Co-investment struCtures

Transcription

Co-investment Structures
A Framework for Foundation-Government Collaboration
Prepared for Casey Family Programs
Written and Edited by
Ryan Bowers and Curtis Saxton
February 2008
Contact:
Ryan Bowers
Frontline Solutions International LLC
100 S. Broad St., Suite 1524
Philadelphia, PA 19110
(215) 384-6972
[email protected]
Casey Family Programs
1300 Dexter Avenue North, Floor 3
Seattle, WA 98109-3542
(206) 282 - 7300
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Antoinette Malveaux and Carrie Carroll of Casey Family Programs for their innovative and visionary leadership of this project. Marcus Littles, Micah Gilmer,
Adam Heinze and Bianca Robinson also provided much needed guidance, research and editing support.
Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the many foundation, government, nonprofit and academic leaders who volunteered their insight, challenges and advice—without which this paper could not
have been written.
Co-investment Structures
A Framework for Foundation-Government Collaboration
BACKGROUND
When Casey Family Programs (CFP) created its 2020 strategy—aiming to drastically reduce the number
of youth in foster care by half by the year 2020—it chose an approach that consisted of direct practice,
strategic consulting and advocating policy reforms. Casey has an extensive network of relationships with
local agencies nationwide and field offices in several states. Building on its past successes in the child welfare field, Casey Family Programs is now seeking to bring on other stakeholders, particularly foundations
and the public sector to expand the scope, quality and sustainability of that work.
As a foundation, Casey Family Programs exists within a unique space. It is a private operating foundation, and as such, operates direct service programs and initiatives as well as serving as a grantmaker. The
ambidexterity of CFP to serve as both a service provider and funder in the area of foster care is part of why
the organization has been able to uniquely and effectively play a leadership role in reducing foster care
and engage in initiatives as ambitious as the 2020 strategy. Casey Family Programs is and has been deeply
engaged in policy and advocacy efforts on the federal, state and national levels. This has occurred through
a strategic and diplomatic approach to child welfare reform by emphasizing better implementation and
administration of state and local government’s child welfare programs through innovations, best practices,
research and evaluation. Casey Family Programs has also produced publications and tools to assist child
welfare practitioners and lifting the broader field of foster care.
Since the early 1990s, Casey Family Programs has increasingly sought to facilitate strategic public/private
partnerships for public policy and systems reform. The central focus of this report is to explore the extant
research on co-investment structures between philanthropic and public sector actors, extract best practice
and lessons learned from these partnerships, and document how they have been able to collectively provide
resources, influence and momentum around key issues. As part of its 2020 strategy, the foundation has
begun assisting public child welfare systems via two to three-year consultancies to strengthen these systems’
local infrastructure through new tools, processes, recruitment strategies and training services. At the core
of this strategy are two goals in terms of co-investment.
Casey Family Program’s first goal with co-investment is to work with public agencies that will co-invest
with the foundation to improve public systems, be it through additional financial investments, policies,
administration, data collection or other levers within its means. Second, CFP is seeking to increase the in-
volvement of other foundations to co-invest along with itself and the public sector in those locales. These
foundations range from being local and national in scope. Some have prior investments in foster care,
while others have only worked through grantmaking in juvenile justice, children and youth, and policy
reform. This report seeks to provide information, research and analysis that can aid CFP to effectively
implement these co-investment strategies.
During the summer of 2007, Antoinette Malveaux, Managing Director of Strategic Alliances at Casey
Family Programs, engaged Frontline Solutions to assist the foundation in researching co-investment partnerships between foundations and government agencies, for the purpose of ascertaining best practices in
effective co-investment. This paper seeks to place the recent work of CFP within the larger context of
collaborative funding efforts.
METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION
The aim of this paper is to present the results of a concerted approach to ascertain best practices in philanthropic co-investment, particularly when government agencies and foundations work together to leverage
resources. To inform this work, the authors utilized several research methods and approaches:
•
The authors completed a review of the available literature and research on co-investment structures, to assess common themes, opportunities, challenges and questions.
•
The authors conducted a series of semi-structured key informant interviews of individuals who
participated in eleven such partnerships. The eleven funding co-investment structures were
chosen based on the accessibility of information on them, geography and participating foundations. The authors sought to interview at least three members of each collaborative, most of
which were funders, as well as evaluators, intermediaries, participating consultants and staff
from relevant government agencies. A list of interview questions can be found in the appendix.
This report is organized into four sections. The first section is a review of the available literature on effective co-investment structures, extracted from books, articles and other available publications, generally
written by those in the philanthropic field. This section does not draw its own conclusions or extract “best
practices”, but rather summarizes what the literature says. Therefore, the scope of the literature review
was determined by the availability of the literature. For example, there was very little information that the
researchers identified that extracted the impact of co-investment structures on particular issues or places.
Thus, an analysis or discussion of impact is one of the holes in the literature. Overall, this review clearly
outlines the prominent thought leaders and reference materials on co-investment structures, particularly,
those which engage both public and philanthropic entities.
The second section profiles eleven funder collaboratives, most of which involve public agencies, and examines the catalyst and history of each partnership, governance structure and partners involved, investment
strategy, health and sustainability, status and impact of its evaluation. The investment structures were
identified by both CFP’s knowledge of the field and the research efforts of Frontline.
The third section of this paper discusses key findings and lessons learned from funder collaboratives and
co-investing with government agencies.
The last section concludes with an analysis of the impacts of co-investment structures.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This section of the report offers a review of the literature on collaborative funding models between philanthropic institutions. The authors reviewed most of the available publications and articles related to collaborative funding and included in this literature review what they felt would be of most value to Casey
Family Programs and the larger philanthropic field. It is important to note that this review does not reflect
the totality of findings from the numerous interviews and analyses that comprise the other sections of this
report. However, it does offer a valuable framework and snapshot of the documented knowledge on these
types of partnerships. The review is divided into the following sections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Collaborative Approaches
Elements of Collaboration
Key Select Challenges
The Special Case of Government/Philanthropic Partnerships
Roles of Foundations in Funder Collaboratives with Government
Innovative Models for Government/Foundation Collaboration
Additional Research/Reflections Pertaining to Government Partnerships
Conclusion
Select Bibliographic Works
Introduction
Foundations embark upon multi-party ventures for several reasons. On the most practical level, they
choose to co-invest to accomplish what they could not do on their own. For philanthropy, collaboratives
have been found to add value by increasing the level of funding, diversifying the types of institutions funding an issue, or increasing the quality and approaches of funding in a given issue area. A collaborative can
also add value externally to the institutions receiving funding by strengthening peer networks or directly
improving the lives of people on the groundi..
In addition to adding value, foundations co-invest to achieve specific end results, such as co-learning,
information exchange and building knowledge for a particular field. Collaborative funding has occurred
to share staffing, in the instance when foundation staff have similar roles, or when a foundation may be
too small to warrant having its own full-time staff, such as a family foundation or an individual donorii..
Co-investing can reduced the duplication of funded efforts, and be used for researching similar issues.
Collaborations have often times resulted out of plans to offer capacity-building services to shared grantees,
a group of grantees in a common geographic area, or to improve the quality of proposals from potential
grantees. Collaboratives may focus on capacity-building, “underwriting financial management and organizational development consultants, sponsoring training events and providing funds to upgrade their data
collection and analyzing systemsiii..” Collaborations are also formed to respond to emergencies or natural
disasters; or to insulate foundations from political risk involved in difficult or politically sensitive aspects
of grantmakingiv-v..
Co-investment Approaches
Funder collaboratives can take numerous approaches and differ in purpose, size, issue and geographic
scope. Their approaches include:
•
•
•
•
•
Aligned funding or co-funding, which is when foundations have explicit giving expectations
and create a shared portfolio of individual grants that may advance their collective interests, and
financial contributions are made directly to the grantees or intermediaries, such as with the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI)vi..
Joint initiatives are when two or more funders jointly conceive, fund and operate an initiative.
Joining another funder’s preexisting initiative, which occurs when funders come along side another funder’s current work for the purpose of adding funds to that effort, though not directing
or leading it.
Pooled funding occurs when funders pool or aggregate their financial resources to create a permanent or strategic fund, such as the Racial Justice Collaborative, the Collaborative Fund for
Youth-Led Social Change and the Fulfilling the Dream Fund, from which to re-grant to other
efforts.
Creating a new entity to fund is a major collaborative endeavor where funders collaborate financially and combine their resources to create a new entity—usually a nonprofit—to further or
manage the field, such as the Finance Project or the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community
Change.
Elements of Collaboration
There are numerous factors that go in to structuring a collaboration or co-investment. There is a sense of
consensus in the literature on what those factors are, and although the literature contains various terminologies to refer to these phases, the authors of this paper have chosen the following descriptive terms:
•
•
•
Planning and design,
Decision-making and governance, and
Membership criteria and awarding funds.
Planning and Design: Designing and planning activities determine the basis for any collaborative and
include defining goals, outcomes, life span and exit strategy. Planning can take numerous forms, such as
conducting a feasibility study before launching the fundvii., or a strategic plan to guide its implementation
