C O L L A B O R ATIVE

FUND FOR W O M E N ’ S

E C O N O M I C

D E V E L O P M E N T

C O L L A B O R ATIVE FUND

F O R YOUTH-LED

SOCIAL CHANGE

THECOLLABORATIVEFUND MODEL:

EFFECTIVESTRATEGIES FORGRANTMAKING

1C O L L A B O R ATIVE FUNDS: AN OVERV I E W

2THE MS. FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN'S COLLABORATIVE FUNDS

4WHY STA RT A COLLABORATIVE FUND?

6HOSTING A COLLABORATIVE FUND

7THE COLLABORATIVE FUND PROCESS

1 1BENEFITS FOR DONORS

1 3BENEFITS FOR GRANTEES

1 6BENEFITS FOR A FIELD

1 8OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

2 1CONCLUSION: FOUR MAIN FACTORS FOR SUCCESS

2 2APPENDIX A: COLLABORATIVE FUND FOR WOMEN'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

2 4APPENDIX B: COLLABORATIVE FUND FOR YOUTH-LED SOCIAL CHANGE

2 6A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

THE COLLABORATIVEFUND MODEL: EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

FOR GRANTMAKING

J U L I E P E T E R S O NC O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 0 2 B Y T H E M S . F O U N D A T I O N F O R W O M E N

MISSION STAT E M E N T

The Ms. Foundation supports

the efforts of women and

girls to govern their own

lives and influence the world

around them. Through

its leadership, expertise and

financial support, the

Foundation champions an

equitable society by

effecting change in public

consciousness, law, philan-

thropy and social policy.

BEL IEFS AND

VALUES STAT E M E N T

Our work is guided by our

vision of a just and safe

world where power and

possibility are not limited by

gender, race, class or sexual

orientation. We believe

that equity and inclusion are

the cornerstones of a true

democracy in which the

worth and dignity of every

person is valued.

1

1 From Michel Winer and Karen Ray, “Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the Journey,” Amherst Wilder Foundation,1994; and Alice C. Buhl, Patterns of Cooperation Among Grantmakers , Council on Foundations, Inc.: Washington, D.C., 1991.

C o o rdination re q u i res some planning and division ofroles and opens communication channels between org a n-izations. A more durable and pervasive re l a t i o n s h i pmarks pooled or collaborative funds where donors share acommon interest and may participate in the re - g r a n t i n gdecisions. Participants bring separate organizations intoa new stru c t u re with full commitment to a common mis-sion. Such relationships re q u i re comprehensive planning

and well-defined communication. In such collaboratives,each partner contributes its re s o u rces and reputation ands h a res the results and re w a rd s .1

I n c reasing numbers of funders, committed to a fieldand intrigued by the benefits of collaboration, areputting their heads together and figuring out new

ways to work toward a common goal. The Ms.Foundation for Women was one of the first funders toestablish a true collaborative fund in which donorspooled re s o u rces and made all decisions collectively.Collaborative grantmaking is becoming especiallyattractive in emerging fields where the ability to lever-age re s o u rces, educate donors, document lessons andbuild capacity is crucial. And the Ms. Foundation, a

pioneer of this approach, is fre-quently asked to share aspects ofits collaborative grantmakingmodel with others.

Pa t t e rns of Cooperation AmongG r a n t m a k e r s is designed for grantmaking org a n i z a t i o n sand individual philanthropists thinking about cre a t i n gor participating in a funding collaborative. In additionto describing the elements of the Ms. Foundation col-laborative fund model, it attempts to capture some ofthe benefits of collaborative grantmaking, and some of the difficulties that can arise along the way.

“The Ms. Foundation was looking for a high leverage, high impact method of funding and field building

when we developed our collaborative fund model,”Sara K. Gould, executive director, Ms. Foundation for Women

AN OVERVIEWC O L L A B O R A T I V E F U N D S

Cooperation among grantmakers exists along a continuum. On one end, philanthropists come together to exchange information with little, if any, nego-tiation or agreement required. These shorter-term relations exist without anyclearly defined mission, structure or planning effort. Slightly more involved areone-time funding partnerships, often guided by an initiating donor, and studygroups of donors organized around a problem or issue where each donorreserves the right to fund independently.

2

The Ms. Foundation currently manages two col-laborative funds, the Collaborative Fund forWomen’s Economic Development (CFWED)and the Collaborative Fund for Youth-Led

Social Change (CFYS). The Ms. Foundation adminis-ters the Funds, contributes as a donor, provides techni-cal assistance to grantees and learning opportunities forall partners, and documents and disseminates lessonslearned. About 80 percent of money in each fund goestowards the grantmaking, capacity building and learn-ing components. The remainder supports the staffingand administrative functions.

The Collaborative Fund for Women’s EconomicDevelopment provides crucial financial and technicalsupport to organizations across the country that helplow-income women start and expand microenterprisesand cooperative businesses. Each grantee receives$150,000 over three years and participates actively incapacity building and learning activities. By providinglow-income women with business training and creditand linking them with lucrative markets, the Fund’sgrantees facilitate the flow of much needed capital into

low-income communities and create opportunities for families to become self-sufficient. Since the cre-ation of this Collaborative Fund in 1990, the Ms.Foundation has partnered with 40 foundations andindividuals to leverage over $10 million in threerounds of funding. Please see Appendix A for moredetails on the Collaborative Fund for Women’sEconomic Development.

The Collaborative Fund for Youth-Led Social Change,launched in October 2001, is a national partnershipamong funders, youth and program staff of grantee

organizations, and otherexperts. Its goal is to sup-port and strengthen youthorganizations that work atthe intersection of compre-hensive youth development,youth-led social changeaction, and gender-con-scious programming.

Grantees will receive $35,000 per year for up to threeyears. Members of this Collaborative are dedicated tostrengthening the related youth fields by focusing onhow youth can be supported as social change agents inboth single and mixed-gender settings. The firstround of this Fund, called the Collaborative Fund forHealthy Girls/Healthy Women, leveraged over $4 mil-lion to build a national infrastructure to identify andsupport effective programs for girls. In the secondround, the Ms. Foundation modified the name and

THE MS. FOUNDAT I O NFOR WOMEN’S

C O L L A B O R ATIVE FUNDS

“Trusting women and girls to make the decisions about whattheir families and communities need by recognizing them as

authorities on their own lives is the bedrock of the Ms.Foundation’s work. It is this trust that has inspired so many

donors to partner with the Ms. Foundation in ourCollaborative Funds.” Marie Wilson, President, Ms. Foundation for Wo m e n

3

objectives of the Fund to reflect lessons learned in thefirst round and changes in the burgeoning youth devel-opment and civic engagement fields. Please seeAppendix B for more details on the Collaborative Fundfor Youth-Led Social Change.

These innovative Collaborative Funds are re c o g n i z e dnationally as preeminent philanthropic models. Theya re each made up of funders who have agreed to pool

re s o u rces and let the pool be allocated by the decisionsof Collaborative members operating as a gro u p .Members of the Ms. Foundation Collaborative Fundsa re engaged in all phases of the grantmaking pro c e s s ,designing the Requests for Proposals, reviewing pro-posals, conducting site visits, and engaging in capacitybuilding and learning activities. Both donor part n e r sand grantees have expressed a high degree of satisfac-tion with the Funds.

Adapting the ModelTh e Ms. Foundation has adapted the collaborativefunding model internally and has helped other org a n i-zations adapt the model to their needs. Intern a l l y, ithas created donor circles that closely resemble collabo-rative funds, but are exclusively for individual donors.These tend to have lower minimum contributions thanthe collaborative funds, and there f o re provide smallergrants and less technical assistance to grantees. As in

collaborative funds, donor circle members determ i n efunding criteria and make grant decisions as a gro u p .For example, the Foundation’s Democracy FundingC i rcle (DFC) was formed in 1996 in response to thei n c reasingly conservative political climate that thre a t e n sto roll back gains made by the civil rights, women’s ,e n v i ronmental, and gay rights movements. The DFC’snine individual donors support eff o rts that promote ap ro g ressive vision of democracy and encourage collabo-

ration between women’so rganizations and otherp ro g ressive forces to addre s schallenges from the right.

