food  access  at  reasonable  prices  to  the  people  living  in  this  sector,  but  it  also  aims  to  help   stimulate  commercial  development  within  this  sector,  to  help  make  the  eastern  sector  a  better   place  to  live.    It  brings  the  social  part  of  its  mission  to  life  by  acting  as  a  fruit  and  vegetable   distribution  centre  for  local  groups  and  institutions,  and  by  offering  programming  to  the  public   that  promotes  healthy  eating  habits.       This  initiative  was  singled  out  for  an  award  last  year  by  a  well-­‐known  institute  in  Quebec   (l’Institut  du  Nouveau  Monde)  that  runs  an  annual  social  entrepreneurship  contest.     B.    Service  coordination     3. Working  together  to  “move  the  needle”  on  school  dropout  rates       Montreal’s  Southwest  borough’s  deindustrialization  in  the  1970’s  and  80’s  left  behind  a   working-­‐class  population  with  a  low  education  level  and  very  few  job  prospects.    Thirty  years   later,  a  number  of  things  have  changed,  but  a  number  of  those  baseline  demographics  –  and  the   social  problems  that  go  along  with  them  –  are  still  there.    High  school  dropout  rates  are  among   the  highest  in  Montreal:  68%  in  one  high  school  in  the  district,  48%  in  the  other.             In  the  mid-­‐2000’s,  the  4  neighbourhood  round  tables  of  this  borough  got  together  and  decided   to  try  to  do  something  different  about  this  problem.    They  started  from  a  premise  that  school   success  is  everybody’s  business,  and  set  about  trying  to  mobilize  all  of  the  stakeholders  who   could  have  a  role  to  play:  community  groups,  parents  and  youth,  schools,  local  public  services,   even  businesses.    The  Southwest  Action  Committee  on  School  Perseverance  (CAPSSOM)   pursued  3  goals:   1. Collaboration  and  coordination  amongst  stakeholders  capable  of  having  an  impact  on   school  perseverance  in  the  Southwest  borough;   2. Support  and  recognition  for  the  key  role  that  parents  have  to  play  in  their  children’s   school  perseverance;   3. Development,  consolidation  and  promotion  of  coordinated  school  perseverance   programming  in  the  Southwest.         The  mobilization  phase  –  the  period  of  reaching  out,  of  gathering  data  to  better  understand  the   problem,  of  building  a  common  understanding  and  will  to  act  together  on  the  problem  –  lasted   for  several  years  before  a  phase  of  tighter  coordination  and  action  planning  began  beginning  in   2009-­‐10.    This  was  an  ambitious  endeavour  when,  in  Montreal  and  in  these  neighbourhoods  in   particular,  schools  traditionally  do  not  have  a  culture  of  working  with  community  partners  on   school  success  issues.    Both  of  the  school  boards  present  in  the  Southwest  had  developed  their   own  action  plan  on  their  own,  and  getting  them  to  link  up  with  the  players  in  the  community   proved  to  be  a  challenge.    But,  at  the  present  time,  the  CAPSSOM  has  become  recognized  as  the   umbrella  that  brings  all  of  these  players  together  and  that  sketches  out  the  areas  of   complementarity  between  the  different  roles  that  all  can  play.         8  
    •     The  CAPSSOM  is  working  with  4  major  funders  (including  Centraide,  and  including  one  of  the   school  boards),  and  getting  each  of  them  to  sign  on  to  support  parts  of  its  action  plan  in   complementary  ways.    Each  of  the  4  participating  neighborhoods  has  established  its  own  action   plan  and  is  successfully  coordinating  activities  according  to  jointly  established  priorities.    Last   year,  Centraide  alone  helped  to  support  13  programs  within  this  overall  action  plan,  each   carried  out  by  different  agencies.    These  range  from  school  liaison  officers  who  help  newcomer   parents  to  link  to  the  school  system  that  their  children  are  a  part  of,  to  kindergarten  readiness   programming  for  preschoolers,  to  a  program  that  gets  local  employers  who  hire  high  school   students  to  agree  to  provide  hours  and  conditions  that  are  conducive  to  school  success.           A  first  review  of  the  overall  strategy  and  of  the  joined-­‐up  effects  of  the  different  coordinated   programs  and  activities  is  taking  place  this  year.         4.    Integrated  service  provision  in  a  high-­‐needs  sector  (use  St-­‐Simon  example)     The  Ahuntsic  neighbourhood  projects  a  comfortable,  middle-­‐class  image,  but  the  statistical   averages  hide  the  fact  that  there  are  several  sectors  of  high  poverty  and  disadvantage  within  the   neighbourhood.    