Philanthropy and Government Working Together:

Philanthropy and Government

Working Together:

The Role of Ofﬁces of Strategic Partnerships in Public Problem Solving

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy promotes more effective philanthropy and

strengthens the nonproﬁt sector through research that informs philanthropic decision making and

public policy to advance public problem solving. Using California and the West as a laboratory, the

Center conducts research on philanthropy, volunteerism, and the role of the nonproﬁt sector in

America’s communities.

In order to make the research a catalyst for understanding and action, the Center encourages

communication among the philanthropic, nonproﬁt, and policy communities. This is accomplished

through a series of convenings and conversations around research ﬁndings and policy issues to

help key decision makers work together more effectively to solve public problems and to identify

strategies for action.

ABOUT THE CENTER ON PHILANTHROPY AND PUBLIC POLICY

The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy

Sol Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Lewis Hall, Room 210

Los Angeles, California 90089-0626

Phone: (213) 740-9492 Fax: (213) 821-4126

Email: [email protected]

Web site: www.usc.edu/philanthropy

The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy

Printed in the United States of America

Discussion paper written by

James M. Ferris and Nicholas P.O. Williams

The opinions presented in this paper represent those

of the authors and not those of The Center on

Philanthropy and Public Policy.

A copy of the full report can be downloaded on the

Center’s website at www.usc.edu/philanthropy.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Foreword

Government and the philanthropic community have long worked together to solve public

problems. More often than not, these efforts are characterized by a focus on a speciﬁc issue of

shared interest. They are frequently episodic, time-limited and ad hoc. While there are potential

gains from partnering with one another, the costs and risks of mounting such efforts can discourage

this strategy.

In recent years, there have been a number of efforts to overcome such barriers through new

institutional arrangements—which we refer to as ofﬁces of strategic partnerships—that are intended

to catalyze and facilitate partnerships between government and philanthropy. At times, these

partnerships extend to other sectors as well. These arrangements provide the infrastructure for

fostering partnerships. They are found at the local, state and federal level. While their names and

origins, roles and responsibilities, and structural details differ from place to place, collectively they

represent an intriguing innovation in philanthropic-government relations.

These ofﬁces were the focus of a recent roundtable hosted by The Center on Philanthropy and

Public Policy. Based on the roundtable discussion, as well as interviews with the principals in

existing ofﬁces and documentary evidence, this report examines the rationale for their creation;

how they are organized and do their work; and the opportunities and challenges they create.

We view this report as a next step in the development of this new approach to stimulating and

supporting philanthropic-government partnerships.

James M. Ferris

Director,

The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

I. Introduction

Over the last three decades, a great deal of attention has been paid to partnerships that span across

the sectors: government, business, and philanthropy and the nonproﬁt sector. Each sector brings to

bear its own unique assets and attributes to solving pressing public problems in a collaborative manner.

Consequently, it is now recognized that bright ideas and their translation into transformative and

meaningful change is not the sole province of any particular sector, underscoring the importance

of new models for collaborative problem solving.

As a result there has been an intensifying interest in philanthropy and government working together.

While government and philanthropy have a history of joining forces to address critical problems,

these efforts have often been informal and episodic with a good dose of happenstance. There is

growing evidence that foundations of various types and scale are taking active steps to engage with

government on a more formalized and continuous basis.

At the same time, governments are exploring

new ways to leverage philanthropic assets and to advance innovative solutions to public problems

in the context of spiraling budget deﬁcits that are compelling governments to “do more with less.”

As both philanthropy and government seek to expand their impact, new models of working together

are beginning to emerge. These models extend beyond traditional strategies of government taking

philanthropic innovations to scale or foundations engaging governments to inﬂuence public policy

to forging ongoing philanthropic-government partnerships through formalized structures.

These

formal structures are called many things, but we refer to them generically as “ofﬁces of strategic

partnerships” (OSPs). They are found at the local, state, and federal level. They vary in their origins,

rationales and structures, and they have a range of approaches to their work. In some cases, their

roles and functions encompass more than facilitating partnerships with philanthropy to include

collaborations with the nonproﬁt and business communities. Nevertheless, each ofﬁce seeks to

catalyze new and stronger relationships between philanthropy and government to address pressing

public problems. They provide infrastructure for cross-sector partnerships and help to lower the

transaction costs. Collectively, they represent a new institutional arrangement for facilitating

philanthropic-government partnerships.

1. For an interesting framework for understanding the possibilities, sources, and strategies for social change among a broad array of sectors and

actors, see: S. Goldsmith, G. Georges, & T.G. