Who gets included in Collective Impact: A mixed methods study of 10 CI initiatives

Chad Abresch, Brandon Grimm, Kiara Lyons, Shannon Maloney, Melissa Tibbits

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


This mixed methods study sought to build knowledge of inclusivity practices among 10 CI initiatives. Analyses across two strands of research revealed two distinct definitions of inclusivity: broad inclusivity, which seeks the participation of everyone; and, representative inclusivity, which seeks individuals affected by the problems being addressed. While several of the initiatives had improved inclusivity practices since adopting CI, only a few were found to be broadly inclusive and most acknowledged operating in intentionally exclusive ways at times. All of the initiatives valued representative inclusivity, but members reported struggling to achieve even minimal levels. Proponents of CI should continue to develop guides for practitioners to help ensure both forms of inclusivity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-71
Number of pages15
JournalCommunity Development
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2022


  • Collective impact
  • inclusiveness
  • local governance
  • public health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Sociology and Political Science


Dive into the research topics of 'Who gets included in Collective Impact: A mixed methods study of 10 CI initiatives'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this