Social service organizations have long used data in their efforts to support people in need for the purposes of advocacy, tracking, and intervention. Increasingly, such organizations are joining forces to provide wrap-around services to clients in order to “move the needle” on intractable social problems. Groups using these strategies, called Collective Impact, develop shared metrics to guide their work, sharing data, finances, infrastructure, and services. A major emphasis of these efforts is on tracking clients and measuring impacts. This study explores a particular type of Collective Impact strategy called Promise Neighborhoods. Based on a federal grant program, these initiatives attempt to close the achievement gap in particular geographic communities. Through an analysis of publicly available documents and information, the study analyzes the ways these strategies enact (and fail to enact) a collective intelligence for the common good. The analysis focuses specifically on issues surrounding data collection and use, youth agency, leadership and governance, and funding streams. Together, these foci develop a story of an increasingly used “intelligence” with a limited sense of “collective” and a narrow vision of a “common good.” Using this as a platform, the paper explores alternatives that might develop more robust practices around these concepts.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
For examples, see textbooks like Siegler, Robert S, and Martha Wagner Alibali. Children’s Thinking, 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. These lean heavily on epistemological-developmental theories like those of Piaget.
G. Stanley Hall’s two volume text Adolescence effectively defined the field.
Abramovitz M (1988) Regulating the lives of women: social welfare policy from colonial times to the present. South End Press, Boston
Addams J (1893) The objective value of a social settlement. Philanthropy and social progress. Ayer, North Stratford, pp 27–56
Arefi M (2004) An asset-based approach to policymaking: revisiting the history of urban planning and neighborhood change in cincinnati’s west end. Cities 21(6):491–500
Finn JL, Checkoway B (1998) Young people as competent community builders: a challenge to social work. Soc Work 43(4):335–345
Hansan JE (2013) Charity organization societies (1877–1893). http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/?p=8401. Accessed 11 Aug 2015
Healy K (2001) Participatory action research and social work: a critical appraisal. Int Soc Work 44(1):93–105
Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzyan A (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466:29
Horton M (1997) The long haul. Teachers College Press, New York
Kania J, Kramer M (2011) Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, pp 36–41
Lee JH, Nam SK, Kim A-R, Kim B, Lee MY, Lee SM (2013) Resilience: A meta-analytic approach. J Couns Dev 91(3):269–279. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00095
Lennie J, Tacchi J, Koirala B, Wilmore M, Skuse A (2011) Equal access participatory monitoring and evaluation toolkit. Better evaluation. http://betterevaluation.org/toolkits/equal_access_participatory_monitoring. Accessed 1 Nov 2016
Lesko N (2012) Act your age: the cultural construction of adolescence. Routledge, New York
Mathie A, Cunningham G (2003) From clients to citizens: asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development. Dev Pract 13(5):474–486
Mintz S (2004) Huck’s raft: a history of American childhood. Belknap Press, Cambridge
Preskill H, Parkhurst M, Juster JS (2014) Learning and evaluation in the collective impact context guide to evaluating collective impact. Collective Impact Forum, Washington
Promise Neighborhoods Institute (2014) Collective impact in action: improving results for children from cradle to career. PolicyLink. https://issuu.com/891011/docs/promising_neighborhoods_institute/0. Accessed 1 Nov 2016
Sabo-Flores K (2008) Youth participatory evaluation: Strategies for engaging young people. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Schneider EC (1992) In the web of class: delinquents and reformers in Boston, 1810s–1930s. New York University Press, New York
Schuler D (2008) Liberating voices: a pattern language for communication revolution. MIT Press, Cambridge
Smith RS (2010) A universal child?. Basingstoke, New York
Star SL, Ruhleder K (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Inf Syst Res 7(1):111–134
Torre ME, Fine M (2011) A wrinkle in time: tracing a legacy of public science through community self-surveys and participatory action research. J Soc Issues 67(1):106–121
Tough P (2009) Whatever it takes: Geoffrey Canada’s quest to change Harlem and America. Houghton Mifflin, New York
Trattner WI (1999) From poor law to welfare state: a history of social welfare in America, 6th edn. The Free Press, New York
Tuck E (2009) Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harv Educ Rev 79(3):409–427
Torre ME, Fine M, Stoudt BG, Fox M (2012) Critical participatory action research as public science. In: The handbook of qualitative research in psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
US Department of Education (2016) Promise neighborhoods. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html. Accessed 1 Nov 2016
Wyn J, White RD (1997) Rethinking youth. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards
I would like to thank the Critical Data Studies Fellowship of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of Minnesota for its support to develop the research used in this project. I would also like to thank Douglas Schuler for his attentive, patient, and thorough encouragement and editing.
About this article
Cite this article
Fink, A. Bigger data, less wisdom: the need for more inclusive collective intelligence in social service provision. AI & Soc 33, 61–70 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0719-2
- Collective impact
- Promise neighborhood
- Social change
- Community development
- Social justice