A  little  over  a  decade  ago,  the  Ahuntsic  neighbourhood  round  table  chose  to   focus  its  attention  on  these  sectors,  and  inaugurated  something  that  it  called  “integrated   approaches”  for  each  one  of  these  sectors,  bringing  together  residents,  community  agencies,   local  institutions  and  elected  officials  in  order  to  devise  coordinated  strategies  for  addressing   needs  in  the  sector.       One  of  these,  the  Saint-­‐Simon  sector,  is  a  former  textile  manufacturing  hub  that  has  become   devitalized;  it  is  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  neighbourhood  by  geographical  barriers.    Many  of   its  residents  are  newcomer  families  with  young  children.    Because  of  the  isolation  of  this  sector,   the  “integrated  approach”  strategy  was  geared  towards  opening  up  a  modest  community  centre   where  residents  could  interact  and  get  to  know  each  other  –  and  where  they  decided  on  the   programming  -­‐  and  where  existing  neighbourhood  agencies  would  come  and  offer  their  services   once  or  twice  a  week.    Six  agencies  are  involved  in  this  way,  including  family  resource  and   parental  support  agencies,  a  community  food  centre,  and  a  newcomer  settlement  agency.           C.  Equitable  development  and  overall  quality  of  life     Increasingly,  the  round  tables  are  rolling  up  their  sleeves  and  seeking  to  influence  the  future   development  of  the  neighbourhoods  that  they  have  been  working  for  years  to  improve.         5..  Influencing  urban  development  to  ensure  affordable  housing,  community  services   and  facilities     The  Point  St.  Charles  neighbourhood  is  located  in  the  Southwest  borough,  which  we  already   encountered  a  couple  of  slides  ago.    A  vast,  disused,  now  privately-­‐owned  former  railyard   occupies  one-­‐quarter  of  the  neighbourhood’s  land  surface  –  it’s  a  coveted  space  in  a  borough   undergoing  significant  post-­‐industrial  gentrification.      At  stake  for  the  community  was  its  ability     9  
    • to  influence  sustainable  and  inclusive  development  outcomes  within  this  larger  transformation   process.           Several  years  before  any  developers  came  along  and  submitted  a  proposal  to  the  City,  in  2007   the  neighbourhood  round  table  acted  on  this  issue  and  led  a  Citizens’  Land  Use  Planning   Operation  (or  OPA  by  its  French  acronym),  enlisting  residents  to  sketch  out  a  neighbourhood   vision  and  concrete  proposals  for  the  redevelopment  of  the  CN  yards.    The  round  table   leveraged  expertise  (university  urban  planning  departments,  a  renowned  firm  of  green   architects)  to  support  and  accompany  the  process,  translating  the  resident-­‐generated  proposals   into  the  language  and  form  of  urban  planning.         These  proposals  picked  up  quite  a  bit  of  traction  over  the  intervening  years.    One  key  moment   was  when,  influenced  by  this  prospective  neighbourhood-­‐level  work,  the  Montreal  Public   Consultation  Board  stepped  in  and  held  its  first-­‐ever  public  consultation  process  upstream  of  a   developer’s  proposal,  and  issued  prospective  recommendations  for  the  site’s  redevelopment.    In   the  hands  of  the  round  table  and  eventually  the  borough  as  well,  over  the  next  few  years  these   recommendations  were  used  as  a  tool  to  leverage  a  development  agreement  for  the  site,  which   incorporates  many  elements  of  the  neighbourhood’s  original  vision  (including  nonprofit  and   cooperative  housing,  community  spaces,  mixed  commercial  development  with  attention  to  the   kinds  of  businesses  that  would  meet  residents’  needs,  green  spaces  including  spaces  for  urban   agriculture…).         6. Improving  urban  transit     Public  transit  access  is  an  issue  for  quite  a  few  Montreal  neighbourhoods.    In  the  case  of  the   Saint-­‐Michel  neighbourhood,  bus  and  metro  lines  connected  residents  to  downtown  but  not  to   the  other  side  of  their  own  neighbourhood,  meaning  that  young  people  living  in  a  certain  sector   had  to  take  3  buses  in  the  morning  just  to  get  to  school.    It  took  many  years  of  work  by  the   transportation  working  group  of  the  local  round  table,  but  in  2011  their  efforts  were  rewarded   and  a  new  bus  line  was  inaugurated  that  fixed  the  problem.    