and activitiesviii.. One source recommended setting aside sixth months to one year for internal planning
when considering a pooled fund. Planning activities should include establishing fund targets and internal
benchmarks based on the number and size of grants, as well as any administrative and operational costsix..
Decision-Making and Governance: There are multiple valid and proven approaches to decision-making
in a collaborative funding environment. Successful approaches work for everyone involved, as well as for
the recipients of the collaborative’s funds. The approaches to decision-making and governance fall along a
wide spectrum of labor-intensiveness and involvement:
•
•
The informal governance model - perhaps the simplest and least involved, in which there may
not be an incorporated entity behind the collaborative, or members of the collaborative choose
not to have an official decision-making processes.
The majority vote model- where each funder has equal say, irregardless of their seniority or size
•
of their institution’s contribution.
The consensus model- is the joint pursuit of a decision that is developed and shared by the group.
While this model may appear difficult, one major pooled fund noted that over its ten-year period
of using this model to make decisions, it needed to resort to using a voting process on only two
occasions.x.
Membership Criteria and Awarding Funds: During the planning phase, the collaborative should determine the parameters and requirements of funding levels and participation in the partnership, and if or how
it will go about adding additional partners:
•
•
•
One collaborative established a guideline that required funders to contribute $15,000 for a
three-year period, or if they were unable to provide a lump sum, through individual installments
of $5,000 per yearxi..
Another collaborative offered three distinct ways that partners could participate financially:
through contributing to a pooled fund, directly aligning contributions, or through a combination of pooled funding and aligned contributionsxii..
Lastly, each collaborative must determine the rounds of funding per year, as well as the number
of phases of funding.
Select Key Challenges
Much of the literature on funder collaboratives explores best practices and suggestions for implementation. However, this section offers three discrete challenges that repeatedly surfaced in the literature when
funders have attempted to collaborate:
•
•
•
Staff turnover – foundations interested in collaboration must first review their readiness and
past experience in maintaining consistency in staff projects and low staff turnover. They must
research the prospective partner organization to understand their level of staff attrition as well. A
lack of long-term organizational commitment to the partnership or departure of a key staff can
be extremely detrimental to the work and impact of their investments.
Public Criticism - foundations must be prepared for exposing their foundation’s practices to a
wider array of critics, since collaboratives are usually more high profile than single funder projects.
Divergent agendas - lastly, the foundations must be aware of the difficulty of reaching formal
agreements with other foundations. This is due to the language used by large foundations is
typically “vague, open to interpretation and may obfuscate real differences in understanding and
expectations.xiii. It may be the case that unclear language is a sign of a larger issue of misunderstanding and a greater need for shared values.
The Special Case of Government/Philanthropic Partnerships
This report has thus far focused on collaborative funding partnerships among philanthropic institutions.
However, a subset of philanthropic collaborations includes the participation of public agencies. These
government/philanthropic partnerships have many unique characteristics, which deserve a separate and
distinct discussion. It is important to note that the authors, through a thorough search of book reviews,
journal articles, academic papers, foundation sources and internet scans, yielded only a small quantity of
research or documented learning of public/philanthropic partnerships. The following section highlights
the major findings of that available literature.
Government agencies are a natural partner in collaborative funding models. For foundations, the points
of government interaction are varied and diverse. They can occur with city mayors, city council members,
county administrators, state legislators, boards and commissions. The typical activities of collaboration
with government have included:
•
•
•
•
•
Providing grants to government
Funding the evaluation of a government program
Co-investing with government agencies to bring new or additional dollars to the table
Offering technical assistance to government, or
Partnering with government to design, operate or fund a new program.
Apart from bringing dollars to the table, public agencies can provide foundations with unparalleled access to the levers of public systems reform. These levers can include access to government’s extensive
data resources, its key personnel and departments, and through providing input to the policymaking and
legislative processes. By partnering with government, foundations have the opportunity to “fund innovative programs, identify emerging policy issues, or take risks with their resources to a greater extent than
government canxiv..”
Four Roles of Foundations in Funder Collaborations with Government
Peter Frumkin, through his analysis of foundation interactions with government, offers a useful framework
of four types of relationships that government and foundations can have with each otherxv.. This framework
is one of the most extensive analyses in the available literature. While some of the interview data presented
in later sections of this report conflict with the Frumkin’s perspective, his singularly detailed analysis warrants some discussion here.
Supplementary: When foundations are in supplementary relationship with government, the foundation
will track what government is doing and look for opportunities to add funds. In this scenario, government is setting the priority agenda around issues and problems to fund, which tends to leave little room
for foundations to innovate or get at root-cause issues.
Complementary: In the complementary role, foundations seek to “define a relationship whose central feature is the sensible and productive division of labor between sectors,” essentially seeing which entity does
what best. Because government is limited in the degree and nature of what it can discretionarily fund,
foundations can compliment this role by taking on funding gaps or issues that administrations or agencies
do not see as major funding priorities. Incidentally, Frumkin does not support this approach because he
believes that philanthropic resources should not be “principally devoted to doing what government could
do through greater levels of taxation.”
Adversarial: The third role that foundations can have with government is by playing the role of adversary
or agitator, through attempting to “counter balance or reverse wrong decisions and bad choices” made by
government. The author notes that this too is reactive grantmaking, and is not the most effective or efficient use of a foundation’s unique position or resources.
Autonomous: The fourth role, which is the approach supported by the author, is one where foundations
have an autonomous relationship with government, and where “the direction of giving is sheltered from
the policy directives of government.” The author asserts that because philanthropy will naturally interact
with government, “the probability that alignment and fit will be achieved will be higher if donors claim-at
least during the early stages of the philanthropic work—a fair amount of autonomy” from government.
This freedom from “external constraints and expectation” is crucial for effective grantmaking.
Innovative Models for Government/Foundation Collaboration
The following section describes three examples of public/private partnerships that create venues for other
foundations and government agencies to learn more about each other and further their relationships.
Michigan’s Office of Foundation Liaison: The Office of Foundation Liaison (OFL) is a public/private
position that was created in 2003 by foundation leaders and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. It is
a non-partisan, cabinet-level position that is both funded by and an employee of the Council of Michigan
Foundations. The goals of OFL are to:
•
•
•
•
Educate state officials about foundations
Forge relationships and support the development of partnerships between the state and foundations
Attract new national grant dollars to Michigan, and
Respond to opportunities for new local and regional public/private partnershipsxvi..
City Connect: City Connect is a partnership between city government and foundations in New York City
that was started by the New York Regional Association of Grantmakers in 1992. The purpose of City
Connect was to help funders and city agencies “learn from each other, explore issues of common concern,
to develop and evaluate programs, and to find ways to leverage resources and expertise.xvii.” To accomplish
these goals, City Connect hosts conversations with public officials, issue roundtables, special projects,
educational workshops and technical assistance, site visits/tours and dissemination of information and
findings. City Connect has also created a “funders registry” of NYRAG foundation members that have
made themselves available for assistance or advising to city agencies across New York.
Foundations on the Hill: Foundations on the Hill is co-sponsored by the Council of Foundation and the
Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers. Since 2003, these two bodies have arranged annual daylong events where foundation staff from around the country can visit with Congress and Congressional
committees in Washington, DC. The purpose of the event is four-fold: “to inform and educate Congress
about philanthropy, to create visibility for foundations and philanthropy on Capitol Hill, to advocate on
issues affecting foundations and to encourage Congress to view foundations as resources on key public policy issues.xviii. During Foundations on the Hill, foundation trustees, executives and staff, working with their
regional association, schedule meetings on Capitol Hill to personally discuss their work with members of
Congress. In addition to congressional meetings, participants attend training sessions and a breakfast event
featuring remarks by a member(s) of Congress.
Additional Research/Reflections Pertaining to Government Partnerships
After reviewing this body of literature that spans 1990 to 2007, the authors found both a mix of data and
research, as well as retrospective lessons learned and best practices. Some of the documents included in
this data were evaluations, while other were reports, fact sheets or internal memos to inform grantmaking
activities. The following are some of the cumulative analyses that the authors have taken away from the
small pool of literature available.
First, the authors found that government and foundations may appear to be unlikely partners, given the
bureaucratic restraints and politically sensitive nature of government work, as well as the legal limitations
associated with lobbying that foundations must delicately maneuver. Although there are valid risks when
partnering with government, the decision not to partner may lead to the duplication of government efforts
or a missed opportunity to impact the public agenda of a particular issue.
Foundations also have much to look forward to in partnering with government. In the past, funders have
decided to accept or pursue collaboration to align public and private funding streams, as often times both
are making grants to the same nonprofitsxix.. Government agencies also have a strong vested interest in
partnering with foundations. For many government executives or for those who have the decision-making
authority in the public sector to pursue a partnership, they do so out of an ideological commitment to
reform and systems change. Those individuals will partner even when it exposes the negative practices of
their agency, when it is politically unattractive, or when it brings a necessary monetary cost to the government to implement such reforms. Another reason government would pursue or agree to collaborate with
