Integrative, Interactive, and Contractual Reinvention: Strategies for Scaling Social Programs

Reinvention and Adaptation are two key strategies for evolving programs during scaling and implementation. Reinvention focuses on modifying programs before scaling to ensure they fit new contexts or broader applications. In contrast, adaptation occurs during the implementation phase to facilitate the process.

Reinvention is a crucial strategy in scaling social programs, allowing program leadership and stakeholder to modify a program to increase its chances of adoption and success. While not all programs undergo reinvention, when it does occur, it can involve changes made either by the program leadership or in collaboration with stakeholders. The goal is to enhance the program’s feasibility, affordability, or cultural compatibility, even if it means slightly reducing its effectiveness. For instance, a program designed for younger students may be reinvented to target an older age group, or materials developed for one population might be adjusted for another to ensure broader reach.

But why is reinvention necessary? In some cases, a program that works well for one group may need to be adapted to meet the needs of another, or a funder may want to expand a program’s impact across different demographic segments. For example, a successful initiative for African American youth might be adapted for Native American youth, requiring cultural and contextual shifts. At times, these changes may reduce some aspects of the program’s effectiveness, but the trade-off is often worthwhile when the reinvented program can serve a broader population with acceptable levels of benefit.

In our study of how social programs scale, we identified three ways in which program leaders and stakeholders reinvent programs. Integrative reinvention involves shared control between the program leaderships and key stakeholder, transforming not just the program but also the organizations themselves. In these cases, the strategic success of each stakeholder is closely intertwined, with roles and responsibilities blurring as the program evolves.

Alternatively, interactive reinvention occurs when program leaders actively seek input from key stakeholders, but maintains decision-making authority, ensuring that the program aligns with stakeholders; needs while preserving the distinct identities of each organization.

Finally, contractual reinvention involves formal agreements where the program leaders direct the reinvention process, often through contracts with external entities like universities or consultants.

These partnerships tend to be low in mutual interdependence but can still significantly shape the program’s implementation and scaling strategy.

Through these various models, reinvention not only adapts programs for broader implementation but can also lead to unexpected organizational changes, further driving innovation and impact in the social sector.