In  the  last  few  years,  several  other   neighbourhood  round  tables  have  also  achieved  similar  gains  for  their  residents.         How  did  the  round  tables  model  come  to  be  in  Montreal?       We  can  describe  the  round  tables  model  as  being  the  result  of  a  meeting  of  “bottom-­‐up”  and   “top-­‐down”  approaches  and  goals.       Bottom-­‐up:       Many  of  the  round  tables  have  been  around  for  20,  30  years  (the  oldest  community  council  is  70   years  old!)  –  so  in  some  cases  long  before  Centraide  and  other  funders  became  interested  in   what  they  were  doing  and  what  they  could  do…   A  number  of  others  were  founded  in  the  7-­‐8  years  following  municipal  amalgamation  in  2001.       10  
    • But,  young  or  old,  the  important  thing  to  note  is  that  the  round  tables  emerged  locally,  as  a   result  of  local  stakeholders’  desire  to  give  themselves  a  new  tool  to  act  together  to  improve   their  neighbourhood.     Top-­‐down  influences:       You  might  be  wondering  how  all  the  different  actors  that  I  mentioned  earlier  who  also  have   social  development  mandates  position  themselves  with  regards  to  the  round  tables.    This  is   where  the  “top-­‐down”  influences  come-­‐in…       The  Montreal  Initiative  for  Local  Social  Development  co-­‐funding  partnership  has  played   a  key  role  in  “standardizing”  the  model  (ensuring  that  it  responds  to  key  criteria  in  each   neighbourhood)  and  in  developing  institutional  recognition  for  the  role  of  the  round  tables.         What  it  is:  a  collaborative  partnership  (funders,  round  tables,  local  institutions)  that  aims  to:   • Provide  stable  core  funding  (was  at  40  000$  in  2005-­‐2006,  currently  100  000$  per  RT)   • Leverage  institutional  support,  at  local  and  regional  levels   • Promote  a  development  model   • Create  and  share  knowledge     The  partnership  includes:     • 3  funders  (currently  51%  contribution  from  Centraide,  32%  from  the  City,  17%  from  the   Public  Health  Department)     • 29  round  tables   • 18  boroughs   12  health  and  social  service  centres   as  well  as  the  regional  federation  of  round  tables  –  acts  as  a  social  development   interlocutor  at  the  regional  level       It’s  a  model  that  has  interested  other  regions  in  Quebec,  and  even  across  the  pond  in  France   (last  year  a  ministerial  committee  on  urban  governance  recommended  that  the  round  table   model  be  implemented  in  French  cities).           How  this  partnership  evolved  is  an  interesting  story  in  itself.     The  City  of  Montreal  was  actually  the  original  convener.    Its  interest  in  this  kind  of  approach   started  with  its  participation  in  the  Healthy  Cities  movement  in  the  early  1990s.    A  number  of   round  tables  emerged  during  this  same  period,  inspired  by  this  movement.    Discussions  started   with  the  other  funders  in  1992  or  1993.         At  this  point,  Centraide  had  already  gained  experience  with  the  network  approach  –  it  was   deploying  neighbourhood  initiatives  in  Montreal  inspired  by  the  Success  by  Six  program…  So  we   didn’t  need  any  convincing  that  it  would  be  a  good  idea  to  support  round  tables  that  were   working  on  a  broader  social  development  mandate.     The  first  iteration  of  the  joint  funding  program  began  in  1997;  at  this  point  there  were  already   20  round  tables  within  the  former  (pre-­‐amalgamation)  City’s  boundaries.     11  
    •   Each  of  the  3  funders  had  different  but  convergent  motivators  for  supporting  the  round  table   model:     • Centraide:  inspired  by  McKnight,  community-­‐building  approach    (influenced  the  vision   of  Building  Caring  Communities  and  Supporting  their  Ability  to  Act  strategic  orientation   document,  2000)   • Public  Health:  fits  with  prevention  and  promotion  model  (acting  on  social  determinants   of  health),  support  for  community  development  named  as  strategy  to  combat  health   inequalities  (2001)     • City:  1st  financial  support  dates  back  to  1994,  with  rogressive  increase  in  the  City’s  own   social  development  mandate  after  2000/2001  (year  of  merger)       Other  trends  &  currents  in  the  water  supply…       It’s  important  to  mention  that  over  the  years  there  have  been  other  currents  and  trends  “in  the   water  supply”  that  have  helped  to  reinforce  the  network  approach  to  local  social  development  :   • The  CED  (community  economic  development)  movement  in  Québec  (&  elsewhere);   • The  emergence  of  the  CDC  (community  development  corporation)  model  in  Québec;   • Funding  for  RUI  (integrated  urban  revitalization)  strategies  in  Montreal  from  2003   onwards;  the  comprehensive  community  revitalization  movement  (RQRI)  has  sprung  up   throughout  Québec  since  this  time;   • The  Vibrant  Communities  pan-­‐Canadian  initiative  :  Centraide  was  instrumental  in   leveraging  St-­‐Michel’s  inclusion  in  the  first  cohort,    and  singled  out  the  St-­‐Michel  round   table  for  special  investment  in  the  development  of  its  “backbone”  capacities.     • The  most  recent  provincial  poverty  reduction  strategy  (2010)  identifies  Approche   territoriale  intégrée  (Integrated  Area  Development)  approaches  as  a  core  part  of  its   strategy;  this  has  provided  funding  possibilities  for  the  rollout  of  a  network  approach  to   local  development  in  other  regions  of  Quebec.         In  addition  to  the  Montreal  Initiative  for  Local  Social  Development,  Centraide  provides   support  to  the  neighbourhood  round  tables  in  a  few  other  ways.       A.    Separate  top-­‐up  and  project  funding  to  round  tables:   1) Coordination  team  support  for  high-­‐performing  round  tables  (approx  2,2  M$  since  2001)   2) One-­‐time  support  for  neighbourhood  planning  exercises  (neighbourhood  social  forums   –  approx  1,4  M  $  since  2001)   3) Staff  positions  dedicated  to  resident  mobilization  strategies  (approx  1,4  M$  since  2001)   4) Specific  projects  –  development  or  implementation  stage  (approx  2,5  M$  since  2001)     B.    A  distinct  capacity-­‐building  approach  through  Dynamo  (an  organization  nurtured  and   launched  by  Centraide  specifically  to  provide  support  &  training  to  community  mobilization   processes  such  as  the  round  tables):   1) Our  Community  Leadership  development  program  (35  Montreal  round  table   coordinators,  staff  members  and  board  members  have  participated  since  the  launch  of   the  program)     12  
    • 2) The  Point  de  bascule  (Tipping  Point)  consultancy  and  accompaniment  services  (11   Montreal  round  tables  receiving  accompaniment  since  the  launch  of  the  program  in   2012)     C. The  next  capacity-­‐building  frontier  is  evaluation…   Evaluating  the  results  and  outcomes  of  a  community  change  initiative  involving  multiple   stakeholders  of  is  a  more  complex  endeavour  than  evaluating  the  results  of  a  social  service   agency’s  programs.    Over  the  past  couple  of  years  a  colleague  and  I  have  been  working  with   the  round  tables  and  another  capacity-­‐building  training  provider  to  learn  together  how  we   can  better  support  the  round  tables  in  implementing  evaluation  practices  that  are  adapted   to  this  kind  of  complexity.           What  we’ve  learned  about  conditions  for  success:       1. It  is  important  that  the  round  tables  be  truly  multisector,  either  in  form  or  in   function:   The  capacity  to  leverage  real  and  lasting  change  comes  when  you  bring  together  and   build  collaboration  amongst  stakeholders  who  don’t  normally  work  together.     2. Understand  the  local  context  and  work  to  make  it  conducive  to  collaboration     The  local  context  has  a  huge  influence  on  how  difficult  or  how  easy  it  is  to  achieve   agreement  and  to  build  synergy  amongst  stakeholders:   - Is  there  a  history  of  cooperation  vs  competition  between  stakeholders?   - What  role  do  institutions  play  in  local  development?    How  do  they  see  the  role   of  others?   - How  open  are  local  institutions  and  government  to  acknowledging  and  working   with  civil  society  organizations?    Are  they  willing  to  follow  the  convening  lead  of   others?   - Are  regional  players  prepared  to  recognize  and  support  locally-­‐determined   plans  and  priorities?     3. Develop  collaborative  leadership  :     The  skills  and  qualities  of  those  who  assume  leadership  roles  in  the  round  tables  –   whether  they  be  coordinators,  staff  or  EDs  of  lead  agencies  –  are  truly  critical  to  the   capacity  of  a  round  table  to  mobilize  a  diversity  of  stakeholders  and  to  sustain  their   mobilization.         The  demands  of  the  job  are  complex;  the  tasks  of  building  and  sustaining  collective  buy-­‐ in  and  commitment  to  an  endeavour  that  cannot  succeed  without  the  many  call  on   different  qualities  and  abilities  than  the  “heroic”  leader  that  our  culture  has  idealized….       So  alongside  some  of  the  more  classic  traits  and  abilities  that  we  would  look  for  in  the   leadership  of  any  organization,  including:     –                      the  capacity  to  communicate  a  compelling  vision  for  what  is  possible,     practical  management  skills,     succession  planning,       13  