philanthropy is because of the saving potential or the opportunity to reduce costs. If government can improve its social service delivery systems through reform while reducing the number of people or total costs
in delivering services, it can increase its Return on Investment (ROI) and save money in the long termxx..
Foundations have at times been criticized for supporting “short-term solutions to local problems […]
even through the root of these problems can be addressed more effectively at the federal and state levels.xxi.
Unfortunately, due to the dearth of scholarly writing, applied research, promising practices or documented
examples of government agencies partnering foundations, particularly when those government agencies
are bringing dollars to the table, foundations are still largely in the dark on how to go about pursuing
government partnerships. Linda Greenberg accurately summarized the difficulty foundations and government have in seeing eye to eye. She notes that they often seem to work on separate and parallel systems,
“operating independently, neither understanding the other’s interior operations, their respective responsibilities, or the funding priorities or decision making.xxii.
One of the areas that foundations and government have had the most misunderstanding is the idea that if
foundations pilot an innovative idea or project and are able to demonstrate measurable success, that government will pick it up to replicate across the city, state or country.xxiii. There have clearly been instances
where this has occurred, but the potential for this to occur must be evaluated on a case by case basis. The
foundation must have first established credibility in the eyes of the government, possibly through some
form of prior relationship, and must align itself, at the right time, with the priorities and strategies of that
particularly agency or staff person.
Conclusion
The above literature review sought to lay a clear summary of the most significant considerations for foundations working in collaborative funding partnerships. By discussing the most common approaches, as
well as major considerations and innovations in the field, the authors sought to add their own analysis to
the existing knowledge on collaborations.
COMPARISON OF CO-INVESTMENT STRUCTURE FEATURES
The co-investment structures reviewed for this report each have unique characteristics and qualities that
warrant their inclusion in this research. Basic attributes and information on each of the partnerships,
taken from both publicly available material as well as key informant interviews, were used to compile the
Co-investment Structure Comparison Chart below. The chart organizes each structure’s features into five
categories:
•
•
•
•
•
Catalysis and History
Governance and Partners
Investment Strategy
Health and Sustainability, and
Evaluation
The comparison chart presents an in-depth look at the following eleven co-investment structures:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CalWORKs/Linkages
The BEST Project
Achieve the Dream
Thrive by Five
Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative
California Co-Investment Partnership
The Foster Care Work Group of the Youth Transition Funders Group
Bridge Builders
Child Care and Early Education Fund
Models for Change
The Build Initiative of the Early Childhood Funders Collaborative (ECFC)
Catalyst and History
Achieving the Dream
Models for Change
BEST Project
Foster Care Work Group
During the period of 2001-2002,
Lumina Foundation for Education created the framework for
Achieving the Dream, which addressed issues related to postsecondary education in the context
of minority and low income students. In July of 2003 it hosted
a “stakeholder meeting,” inviting
50 leaders from organizations
that have a vested interest in
community colleges with underserved students. The meeting helped refine Achieving the
Dream’s framework, after which
Lumina released an RFQ to determine who ultimately the other seven national partners would
be. It took six months with these
national partners to determine
the common goals for the initiative and over a year to generate
a strategic plan, called the IAP.
The first 27 community colleges
received funding in 2004.
The Macarthur Foundation began its juvenile justice grantmaking initiative in 1996 during the
peak of the juvenile crime wave
in the United States. At the time,
juveniles were being transferred
to adult court, a practice which
contradicted Macarthur’s research and findings on children’s
developmental needs. Macarthur initially funded research
in the area of juvenile transfer,
and later invested in policy and
law. From funding policy, advocacy and training in many states,
Macarthur realized it would
need to align all of these disparate strategies to create lasting
systems change.
The founding of the Ruth Mott
Foundation in 2001 brought a
new player into the Flint/Genesee counties. Around that time,
Ruth Mott Foundation, CS Mott
Foundation and the Community Foundation of Greater Flint
were exploring the possibility of
improving the quality of local
proposals for potential grantees.
Desiring more than high quality proposals, their goal was to
increase the ability and capacity
of local organizations to further
their missions and implement
sound work. To those ends, the
funders came together to form
the Flint Funders Collaborative, a pooled fund housed at the
United Way of Genesee County,
for the specific purpose of carrying out collaborative capacity
building with area organizations.
After completing a planning
phase that began in 2002, Flint
Funders Collaborative launched
the BEST Project Pilot in 2003.
The Foster Care Work Group,
part of the larger Youth Transition Funders Group, was initiated by several foundations from
within the Casey family, and
an additional group of regional
funders. The notion behind
the collaboration was that each
foundation would share information on their grantmaking,
think about collaboration and
possibly co-invest. The funders
thought about FCWG in terms
of their own portfolios, to see
how it might make sense to them
individually. The group decided
to co-fund initiatives, co-fund
sites, and co-fund The Finance
Project as the intermediary for
the group. The writing of the
Connected By 25 report became
a defining piece on how to build
the field, and was helpful for the
FCWG itself. The Foster Care
Work Group has gone on to invest in creating the Connected
by 25 Initiative, which invests
in foster care in Tampa; Marion
County, IL; Indianapolis; and
Santa Clara County.
California CoInvestment Partnership
Bay Area Workforce
Funding Collaborative
CalWORKs/Linkages
Build Initiative / ECFC
The California Co-Investment
Partnership is a public/private
partnership that makes investments under three key headings:
resource family recruitment and
support, higher education support for youth who have been in
foster care, and family connections to promote permanency.
Funds are not pooled; the Partnership is solely concerned with
the alignment of investments of
partnering funders for maximal
efficiency toward the stated ends
of the partnership.
The catalyst for the Bay Area
Workforce Funding Collaborative was interest from foundations in investing in workforce
development programs. California’s workers often do not earn
enough to support their families,
and many businesses face challenges in finding the workers
that they need. Partners including the state, local and national
foundations came together in
2004, and made investments in
selected industry sectors. The
effort was spearheaded by Carol
Lamont of the San Francisco
Foundation. The state matched
these investments in health care
and life science. Employers and
community colleges also contributed to projects funded by
the collaborative because of its
existence, though not through it.
Two cycles of workforce partnership, policy, and innovation
grants have now been made.
The CalWORKs/Child Welfare
Partnership Project, also known
as Linkages, was launched in
November 2000 in California
to develop a coordinated services
approach to better serve families
and improve outcomes. Through
improved coordination, Child
Welfare Services can serve as an
anti-poverty program; and CalWORKs can help to prevent
child abuse and neglect. Linkages began with a statewide county
survey to compile information of
the county coordination practices that were already underway in
California. Recommendations
about how to coordinate child
welfare and public assistance
programs in California were
also developed. Next, modest,
two-year grants were made to
support 13 counties to implement coordinated welfare/child
welfare services. Counties were
supported with informational
convenings and technical assistance. Each county designated a
Linkages Coordinator, organized
a Planning and Implementation
Committee, developed an annual Work Plan, and strategically
went about planning and implementing their Linkages services.
Due to the initial success, the
Stuart Foundation committed
to funding for another Phase of
Linkages, during which 17 additional California counties are receiving modest financial support
and technical assistance along
with the pioneer counties.
In its work, the ECFC has recognized that current programs,
policies and services for young
children and their families often operate in isolation, at cross
purposes, or without enough
resources to meet critical needs.
In response, the ECFC created
Build to invest private funds to
stimulate public investments
in early learning. The Build
Funders, made up of members
of the Early Childhood Funders’
Collaborative, work closely with
Build staff and provide broad
strategic oversight to the initiative.
Child Care and Early Education
Fund
Bridge Builders
Thrive by Five
In 1997, several New York foundations
began a peer network focused upon early
childhood care and education hosted by the
New York Regional Association of Grantmakers. Pooled funding from 13 funders
was secured by October 2000, and an RFP
was issued toward the ends of generating
widespread improvements in the quality of
child care, significantly increasing licensure
and accreditation for providers, improving
policy decisions and government program
operations, educating the public, and facilitating conversations and coordination of efforts among funders and other stakeholders.
Funders came to the table with a diverse set
of backgrounds, including welfare to work,
community development, and workplace issues for women.
The Open Society Institute, interested in
what could be done to promote child welfare,
initially approached the Child Welfare Fund.
Through shared analysis of different models
the partners determined to begin a community-based collaborative. The funders then
chose the target community and linked up
with a community-based organizing group
which facilitated the development of a proposal by local service providers. The service
providers themselves are involved in a coordinated effort to provide legal services and
education, family support services, diversion
for families at risk of child abuse and neglect,
and parent and youth empowerment.
Thrive by Five was based on the recognition
that opportunities for early learning among
Washington children are essential to their future. The premise was that supporting parents and others who care for young children
would yield great dividends for children, for
communities, and for society. The Foundation for Early Learning and some state officials were intentionally cultivating interest in
a collaborative when the Gates Foundation
entered and began to ask about the nature of
the need. Leaders from the business, philanthropic, and government sectors signed
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
in January 2006, toward the end of leveraging market-based approaches to increase
the supply of, and demand for, quality early
learning opportunities. Articles of incorporation were filed in May 2006, and a CEO
was brought on in October of that year, followed by other staff. The communities of
White Center and East Yakima were invited
to become demonstration communities, and
Education Service Districts in both localities were chosen to lead efforts. Simultaneously, Thrive by Five continued to work on
investigating promising models, promoting
statewide systematic reform, and educating
parents
Achieving the Dream
Models for Change
Unlike the majority of funder
collaboratives in this report,
