Guiding principles for building collaborative … › sites › default › files... · Web...

GUIDING PRINCIPLESFOR

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPSBETWEEN

GOVERNMENT AND PHILANTHROPY

Report and Case Studies

March 2012

Philanthropy Consulting ServiceMarion Webster and Trudy Wyse

PO Box 1011Collingwood Victoria 3066AustraliaABN 57 967 620 066

T. +61 3 9412 0412F. +61 3 9415 7429E. [email protected] W. www.communityfoundation.org.au

http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/

mailto:[email protected]

1. Background to the Project

The Office for the Community Sector (OCS) sat within the former Department of Planning

and Community Development (DPCD). The OCS was established to support and build the

capacity of community sector organisations so that they can be sustainable into the future.

In 2009 the OCS set up the Philanthropy and Government Working Group to explore

broad avenues for collaboration between philanthropy and government, with the aim of

maximising the impact of government and philanthropic work and spending on the

community sector.

The Working Group has co-ordinated a series of events and briefings aimed at developing a

mutual understanding of government processes, the philanthropic climate in Victoria and

ways of engaging philanthropy in government work.

In May 2011, a discussion paper entitled Guiding Principles for Building Collaborative

Relationships between Philanthropy and Government was developed by the Working Group.

The paper aims to highlight some common elements of successful collaborations between

government and philanthropic grant makers. It outlines a set of draft principles which could

guide a constructive collaborative approach between philanthropy and government

grantmakers wanting to work together to support projects with community and not for profit

organisations.

The Australian Community Foundation’s Consulting Service was contracted to continue this

work by assessing the value and relevance of the guiding principles against four selected

initiatives being undertaken by not-for-profit (NFP) organisations and supported by

government and philanthropy.

The four case studies include:

Strengthening Social Cohesion in Hume City - Supporting Parents Developing Children Project

Loddon Mallee government and philanthropic partnership (Robinvale component)

Children’s Protection Society – Early Years Education Research Program

White Lion - Youth Mentoring Program

Collaborative partnerships report March 2012 1

It became clear during the consultation phase of the contracted work that projects which are

supported by both government and philanthropy sit on a continuum of engagement, as is

outlined in greater detail in sections 3 and 4.1 of this report. The Working Group has agreed

on a specific definition of a collaboration (see section 4.1, page 7) which does not

necessarily apply to all of the four case studies. The discussion in this report, therefore,

focuses on what constitutes a collaborative partnership, as opposed to much looser

arrangements in which a project may be supported by philanthropy and government, but

without a formalised relationship to guide the project’s development.

The following sections of this report include a summary of local and international material of

government philanthropy collaborative partnerships, general findings and observations on

effective collaboration based on the documentation of the four case studies,

recommendations re changes and additions to the draft guiding principles and an outline of

each of the four case studies.

2. Project Methodology

The Working Group nominated the 4 case studies to provide a variety of different types of

arrangements and relationships that can exist between philanthropy, government and NFP

organisations supporting a common project. At least one of the Working Group members

was a partner in each of the case studies.

A lead agency was identified for each case study and as part of this role, they provided

background information and co-ordinated the involvement of the other partners in the

project.

The four lead agencies completed an initial questionnaire which provided information about

the nature of the cross sectoral relationships and the extent to which the draft guiding

principles were reflected in, and relevant to, the development and implementation of the

partnership arrangements to date.

This was followed by a group discussion with each of the case studies and involved some or

all of the partner organisations. This discussion further explored the background to, and

implementation of, the arrangement, from the different participants’ perspectives. Each of the

draft principles was raised in the context of the project’s development, and the usefulness of

the principles for guiding the development of effective collaborative partnerships was

explored by the groups.


The information and analysis provided through the questionnaires and discussions formed

the basis of the case studies and recommended changes and additions to the guiding

principles.