The Ms. Foundation has shared aspects of its c ol l a b-orative grantmaking model with many other org a n i z a-tions, including the Funders’ Collaborative on Yo u t hO rganizing, the National Rural FundersCollaborative, and the State Strategies Fund. In 1997,the Canadian Wo m e n ’s Foundation, inspired andguided by the Ms. Foundation, established theWomen and Economic Development Consortium, afive-year funding partnership providing grants andtechnical assistance to women’s organizations acro s sCanada to increase capacity to help low-incomewomen become active participants in the Canadiane c o n o m y. Satisfaction among the Consort i u m ’s donorp a rtners and grantees is high as the Consortium entersinto its second five-year funding cycle. According toDebra Campbell, manager, the Consortium “took theinstitutional learning [of the Canadian Wo m e n ’sFoundation] up ten notches and brought us to pro m i-nence in the field.”

“The Ms. Foundation Collaborative Fund sets the standard forsubstantive engagement, commitment to learning and respectfor individual grantmakers.” Anita Nager, formerly New York Community Tr u s t

4

Acollaborative fund comprises an alliance of donors, grantees, and other experts forstrategic grantmaking and learning in afield. It is a mechanism to:

■ leverage significant resources; ■ educate new and experienced donors; ■ build grantee capacity; and ■ advance learning in a field.

Leverage ResourcesCollaborative funds are a way for both the host f oundation and the donor partners to leverage considerable re s o u rces. With its own contribution of$450,000 over 10 years to the Collaborative Fund forWo m e n ’s Economic Development, for example, theMs. Foundation has directly leveraged over $10million from other funders. Indire c t l y, it has lever-

aged much more by bringing new funders into theenterprise development field. Of the 40 donors whohave participated in the Fund since its inception, overhalf were new to the field when they joined, and

some have gone on to fund women’s enterprise devel-opment outside of the Fund.

For donor partners, collaborative funds are also ano p p o rtunity for considerable leverage. With a con-tribution that could otherwise fund just one pro j e c t ,they are able to support and learn from many pro j-ects across the country. Members of a collaborative

fund are generally expected to con-tribute a minimum amount of money to a fund over a fixed period of time. In both of the Ms. Foundation’s funds,each institutional donor makes a mini-mum contribution of $50,000 a year fora three-year period and each individualdonor contributes a minimum of$25,000 a year.2

Donor contributions should not drainbudgets already allocated for a substantive area ordeter donors from continuing their own initiatives.R a t h e r, collaborative funds aim to enhance the indi-vidual portfolios of donors as well as attract news t reams of capital for a field.

Educate New and Experienced Donors“The Ms. Collaborative Fund is one of the best funder collaboratives I’ve been involved with. I was able tol e a rn a tremendous amount about microenterprise in an atmosphere that was both supportive and collegial.”Diane Feeney, French American Charitable Tr u st 3

WHY STA RT AC O L L A B O R ATIVE FUND?

When thinking abouts t a rting a Foundation,Cyndie McLachlanand her family wereinstinctively drawn tos u p p o rting girls, butthey didn’t know whatthe current issueswere and how theyshould go about

building a foundationfor girls. It was thedecision to join theCollaborative Fund forHealthy Girls/HealthyWomen that helpedthem identify theissues and learn theprocess for grantmak-ing and learn i n g .

“The CollaborativeFund was like a roadmap for the Girl’s BestFriend Foundation,”say McLachlan. “Weheard from girls, andl e a rnt together whatthe issues were andhow a foundation canwork for girls.”

2 There is also a “sponsorship” category for donors who contribute less than the minimum but only participate in the learning components of the Funds. 3 Diane Feeney, One Foundation’s Perspective, in Family Matters, Council on Foundations: Washington, DC, vol. 4, no. 3, Summer 1999.

5

Ms. Foundation collaborative funds seek out a variety of donor partners, aiming for a mix of larg enational foundations, small family funds and individ-ual donors. Donor partners also exhibit a range ofexperience in a field, from those who are themselvese x p e rt to those who want to learn about grantmakingor a specific field. Each donor has the ability to p rovide expertise and valuable connections as well as dollars to the fund.

Over the course of a collaborative, donor part n e r sattend a series of meetings to determine learning objec-tives and selection criteria and select grantees. Theyalso participate in site visits and re t reats with grantees.

Donors new to a field can significantly shorten theirlearning curves through exposure to the expertise ofmore experienced donors, collaborative staff, granteesand a host of resource people engaged by the collabo-rative. Participation in a collaborative can be akin to along-term seminar in a field.

For donors already experienced in the field, a collabo-rative is a mechanism to spread the lessons they havelearned and to bring more resources to a field aboutwhich they care. For a large national donor or a donorwho has experience in a field, sending a newer programofficer to collaborative fund meetings and events canserve as a way to educate new staff about a substantivefield in which the donor is engaged.

Build Grantee CapacityCollaborative funds enable foundations to poolre s o u rces to support grantee capacity building and toc reate learning networks among grantees and donors.The Ms. Foundation provides capacity building assis-tance to grantees of its collaborative funds by underw r i t-ing financial management and organizational develop-ment consultations, sponsoring training events, and pro-viding funds to upgrade their data collection and analyz-ing systems. Networking and lateral learning also gre a t-ly improve grantees’ capacity to effectively carry outtheir programs. Grantee staff is also encouraged toteach others in the field, enhancing their visibility andf u rther spreading their innovations a cross the country.

Advance Learning in a FieldA fund’s unique collaboration among donors andgrantees across the country offers an excellent opport u n i-ty to advance learning and build capacity in a field. Amulti-faceted learning component, significant in all Ms.Foundation collaborative funds, aims to identify and doc-ument best practice in the design and implementation ofp rogram models as well as broadly disseminate learn i n gto inform and influence re s e a rch, practice and policy.

While a collaborative fund can be established for afield in any stage of development, there is ofteng reater value added by organizing a collaboration of donors in a new or emergent field. Collaborationin a new field promotes learning, spreads the riskamong donors and can accelerate the development of a field. For example, in 1994 the Ms. Foundationconvened experts and commissioned re p o rts on the status of programs for girls and young women. This field analysis unearthed the lack of re s o u rc e sand programs that effectively served girls and young women. This early work resulted in theCollaborative Fund for Healthy Girls/ HealthyWomen, which set out to increase funding for girls’p rograms and build a knowledge base on eff e c t i v ep rograms for girls and young women.

The Ms. Foundation has also learned that the role of a collaborative fund will change as a field matures. Collaborative funds there f o re benefit from ongoinge ff o rts to clarify their niche in fields as they move for-w a rd. For example, in its first two rounds, the goal ofthe Collaborative Fund for Wo m e n ’s EconomicDevelopment was to strengthen model projects whilei n c reasing the knowledge base on current appro a c h e sin women’s enterprise development. Its work over adecade enabled enterprise development org a n i z a t i o n sto implement a range of effective strategies to movewomen and their families out of povert y. As theo rganizations in the field matured, many reached astage where they could increase their impact by gro w-ing in size, influencing policy and spreading innova-tion by adapting their models to other settings. Thus,the objectives in the third round of the Fund changedto reflect this new maturity in the field.

6

An organization that hosts a collaborativemust be adept at playing multiple roles. Itmust staff the collaborative programmati-cally, administer the money in the fund,

provide technical assistance and guide best practiceresearch and, if possible, sit as a donor partner at thetable. Strong leadership is needed to facilitate partici-pation in a democratic way. Moreover, a visionaryleader can maintain enthusiasm, organize logistics andcreate buy-in in the beginning.

