Stronger adherence to initial collective impact tenets does not result in a more significant social impact, as measured in this research. Only one of the eight networks with evidence of social impact (i.e., 4th-grade reading, 8th-grade reading, high school graduation above expected values) adhered to the collective impact model. Instead, networks adopted different models, including community-based schools, community empowerment models, Campaign for Grade-Level Reading programs, and My Brother’s Keeper initiatives. In short, our research suggests that there is more than one way to achieve social impact when measured as improved student achievement.

NNSI investigated the network designs associated with district-level student achievement. We found that there were two designs, almost equally likely to result in social impact.
● Four of the successful networks combined learning and systems-alignment logics of change to make a social impact. Learning-based mechanisms focus on improving the quality of services that organizations already offer. In systems alignment, diverse network members coordinate their joint services to explore service gaps. These networks use robust data models to identify both gaps in services and improve existing programs’ quality.
● In communities above the national poverty line, networks using distributed governance models and a project model of change significantly improved students’ outcomes in their community. Network members share power and responsibility in distributed governance. A project logic of change creates social impact by delivering new programs from the network’s joint activity. Three of the successful networks in our research used this model.