3. Government Philanthropic Collaborative Partnerships - A Summary of Local and International material

'In the USA, Henry Ford once said, “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is

progress. Working together is success.” The philanthropic sector’s relationship with the

public sector is best described as mixed and uneven. While governments can hinder a

foundation's mission, they also offer the potential to further the mission beyond what the

foundation could accomplish by itself'.

The Council on Foundations USA

In the UK, this view has been echoed. 'For all the talk about public-private partnerships

these days, the relationship between government and philanthropy remains awkward and

incomplete. They are usually portrayed as opposites- two sides of a coin at best, adversaries

at worst.'

Macdonald and Szanto 2007 235-6

A scan of local and overseas material that looks at the role of government – philanthropic

collaborations/partnerships tends to reflect the same “mixed and uneven” relationships.

At the same time it is being increasingly recognised that the issues communities are

currently facing are extremely complex, can be chronic and severe and spill over sectoral

boundaries. The traditional silo approach where different sectors and agencies (government,

philanthropy, corporations, community) respond in isolation and solely according to their own

agendas and priorities is ineffective and limiting. There is a general acknowledgement in the

literature that by leveraging the work of the government and philanthropic sectors, the reach

of both philanthropy and government’s intellectual and financial capital and the scope of their

successes can be broadened to achieve greater positive social change. The literature also

recognises that good cross sectoral partnerships bring much more than financial resources,

and can lead to a much better understanding and a redefining of the relationships and

strategies, of both sectors which will hopefully lead to more sustainable change.


In both the USA and the UK considerable work has been undertaken to build and share

knowledge about the opportunities and learnings about government – philanthropic

partnerships. In the USA this has been done through the establishment of the Public –

Philanthropic Partnership Initiative at the Council on Foundations.

The program aims to:

serve as the facilitator and go-to source for public-philanthropic partnerships;

catalogue current opportunities and develop tools and resources to enable

foundations to successfully partner with government;

generate timely analysis and commentary to increase awareness and understanding

among the foundation community and the government about all aspects of public

philanthropic partnerships.

It also provides a number of examples of successful partnerships.

In the UK the Intelligent Funding Forum commissioned Dr Diana Leat to undertake a study:

More than Money: The potential of cross sector relationships

This comprehensive paper explores the varied ways funders from different sectors

(government, business and philanthropy) are currently working together, how these

relationships work in practice and the opportunities for clear collaboration in the future.

The paper, while not listing a set of principles, does identify a number of “relationship

ingredients” necessary to establish successful cross sectoral relationships. These include:

- understanding what are the key drivers for the different sectors, as well as each other’s

needs and constraints

- respect and trust for each other’s skills and knowledge, and understanding how these

can add value to each other’s work. It is also about acknowledging that it takes time and

patience to build trust

- shared vision and focus. This may not mean that all members to the relationship share

exactly the same goals, but that they share at least one goal on which they are jointly

focused for the purposes of the work being undertaken

- clarity about boundaries, roles and structures, but with the acknowledgement that it is not

always possible to know how things will develop

- time commitment, which is dependent on the type of relationship. The associated time

costs are then assessed on the benefits derived from the relationship.


A number of Victorian resources are available to assist organisations wishing to engage in

cross sectoral partnerships. The Department of Planning and Community Development has

produced a very comprehensive document Working in Partnership: Practical advice for

running effective partnerships (Jeanette Pope 2008).

This practical “how to” guide contains a number of detailed case studies and outlines five

key factors for effective partnerships. These are:

- a good broker/facilitator to build relationships

- the right decision makers at the table with a commitment to contribute

- a clear vision and objectives

- good processes

- ongoing motivation through evaluation and champions.

Although not specifically focused on government – philanthropy partnerships, VicHealth has

developed the Partnerships Analysis Tool, a resource for establishing, developing and

maintaining partnerships for health promotion. The aim of this tool is to help organisations

reflect on the partnerships they have established and monitor and maximise their

effectiveness. Our Community has also developed a range of resource material on

community- business partnerships. Both resources contain some good and relevant

information.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) has also had a long-standing and well developed

approach to partnership and collaboration with the community sector. A formal partnership

between the independent health, housing and community sector and the Department of

Human Services has been in place since 2002 and is reviewed and re-signed every three

years.