Hosting a collaborative also takes a high degree oforganizational capacity. A host organization must real-istically assess its capacity as it relates to facilitationskills, time, and technology. A host organizationshould be willing to prioritize the activity of the collab-orative within its larger mission, allowing it to drawupon the time and attention of the executive directorand senior staff to support its work.

A host organization must also have the ability to caterto the needs of a dual constituency. It must cultivateand manage complex relationships with donor part-ners as well as grantees, each of which can present awide range of demands and interests. To be success-

ful in these roles, a host organization must be viewedas tru s t w o rthy and accessible. For this, a mature staffis often re q u i re d .

A host organization should also have intellectual capitalin a field. The host has to have a good sense of thedirections in which the field is moving and be able touse its expertise to guide the direction of the collabora-tive. Even if the host does not have an abundance ofin-house expertise, it must be able to serve as a bridge-builder, linking people in the field together.

Given the requisite capacity, launching a collaborativefund can propel the host organization to become a leaderin a field. It gives the organization a heightened plat-f o rm from which to effectively network and advocate andan increased standing in the field. The org a n i z a t i o n a lcapacity of the host is also likely to be stre n g t h e n e d .Donor partners will to some extent invest in building the

business and managerial skills of thehost organization in the process ofinvesting in the fund. More o v e r,the host has an ability to cultivateclose working relationships with a

range of donors with whom it might not otherwise havecontact. Some donor partners in the Ms. Foundation’sfunds have become very invested in the institution as awhole, contributing to other programs and even joiningthe Foundation’s Board of Directors.

“Serving as a host organization to a funding collaborative took the Canadian Women’s Foundation to

a whole new level.” Debra Campbell, Canadian Wo m e n ’s Foundation

HOSTING A C O L L A B O R ATIVE FUND

Over the past decade, the Ms. Foundation has developed and refined a unique collab-orative funding model with four phases:

1. Internal planning;2. Collaborative education and planning;3. Grant selection; and4. Research, monitoring and capacity building.

This process integrally involves donor partners in theplanning and grantmaking phases and both donors andgrantees in the research, monitoring and capacitybuilding phase. Each phase is described in detailbelow and in the chart on page 8.

While categorized here as four distinct phases for thesake of clarity, the phases are fluid, blending into andoverlapping with one another. Each Ms. Foundationcollaborative fund has adapted this general model tobest suit the field in which it operates. This adaptabili-ty is one of the model’s strengths.

N e v e rtheless, some aspects of the Ms. Foundation collab-orative model are sacrosanct. Fundamental to the model

is the notion that true collaboration among donors andgrantees is the best way to achieve its ambitious goals.Thus, collaborative staff aim to achieve a balance of staffleadership and informed partner participation with suff i-cient opportunity for substantive discussion and decision-making among the donor and grantee partners.

To the extent possible, all donor partner decisions aremade by consensus. This does not mean that every o n ealways agrees with everyone else, or that the pro c e s swaits until they do. It means that donor partners mustdecide whether they endorse, or can at least live with,any proposal that is on the table. In determining this,they must bring an open mind, listen well to others, askclarifying questions, gauge where others in the group are ,and then make a decision. If they strongly agree with orfeel neutral about a proposal, then they are part of theconsensus. If they feel strongly enough not to join adeveloping consensus, then more discussion ensues, orthe group decides to make the decision in a diff e rent way.

Using consensus decision-making re q u i res tru s tbetween the partners, and is aided significantly byclear vision, goals, objectives and selection criteria

7

THE COLLABORATIVE FUND PROCESS

A rmed with the lessonsl e a rned from theCollaborative Fund forHealthy Girls/ HealthyWomen and the current sta-tus of youth developmentand youth civic engage-

ment, the Ms. Foundationand a core group of donorp a rtners designed a propos-al for potential donors thataddressed the key issues inthe field today—the needfor youth to have the skills

and tools to make positivechange in their communi-ties. This would requireyouth organizations to workat the intersection of com-prehensive youth develop-ment, youth-led social

change and gender-con-scious programming. Thisproposal became the basisof the second round of thefund, renamed theCollaborative Fund forYouth-Led Social Change.

established early in the fund’s development. Donor part-ners can refer back to these in looking for guidance asthey make any given decision. In ten years of using consensus decision-making in collaborative funds, theMs. Foundation has only needed to re s o rt to a votingp rocess two times to make particularly difficult decisions.

In-person meetings go a long way to cementing relationships and establishing trust. The planningand grantmaking phases involve the most meetings—

five or six in-person meetings over a period of oneand a half to two years. The re s e a rch, monitoringand capacity building phase involves fewer meetings,generally two per year.

Phase 1: Internal PlanningB e f o re involving outside partners, the host foundationneeds to determine its own goals for launching a collaborative fund. It is in this early stage that thehost foundation assesses the needs in the field and

8

PHASE 1: InternalPlanning6 months – 1 year*

Development of broad strategic goals for■ the host foundation■ the collaborative

process■ the collaborative fund’s

grantmaking

Goals encompass■ impact on the field■ impact on grantees■ impact on donor

partners and broader donor community

■ impact of grants on the lives of programparticipants

Establishment of fund tar-gets based on anticipatednumber and size of grants,s t a ffing, administrative andl e a rning component costs

Determination of parameters and require-ments of partnership

Determination of financial contribution of host foundation

Development of strategy toattract donor partners

Involvement of “anchor”donor partners

PHASE 2: CollaborativeEducation and Planning6 months – 1 year*

Series of meetings ofdonor partners for the purpose of ■ increased learning

about the field with the help of outside resource people

■ collaborative goal setting

■ determination of learning objectives

■ determination of selection criteria and drafting of Call for Letters of Intent

■ planning of grantmak-ing process

PHASE 3: GranteeSelection8 months – 1 year*

Distribution of Call forLetters of Intent

Development of methodol-ogy for vetting letters andcollecting data

Review of letters of intent by staff

Recommendations todonor partners of applicants from whom to solicit full proposals;final selection at donorpartner meeting

Development of FullProposal Guidelines

Solicitation of full proposals

Development of methodolo-gy for vetting full proposals

Review of full proposals bystaff and donor partners

Selection of applicants tosite visit

Site visits by staff anddonor partners

Selection of grantees bystaff and donor partners

PHASE 4: Research,Monitoring and CapacityBuilding, up to 4 years*

Research and Monitoring:

■ participatory determina-tion of objectives of learning component, measurements and methodology; involving grantees, donors and outside resource people

■ data collection by grantees

■ periodic grantee narra-tive and financial report s

■ mid-grant site visits■ production and

dissemination of reportsand manuals on lessonslearned

Capacity Building:■ Continued learning

among donor partners■ Training and networking

opportunities for grantees

■ Opportunities for donor partners and grantees to meet

■ Peer-to-peer assistance among grantees

* While categorized here as four distinct phases for the sakeof clarity, the phases are fluid,blending into and overlappingwith one another.

9

envisions the impacts it wants the collaborative fundto have on its own institution, the field, philanthro p y,grantees and program participants. This is a time toe n s u re that the host foundation’s leadership and boarda re fully behind the process.

Key steps in this stage include establishing pre l i m i n a ryt a rgets for the size of the fund, determining there q u i rements for partnership, developing a strategy toattract donor partners and writing a proposal. The Ms.Foundation has found that it is important to involvesome “anchor donors” in this initial planning phase—

funders who come in early with a significant contribu-tion and a willingness to participate in fund planningand design. Depending on how new the host org a n i z a-tion is to the field or to collaborative funding, thisphase could take anywhere from six months to a year.

Phase 2: Collaborative Education and PlanningThe host foundation’s internal planning process flowsinto a phase of collaborative planning. As additionaldonor partners join the fund, the members and staffwork to raise their level of understanding of the issuesby reviewing key re s e a rch in the field and engaging indiscussions with practitioners and other expert s .Bringing in outside experts gives donor partners a per-spective broader than that of the collaborative staff andalso contributes to staff learning.