Models for Change is not a collaborative at all, at least not in
its foundation funding. The
foundation leverages public dollars in each of its four demonstration states, and collaborates
with a lead entity in each state
to determine how to choose subFunders
grantees, as well as select the key
• Lumina Foundation for
issues, build relationships with
Education
the public sector, and develop a
• KnowledgeWorks Foundation strategy or plan for carrying out
• Nellie Mae Education Fund
the work. The Technical Re• College Spark Washington
source Center supports the work
• The Heinz Endowments
across all states. The National
• Houston Endowment, Inc.
Resource Bank, comprised of
• Lloyd G. Balfour Foundation national organizations across
• Irene & George Davis
several fields, provides expertise
Foundation
and support for the lead entities
• Kamehameha Schools
and other grantees.
• W.K. Kellogg Foundation
• The Kresge Foundation
Funders
• Northern Virginia Comm
Macarthur Foundation
College
• Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Lead Agencies
• Oklahoma City Community
• Juvenile Law Center(PA).
College
• Civitas Child Law Center(IL)
• OK State Regents Higher
Louisiana
Board
of
Education
Regents(LA)
• Palmetto Institute
• Cntr for Children & Youth
• Paris Junior College
Just(WA).
• Winthrop Rockefeller
Foundation
• Rose State Community
College
• S Carolina Technical College
System
• TERI
• The Boston Foundation
• Tulsa Community College
• Univ of Hawaii Comm
College Sys
• Victoria College
ATD’s seven partners follow a
strategic plan that outlines their
roles, responsibilities. When
decisions have implications for
ATD that affect other partners,
that partner will consult the rest
of the appropriate work group.
Partners meet at least twice annually.
BEST Project
The four foundations that make
up the BEST Project act as the
advisory committee to the funds
review all applications and select
those that will be supported. The
United Way of Genesee County
serves as host agency for the project, managing all financial transactions and contracts, including
grant awards. The United Way
is the official grantmaking organization. All members of the
collaborative have equal voting
power, and have a designated
delegate to attend meetings and
participate in decision-making.
A Memorandum of Agreement
spells out all roles, responsibilities and legal arrangements between the partners and the host
institution.
The FCWG is an ad-hoc collaborative group with no formal
structure, other than everyone’s
agreement to the five strategies
outlined in the Connected By
25 document, which provides
the framework for the initiative.
That document, in addition to
the group’s general enjoyment in
and choice to continue working
together, are the only two pieces
that hold the group together.
Staffing has been by provided by
The Finance Project.
Funders
• Schwab Foundation
• Hewlett Foundation
• Annie E. Casey
• Hewlett Foundation
• Walter S. Johnson Foundation
Funders
• Stuart Foundation
• Charles Stewart Mott
• Lumina Foundation
Foundation, Ruth Mott
• United Way of Central IndiFoundation, Community
ana
Foundation of Greater Flint,
• Goodwill Industries
United Way of Genesee
• Eckerd Foundation
County.
• Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Init.
Lead Consultant
• Hillsborough Kids
• Ann Glendon, Glendon As- • Camelot Community Care
sociates.
Other Partners
Evaluators
• Casey Family Programs
• TCC Group
• 21st Century Foundation
• Center for Nonprofit
Center for Venture
Management
Philanthropy
Bay Area Workforce
The partnership does not have
a pooled fund, but rather works
to align member funders’ efforts.
Thus, none have any authority
over funds that the others invest.
At some point, shared funds
may evolve. Governance is very
loose and proceeds through the
founding members. Because all
are high level officials, the time
that they spend together is very
limited.
A steering committee of four
funders oversees ongoing management of the collaborative. A
separate funding panel reviews
proposals and does due diligence.
The funders have various levels
of experience in the workforce
development field, and those
with moret experience tend to be
more involved in the decisionmaking groups.
Funders/Partners
• CA Department of Social
Services
• County Welfare Dirs. Assn.
of CA
• Administrative Office of the
Courts
• Casey Family Programs
• Annie E. Casey Foundation
• Stuart Foundation
• Walter S. Johnson
Foundation
• Zellerbach Foundation
• Child and Family Policy
Institute of California
CalWORKs/Linkages
Linkages is a small collaborative
in terms of number of funders,
but the leverage that it wields
in programmatic operations is
significant. The Collaborative
choose counties to be involved
in the project in two phases,
and then the counties themselves determine how they want
to put the Linkages philosophy
into practice: via communication between agencies, linked
Funders/Partners
case plans, or unified case plans
• San Francisco Foundation
as the context and funding may
• Walter and Elise Haas Fund
allow. Linkages provides techni• Evelyn and Water Haas, Jr. cal assistance and opportunities
Fund
for communication about coop• William and Flora Hewlett eration among county-level staff
Foundation
across the state.
• Richard and Rhoda Goldman
Fund
Funders/Partners
• California Child Welfare
• Walter S. Johnson FoundaServices
tion
• CalWORKs
• Gordon and Betty Moore • Stuart Foundation
Foundation
• Child and Fam Policy Inst.
• California Wellness FoundaOf CA
tion
• Levi Strauss Foundation
• Koret Foundation
• William Randolph Hearst
Foundation
• California Endowment
• Women’s Foundation
• Y & H Soda Foundation
• California HealthCare Foundation
Funders/Partners
• Mailman Family Fdn
• Gates Foundation
• Schott Foundation
• Fdn for Child Development
• Fdn for Early Learning
• George Gund Foundation
• Knight Foundation
• Kirlin Foundation
• McCormick Tribune Fdn
• McKnight Foundation
• Haas Fund
• Peppercorn Foundation
• Pritzker Early Childhood
Foundation
• Sisters of Charity Foundation
of Canton
• Packard Foundation
• Heinz Endowments
• The Irving Harris Foundation
• Joyce Foundation
• Pew Charitable Trusts
• Schumann Fund for NJ
• Wellspring Advisors, LLC
• Graustein Memorial Fund
• William Penn Foundation
Child Care and Early
Education Fund
CCEEF employs three different grantmaking strategies. It makes competitive rounds
of grants that are supported and vetted by
the collaborative. It created an NYC Early
Childhood Development Institute in cooperation with three city agencies. And finally,
it targets initiatives that facilitate the implementation of the City’s own strategic quality
enhancement plans.
Funders
• Altman Foundation
• NYC Administration for Children’s Services
• NYC Dept. of Education, Early Childhood
• NYC Human Resources Admin.
• Liz Claiborne Foundation
• Robert Sterling Clark Foundation
• Gimbel Foundation
• Guttman Foundation
• Independence Community Foundation
• Mailman Foundation
• Picower Foundation
Partners
• United Way of New York City
• Administration for Children’s Services
• Human Resources Administration
• Department of Education’s Office of
Early Childhood
Bridge Builders
Bridge Builders is governed along two tiers.
In the first tier, funders meet and communicate informally. Votes are rarely taken and
most decisions are made by consensus. Each
foundation is equal in influence, regardless
of contribution size. t The tier of funders is
steadily passing off authority to an executive
committee which is composed mainly of service providers and community members. It
is co-chaired by a provider and a local resident and meets monthly, except in August.
Funders
• Child Welfare Fund
• Open Society Institute,
• Ira W. DeCamp Foundation
• FAR Fund
• Hedge Funds Care
• New York Community Trust
• Sills Family Foundation
• Oak Foundation
• Clark Estates Foundation
• Administration for Children’s Services
Thrive by Five
Despite the fact that its members come from
such diverse sectors as partisan politics, the
foundation world, and the private sector,
Thrive by Five’s board is a fairly cohesive
body. Its main power is that of convening
and aligning: there is relatively little pooled
funding.
Funders/Partners
• State of Washington
• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
• Ginger and Barry Ackerley Foundation
• Clear Channel
• Bezos Family Foundation
• Kirlin Charitable Foundation
• Foundation for Early Learning
• Talaris Research Institute
• Medina Foundation
• Trilogy Equity Partners
• W.K. Kellogg Foundation
• Tabor 100
• Boeing
Investment Strategy
Achieving the Dream
Integrated Action Plan $
1,364,000
Partner Organizations
32,239,000
Demonstration colleges
14,050,000
State policy 1,875,000
Evaluation 6,288,000
Total: $55,816,000
Lumina Foundation’s Board
has recently added 18.1 million
dollars to carry infrastructure
through 2012.
Models for Change
BEST Project
Macarthur
has
invested
$10,000,000 in each of the four
states over five years. The National Resource Bank receives
an additional $2,000,000 for its
advisory role, and $3,000,000
for training and technical assistance.
The Flint Funders Collaborative
invested $80,000 in research and
planning prior to the implementation of the BEST Pilot Project.
Overall, $275,000 has been invested by Ruth Mott Foundation, $275,000 from CS Mott
Foundation, $100,000 from
the Community Foundation
of Greater Flint, and $100,000
from the United Way of Genesee
County, although some of the
United Way’s investments are inkind, through financial management, staff, etc.
The Foster Care Work Group has
developed an investment strategy
that goes beyond meeting immediate needs of youth, including
food, shelter and clothing, to
proving targeted, long-term aid
towards youth’s future economic
success.
The foundations participating
in the Foster Care Work Group
have collectively leveraged over
$17,000,000 from their organizations, not including public
dollars. For 2007, six participating foundations had committed
to investing a total of $412,000
for the work.
Investment Strategy
Bay Area Workforce
CalWORKs/Linkages
The Co-Investment Partnership
revisits its investment strategy
annually and refocuses its efforts
in 6 different improvement
areas: adoption and older youth
permanence, disproportionality
and disparity, resource family
recruitment/kinship caregiver
support, engaging reported
families early, health and
mental health, and foster youth
education.
The BAWFC makes three types
of grants. Workforce Partnership grants are paired with WIA
funds and facilitate training
programs in selected industry
sectors that are deemed high
demand. Innovation grants are
more loosely defined and have
funded programming such as
an immigrant nursing re-entry
program and a healthcare career
ladders institute. Finally, Policy
grants are given to think tanks
and advocacy groups.
Linkages does not fund programming per se, but rather acts as a
resource for counties who desire
to initiate cooperation between
welfare and child welfare agencies toward the end of maximal
efficiency and coordination. It
funds technical assistance and
particularly travel for staff workers so that they can interact and
learn from their colleagues across
the state. This is particularly important because it is not possible
for the counties to pay for such
expenses.
Build’s investment theory rests
on a set of seven assumptions.
1. There are identifiable states
with sufficient “readiness,” that
will be able to move forward dramatically with relatively modest
outside support.
2. A team of committed leaders,
from both inside and outside
government, can serve as a driving force for this system building.
3. The teams can make effective use of technical assistance,
state peer-to-peer learning and
support, and access to flexible
funds.
4. Feedback, and evaluation, is
essential to continuous improvement.
5. Build can provide additional
credibility within states for this
work, and nationally Build can
serve as an effective voice, particularly where federal policy is
concerned.
6. Even if Build is not fully accomplished, there will be sufficient advancements to make the
Build investment worthwhile.
7. There is a “tipping point”
where actions will accelerate and
be sustainable, without ongoing
and additional outside support.
Education Fund
Funding proceeds in three streams: increasing access to and availability of child care
and early education; increasing the quality
of child care and early education through