A practical guide, the Collaboration and Consultation Protocol, was developed in 2004 to

advance the way parties to the Partnership Agreement collaborate and consult in order to

plan and deliver high quality services to the people of Victoria. The protocol is a guide and

reference tool to promote partnerships through different stages of the process and outlines a

shared approach to policy development processes, planning and service delivery. It also

acknowledges the responsibilities and constraints faced by the Department and the sector

when engaged in collaboration.


Building on the work of DHS, the Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development (DEECD) has also written a framework for collaboration and consultation, titled

DEECD – Victorian Community Sector Collaboration and Consultation Framework.

This comprehensive publication resulted from the development of a DEECD – Victorian

Council of Social Services Partnership Agreement 2010-2014, which itself came about in

response to the recognition of the importance of partnerships between the Department and

the diverse mix of community sector organisations with differing interests, mandates and

governance structures.

The development of the Framework also provides a platform for both the Department

and community sector to include collaboration and consultation within strategic planning and

corporate strategies, which will build on existing practice.

The publication contains information on what it is that constitutes effective collaborations and

consultations and covers the benefits, challenges and enablers. It also provides information

on some practical steps and mechanisms that could be helpful in establishing them.

What is common to all the material referred to here is the recognition that a cross sectoral

partnership can take many forms and that each relationship sits somewhere on a continuum

in terms of the level and degree of engagement. They may range from a loose networking

arrangement through to a highly structured collaboration. These are described differently,

but can be categorised broadly as follows:

Networking involves the exchange of information for mutual benefit. This requires little time

and trust between partners and will most likely involve talking, sharing knowledge and

learning.

Coordinating involves exchanging information and altering activities of each organisation

for a common purpose. This may involve developing a coordinated campaign to lobby for

better services

Cooperating involves exchanging information, altering activities for a common purpose and

sharing resources. It requires a significant amount of time, a level of trust between partners,

and an ability for agencies to share turf. This often involves independent co-funding by each

organisation, rather than contributing to a common pool.


Collaborating includes enhancing the capacity of the other partners for mutual benefit and a

common purpose. Collaborating requires the partners to give up a part of their turf to another

agency to create a better or more seamless service system.

This will involve high levels of trust, and will include complementary resourcing, collaboration

in all aspects of planning, governance, implementation and evaluation.

In addition, from his experience of working with the Helen Macpherson Smith Trust and ANZ

Trustees, Chris Wootton, a member of the Working Group, has developed a visual

representation of the possible Models of Engagement between government, philanthropy

and the not-for-profit sector. This is outlined in Appendix 1.

Links to the international and local material referred to in this section can be found at

Appendix 2.

4. General comments and learnings from the Collaboration Project

4.1 The nature of collaborationsAs identified in the scan of international and local material, cross sectoral partnerships

between government, philanthropic and not for profit organisations can take many forms,

and each sits somewhere on a continuum in terms of the level and degree of engagement.

At one end there can be a loose networking arrangement, at the other a fully developed

collaboration, which is a far more formalised and structured arrangement.

During the research phase of this project it became clear that the four case studies sit along

this continuum, and are not all collaborations.

Following discussion of the issues raised by the analysis of the case studies, the

Working Group agreed on the following definition of a collaboration:

A cross sector collaboration is a deliberate, structured arrangement which brings together each sector’s intellectual, organisational and financial capital to meet agreed goals. It involves joint planning, resourcing, governing and monitoring.


Based on this definition, the Children’s Protection Society (CPS) and Whitelion projects do

not fit into the category of collaboration. While both projects do involve government,

philanthropy and the NFP organisation, there is no structured arrangement between

government and philanthropy, rather the government and philanthropic partners have their

own discrete relationships with the NFP organisation. Both projects were initiated by their

organisations in response to a need they had identified in the areas in which they operate

and the potential funding partners were then sought.

In the case of CPS, following several years of in depth research, the organisation developed

a project to provide early learning interventions for at risk children and their families. With a

clear project plan in place and with clarity about the mission, vision, roles and priorities of the

project, CPS engaged their funding partners. While all funders have worked closely with

CPS and have developed trust, the relationship has been one that has involved independent

co-funding rather than a collaboration which, from the inception of an idea, brought CPS,

philanthropic funders and government together to jointly address an identified issue.

Similarly, in the case of Whitelion, the Mentoring Program already existed prior to the

involvement of all the funding partners. The program has functioned through different

funding stakeholders providing support to specific elements of a broader Mentoring

Program, all of which have a preventive focus in common.

The Portland House Foundation and the Medibank Community Foundation provided

support for mentoring of young people currently living in custody at one of

Melbourne's youth justice facilities. The Department of Human Services supports the

mentoring program which works with young people preparing to leave out of home care.

While the relationship between Portland House and Whitelion has been an excellent

co-operative arrangement, with high levels of trust and regular contact, along with a

commitment to long term funding, the overall Mentoring Program has not been a

structured collaboration with all parties coming together at the outset for a mutually

agreed purpose. Rather relationships have been independently built between Whitelion

and their various funders.


The other two initiatives, the Loddon Mallee partnership and the City of Hume Supporting

Parents Developing Children initiative sit clearly in the collaboration category. In both

these cases, the projects were initiated by a group of people from the philanthropic,

government and community sectors coming together with the shared purpose of

addressing an identified community issue. A great deal of time was taken in both cases

with all parties working together with the community to build trusting relationships, agree

purposes and desired outcomes, as well as identify and scope the specific projects that

were eventually agreed upon and supported by a number of philanthropic and

government funders.

The feedback provided in the rest of this section by the four groups of case study

participants on the draft guiding principles, relates to the principles’ relevance and

usefulness to the establishment and operation of collaborations, based on the more

formal definition agreed to by the Working Group.


4.2 Memorandum of UnderstandingAll four case studies agreed that a Memorandum of Understanding was not an appropriate

term to be used in the guiding principles, as it had a specific legal meaning, particularly for

the Federal government.

All felt however, that it was important that there is a clear and agreed understanding of the

mission and purposes, as well as the roles and responsibilities of all partners, at an early

stage of a collaboration, even though it was recognised that there was a need to have the

flexibility to accommodate change as the collaboration evolved. ‘Statement of Intent’ was the

preferred term for the document in which this would be spelt out.

4.3 Dedicated staff memberIt was generally agreed that a complex collaboration across philanthropy, government and

the community sectors needed a person with the dedicated responsibility to co-ordinate

governance arrangements, manage communication between partners, oversight project

development and implementation and complete reporting and accountability requirements. In

some cases a collaboration manager would be appointed specifically to work for the

collaboration, in others an existing staff person from one of the partner organisations would

take on this role as a key part of their work.

4.4 Reporting requirementsIn three of the case studies the issue of the administrative burden imposed by the number

and range of reporting requirements for the funding partners in a collaboration, particularly

those required by federal government departments was raised. The streamlining of

accountability requirements was seen to be an important issue for the smooth running of

collaborations. As discussed in 4.3, it was agreed that it was important to have a dedicated

staff person in order to successfully manage these demands and the myriad governance,

operational and co-ordination aspects of a complex collaboration.

4.5 Ensuring an easy transition for new partners in the collaborationAs most collaborations span a number of years there will be inevitably be staff changes in

the partner organisations. The importance of documenting the process and the history and

culture of the collaboration was stressed. This, together with having a dedicated staff person

responsible for the management of the project, was seen as important factors in ensuring a

smooth transition and comprehensive induction for new staff and/or funders joining the

collaboration.