As a group, the collaborative fund staff and donor part-ners determine the goals they want to accomplish, thel e a rning objectives for the fund, the selection criteria andthe grantmaking timeline. Staff translate these decisionsinto a draft Call for Letters of Intent, which is edited anda p p roved by donor part n e r s .

This stage is especially important for building trustamong collaborative fund members. Therefore, while some of the work can be done by e-mail andconference call, it is essential to a collaborative’ssuccess that partners meet several times in person

during this phase. In the Ms.Foundation’s experience, this phasehas involved three to four all-day in-person meetings and several conference calls.

Phase 3: Grant SelectionCollaborative staff review and rank theletters of intent according to the crite-ria established by the donor part n e r s .At a donor meeting, staff describe the

whole applicant pool and make recommendations todonor partners about which applicants should be invitedto submit full proposals. Donor partners review theserecommendations and make the final decisions aboutwhich applicants to invite. When full proposals arr i v e ,each donor partner reads several and participates in sitevisits to applicants. In the Ms. Foundation’s collaborativefunds, this phase has lasted eight to twelve months andhas involved two or three in-person meetings lasting oneor two days each.

Reviewing proposals and visiting applicants providestremendous opportunities for learning about the typesof organizations and programs active in the field.Discussions during this phase help the donor partnersand staff to hone a fund’s learning objectives. Every

The Ms. Foundationuses a two-stage grantselection process, firstrequesting short lettersof intent and then inviting selectedgroups to submit fullproposals. Since theMs. Foundation hasreceived anywhere

from 250 to 600 lettersof intent per fundinground, this two-stageprocess is most eff i-cient for both appli-cants and collaboratives t a ff. Funds with asmaller scope—eithergeographically or the-matically—may be

able to move directlyto a Request forProposals. In the two-stage process,while the Call forLetters of Intent is inthe field, staff workwith donor partners todevelop Full ProposalG u i d e l i n e s .

In selecting grantees for thecollaborative funds, staff col-lect data from applicants onthe type, size and leadership

of their organization; thegeographical location andsetting; the gender, race andethnicity of constituents; the

type of program for whichthey are requesting support ;and the sector(s) in whichthey are active. This exten-

sive data collection eff o rtprovides the collaborativemembers with a comprehen-sive picture of the field.

10

attempt is made to come to all grantmaking decisionsby consensus. However, if a vote is necessary, all part-ners present, no matter how much they have con-tributed, have an equal vote.

Phase 4: Research, Monitoring and Capacity Building A central objective of the Ms. Foundation’s collaborativefunds is to increase the knowledge base in a field. Eachfund there f o re has a multifaceted l e a rning component t h a t

involves best practice re s e a rch, monitoring of granteep ro g ress and outcomes and grantee capacity building.Once grantees are selected, they become full partners inthis phase, working with staff and donor partners torefine learning objectives, engage in the re s e a rch, anddesign capacity building and networking opportunities.

Throughout the planning and grantmaking phases,staff and donor partners work intensively to determinea set of learning questions for the fund. These not only

guide grant selection, but also lay the groundwork forbest practice re s e a rch. Dissemination of learning to awide audience occurs through re p o rts, conference pre-sentations, conference calls and listservs. The Ms.Foundation monitors grantee pro g ress through periodicre p o rts and data collection and analysis carried out bythe grantees themselves. Donors receive annual orsemi-annual narrative and financial re p o rts from collab-orative staff and learn firsthand about grantee pro g re s s

at periodic grantee-donor re t reats andmid-grant site visits.

Collaborative funds also add value byproviding technical assistance tograntees through retreats, one-on-one consultations and site visits. Inthe Ms. Foundation collaboratives,grantees determine the areas in which

they need assistance. These have included organiza-tional and financial management, data collection andanalysis, program design, media strategy and community outreach. The retreats have been especial-ly important opportunities for grantees and donors tocome together to learn and network. The collabora-tive funds pay for grantee travel and lodging.

The re s e a rch, monitoring and capacity building phase lastsfor the duration of the three-year grants plus about one

year to compile and disseminate findings.During this period, donor partners attendabout two meetings a year, including thegrantee/donor re t reats, and participate inmid-grant site visits.

While the CollaborativeFund for Wo m e n ’sEconomic Developmentworks closely withgrantee program staff indesigning the learn i n gcomponent, theCollaborative Fund for

Healthy Girls/HealthyWomen heightened thep a rt i c i p a t o ry aspect ofthe model, involving theyouth participants of theprograms as well. Thegirls and young womenwere trained by Ms.

Foundation staff andconsultants to use part i c-i p a t o ry research meth-ods such as photojour-naling and interviews to document how program part i c i p a t i o na ffected girls’ lives.

“Participating in the Ms. Foundation Collaborative helped me to make smarter grants in

the field. The site visits in particular made the learning come alive.” M a ry Louise Mussoline, Brico Fund

The Ms. Foundation has occa-sionally provided granteeswith small capacity buildinggrants. A capacity buildinggrant of $2,000 from the

Collaborative Fund forHealthy Girls/Healthy Wo m e nenabled the Girls’ ResiliencyProject in rural West Vi r g i n i ato hire and train two intern s

as youth researchers. In the Collaborative Fund forWo m e n ’s EconomicDevelopment, since the thirdround involves intensive data

collection by grantees, the Ms.Foundation provided eachorganization with $5,000grants to build up their datacollection capacity.

11

BENEFITS FOR D O N O R S

In addition to a collaborative fund’s ability to lever-age resources, expedite learning, and disseminateinformation, there are a number of other benefitsthat accrue to donor partners.

Community of InterestCollaboratives create a community of interest andownership of issues among donors. They allow donorsto get to know new organizations and provide opportu-nities to share information about organizations ofwhich they are already aware. Collaboratives can pro-vide a national perspective and access to a wide rangeof donors in a field.

The collaborative added another layer to the GaeaF o u n d a t i o n ’s grantmaking. We had the opportunity tol e a rn about different girls programs that would havebeen difficult for us to find out about on our own. I’vealso learned so much from the other donors who arep a rt of the collaborative.” Cindy Clay, Gaea Foundation

Deeper UnderstandingCollaboratives also afford the donor an opportunity toexplore an issue on a deeper level. They foster anexchange of ideas, informing and strengthening thedecision-making process. And the learning flows intwo directions—lessons from the collaborative caninfluence a donor’s broader grantmaking strategy and a

donor’s broader grantmaking experiences in turn influ-ence the collaborative.

“The Collaborative catapulted me, both personally andp r o f e s s i o n a l l y, into girls funding. It also gave Moriah theability to fund programs across the country that wew o u l d n ’t have been able to support otherwise.” K a r e n

Zeitlin, executive director, Girl’s Best Friend Foundation,

f o rmerly of the Moriah Fund

Risk SharingCollaboratives help shield a funder’s risk in entering anew line of work. They also enable donors to take

greater risks in funding young organiza-tions or new strategies proposed bymore established organizations.

Grantmaking Advice For smaller donors, collaboratives pro-vide a significant source of advice on

grantmaking more generally. Donors learn the craft ofphilanthropy—drafting letters of intent and requestsfor proposals, selecting grantees by rating proposalsand participating in site visits, and implementing alearning component. Several donors have borrowedelements of the Ms. Foundation’s letter of intent andfull proposal process to use in their own grantmakinginitiatives. Others became increasingly aware of theimportance of documenting the learning about successand failure to guide future investments.

Staffing Collaboratives benefit donors with few or no staff, suchas small family foundations and individuals. Collaborative

“The Collaborative was our first funding source. The Ms. Foundation took a chance on us.

Our program didn’t even exist before the collabora-tive and there’s no guarantee we’d exist today

without it.” Que Dang, former program director of the HOPE program

12

s t a ff not only do the legwork involved in managing themany components of a collaborative fund, but also sharetheir deep expertise in the field with fund part n e r s .