    • - energy,  commitment  and  perseverance…     We  also  have  characteristics  that  mirror  the  complex  systems  that  these  leaders  operate   in:     - strong  embeddedness  in  the  networks  of  their  community,     - Ability  to  support  shared  decision-­‐making,     - Ability  to  navigate  open  systems  (engaging  and  bridging  with  knowledge,  skills   and  resources  outside  the  community)     4. Attend  to  inclusive  and  democratic  governance…   Governance  of  a  round  table  –  or  any  network  organization,  for  that  matter  -­‐  does  not  work   in  quite  the  same  ways  as  governance  of  a  classic  nonprofit.       In  addition  to  having  the  responsibilities  of  a  classic  Board,  round  table  Board  or  steering   committee  members  must  be  elected  or  nominated  to  represent  a  particular  sector  or   constituency  of  the  local  community.    But  they  are  not  there  simply  to  represent  the   interests  of  that  constituency,  they  are  there  as  ambassadors  of  the  greater  good,  to   actively  work  to  build  bridges  with  other  sectors.    And  all  board  members  are  accountable   to  the  entire  membership.         5. It  takes  time  to  build  trust,  common  vision,  collective  capacity.         It  takes  a  longer  time  to  achieve  results  than  agency  programs  one  by  one,  but  the   potential  for  impact  is  much  greater.    The  “ladder”  image  here  illustrates  the  “rungs”  in   the  process  towards  collective  impact.    Each  one  is  essential  –  you’ll  note  that  there  is  a   lot  of  upstream  investment  in  developing  the  capacity  for  collective  action.         The  spaces  between  the  rungs  are    “stages”  in  the  process,  but  it  is  important  to  say  that   is  not  a  linear  process,  it  could  also  be  represented  as  a  cycle,  even  a  spiral  with  iterative   loops.    The  important  thing  to  retain  is  that  you  are  never  “done”  with  one  stage  once   and  for  all.     • Mobilize:  reach  out,  convene   • Engage:  communicate,  facilitate  interaction   • Align:  governance  and  management  “rules”   • Plan:  analyze  the  situation,  develop  a  vision  and  a  strategy  for  change   • Act:  test,  implement,  coordinate   • Influence  –  for  very  often  the  ambitious  change  goals  that  round  tables  pursue   require  influencing  larger  institutional  practices  or  public  planning  processes,  so  that   they  take  local  concerns  and  priorities  into  account.       The  last  three  stages  generally  require  concurrent  efforts  to  leverage  resources  that   can  be  channelled  towards  the  change  efforts…       Finally,  learning  and  evaluation  are  not  a  “stage”  in  themselves,  they  need  to  be   purposefully  embedded  in  each  of  the  other  stages  –  as  this  is  what  allows  adjustments   to  happen  over  the  entire  life  cycle  of  collective  action.       14  
    •   This  kind  of  upstream  investment  has  important  implications  for  funders:  we   are  talking  about  longer  funding  horizons,  “patient”  capital…       How  long  does  each  stage  usually  take?         It  very  much  depends  on  local  conditions,  and  on  the  existing  culture  of  collaboration  or   of  competition.    Even  in  the  best  conditions,  it  usually  takes  a  few  years  to  build  up   levels  of  trust  and  common  will  to  a  point  where  actors  are  willing  to  “risk”  giving  up   some  of  their  own  control  and  autonomy  in  the  interest  of  achieving  collective  impact.           At  the  same  time,  planning  and  acting  together  can  be  a  powerful  means  to  forge  bonds   based  on  trust  and  respect  for  each  player’s  respective  strengths  and  contributions.           The  more  ambitious  planning  and  action  cycles  can  themselves  span  5  to  10  years.           Some  ongoing  challenges  that  we  have  encountered:   -       Developing  and  maintaining  sufficient  “core”  funding  (round  tables  can  fairly   rapidly  leverage  resources  for  projects,  but  funding  for  core  backbone   operations  is  critical)   Demonstrating  impact:  requires  moving  away  from  traditional  linear  models,  and   developing  and  implementing  evaluation  approaches  that  are  adapted  to   complex  interventions     15