professional development and technical assistance; and increasing the quality of child
care and early education through advocacy.
One of the distinctive facets of the ECFC
is the nature of its pooled funding. Because
it draws from such a wide range of foundations, risk can be spread around and it is
much more likely to invest in new, untested
ventures or organizations that a typical, riskaverse foundation acting alone. Small foundations are able to invest correspondingly
small amounts, but see a net leverage exerted
that is several times larger. The funders—
both those who traditionally fund direct service and those more involved in advocacy—
view the meetings of the collaborative as an
opportunity to learn more about the “other
side of the coin.” This experiential education
is highly valued among them.
Investment Strategyt
Bridge Builders
Thrive by Five
Bridge Builders funding is limited to providers in the Highbridge neighborhood in the
Bronx. Its 6 member executive committee
makes grants of varying sizes in four broad
areas. These include:
Funding partners earmark funds through
both pooled investments and aligned funding that is independently invested towards
Thrive by Five’s shared outcomes. Funds are
invested in four primary areas:
• legal education: increasing the community’s access to highly competent,
multidisciplinary legal teams
• family support services: increasing
the supply of, and the community’s
access to, high-quality support services
• diversion: providing early and intensive intervention for families at risk of
child abuse and neglect
• parent and youth empowerment in
general
Promising models funds support community-based efforts that replicate proven effective early learning models. Promising models will also help broaden community and
statewide support for early learning.
Statewide infrastructure support funds encourage efforts to improve early learning
through programmatic initiatives, education, advocacy, and other strategic opportunities. Statewide funding will increase capacity and strengthen the state’s early learning
infrastructure.
Community and parent education funds
support parents and caregivers since they are
recognized as the most important teachers in
a child’s first five years. These funds also work
to increase public support for early learning
resources and appropriate policies and create
a demand for high-quality programs.
Thrive community funds provide for high
quality learning services/resources for children & families in selected pilot communities.
Health and Sustainability
Achieving the Dream
Models for Change
BEST Project
Achieving the Dream has shown
numerous signs of health. Many
of the schools are willing to
accept smaller grants so that
more schools can participate.
Furthermore, several schools
are funding their own projects
in order to participate, with is
indicative of a minimal level
of satisfaction or incentive
to participate in the project.
Schools are approaching the
project’s funders to ask if their
institutions can be involved.
People are talking about the
Initiative in a positive way at
national conferences etc.
Models for Change is not intended to exist into perpetuity.
All grants are now on a two-year
timeline. All grants must meet
the requirements of being sustainable, replicable and generalizable. Macarthur Foundation has
reached out to other foundations
to support or join in their funding. It has worked with William
Penn Foundation in Philadelphia in some small portions of
its Philadelphia work; however,
most foundations working in
juvenile justice tend to have a regional focus and generally do not
work at the state level. Likewise,
foundations working on justice
issues oftentimes fund very narrowly to participate in Models
for Change efforts. Macarthur
has had loose collaborations
with other foundations, such as
the Jeht Foundation, or it has
worked with other foundations
that have funded the same grantees that also happen to participate in Models for Change, or
further still, a foundation has
come to the table to fund an aspect of the Models for Change
initiative.
The Flint Funders Collaborative
has had significant staff transition. In two cases, the CEO of
an organization that departed
their organization and thus departed the initiative. The voting
and delegate structure has been
a major contributor to the initiative’s success, but it has been
expensive to maintain. The
funders have one long meeting
a month, and with 2 staff members, the work load is significant.
For at least one of the participating funders, the BEST Project requires a disproportionate
amount of time relative to their
other grantees and projects, but
that speaks to the level of their
institutional priorities, their personal commitments, and how
much it furthers the other aspects of their work.
The Finance Project, which has
provided staffing and convening
to the Foster Care Work Group,
has helped ensure consistency
and provide infrastructure to
the group’s work. Members of
the group regularly communicate, post and share documents
through an intranet, and conference calls are regular and frequent.
One of the biggest challenges the
group faced occurred early on,
when the Schwab Foundation,
a founding partner, decided that
it would no longer fund foster
care work. Apart from Schwab’s
departure, the group has been
successful in increasing its size,
level of investment and number
of sites in the initiative.
Bay Area Workforce
CalWORKs/Linkages
The California Co-Investment
Partnership’s
leadership
is
guardedly optimistic about the
future of the collaboration.
Bringing
some
partners
to the table has been very
difficult, especially the court
administrators.
Additional
funders are being recruited, and
the California Endowment is
the next target. One challenge
that remains is the difficulty
of bringing partners together
to strategize, who are already
incredibly busy individually.
BAWFC has a clear set of accomplishments it can point to
after its first funding cycle: 874
clients who received training,
795 clients who completed
training, 173 clients who obtained employment in the
occupation for which they were
trained, and 24 employers, 5
workforce investment boards,
three one-stop job centers, 11
community colleges, 4 community groups, and a union training center that became involved
in workforce partnerships.
With two phases of pilot programs now operating, Linkages
is healthy and sustainable in its
current state. The major challenges in the immediate future
are twofold. First, Linkages seeks
to provide quality quantitative
evidence beyond anecdote or
intuition of the success of its approach. Finding the data necessary to substantiate the necessary
claims is a challenge given the
four data systems with which the
partners must work. Secondly,
Linkages is looking forward to
further expanding the model in
the counties in which it is already present. Such expansion is
occurring already in Los Angeles
County, where the model began
in only a few locations but has
now expanded.
Build is a healthy initiative that
is sustainable precisely because it
is tailored to the contextual, onthe-ground needs in the states
where it has undertaken to build
an early learning system. Relationship building has been central in Ohio, while public sector
outreach has been at the top of
the agenda in Minnesota. New
Jersey has been able to take advantage of judicial mandates for
high quality preschool in poor
districts to springboard further
reform. Illinois has developed
new stakeholders, and Pennsylvania has been able to take
advantage of executive-branch
leadership on the issue. An
evaluation conducted b y the
Child and Family Policy Center
indicates that, “Despite their differences, collective activity has
begun to produce a vision in
each Build state that is greater
than the individual agendas of
the participants. Each state has
demonstrated significant progress in seven key areas: comprehensiveness, coherence, clarity
and credibility, communication,
connectedness, clarity of roles,
and commitment.”
However, challenges remain on
the horizon. Some anticipated
funds from the State Department of Economic Development have not materialized
as state budget concerns have
taken their toll. Replication
of the model in other areas of
California has occurred, but
the public investments have
not been as robust as BAWFC
would find ideal. In the future,
BAWFC is looking to community colleges as a main grantee
because of their strategic role in
training and workforce development.
Education Fund
The Fund is well-positioned to make progress because a committed core of funders
has emerged. Although some partners have
come in and out of the partnership as in any
collaborative, those who have remained are
all especially committed.
CCEEF has a significant list of outcomes
that it wishes to accomplish. Interim outcomes include: replication of innovations;
strengthening of public agencies and private
organizations involved in early care and education issues; demand for a more coherent
system and increased investments is broadened; and additional projects are funded to
promote systemic change.
Long-term outcomes include: a wide array of stakeholders are well informed for
advocacy and decision-making; policies are
adopted supporting expansion of child care
opportunities and improvement in quality;
and private dollars are coordinated strategically to leverage public funds.
Bridge Builders
Bridge Builders is a healthy partnership that
has proven its sustainability in the years that
it has operated. It has succeeded in building
a partnership through which even the city’s
child welfare agency and public defender
agency can sit at the same table with similar
ends in mind. In fact, the Administration
for Children’s Services is making funding
available in other parts of the city for local
service providers to, in effect, replicate the
efforts of Bridge Builders. This is a very
positive sign that its work is appreciated. As
more concrete results come in from studies
being conducted on the partnership’s outcomes, further replication by organizations
in other localities is likely.
Thrive by Five
Thrive by Five is off to an excellent start. It
has assembled an impressive team of staff
members that are experts in the field, and
has succeeded in drawing public attention
to the issues on which it works. As it continues to identify promising models and the
children reached by programming in the
demonstration communities begin to get to
the eponymous age, more evidence as the
level of its success will accrue. Only a small
part of the promised long-term funds of the
Gates Foundation have been spent, and so
Thrive by Five appears to be in no urgent
fiscal situation right now.
Evaluation
Achieving the Dream
Models for Change
There are several initial, anecdotal Much of the work of the initiasigns from student data that may tive has been qualitative, and
indicate evidence of success.
there is no evaluation control
group. Implementing an evaluation has been challenging, as the
initiative was not designed with
an evaluation in mind. Macarthur intentionally chose four
states that are very different,
with different topics, different
approaches, etc.
BEST Project
BEST is evaluated in two ways:
project effectiveness and agency
development. TCC Group is
measuring the effectiveness and
impact of the project as a whole
over time, more of a “meta evaluation.” The Center for Nonprofit Management, based out of
Tennessee, conducts a quantitative assessment of each nonprofit
agency and its board via a written
survey. TCC’s findings indicate
evidence of positive results such
as more engaged boards, renewed
leadership, organizations that are
better prepared to examine and
adapt to their environments.
FCWG was not created with an
end timeline in mind. The group
will continue on as long as it sees
a clear and compelling need, and
maintains an interest in funding
this line of work together.
Efforts are underway to evaluate aspects of the different Connected By 25 initiatives around
the country that are a part of the
Work Group. Lumina Foundation is currently evaluating all
of their foster-care efforts. The
members of the Foster Care
Work Group have continued to
discuss and plan for an overall
evaluation of their collective efforts, but securing the required
amount of funding is the main
challenge that continues to stand
in their way.
Evaluation
Thrive by Five
Bay Area Workforce
Early Childhood
Funders Collaborative
No formal published evaluation