NetworkingNetworks developed through a Collaborative Fund canbe useful in the day-to-day work of the donor partners.At a recent meeting of the Collaborative Fund for

Women’s Economic Development, forexample, it became clear that two corpo-rate donors shared an interest in fundingaround border issues in the southwesternUnited States. Surprised at the connect-edness of their interests, both donorsnoted that while they compete on the

street as businesses, the Collaborative provided a neu-tral venue for them to work together.

Experience Collaborating Finally, foundations that have long encouraged collab-oration among their grantees can learn firsthand aboutjust what collaboration requires from undertaking theeffort themselves.

“Participating in a collaborative has afforded mean opportunity too often absent when making

grants directly—I can leave the legwork to the col-laborative staff and focus my attention more on the

big picture issues.” M a ry Louise Mussoline, Brico Fund

13

BENEFITS FOR G R A N T E E S

While enormously beneficial fordonors, funding collaboratives also offer significant benefits for grantees.

Flexible Funding Multi-year grants provide grantee organizations withflexible re s o u rces that allow them to move to the nextstage of practice in such areas as program design, strate-gic planning, staff development and, possibly, re p l i c a t i o n .Flexible funding enables groups to experiment with pro-grams that can then successfully compete for local andnational public monies as well as more risk-averse privates o u rces of support. Indeed, many of the innovative tech-niques used by the growing number of girls’ develop-ment and microenterprise programs nationwide werep i o n e e red by Collaborative Fund grantees in their workwith women and girls in low-income communities.

The Ms. Foundation has also used the collaborativemechanism to leverage emergency funds for grantees.Shortly after the Collaborative Fund for Women’s

Economic Development made its second round grants,President Clinton signed the welfare reform bill inAugust 1996. Grantees let Ms. Foundation staff knowthat they had an incredible opportunity to impact poli-cy as each state devised its welfare reform plan.Collaborative Fund staff turned to donor partners whopromptly capitalized a $114,000 Welfare Reform Mini-Grants Fund. These funds enabled grantees to havesignificant influence on state welfare reform programs.Both Collaborative Funds have institutionalized thismodel by establishing Special Opportunity Funds.

Introduction to New DonorsCollaboratives introduce grantees to donor partners,who often go on to fund the grantees independently.This relationship often helps to further enhance thework of the collaborative fund as donors independentlyprovide additional resources for administrative andprogrammatic work of fund grantees. For example,with its Welfare Reform Mini-Grant, the Good FaithFund in Arkansas proved to itself and its parent organi-zation that it could have a significant impact on public

Participation in a collaborative fundcan help small projects move to scale.The intensive technical assistance hasenabled many organizations to becomelarger and more stable. Some haveeven replicated their model.

The Girls Resiliency Program was fund-ed by the Collaborative Fund forHealthy Girls/Healthy Women as asmall project with a fiscal agent.Within the three-year grant period,they expanded to become their own

501(c)3 and developed multiple proj -ects. Another grantee, the Center forYoung Women’s Development in SanFrancisco, was replicated in two otherlocations—Young Women United forOakland and Sister Outsider in NewYork City.

During the second round of theCollaborative Fund for Wo m e n ’sEconomic Development, a grantee inEl Paso, La Mujer Obrera, wasengaged in an intensive eff o rt to

secure $40 million in support from theU.S. Department of Labor for work-force development training for dis-placed women workers. At aCollaborative Fund retreat, all of thegrantees banded together to write aletter of support to the Secretary ofL a b o r, and worked late into the nighthelping La Mujer staff craft a propos-al. The City of El Paso received thefunding, resulting in a significantincrease in La Mujer Obrera’s capaci-ty to serve low-income women.

14

policy. This resulted in a new institutional commit-ment to engage actively in advocacy and hire a full-time policy director, whose salary was funded by aCFWED partner.

Seed New InnovationCollaboratives can provide funding to test new innova-tions that can later be supported by larger funders.The Good Faith Fund again offers a prime example ofthis leveraging effect. With CFWED support, it pilot-ed a women’s mentoring program that it had learnedabout through a Ms. Foundation-funded peer exchangewith another CFWED grantee. Based on the success

of this program, the Good Faith Fund was designated aWomen’s Business Center by the Small BusinessAdministration and won a $750,000 government grant.

Peer Networking Perhaps the biggest value a collaborative can provideto a grantee organization is the opportunity for peernetworking. Collaboratives allow grantees to becomepart of a community, to feel a sense of belonging to alarger field. It enables grantees to use lessons learnedfrom the field to improve programming and more suc-cessfully advocate for change. And opportunities forstructured shared learning can provide tremendousstaff development opportunities.

“The Collaborative has given us the sense of a new girl’smovement emerging. It’s a movement with commongoals, strategies, and a shared commitment to changethe status quo.” Nadia Moritz, program staff part n e r, Yo u n g

Wo m e n ’s Project

Capacity BuildingCollaboratives can offer grantees intensive capacitybuilding assistance in the context of a long-term, con-

sistent working relationship. Grantees share organiza-tional difficulties with collaborative staff and get highquality assistance in return. Given their national per-spective, collaborative fund staff can often connectgrantees to sources of training and assistance they maynot have been aware of otherwise.

“We were nearly overwhelmed with the breadth of theprograms presented at the retreat. We learned so verymuch. Perhaps the best part was developing relationshipswith other women (and a few men) who are working toimprove family economic conditions all over this country.”Crystal Pohl, Native Americans for Community Action

Expertise and Connections of Donor Partners Nor do grantees need to rely exclu-sively on the assistance from collab-orative staff. Grantee staff can har-ness the resources of the donors sothat the collaborative staff need not

possess all the expertise in-house. Donor partners canhelp grantees both with substantive issues and withtheir extensive contacts. For example, one donor inthe Collaborative Fund for Women’s EconomicDevelopment introduced several grantees that helpwomen market clothing and crafts to her daughter whoruns a high-end mail order catalog.

Facilitate Communication and Networking Grantees note the high level of understanding and sup-port exhibited by donor partners, allowing for richerand more honest communication between grantees anddonors. Collaboratives can foster links betweengrantees and other key actors such as policymakers,industry leaders, opinion makers, women of wealth andwomen in corporate leadership.

“The Collaborative has given me so many opport u n i t i e sand connections I would not have had. You get to meetall these women who’ve done amazing things. It’sinspiring to see older women who have struggled suc-c e s s f u l l y. It makes you feel like you can do anything,and like you’re part of something larger.” Desi Rodrigues,

young woman part n e r, Native Action

“The Ms. Foundation Collaborative has enabled us todevelop very quickly the kind of quality programming

that then can attract a more conservative stream offunding from our local area. The Ms. Foundation took

the risk.” Penny Penrose, executive director, The Good Faith Fund

15

Learning Component A learning component helps grantees increase theircapacity to collect valuable data for the long-term .And documenting lessons from the combined experi-ence of grantee organizations can build the capacity ofo rganizations to implement effective programs and toadvocate for public and private sector policies con-

ducive to the success of such programs. A focus onl e a rning can also strengthen the institutional andfinancial stability of organizations and can helpi n c rease the number and types of donors supportive ofthe field. Ms. Foundation Collaborative Fund datacollection re q u i rements have spurred several granteesto invest in and improve their data collection systems.

The resulting lessons learned havei n s p i red these organizations to sig-nificantly alter the services theyp rovide to better adapt to the needsof program participants.

The Collaborative Fundfor Healthy Girls/Healthy Women trainedprogram staff and youthparticipants of granteeorganizations asresearchers, enabling atrue participatoryresearch project to col-

lect and analyze dataon the effectiveness oftheir programs. Threeoriginal assessmenttools, co-developed bygrantee partners and asmall research team,enabled grantees toassess their work each

year and make neces-sary adjustments.Collaborative Fundgrantees, as well asother youth organiza-tions, continue to usethe tools to collect dataon program and orga-nizational effectiveness.