4.6 Engaging all levels of staff from the organisations involved with the collaboration.

For three of the case studies the importance of engaging and involving relevant personnel at

all levels of the partner organisations including organisational heads, senior decision

makers, program and operational staff. Maintaining their involvement meant that they

remained abreast of any changes that may occur in the projects over time, were more likely

to contribute their expertise and were able to be champions for the projects.

4.7 The importance of clear and regular communicationAll of the case studies stressed the importance of regular and clear communication,

particularly when and if problems arose. It was agreed that this involved establishing clear

communication protocols early in the project and ensuring that these included both senior,

as well as operational, staff.

4.8 Support for the principlesThere was overall support for the development of a set of principles to guide collaborative

arrangements. Most of those who participated in the group discussions indicated that there

were guiding principles that underpinned their work together. However, for many these had

never been explicitly stated.

Feedback suggested that the draft guiding principles were too succinct and needed to be

expanded to provide more context and meaning. It was felt that each principle needed to

make sense as a standalone statement and that the addition of a preamble would assist in

providing further context.


5. Guiding Principles for Successful Collaboration – Recommended changes

Preamble:This would cover the following points:

The relationship between funders and NFP organisations can take many forms and sit

on a continuum – from juggling a range of funders to a completely cohesive, well

harmonised collaboration. A cross sector collaboration is one in which there is a

deliberate, structured arrangement which brings together each sector’s intellectual,

organisational and financial capital to meet agreed goals. It involves joint planning,

resourcing, governing and monitoring.

The fundamental basis for any collaboration is clarity regarding the assumptions of each

partner about where they’re coming from, so that any differences are resolved at the

outset.

Collaborations are only useful if they produce better outcomes for the community.

1. Creating the Environment

1.1 Engage each other early when the potential idea/interest/need for a collaborative approach is being considered

1.2 Ensure that expectations about goals and how partners are going to work together are clarified early on in the collaboration’s development

1.3 Recognise that collaboration works most effectively when the partners have shared values and principles, and when it meets each organisation’s guidelines and agendas.

1.4 Government/philanthropic collaborations work better when each sector understands the others directions and priorities and philanthropy understands government’s policy environment.

2. Shaping Partnerships and Building Relationships

2.1 Understand each other’s roles, policies, priorities and limitations

2.2 Ensure sufficient time to develop trust, mutual respect and agreed approaches

2.3 Ensure the right people are at the table(s), with commitment and involvement from senior and operational representatives of each partner organisation, as appropriate. Seek consistency of personnel representing the partners over the length of the collaboration, as far as possible.


2.4 Develop a formalised ‘Statement of intent’, once principles, goals, outcomes, expectations, roles and responsibilities are agreed.

2.5 Build in a flexible approach to roles and responsibilities and collaboration activities in order to accommodate changing circumstances and opportunities as they arise.

2.6 Appoint a member of the collaboration to drive and co-ordinate governance, operational and communication activities and build this role into their job description for the duration of the collaboration (this role would generally be taken by the lead agency).

3. Decision Making and Management Practices

3.1 Agree to processes for selecting organisations to be funded and the nature of projects to be jointly supported

3.2 Communicate frankly throughout the collaboration time frame

3.3 Document the history, context and development of the collaboration. Where there is a change of personnel, ensure that a formal handover process is put in place to ensure adequate information about the history and culture of the collaboration is passed on.

4. Evaluation and Sustainability

4.1 Ensure there is an evaluation framework and the resources available to undertake the level of evaluation agreed upon.

4.2 Address sustainability issues early, including development of a funding plan, where appropriate. As part of this, plan and develop an exit strategy if the collaboration, or partners’ involvement in it, is time limited.


6. Case Studies

The following case studies have been developed using the information provided in the

questionnaires and from the discussion at the group sessions. There are 3 sections to each

case study:

Identifying information

Background and impetus for the establishment of the collaboration/project

Assessment of the collaboration/project against each draft guiding principle

Summarised below are key features of each of the case studies, reflecting the nature and strength of the partnerships.

