Document Actions
Scale as Comprehensiveness
Filed Under:
The third meaning of scale refers to a set of programs that are closely linked together and that constitute a coherent set of resources for clients or communities.
Under this definition, the coordination problems inherent in the nonprofit sector’s division of labor and proliferation of programs is overcome by bringing under one roof an integrated set of activities and interventions. Comprehensive community-based initiatives are seen as a remedy to the problems of categorical funding, one that aims at “system-wide” reform.
Comprehensive community initiatives began in the twentieth century with the settlement houses. From Hull House to the modern community-focused initiatives launched by large private foundations, there does not seem to be any decrease in this type of initiative. The belief that comprehensiveness is the critical ingredient to scale emerged from years of experience with isolated project funding. Seeking to create synergies by funding integrated sets of services, many donors see scale as being closely linked to building a dominant local presence.
Viewing scale as comprehensiveness is thus embedded in the idea that program linkages are as important or more important than the creation of new programs. By focusing resources in one geographical community, some funders see bridge building as the best way to create a sizable presence and a more fundamental and lasting impact.
Achieving scale by weaving together disparate programs and efforts into a cohesive whole requires that four important problems be overcome:
• First, inter-agency collaboration requires that difficult governance issues be worked out so that all parties can work together productively.
• Second, this approach emphasizes the goals of inclusion and diversity, and those leading such an effort must show leadership in this area and be sensitive to the heterogeneity of many community groups, programs, and networks.
• Third, comprehensiveness depends on the effort gaining legitimacy and support from the grassroots, not only from community elites.
• Fourth, any focus on collaborative strategy must address the issue of sustainability and the development of new funding streams.
Inevitably, due to the size and ambition of many of these programs, government is often involved, which can be a source of support or frustration
Comprehensive community initiatives began in the twentieth century with the settlement houses. From Hull House to the modern community-focused initiatives launched by large private foundations, there does not seem to be any decrease in this type of initiative. The belief that comprehensiveness is the critical ingredient to scale emerged from years of experience with isolated project funding. Seeking to create synergies by funding integrated sets of services, many donors see scale as being closely linked to building a dominant local presence.
Viewing scale as comprehensiveness is thus embedded in the idea that program linkages are as important or more important than the creation of new programs. By focusing resources in one geographical community, some funders see bridge building as the best way to create a sizable presence and a more fundamental and lasting impact.
Achieving scale by weaving together disparate programs and efforts into a cohesive whole requires that four important problems be overcome:
• First, inter-agency collaboration requires that difficult governance issues be worked out so that all parties can work together productively.
• Second, this approach emphasizes the goals of inclusion and diversity, and those leading such an effort must show leadership in this area and be sensitive to the heterogeneity of many community groups, programs, and networks.
• Third, comprehensiveness depends on the effort gaining legitimacy and support from the grassroots, not only from community elites.
• Fourth, any focus on collaborative strategy must address the issue of sustainability and the development of new funding streams.
Inevitably, due to the size and ambition of many of these programs, government is often involved, which can be a source of support or frustration
