10. 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
–
•
•
•
•
12. 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
16. Drivers behind the round
table model:
A meeting of “bottom-up” practices…
17. …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
18. 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%
20. 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
22.
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
23. 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
24. -
-
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
25. 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
26. -‐
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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30.
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
31. 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
32. 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
33.
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
34. 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
35. -
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
36.
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