16

BENEFITS FOR A FIELD

The benefits of collaborative funds reach beyondtheir own donors and grantees to the broaderfields in which they operate.

Provide Focus and Advance LearningA collaborative of donors and grantees helps maintain afocus for a field, generating coherent strategies toa d d ress issues of field building. Through the documen-tation and dissemination of best practices, a collabora-tive can synthesize the needs of a field and enableo rganizations to expand and deepen their impact. Ithas the potential to define new frontiers for donors aswell as grantees, thereby speeding the evolution of afield. And by focusing on a group of grantees, collabo-ratives are more likely to identify gaps in service andstrategic opportunities for the field.

Seed New InnovationCollaboratives also play an important role in seedingnew innovation. The Collaborative Fund forHealthy Girls/Healthy Wo m e n ’s part i c i p a t o ry

evaluation re s e a rch project involved girls and com-munity members in its planning and application.The Fund expects that the lessons learned in developing this process will show the value of part i c-i p a t o ry re s e a rch for all youth programs. TheCollaborative Fund for Wo m e n ’s EconomicDevelopment funded experimental approaches that

have now become staples in the micro e n t e r p r i s efield. For example, in the early 1990s, the Funds u p p o rted some of the earliest eff o rts to networkself-employed people in a particular sector to re d u c ecosts and gain access to wider markets.

Connections Between FieldsCollaboratives that span a number of fields can helpto strengthen and build connections between fields.The Collaborative Fund for Youth-Led SocialChange, for example, spans the fields of youth devel-opment, youth civic engagement and gender- c o n-scious programming, aiming to challenge and helpo rganizations combine the best of what the fieldshave to offer youth.

Broadening the Network“When we look at the history of the Jacobs FamilyFoundation, we will look to the Ms. FoundationCollaborative as pivotal,” Jennifer Vanica, Jacobs Family Foundation

Host staff’s attention to donor partners can especially attract aparticular kind of donor to a collabo-rative fund—family foundations, spe-cial funds (such as Women’s Funds

and issue-based funds) and individual donors—whobenefit from and appreciate the heightened respect andattention given to grantmakers. Participation of familyfoundations and individuals in the Collaborative Fundfor Women’s Economic Development grew from$312,000 in the first round to $2.3 million in the thirdround. In the Collaborative Fund for Youth-Led

“Bringing all our voices, experiences and resources together in a collaborative effort is a veryefficient and effective way to move a field forward.”

Lindsay Shea, Collaborative Fund Donor Part n e r

17

Social Change, six individuals came in as early support-ers, many contributing above the minimum required.By creating such an attractive and innovative fundrais-ing mechanism, the Ms. Foundation has been able tobring a whole new category of donor to the fields inwhich it works. These donors often turn out to be thebiggest champions in the field, spreading the work toan even broader network.

Increasing FundingAs discussed above, collaboratives should aim to incre a s eoverall funding for a field. Many of the donor part n e r swho had never before funded in a field often end upmaking their own grants to collaborative fund granteesand other organizations in a field, amplifying the impact

of the collaborative fund. Grantees also usecollaborative fund support to launch experi-mental programs that later attract govern-ment and corporate support .

Policy Impact Collaborative funds can harness the collec-

tive power of a group of committed funders and practitioners to impact public policy in a field. Thesize and reputation of a fund gives the host org a n i z a-tion added legitimacy with policy makers and enabless t a ff to bring best practice lessons to bear on nationalp o l i c y. In the microenterprise field, for example,CFWED staff helped link local grantees to nationalpublic policy campaigns, and often provided foru m sfor grantees and donors to meet with high-level federal officials. Several CFWED grantees, and theMs. Foundation itself, received Presidential Aw a rd sfor Excellence in Microenterprise Development inWhite House events, which generated significant publicity for the field and served as forums to advancepolicy positions.

As a former Presidential Award winner, I can say that the excellence and leadership that the

award recognized was facilitated and fostered by the dedicated support and array of services from

the Ms. Foundation. Connie Evans, President, WSEP Ve n t u r e s

18

While the benefits to the host founda-tion, donor partners, grantees andthe field are significant, successfulcollaboration can be challenging.

The following is a listing of some of the difficultiesthat can arise as well as possible solutions that a hostorganization might employ.

Collaboratives move slowly.It can take a whole year between sending out letters of intent and making grants. Schedules of large numbers of people must be coordinated. While consensus building is powerful and positive, it too istime consuming. It is thus especially important that collaboratives adhere closely to the schedules and time-lines they establish and communicate these clearly todonors and grantees.

Collaboratives require a great investment in time.While collaborative funds do decrease the administra-tive burdens on a donor, the time demands remain sig-nificant. It is incumbent upon collaborative staff toensure that most donors most of the time find collabora-tive meetings to be beneficial. There should be a balance between information and learning for donorsand for grantees. Some collaboratives have dealt withthis issue by calling a meeting only when there is a criti-cal mass of issues on the table.

Diversity of donor needs.The collaborative model depends on the careful culti-vation and balancing of various partners’ interests andcommitment. Host staff must be attentive to address-ing the diversity of donor needs. Large and small

donors as well as those experienced and less experi-enced in a field come to a collaborative for various reasons. Moreover, all donors do not have the samerelationship to the money that they invest. Someonewho donates to a fund from his/her own personalmoney (an individual donor or small family foundation,for example) often has a different type of relationshipto the process than an independent foundation with itsown endowment.

It is thus important for collaborative staff to understanddonors’ values and motivations for their grantmakingdecisions. It is also important to clarify the roles, expec-tations and responsibilities (including issues of control,s u p e rvision and autonomy) of the donors and the collab-orative staff early on in the collaborative process. Thelevel of participation and degree of involvement canv a ry from donor to donor, allowing each to contributeaccording to their own time and level of interest.

Standing of the host organization. It can be the case that the host organization is not perceived as an equal in the collaborative process. It isthus helpful if the host organization can contribute finan-cially to the collaborative fund, thereby strengthening itsleadership role. The Ms. Foundation contributes to bothCFWED and CFYS, and its president or executive direc-tor sit at the table as a donor part n e r, while other staffs e rve to facilitate meetings and administer the Funds.

Grantee selection. The grantmaking stage of a funding collaborative canget especially intense as donors express their prefer-ences and passions for particular applicants. It is thus

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

19

i m p o rtant to have a clear process for grantee selection inplace before the grantmaking phase begins, alwaysbring the discussion back to the fund’s goals and learn-ing objectives, and build trust among donor partners.

Retention of donors’ interest.Collaboratives generally operate for a period of severalyears. Donors can lose interest in the collaborative,especially after the grantmaking decisions have beenmade. More o v e r, over a period of years, a donor’s i n t e rest and commitment to a field can wane. To assessa collaborative fund’s effectiveness with donors, the Ms.Foundation periodically asks donor partners to commenton their experiences in the fund. Collaboratives can makean eff o rt to schedule conference calls between meetings tokeep donor partners up to date. Staff also can communi-cate frequently to donors with concise but vivid report s .Overall, it is part of the staff’s job to keep up to date onwhere donors, particularly institutional donors, are headingand to work with program officers to try to anticipate andaccommodate a donor’s changing needs and interests.

Turnover of representation. Over time, donor partners can send different staffrepresentatives to collaborative meetings. At everymeeting, collaborative staff must make sure to run

through the history of the collaborative to date andclearly spell out the decisions that have already beenmade and timelines for next steps in an eff o rt to keepnew donor representatives apprised and engaged.

Yet turnover raises issues not just about informationshared, but the need to continually build relationshipsand promote the culture of the collaborative. O n esolution is to support donor representatives in promotingthe engagement of their organization through board pre-sentations and other means of education on-site at the

donor part n e r ’s place of business. The host must alsomake sure to find opportunities for personal contact withnew donor representatives. It is also important for newcollaborative fund staff to devote a lot of time to buildingrelationships with fund part n e r s .

