As an evaluator and strategist, I love the “lessons learned” section of evaluation reports, which reveal the big takeaways for folks doing similar work. It’s the section that, if written well, should add to a field’s knowledge base and give future changemakers the benefit of others’ hindsight.  

Over the past year, several evaluation reports of “systems change” efforts – large-scale philanthropic and publicly-funded initiatives that go by names such as place-based systems change, collective impact, comprehensive community initiatives, and place-based partnerships – have been released. It seems, however, that the field keeps learning the same lessons over and over again. While there’s value in replicating findings, funders and other architects of systems change should be applying – not learning – many of the “lessons” that continually emerge from this work.

What follow are 5 oft-repeated lessons from evaluations of systems change — timeless and broadly applicable lessons that should be informing such initiatives, serving as inputs, not outputs. Unless found to be otherwise, they can be recognized as foundational to how place-based systems change unfolds. In future posts, I’ll tackle: a) how funders and other designers of such initiatives can apply these lessons, and b) evaluation questions for moving beyond generic findings to actionable insight.

1. Systems change takes time. Changing human behavior takes long enough; changing organizational behavior, public policies, and relationships across organizations and sectors takes years – maybe generations. If anyone discovers how to accelerate systems change, please shout it from the rooftops. Otherwise, it’s safe to assume that systems change will take time, please don’t tell us you’ve discovered this to be the case.

2. Trust and relationships are essential ingredients for changing systems. Perhaps you’ve heard the saying, “Partnerships travel at the speed of trust.” We don’t need more evaluations to tell us “trust and relationships played an important role in getting organizations to work together.” Until we see evidence that people who can’t stand each other can work together effectively, we can assume that deep relationship building and trust is required for long-term systemic changes focused on a common agenda. And if you do find effective ways for folks who don’t trust each other to work together, please let us know.

3. Balance short-term and long-term success. This is something I wrote about a while back (as have others). Investment strategies should assume that if a) systems change takes a long time, then b) we’ll need some way to understand how things are going. We wouldn’t wait until the 10th day of a 10-day road trip to look at a map, so we certainly don’t want to wait 10 years to determine whether we’ve “changed a system.” And we also don’t want to superimpose meaningless short-term “success” measures that undermine long-term efforts. We should, however, understand markers of success – both those we can anticipate and those that emerge along the way.

4. Systems change is contextual. Yes, if you’re funding or engaged in place-based systems change work, an assumption is that the location (i.e., system) has its own dynamics and landscape that need to be navigated. Politics, economic conditions, sociodemographic characteristics, geography, culture, history, and the broader organizational ecosystem (e.g., the presence or absence of childcare services, mental health providers, higher education institutions, and employers) define “the system” and affect the strategies and tactics necessary to create change within a community.

5. Systems change is not linear (aka “systems change is iterative”). Few aspects of life are linear, yet we always seem surprised to find that systems don’t improve on a consistent upward trajectory. If you’ve ever given someone early career advice, you’ve probably said something like, “career paths aren’t always linear.” If systems change is built on relationships, then we need to understand that relationships ebb and flow, thrive and struggle. Furthermore, the contextual nature of systems change means that efforts are taking place amid socioeconomic and political environments that rarely promote steady growth and improvement; contextual factors can both derail and accelerate change (Here’s a brief piece on the ecocycle concept that should get more attention.).

Stay tuned for Part 2, which will discuss how funders can operationalize these lessons. In the meantime, please let this be the last time you “learn” these lessons.