has yet occurred; but consultants
are currently being engaged to
conduct in-depth studies of
Thrive by Five’s programming.
Thrive by Five’s goal is to ensure
that all Washington children will
enter kindergarten prepared to
succeed emotionally, socially,
physically, and cognitively.
Specifically, Thrive by Five has
three policy priorities:
that
parents are supported, families
have access to high-quality
affordable child care and early
education, and a cohesive early
care and education system is
created that integrates with
the K-12 and higher education
system.
Qualitative internal analysis of
the Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative has centered
on three goals: to increase the
economic security of low income
residents, immigrants, dislocated
workers, disadvantaged youth,
and others by increasing their
skills to work in vital industries
that provide family-sustaining
jobs; to understand the workforce and skill needs of Bay
Area employers, encouraging a
demand-driven system, and facilitating appropriate training
programs and placement for
workers and the unemployed;
and to stimulate greater regional
planning and cooperation among
workforce boards, nonprofit employment and training providers, community colleges, labor,
employer associations, and other
stakeholders in the region
The Early Childhoods Funders
Collaborative was extensively
evaluated by the Center for Assessment and Policy Development. It was found to be considerably successful in achieving
increased capacity, infrastructure
capacity, refinement of program
tools, and knowledge dissemination in specific early childhood
settings. Moderate success was
found in strengthening relationships between public and private
partners, and some success was
also found in developing public
and political messages.
Build evaluation has been conducted by Charles Bruner of the
Child and Family Policy Center.
Five areas are included in the
evaluation:
Context: Improving the political
environment that surrounds the
system so it produces the policy
and funding changes needed to
create and sustain it.
Components: Establishing high
performing programs and services that produce results for system
beneficiaries.
Connections: Creating strong
and effective linkages across system Components.
Infrastructure: Developing the
ongoing supports systems need
to function effectively.
Scale: Ensuring a comprehensive
system to produce broad and inclusive results.
CalWORKs/Linkages
Linkages faces major challenges in
conducting evaluation because it must work
with four separate data sets from partner
agencies that are incapable of integration.
Aided by Harder and Company Community
Research, Linkages has identified 4 desired
outcomes: a lower recurrence of child abuse,
safe maintenance of children in their own
homes, parents providing sufficient resources
for their children, and permanency achieved
for foster children.
Evaluation
Bridge Builders
California Co-Investment Partnership
Bridge Builders is evaluated extensively by No significant external evaluation of the
the Chapin Hall Center for Children at California Co-Investment Partnership has
the University of Chicago. 4 outcomes are yet occurred.
measured: reducing the rate of childhood
maltreatment and recurrence; reduce
admissions to foster care; reduce the amount
of time children spend in the foster care
system; and reduce the rate of reentry into
the foster care system.
PROMISING PRACTICES FOR CO-INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
As the authors reviewed the extant literature, conducted key informant interviews and site visits, common
“promising practices” emerged along five themes: initiation of the partnership, bringing partners to the
table, partnership staffing, ongoing partnership operation, and special considerations related to work with
the public sector. This section summarizes the major findings of those conversations into twenty-four
promising practices which have more universal applicability.
Initiation of the Partnership
1. A local landscape survey and site visits for foundation staff from outside the area are vital tools
in determining if and how cross-sector cooperation is already happening. Before the beginning of
the CalWORKs/Child Welfare Partnership Project (Linkages), Danna Fabella noted that the sponsors
surveyed staff in Workforce Development and Child Welfare offices in all of California’s counties to determine what was already happening locally in terms of child welfare. The sponsor’s survey unearthed
a number of interesting models and brought numerous people into the conversation who might have
been excluded had the partnership attempted to begin from scratch. David Tobias and John Courtney
of Bridge Builders described a more intensive process of interviews and data analysis that led their project
to focus on a specific neighborhood as the locale most simultaneously in need of proposed programming
and possessive of the resources necessary to make it work. Similarly, in Models for Change, the Macarthur
Foundation staff articulated the benefit of the political will and high level of engagement and passion that
state agencies and government officials had around the issue of juvenile justice. This information was
understood by the foundation due to having conducted a landscape analysis of the political climate in the
state of Pennsylvania.
2. Establish the legal structure at the onset of the partnership. Thrive by Five: The Washington Early
Learning Fund has an impressive roster of contributors, including numerous foundations, corporations
and the state government. Thrive by Five’s Garrison Kurtz is adamant that the fund’s experience suggests
the necessity of clear legal structuring when so many partners from separate sectors are pooling funds in a
manner unprecedented in their other operations. It was not until the Michigan-based BEST Project was
underway that the partner foundations realized that pooling and sub-granting their investments to the
United Way removed the legal authority to direct the United Way on how to use those funds. Whether the
funding structure is through an intermediary, developing a new entity or one of the partners, it is imperative to clearly develop a sound legal structure from the beginning.
3. Expectations should be managed and goals limited to that which is doable. Considering the nature
of the resources, expertise and authority at the table in the typical co-investment partnership, there is significant temptation to set vague open-ended goals along the lines of “revolutionizing” operational practices
in the sector. Garrison Kurtz of Thrive by Five and several others interviewed suggest that the management
of expectations is vital to accomplishing concrete goals. It is easy to underestimate the amount of time
that simply building relationships will require—and that ought to be reflected in the expectations that are
formed at the outset. There is no formula for determining how long it takes to build trust; rather it is an
organic process with an unpredictable timetable.
4. Recognize early on the heavy amount of time and money that co-investment partnerships require.
Kimberly Roberson of the BEST Project recommends that partners be cognizant ahead of time that a
long-term, multi-year partnership will entail certain expenses that would not otherwise be incurred. The
administrative, travel, and other “hidden” costs are often unaccounted for, however they are a necessary
component of partnership. Keeping funders informed, facilitating ongoing collaboration, distributing
minutes and meeting agendas, and keeping people from getting disillusioned all require investment. The
payoff will not necessarily show up on balance sheets, but in the number of persons impacted, fewer duplicated efforts and increased economies of scale.
5. Clarity must be demanded in all workplans. Miryam Choca of Casey Family Programs, who also
leads the California Co-Investment Partnership, has found that a clear workplan is particularly useful
from the outset, especially during the initial period when governance structures are less established. As
the partnership grows and time passes, it is important to continually check-in to make sure that all parties
continue to have consensus on work plans, timelines, outcomes, etc. The Models for Change partnership
in Pennsylvania indicated that an inevitable challenge is “staying on the same page,” which is why the
Macarthur Foundation is currently in the process of developing an initiative-wide work plan to oversee the
projects in each of the four states.
Bringing partners to the table
6. Pull together a steering committee of committed people, including both foundation representatives
and service providers who really know their locality. Staff members at all of the partnerships agreed that
having a team of committed people who believe in the concept of co-investment is an absolute necessity. As
a result of the fiscal crises wreaking havoc in California state government, the Bay Area Workforce Funding
Collaborative has gone through the unfortunate experience of having expected revenue sources disappear.
Staff member Jessica Pitt believes that the replication of the Collaborative in other localities and its further
prosperity would be impossible without a dedicated team who are ready and willing to “spread the word.”
Likewise, knowledge of local idiosyncrasies is highly valued by Danna Fabella of CalWORKs/Linkages—
each county that the partnership works with across California is different, and effective programming
requires the ability to contextualize based upon an understanding of the locality.
7. Use professional associations as a venue for recruiting partners in new geographies and contexts.
Melissa Valentine, Deputy Director of an association of twenty-two juvenile detention centers across the
state, recommends working through professional associations to identify partners. As an association that
advocates for improvement of services in juvenile detention, association staff and members have created
vital connections with law makers and agencies across Pennsylvania. Such an approach can create economies of scale in relationship-building and is a successful strategy in jumpstarting partnerships.
8. All partners must have ownership of the partnership. Kimberly Roberson of the CS Mott foundation
believes that collaboration in the BEST Project has worked because a sense of joint ownership. “Partners
came together to decide what they wanted—it wasn’t someone else who came up with the process.” When
a particularly attractive potential partner is reticent, it is counterproductive to “pull teeth” in order to secure their cooperation. If, after a sufficient introduction to the possibilities of a co-investment partnership,
there is lukewarm interest—then it would be counterproductive to push the issue. This is particularly the
case with governmental entities. Likewise, when Lumina Foundation was initially designing Achieving the
Dream, it decided to invite fifty individuals from organizations that had a vested interest in community
colleges to comment on their plan and inform how the work would roll out.
Partnership staffing
9. Concept agreement among partners is important, and there must be someone to facilitate it. Garrison Kurtz of Thrive by Five relates that the catalyst for bringing together the necessary partners to the
table was the involvement of the highly respected and ably funded Gates Foundation. It was with the
strong backing of Gates Foundation staff that it became possible to forge concept agreement among diverse
partners and move forward with programming. A talented, strong team has been assembled specifically to
administer Thrive by Five, but it never would have occurred without someone bringing the partners to the
table. The partnership facilitator can be another funder as is the case in Thrive by Five, however, it could
also be a public sector official, respected nonprofit or noted local academician—as long as they are highly
respected and have a history in the issue. Having someone in the partnerships with convening and facilitation skills was a also important factor identified by survey respondents in a major study on key elements
of successful partnerships between foundations and governmentxxiv..
10. Delegate the responsibility to manage the partnership to someone other than a foundation staff
person who is participating in the partnership. David Tobias and John Courtney of Bridge Builders