Cultivating donor partners. A collaborative needs to build open processes for therecruitment and integration of new partners. A lot ofstaff contact with new donors is often required to bringthem into a fund. Strategies include assigning longert e rm donors as mentors to new donors, crafting an agen-da that facilitates communication between new and olddonors, and being careful to flag situations where itappears that donors new to the collaborative are not get-ting connected.

Demands of evaluation and learning components.Many collaboratives impose stringent evaluation orl e a rning components on their grantees. While moreb u rdensome than a typical grant, the opportunity forl e a rning can also greatly benefit a grantee org a n i z a t i o n .Yet to ease the burden on the grantees, collaborative donorsmust begin by setting clear and fair expectations and helping their grantees develop realistic goals and outcomesbased on their level of resources and organizational

c a p a c i t y. It also helps if the collaborative is flexible with out-comes and understands learn i n gc u rves. Ms. Foundation collabo-ratives for example, givegrantees the opportunity toreassess their objectives annually.Donors should also consider pro-

viding a percentage of resources to be used specifically forevaluation as well as providing grantees with opport u n i t i e sfor consultation, training and on-site technical assistance .

Grantee confidentiality.When collaborative staff involved in grantmaking deci-sions also provide technical assistance to granteeorganizations, confidentiality issues arise. Being fundedby a collaborative can be seen as a double-edged swordby grantees, who get funding and assistance on the onehand, but have to reveal weaknesses to a donor in

“While I know some of my field staff are going to find theMs. Foundation documentation requirement daunting, I amdying to know outcomes. It is a helpful tool for the organi-

zation and the field, even though I will hear grumblingabout it from the front line staff.”Anita Moeller, Acre Family Day Care

20

order to get the technical assistance they need.Furthermore, confidentiality issues between collabora-tive staff and donor partners must be managed.Collaborative staff can address this by building trust withgrantees over time and establishing an environment thatrewards honorable failure. Honesty in revealing areas of

weakness or concern can be encouraged and not penal-ized. Collaborative staff can also refer grantees to outsidetechnical assistance providers. While some donors maybe more sensitive and respectful of the confidentialityissues than others, a policy can be set up front about whatinformation gleaned by staff will and will not be sharedwith donor partners.

Organizations not selected for funding. Applicants who are not funded by a collaborative mayfear that they have lost their chance of being funded bydonor partners. To address this, staff should make a point

to explain to all applicants and donors that the collabora-tive is choosing organizations based on specific and clear-ly stated goals and program priorities and the need tocreate a well-rounded portfolio of grantees, and that theselection process is extremely competitive. Staff can alsoguide groups who do not receive support to other sources

of funding and technical assistance.

Exit scenarios. Collaboratives usually operate with aset time framework, a thre e - y e a rgrant cycle for example. Yet thevision of the collaborative can be builta round a more indefinite lifetime, as

new donors join and others leave after each cycle. Somecollaboratives have developed into permanent independ-ent entities. Others have seen their mission change withthe changing needs of the field. Donor partners and col-laborative staff must be mindful of lifespan issues both tofacilitate the ability to draw upon and extend the successof the collaboration as well as to know when the time hascome to refocus or conclude its mission. In any event,before each round a collaborative should take a new lookat the context and the field in which it operates. It shouldalso continually seek ways of supporting the engagementof donor partners in future activities in the field.

The Collaborative Fundfor Healthy Girls/Healthy Wo m e naddressed confidentiali-ty of grantee-collecteddata through the use of

the “Learning Te a m ”(an independentresearch team) as neu-tral interm e d i a ry. TheL e a rning Team sharedthe results of overall

data gathered withFund partners withoutrevealing the names ofthe grantee organiza-tions that provided the data.

21

The Ms. Foundation has identified four key factors for the success of a collaborative fund.

Time to build trust and comfort.The four-stage pro c e s s — i n t e rnal planning, collaborativeeducation and planning, grantee selection and re s e a rc h ,monitoring and capacity building—builds a high andr a re level of trust and comfort among donor part n e r s ,among grantees, and between donors and grantees.

A web of connections. Collaborative relationships are nurtured by building aweb of connections. Donor partners meet amongthemselves several times to review proposals, trackgrantee progress and learn from experts in the field.They also participate in initial and mid-grant site visits.Periodic retreats bring donors and grantees together toshare information and build technical skills, andgrantees share information through peer exchanges,listservs and conference calls. In these ways, collabora-tions facilitate the building of bridges within a field inaddition to the building of a field overall.

Skilled staff.Collaboration must be staffed. More o v e r, staffing acollaborative re q u i res someone with excellent skills atfacilitation. Each Ms. Foundation collaborativeemploys a full-time program officer who manages thefund, with the support of a program assistant and thes u p e rvision of a program director who each dedicate aconsiderable portion of their time to the fund.

Value-added partnership.A value-added consensus-based collaborative approachyields outcomes far greater than any donor couldachieve alone. It focuses on what a collective of donorscan do better than a single donor going it alone. Acollaborative is all about partnership. From a fund’sinvention and design through its realization and reflec-tions, all of its elements have been the product ofteamwork by grantee program staff and participants,donors, researchers and collaborative staff. The powerof working together, of networking, of sharing infor-mation and ideas about a field is the driving force of acollaborative. There is no question this high degree

of collaboration adds anextra challenge to thework; there is also noquestion it yieldsimmeasurable richness,relevance, and meaningfor those involved, and for its outcomes and implications.

“The Ms. Foundation Collaborative Fund doesn’t simply awardgrants. Ms. Foundation staff and donors see to it that their

grantees have opportunities to meet with, retreat with, and learnfrom other women and…programs across the country. They

provide amazing growth experiences for our staff…They funneli n f o rmation and resources to us that we have difficulty accessing

on our own. The money is needed and we are all grateful forour grants. But the networking with other grantees, funders and

consultants is equally important.” Penny Penrose, Good Faith Fund

C O N C L U S I O N :F O U R M A I N F A C T O R S F O R S U C C E S S

Founded in 1991, theCollaborative Fund forWo m e n ’s EconomicDevelopment (CFWED) is

a national partnership among larg eand small national foundations, fam-ily foundations, community founda-tions and individual donors whopool their financial re s o u rces ande x p e rtise to support women’s enter-prise development programs acro s sthe country. The Fund’s overarc h i n ggoal is to strengthen, expand andreplicate successful model pro j e c t sand increase the knowledge base oninnovative approaches to economicdevelopment, thereby helping prac-titioners and funders apply the les-sons that have been learned.

Now in its third round and havinginvested over $10 million in thefield of women’s enterprise devel-opment, CFWED is a provenmechanism to leverage significantresources for the field; educate newand experienced funders about thelessons practitioner groups arelearning; document and dissemi-nate these lessons; and build thecapacity of enterprise developmentorganizations by providing themwith multi-year funding, trainingand technical assistance. Donor

partners participate in every aspectof grantmaking, from designingthe request for proposals, toreviewing proposals, conductingsite visits, selecting grantees, monitoring grantee progress andlearning from their experiences.The Ms. Foundation for Womenadministers the CollaborativeFund, participates in the fund as adonor, and works in an ongoingtechnical assistance relationshipwith grantee organizations.

