How Do Coalitions Grow? Lessons from the Himmelman Hierarchy
When community coalitions work well, they can move mountains. They shift systems, raise visibility, and strengthen the health and well-being of entire populations.
But anyone who has worked inside a coalition knows the truth: collaboration is not one thing. It exists on a spectrum, and success depends on knowing where your coalition sits on that spectrum and what’s actually possible.
One of the clearest, most enduring models for understanding this comes from right here in Minnesota.
Arthur Himmelman – A Minnesota Voice in the Collaboration Movement
Arthur T. Himmelman was a Minneapolis-based consultant and nationally recognized thinker on community change. He spent decades helping organizations navigate complex partnerships across public health, philanthropy, education, and community development.
His widely circulated paper, Collaboration for a Change, outlines a continuum many practitioners still rely on today to understand what different kinds of “working together” require in terms of time, trust, and turf-sharing. You can read a copy via the Illinois Department of Public Health here:
👉 Himmelman – Collaboration for a Change (PDF)
From that insight came what is now often known as the Himmelman Hierarchy.
The Four Levels of Working Together
Himmelman describes four main strategies for working together. Each level adds complexity, trust, and shared responsibility.
1. Networking – “We share information.”
Definition: Exchanging information for mutual benefit.
This is the lightest-touch form of working together. Networking builds awareness and early trust, without requiring anyone to change their activities.
Example: Agencies share updates or data about cancer screening, but mostly continue to operate independently.
2. Coordinating – “We align our activities.”
Definition: Exchanging information and adjusting activities to achieve a common purpose.
Here, organizations begin to make operational changes in response to each other.
Example: Two organizations adjust clinic hours or outreach calendars so they don’t overlap and can better serve their communities.
A helpful description of what it means to coordinate versus collaborate can be found in this article:
👉 Working Together: Coordinating, Cooperating, or Collaborating?
3. Cooperating – “We share resources.”
Definition: Exchanging information, aligning activities, and sharing resources to achieve a common purpose.
This requires more time and trust, and usually some shared “turf.” Resources can include staff time, funding, data, space, or technology.
Example: Organizations share outreach staff or co-fund a community navigator position to support cancer screening.
4. Collaborating – “We build each other’s capacity.”
Definition: Exchanging information, aligning activities, sharing resources, and enhancing each other’s capacity for mutual benefit and a common purpose.
This is the deepest level of partnership. It involves shared risks, responsibilities, rewards, and learning over time.
Example: Partners co-design a new care model, train each other’s teams, publish shared results, and advocate together for policy or systems change.
These four levels also appear in later interpretations of the collaboration continuum, such as Debra Mashek’s expanded model, which situates these strategies on a broader spectrum of inter-organizational collaboration:
👉 Collaboration Continuum – Debra Mashek / Teagle Foundation (PDF)
Betterment vs. Empowerment – Who Owns the Work?
One of Himmelman’s most important contributions is the distinction between:
Collaborative Betterment – Institutions design the process and invite communities in.
Collaborative Empowerment – Communities define priorities and invite institutions to support them.
For coalitions working on health equity, chronic disease, or cancer control, this distinction matters a lot.
Betterment can improve programs and services, but often leaves long-term control in the hands of institutions.
Empowerment is harder and slower, but it builds ownership, self-determination, and sustainability in communities.
When a coalition says it wants to support “community-led” work, this is the shift it’s talking about: moving from doing things for communities to doing things with communities, on their terms.
Why the Himmelman Hierarchy Still Matters
Coalitions often run into trouble because everyone is using the word “collaboration,” but they’re imagining very different realities.
Himmelman’s continuum gives us language to:
Set realistic expectations with partners
Recognize the level of time, trust, and turf-sharing required
Name power dynamics more honestly
Honor different forms of participation (not everything needs to be full collaboration)
Map existing activity across the state or region
Decide when deeper collaboration is truly needed—and when networking or coordination is enough
As one author writing about this framework notes, “Nothing of significance can be accomplished alone… coordination can achieve a goal,” but true collaboration requires deeper, shared investment of time, resources, and risk. You can read that reflection here:
👉 Working Together: Coordinating, Cooperating, or Collaborating?
In my work with public health agencies, government programs, and nonprofits across Minnesota, the Himmelman Hierarchy continues to be one of the most practical tools for helping groups answer questions like:
Who needs to be involved in this effort?
What kind of involvement is realistic right now?
How will we share power and decision-making?
What are we truly asking of partners?
How will we recognize and celebrate different levels of engagement?
A Minnesota Legacy That Still Guides Coalitions Today
It feels fitting that this framework was shaped in Minnesota, a place where cross-sector collaboration is part of our civic identity.
Arthur Himmelman’s work continues to guide coalitions across the country, especially in public health, community development, and systems-change initiatives. His hierarchy is not about pushing everyone into intense collaboration all the time. It’s about choosing the right level of partnership for the purpose at hand. And being honest about what that level requires.
At Freya + Co., we use the Himmelman Hierarchy to help coalitions:
Design more realistic partnership structures
Reduce friction and misunderstanding
Align expectations and commitments
Build toward empowerment and shared ownership
Whether you’re developing a statewide cancer plan, launching a learning community for service providers, or trying to deepen relationships across your ecosystem, the collaboration continuum offers a grounded way to understand how coalitions grow, and how they can grow well.
Further Reading