and Jessica Pitt of the Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative all noted that the main players in their
partnerships came from foundations—but that the work of managing the partnership was more than
a fulltime job. Whether program officers officially move to exclusive dedication to the partnership, or
whether other persons are brought on board, the management of the co-investment partnership requires
at least one person’s fulltime attention.
Ongoing Work
11. Create opportunities for face-to-face meetings between partners and participating grantees to
build trust and develop communities of practice. James Rieland of Models for Change views the quarterly meetings that Macarthur Foundations funds of all sites working on aftercare has been invaluable, as
in-person interaction to work and talk things through cannot be replaced by email or conference calls.
Likewise, Danna Fabella of CalWORKs/Linkages reports that the facilitation of face-to-face meetings and
trainings is the primary non-programmatic expenditure for the partnership.
12. Collaboratives have chosen governance structures in which the influence of partners is equal and
votes are rarely taken. Many of the partnerships the authors examined do not pool all or even any of
their funds, but rather agree to make their investments in tandem with one another. With each partner
ultimately responsible for its own funds, cooperation is the order of the hour. However, even those partnerships which do pool funds seem to generally allow partners similar levels of influence—regardless of
contribution size. Indeed, staff at both Bridge Builders and the Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative report that it is often the relative interest of a partner in the project through the investment of human
resources through attendance at meetings, etc. that determine proportional influence, rather than the level
of fiscal investment.
13. Conflicts of interest and other ethical issues should be addressed at the outset. Ann Glendon,
lead consultant of the BEST Project, recommends that partnerships “establish early a principle of disclosure of any perceivable conflict of interest or partiality.” These can often occur among funders or between
funders and grantees—particularly in small communities where funders may sit on the boards of potential
grantees. Glendon recommends that all sign a Conflict of Interest statement, and suggested United Way’s
document as a model. 14. All partners should be involved in evaluation. Jared Raynor of the BEST Project described an
extensive planning process for evaluation with all the co-investment partners at the table with the lead
consultant. Everyone articulated what it was they wanted to accomplish, and this successfully informed
the project’s evaluation.
15. Foundations must be cautious not to create an artificial environment where programs are isolated
from the challenges of reality, but should instead invest in a manner that ensures the initiative can
thrive once they depart. As is evident in the literature review, an effective co-investment partnership is
structured in such a way as to ensure that partners are able to achieve their discrete institutional missions.
But doing so in a sustainable manner requires building grantees’ self-help capacity. Bob Schwartz of Models for Change believes that programs often fail because of the protective cocoon of foundation funding.
It is important to not pay top dollar for “cream of the crop” all-star staffing whose salaries will not be affordable once foundation funding dries up. In most cases Models for Change used the average judge, the
average case worker and the average agency to successfully accomplish the goals of the initiative. Too many
foundation projects are immune to politics and funding changes and thus are not realistic or sustainable.
16. Invest in branding and best practice dissemination. Branding can draw both participates and
funders into the partnership. Sam Cargile of the Lumina Foundation noted that if a partnership does
good work on a small scale and effectively communicates the outcomes of its work, people will surely take
interest. As a partnership builds on growing interest, more participants, including funders and lead agencies, will want to be at the table, allowing the partnership to be more selective in who it accepts, leading to
higher quality work. All of this is contingent on the partnership’s commitment to spending resources to
communicate best practices and spreading the word of its success and activities.
Special considerations related to work in the public sector
17. When forming a partnership with government, use alternative or informal agreement structures,
such as joint policy statements, when MOUs or contracts are not feasible. Although legally binding
Memorandums of Understanding and contracts have been difficult to secure to government agencies,
Models for Change’s Bob Schwartz, who directs the Pennsylvania-based Juvenile Law Center, has found
that joint policy statements can be an efficient tool to keep all parties on the same page from day one.
18. Consider the merits of a capacity-building approach with government partners. Laurie Garduque,
Macarthur’s Program Director for Models for Change, explained that one of the goals of the initiative has
been to build the capacity of government to implement the initiative’s innovative plans. This approach
was a clear departure from other approaches found in the literature review and interviews, which offered a
more limited view of government’s ability to ever develop the capacity to satisfactorily carry out the reform
efforts that are a part of Models for Change. It is important to examine the best practice in Ms. Garduque’s
strategy of utilizing a “capacity building” approach with public agencies as an effective and alternative
means of partnering with government agencies.
19. Never assume that public sector leaders understand the world of philanthropy, or that funders
understand how state agencies work and are governed. In her study of the Child Care and Early Education fund, Janice Molnar highlights the necessity of building mutual understanding across widely different
cultures. Likewise, Michigan Governor’s Office of Foundation Liaison Director Karen Aldridge-Eason
notes some prominent structural differences, which need to be communicated between both sides. For
instance, many foundations operate with five- to ten-year plans and six to nine-month grant review processes. Conversely, government often operates under the constraints of two-year appropriations cycles or
very short election cycles, and its performance review and evaluation processes are limited by their bureaucracies and other multi-layered regulations. By understanding these differences, foundations and government can begin to identify their commonalities, and the different limitations they each work within.
20. Formality with government is often a difficulty because of a lack of willingness to share information; building trust is an absolute necessity. Karen Aldridge-Eason noted that perhaps one of the most
important considerations when partnering with government is that formality, such as extensive Memoranda of Understanding and other protocol, may inadvertently keep public/private relationships from
developing. From her experiences, emphasis should be placed on getting relationships going between
people. Ms. Eason has worked to push foundations to be less formal with government, and to realize the
cultural and technical differences between the sectors. Likewise, Francis Ayuso of Bridge Builders noted
that a major facet of Bridge Builders programming involves working with parents whose children may be
removed from the home by child welfare authorities—or working with those whose children already have
been removed to prepare them for the return of the child. Despite the fact that the state child welfare
agency is a member of the partnership—and despite the fact that Mr. Ayuso is on the child welfare agency’s
payroll though assigned to work specifically with Bridge Builders—the state does not share the identities of
the relevant families with Bridge Builders so that outreach can occur, due to confidentiality requirements.
Thus, Bridge Builders must attempt to identify families in need through marketing mechanisms which
could be eliminated if information sharing were allowed.
21. Anticipate the difficulty in making grants directly to government. Karen Aldridge-Eason pointed
out the difficulty government agencies have in directly accepting grants from foundations, since those
funds generally must go through appropriations processes, and may need to be approved by the state’s
legislative body. This gives the legislature the discretion to reduce the state dollars to that agency to offset
those new foundation funds, or to re-appropriate those dollars based on how the legislature would like
them to be spent. Ms. Aldridge-Eason recommends the alternative approach of placing those funds in
the hands of a nonprofit who can then work with state government, but without the state’s constraints.
Similarly, anticipating possible re-appropriation, Macarthur Foundation’s trustees have been very careful
to supplement, not supplant, government funds.
22. Governments may often require multiple options and degrees of involvement. By offering local
governments a menu of different levels of involvement, Models for Change has successfully expanded from
eight to thirty counties in Pennsylvania without offering any additional funding. Likewise, CalWORKs/
Linkages allows counties to choose from among three different models of coordinated case planning in
which to train their staff: informal communication, linked case plans, and unified case plans. Local
conditions require this flexibility, and were it not for the menu of options, far fewer counties would be
involved.
23. Bridge funding is an important tool that foundations can supply to governments, especially due
to budgetary timelines. James Rieland, of Models for Change, suggests that foundations can really help
their state partners by providing funding between cycles of state funding availability. This will allow state
agencies to do something today—immediately, instead of having to wait to put it in the new budget. This
is one of the biggest obstacles in many counties.
24. Value the role of community foundations, particularly their relationship with local government.
Tina Gridiron Smith of Lumina Foundation for Education explained that the Foster Care Work Group’s
success with state agencies and local government can mainly be attributed to the efforts of local foundations
connected to the initiative. While the national funders played a role and often provided carrots to bring
key people to the table, the local funders helped to seal the deal by challenging their government agents, “to
step up so the national funders will come in.” Particularly instrumental were the regional and community
foundations with long-term established relationships with local government. Other sources have
documented community foundations’ ability to identify reliable local nonprofit agencies to carry out the
work of the collaborative, and, as a network, to replicate and spread successful efforts and programsxxv..
PROMISING PRACTICES AND FINDINGS FROM SCHOLARLY INTERVIEWS
In addition to interviews with partners and stakeholders from the eleven profiled co-investment structures,
the authors also conducted interviews with two academicians who have engaged in scholarly research on
cross-sector collaborations as well as foundation and government partnerships. Dr. Beth Gazley, Assistant Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, studies nonprofit/foundation
operations. Although her research has focused on cross-sector collaborations between government and
nonprofits more broadly, there are many implications for government partnerships with foundations. Dr.
Gazley has found that the real connection that nonprofit managers make with government and vice versa
after prior collaboration is that they trust one another more to deliver on their end of the deal. Dr. Gazley’s data has indicated that staff who have previously worked in government tend to be more inclined to
partner with government because they have experienced the challenges of government and understand the
challenges it takes to bring about reform.
Lastly, Dr. Melissa Stone, Director of the Public and Nonprofit Center at the University of Minnesota,
shared with the authors some of her major findings in the area of foundation and government relations.
The findings are the result of a study that interviewed foundation staff, government officials and staff at
the federal, state and local level, as well as nonprofit leaders, on their perceived strengths and limitations
of philanthropy. Below are select major themes and sub themes that surfaced from the interviews in her
study:
Perceptions of Philanthropy
•
Interviewees emphasized that relationships develop between people, not institutions, and thus
trust and respect among individuals are critical.
Overall, interviewees noted that philanthropy’s strengths are generally split between bringing
tangible and intangible assets to the table.
•
----
Intangible assets included philanthropy’s vision for change, its focus on a specific public
problem, its flexibility in being able to move quickly into a funding area, and its credibility as
a neutral source of information and ideas.
Tangible assets included philanthropy’s expertise and philanthropic dollars.
Philanthropists who were interviewed tended to see their financial capital as their most
valuable asset, while policy makers found philanthropy’s other intangible assets, such as its
clout, expertise, more valuablexxvi..
--•
•
State level officials placed the most value on philanthropy’s ability to bring needed data and
analysis on public problems to legislative deliberations.
County officials saw philanthropy’s ability to move quickly and avoid the red tape that is
prevalent on county-level bureaucracy as its most valuable asset.
The most prevalent criticism of philanthropy, which was particularly voiced by policy makers,
was philanthropy’s unwillingness to take risks, particularly when it meant becoming involved in
the policy process, or using their power and influence to push for change.
Policymakers also pointed out philanthropy’s lack of understanding of politics or the policy
process, including the powerful role lobbyists have in influencing decisions.
Perceptions of the Public Sector
•
•
Interviewees generally noted that the public sector’s strengths included its “authorizing power to
mandate change,” adjust policy, as well as its spending authority and resources. Philanthropists
most valued the public sector’s sustainability strengths, while policy makers most valued its
mandating authorities.
County officials voiced the “lack of innovation” among the pubic sector’s most prominent
weaknessesxxvii.
CONCLUSION: AN IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CO-INVESTMENT STRUCTURES
The most obvious indicators of impact are a result of a thorough evaluation. There are numerous forms
and perceptions of what it means to “evaluate” a program, structure, partnership, etc. However, at the
most basic level, evaluation simply means comparing identified goals and outcomes to a set of indicators
that measure the extent to which those goals and outcomes are accomplished. In the authors’ numerous
interviews and site visits to garner information about the eleven co-investment structures, one of the
primary research questions was to understand the impact of the collaborative funding structure on the targeted system. It is perhaps ironic that the research showed that many of the co-investment structures had
not conducted a formal evaluation, while others began to evaluate their impact midstream—which evaluators assert skew the accuracy of the results. Additionally, some of the partners that were interviewed
indicated that evaluations had been conducted, but were not available for public consumption or study.
However, the cumulative of what interviewees said and did not say, inferred, and in a few cases the documents and reflections shared, reveal several important conclusions and analyses pertaining to impact.
1.
The co-investment structures with the most clearly identifiable components of success in impacting the target system engaged an outside evaluator. This is the case with Early Childhood Funders
Collaborative, as well as the BEST Project, which conducted an impact as well as a meta-evaluation.
2.
The often massive, complex nature of collaboratively funded projects in multi jurisdictions
makes evaluation difficult—even when several national funders participate. Brian Lyght of Annie E.
Casey Foundation and co-chair of the Foster Care Work Group noted that even though there are major
foundations at the table as part of the Work Group, and many foundations express a desire to evaluate
the impact of FCWG’s collective efforts—through a process evaluation—very few resources have been
allocated to do just that. This is not because of a lack of commitment to or understanding the importance
of evaluation, added Tina Gridiron Smith of Lumina Foundation for Education, also a part of the Work
Group. “Evaluation was talked about from day one. The challenge was that no one funder could cover
the entire evaluation cost to document the process,” which was the type of evaluation FCWG had hoped
to produce. “The funders that got involved and invested in the collaboration did it for the purpose of
making grants to other organizations, not to evaluate the work of the funders in the group. To evaluate
the work of nine funders in many locales over four to five years would cost millions of dollars. When
we began to compare the costs of a comprehensive evaluation with the grant dollars we were providing
to organizations on the ground, we realized that it would have been uneven and possibly upside down to
fund the evaluation.”
3.
Multifaceted, system reform initiatives may require highly nuanced evaluations. As part of
the MacArthur Foundation funded Models for Change effort, Juvenile Law Center has worked with initiative partners to develop a coherent approach to evaluation. System reform efforts like Models for Change
have many moving parts that may change in reaction to countless external forces. Identifying appropriate
and realistic short and long term outcome measures and building in a flexible evaluation component from
the beginning of the effort is necessary, but challenging. Because of the number of moving parts and the
nature of ‘systems,’ evaluations need to carefully consider issues of correlation versus causation, and to
allow flexibility as changes are implemented.
Casey Family Programs seeks to provide information and resources for its staff to be effective partners
with local foundations and state agencies. As it prepares to utilize the strategy of co-investment structures
as a tool for establishing strong partnerships toward the goal of reducing the number of youth in foster
care by half by the year 2020, it is imperative that with each partnership it nurtures a common commitment of outcomes and promising practices in co-investing among all partners and in all aspects of its
work.
INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED
Amy Wallace, Former Coordinator, Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative
Ann Glendon, Principal, Glendon Associates
Autumn Dickman, Project Manager, Juvenile Law Center
Beth Gazley, Assistant Professor, Indiana University
Brenda Castillo, Compliance Manager, Linkages/CalWORKs
Brian S. Lyght, Senior Associate, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Carol Lincoln, Senior Program Director, MDC, Inc.
Cheri Hayes, Executive Director, The Finance Project
Danna Fabella, Project Director, Linkages/CalWORKs
David Godzina, Coordinator, Linkages/CalWORKs
David Tobias, President, Fund for Social Change
Elizabeth M. Zachry, Research Associate, MDRC
Francis Ayuso, Project Director, BuildBuilders
Garrison Kurtz, Operations and Strategy, Thrive by Five: Washington Early Learning Fund
James Rieland, Director, Allegheny County Juvenile Court
Jared Raynor, Consultant, TCC Group
Jessica Pitt, Project Coordinator, Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative
John Courtney, Co-Director, Bridge Builders
Karen Aldridge-Eason, Foundation Liaison, Michigan Council of Foundations
Kate Welty, Site Leader, California Co-investment Partnership
Kimberly Roberson, US Program Officer, Charles Stuart Mott Foundation
Laura Wolff, Founding Chair, Child Care and Early Education Fund
Laurie Garduque, Program Director, Research, Macarthur Foundation
Melissa Stone, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota
Melissa Valentine, Deputy Director, Juvenile Detention Centers Association of Pennsylvania
Miryam Choca, Director, California Strategies, Casey Family Programs
Natasha Lifton, Former Chair, Child Care and Early Education Fund
Patti Lieberman, Former Chair, Child Care and Early Education Fund
Robert Schwartz, Executive Director, Juvenile Law Center
Sam Cargile, Senior Director of Grantmaking, Lumina Foundation for Education
Suzanne Walsh, Program Director, Lumina Foundation for Education
Tina Gridiron Smith, Senior Program Officer, Lumina Foundation for Education
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix.
xx.
xxi.
xxii.
xxiii.
xxiv.
xxv.
xxvi.
xxvii.
Hill, Talmira. Strategic Funds: Assessment of Optimal Approaches. 2005.
Peterson, Julie. The Collaborative Fund Model: Effective Strategies for Grantmaking
(2002).
(2002).
Hopkins, Elwood. Collaborative Philanthropies: What Groups of Foundations Can Do That
Individual Funders Cannot (2005).
Hamilton, Ralph. Moving Ideas and Money: Issues and Opportunities in Funder Funding
Collaboration (2002).
Hamilton, Ralph. Moving Ideas and Money: Issues and Opportunities in Funder Funding
Collaboration (2002).
Buhl, Alice. Local Donor Collaboration: Lessons from Baltimore and Beyond (2004).
Individual Funderts Cannot (2005).
(2002).
(2002).
Action Alliance for Children. Benefits of the Quality Child Care Initiative as a Funder Collaborative (2004)
Hughes, Robert. Philanthropies Working Together: Myths and Realities (2005).
Greenberg, Linda. Health Affairs. Spring 1990
Frumkin, Peter. Strategic Giving: the Art and Science of Philanthropy.
Michigan Council of Foundations. Office of Foundation Liaison Fact Sheet. www.michiganfoundations.org.
New York Regional Association of Grantmakers. City Connect Lessons Learned 1992 –
2002 (2002).
Foundations on the Hill. www.foundationsonthehill.org
Individual Funders Cannot (2005).
Interview with Robert Schwartz. January 10th, 2008.
Greenberg, Linda. Health Affairs. Spring 1990 & Hopkins, Elwood. Collaborative Philanthropies: What Groups of Foundations Can Do That Individual Funders Cannot (2005).
King, Reatha C., Melissa M. Stone and Marsha A. Freeman. Philanthropy and Public Policy:
What It Take to Work Together to Make a Difference (2005).
Council of Foundations. When Community Foundations and Private & Corporate Funders
Collaborate (2000).
Danna Fabella of CalWorks/Linkages reports that her partnership brings county workforce
development and child welfare agencies together (on their initiative) primarily through offering training—not through funding staff.
King, Reatha C., Melissa M. Stone and Marsha A. Freeman. Philanthropy and Public Policy:
What It Take to Work Together to Make a Difference (2005).
REFERENCES
Action Alliance for Children. Benefits of the Quality Child Care Initiative as a Funder Collaborative
(2004)
Council of Foundation. When Community Foundations and Private and Corporate Funders Collaborate
(2000).
Frumkin, Peter. The Art and Science of Philanthropy (2006).
Hamilton, Ralph. Moving Ideas and Money: Issues and Opportunities in Funder Funding Collaboration
(2002).
Hill, Talmira. Strategic funds: Assessment of Optimal Approaches (2005).
Hopkins, Elwood. Collaborative Philanthropies: What Groups of Foundations Can Do That Individual
Funders Cannot (2005).
Hughes, Robert. Philanthropy Working Together: Myths and Realities (2005).
King, Reatha C., Melissa M. Stone and Marsha A. Freeman. Philanthropy and Public Policy: What It Take
to Work Together to Make a Difference (2005).
New York Regional Association of Grantmakers. City Connect Lessons Learned, 1992 – 2002 (2002).
Peterson, Julie. The Collaborative Fund Model: Effective Strategies for Grantmaking (2002).

Co-investment struCtures

Transcription

Similar documents

Computer Information Systems

FOLLETO INT

English

Developing High Performing Teams

Program Overview

France - Living Schools Lab

TOWARDS A BETTER PLACE conference TOWARDS A BETTER

AF4Q Executive Summary - Aligning Forces for Quality

proceedings

a survey of ancient geotechnical engineering techniques in

Presentation to the Port Arthur Rotary Club