The third round of CFWED poolsa p p roximately $5 million from 24donors partners for grants, technicalassistance and best practice re s e a rc h .The 16 grantee organizations acro s sthe country put low-income womenon the road to self-sufficiency byhelping them start and expandm i c roenterprises and community-based business. Reflecting its con-tinued commitment to sustainablep o v e rty alleviation strategies forlow-income women and the contin-ued need to increase and diversifyre s o u rces for the field, the objectivesof the third round are to:

■ Increase funding for economic development projects benefiting low-income women;

22

In collaboration with our donorand grantee partners and Ms.Foundation staff, we havedesigned three components withinthis round of CFWED:

Enterprise Development Grants:In April 2001, CFWED madethree-year grants to 16 organiza-tions pursuing a range of strategies that create jobs for low-income women throughmicroenterprise development, sectoral networks and social pur-pose businesses;

Special Opportunity Fund:A mini-fund that will enablegrantees to respond to opportuni-ties and challenges that cannot beanticipated and for which a smallinfusion of timely money canmake a significant difference;

Learning Component:Activities that advance best prac -tices and develop capacity in thefield including data collection,documenting and dissemination oflearnings, training and technicalassistance and donor/granteeretreats. Best practice researchwill be conducted in various areasidentified by the grantee partners,the priority of which are Caregiving(childcare and healthcare),Follow-up Technical Assistanceand Social-Purpose Businesses.

THIRD ROUND OF CFWED

APPENDIX A:C O L L A B O R A T I V E F U N D F O R W O M E N ’ S E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T

23

■ Educate funders about women’seconomic development through a cost-effective structure and peer learning model;

■ Support effective program strategies and promote contin-ued innovation and experimenta-tion; and

■ Further learning about how enterprise development, as partof a broader set of asset building and work force development strategies, can create ladders for women and their families to move out of poverty and attain long-term economic security.

Third Round Donor PartnersAppalachian Regional

CommissionBambi MacDonald EstateBrico Fund Annie E. Casey FoundationCharles Stewart Mott FoundationChase Manhattan FoundationCitigroup FoundationEdna McConnell Clark

FoundationFlora Family FoundationFrench American Charitable TrustFord FoundationCarol GuyerHitachi FoundationHite FoundationJacobs Family FoundationJohn Merck FundAlbert A. List FoundationMcKay FoundationMacArthur FoundationMs. Foundation for WomenLindsay Shea

Alvin and Fanny Thalhiemer Foundation

Wendling FoundationWells Fargo

Minimum Grant RequirementsDuring Grant Selection Phase$150,000 over three years forfoundations$75,000 over three years for individualsDonor partners who join now that thegrant selection phase is over do not needto meet these minimum re q u i re m e n t s

Grantee PartnersAcre Family Day Care,

Lowell, MAAppalachian by Design,

Lewisburg, WVChildspace Cooperative

Development Inc., Philadelphia, PA

Cobb Microenterprise Council, Kennesaw, GA

Detroit Entrepreneurship Institute,Detroit, MI

El Puente Community Development Corp., El Paso, TX

Good Faith Fund, Pine Bluff, ARInstitute for Social and

Economic Development, Des Moines, IA

Maine Centers for Women, Work and Community, Augusta, ME

Native Americans for Community Action, Flagstaff, AZ

New Hampshire Community LoanFund for Quality Care Partners, Manchester, NH

Paraprofessional HealthcareInstitute for Home CareAssociates, Philadelphia, PA

People Incorporated of Southwest Virginia, Abingdon, VA

Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security,Oakland, CA

Women’s Economic Self Sufficiency Team, Albuquerque, NM

Women’s Rural Entrepreneurial Network, Bethlehem, NH

StaffProgram Director (0.75 FTE)Program Officer (1 FTE)Program Associate (0.5 FTE)

Phases of Work■ Internal planning■ Collaborative education and

planning■ Grant selection■ Research, monitoring and

capacity building

TimelineFive years

Budget$5.2 million

For additional information on theCFWED or its learning areas, pleasecontact Yma Gordon, programofficer, at (212) 742-2300 ext. 358.

For CFWED publications, please visit www.ms.foundation.orgor call 212-742-2300 ext. 329.

24

The Collaborative Fund forYouth-Led Social Change(CFYS) is a national part-nership among funders,

youth and program staff ofgrantee organizations, and othere x p e rts. Our goal is to supportand strengthen youth org a n i z a-tions that combine compre h e n s i v eyouth development and socialchange action with a gender- c o n-scious approach. The Fundincludes three years of grantmak-ing, technical assistance and learn-ing opportunities for all part n e r s .

The first Collaborative Fund forHealthy Girls/Healthy Womenand its wealth of collected datademonstrated that healthy girlsbuild healthy communities, andthat diverse leadership opportuni-ties help girls grow into strong andvital women. Perhaps most impor-tant, we learned that girls, giventhe proper support and structure,can and want to be social changeagents and contribute positively totheir wider communities. The newCollaborative Fund for Youth-LedSocial Change will partner withgirls’ and young women’s organiza-tions and take up the new chal-lenge of exploring how mixed-

gender programs best serve theneeds and strengths of both youngwomen and young men as theywork together for positive systemicchange in their communities.

It is clear that more work is neededto understand what fosters and sus-tains social change action amongyouth. Our goal is to support andenhance the work of youth organi-zations as they combine the best of positive youth development andyouth engagement with a genderanalysis. We believe that combin-ing efforts to build individual skillsand capacities (youth development)with programs that support youngpeople’s abilities to create positivesystemic change (youth-led socialchange/youth civic engagement)holds the greatest promise forimproving the lives and futures ofyouth and their communities.

DONOR CATEGORIESCurrent PartnersThe Brico FundSusie Tompkins Buell FoundationDiana Princess of Wales Memorial

Fund (U.S.)Dobkin Family FoundationGirl’s Best Friend Foundation and

Cyndie McLachlan

Greater Milwaukee Foundation and the Women’s Fund of the Greater Milwaukee Foundation

Polly HowellsAmy LissThe Martin Family FoundationThe Moriah FundThe Charles Stewart Mott

Foundation (planning grant)Ms. Foundation for WomenLindsay SheaStarry Night FundSurdna FoundationWomen’s Foundation of Colorado

Current SponsorsLevi Strauss Foundation

APPENDIX B:

Based on current opport u n i t i e sand prior experience, the newCollaborative Fund for Yo u t h -led Social Change will advancebest by:

■ Supporting and documenting gender-conscious social change models athat combine positive youth development and youth-led social change;

■ Strengthening the connections betwen girl-serving and youth-serving organizations;

■ Increasing funding to supportinnovative girl-only programs and gender-conscious mixed-gender programs.

C O L L A B O R A T I V E F U N D F O R Y O U T H - L E D S O C I A L C H A N G E

25

Minimum Grant Requirements$150,000 over three years for foundations$75,000 over three years for individuals

Grantee PartnersTo be determined by June 2002

StaffProgram Director (0.15 FTE)Program Officer (1 FTE)Program Associate (0.5 FTE)

Phases of Work ■ Internal planning■ Collaborative education and

planning■ Grant selection■ Research, monitoring and

capacity building

TimelineFour years

Budget$2.9 million

For additional information on theCFYS or on its learning areas,please contact Marisha Wignaraja,program officer, at (212) 742-2300ext. 315.

For publications, please visitwww.ms.foundation.org or call212-742-2300, ext. 330.

26

The Ms. Foundation for Womenwould like to thank the donors andgrantee partners of ourCollaborative Funds, whose dedi-cation and commitment to learn-ing has made this work possible.We would also like to express ourappreciation to the many peoplewho took the time to talk to theauthor about their experiences

with collaborative funds. Finally,special thanks goes to Ms.Foundation staff Anna Wadia,Marisha Wignaraja and YmaGordon for working with theauthor on this paper and to JudyEvans for editing and production.

About the AuthorJulie Peterson serves as a con-

sultant to various foundationsand nonprofit organizations inthe areas of criminal justice andjuvenile justice, youth develop-ment, community and economicdevelopment, and foundationpractices. Formerly a pro g r a mo fficer at the Edna McConnellClark Foundation, she is a 1986graduate of Harv a rd Law School.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

1 2 0 W A L L S T R E E T , 3 3 R D F L O O R , N E W Y O R K , N Y 1 0 0 0 52 1 2 7 4 2 2 3 0 0 F A X 2 1 2 7 4 2 1 6 5 3

I N F O @ M S . F O U N D A T I O N . O R G • W W W . M S . F O U N D AT I O N . O R G