In writing up the individual case studies, the term ‘collaboration’ has been widely used, as

this was the term originally used in the questionnaire and group discussions and is the

context in which the responses and feedback were provided.


6.1 Summary of the key features of each case study

Supporting Parents Developing Children - Hume Project

Initiation by a philanthropic organisation, based on research and commitment/leverageto bring other partners on board. A key goal was to build a collaborative approach, bringing philanthropy, government and the NFP sector together for a shared outcome.

Recognition of the need for coordination of the collaboration and the opportunity tobuild upon already established community relationships. Creation of a dedicated staff position to make this happen.

Resourcing of collaboration evaluation which can identify and address problems, as well as provide learnings for the future.

Loddon Mallee government and philanthropic partnership

Foundation led coming together of government and philanthropic partners around adifficult, intractable problem and commitment to work with the community and community organisations over the long-term.

Recognition of the fundamental need to build trust in a wary and conflicted community.

Strength of, and commitment to, the funding partnership which facilitated the allocation of government funding for work in communities that fell outside of the guidelines for established program funding pots.

Children’s' Protection Society – Early Years Education Research Program

Clarity of vision and evidence base built by lead agency, enhancing capacity to bring others on board.

Identification of partners’ roles in addition to funding, as fundamental to project success (leverage with others, advocacy, influence etc).

White Lion - Youth Mentoring Program

Strong individual partnerships with funding bodies.

Recognition of the potential for building a more formalised and structured joint collaboration, which could strengthen relationships and ensure greater use of partners’ skills and expertise for benefit of the Program.


Appendix 1 Four MModels of Government/Philanthropy/NFP EngagementThe following is a visual representation of possible models of engagement between government, philanthropy and not-for-profit organisations. It was prepared by Chris Wootton, based on his experience working for the Helen McPherson Smith Trust and ANZ Trustees. It demonstrates that cross sectoral relationships can take many forms.

• Model 1 Government is the lead and engages with the NFP sector – who then may or may not seek philanthropic support eg State Government Community Building Initiative 2005-2010 (which then brought in Helen Macpherson Smith Trust).

• Model 2 The NFP sector is the lead (and may or may not engage with philanthropy) and then seeks government involvement eg CPS and Whitelion Case Studies

• Model 3 Government and Philanthropy engage (with Government or Philanthropy taking the lead role in the relationship) and then secure involvement of NFP sector eg Hume case study, Aust Community Foundation’s MacroMelbourne Initiative, Government/Helen Macpherson Smith Trust Youth Mentoring 2007-2011

• Model 4All parties work together to explore solution(s) to a complex issue and/or where Philanthropy can play a facilitation or independent broker role eg Loddon Mallee Case Study


Appendix 2 List of International and Local References

Public – Philanthropic Partnership Initiative: Council on Foundations. http://ppp.cof.org

The Intelligent Funding Forum, More than Money: The potential of cross sector relationships by Dr Diana Leat. www.acf.org.uk/iff/

Macdonald and Szanto: Private Government Philanthropy: Friend or Foes? Article in Mapping the New World of American Philanthropy by Raymond and Martin.

Published by John Wiley & Sons 2007

Working in Partnership: Practical advice for running effective partnerships by Jeanette Pope, 2008.

Partnership in Practice: Collaboration and Consultation protocolThe Department of Health and Human Services.

DEECD – Victorian Community Sector Collaboration and Consultation Framework.The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development(DEECD).

The Partnerships Analysis Tool: A resource for establishing, developing and maintaining partnerships for health promotion. VicHealth. www.vichealth.vic.gov.au

Our Community has developed a range of resource material on community- business

partnerships. www.ourcommunity.com.au


http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/

http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/

http://www.acf.org.uk/iff/

Guiding principles for building collaborative … › sites › default › files... · Web...

Documents

Transcript of Guiding principles for building collaborative … › sites › default › files... · Web...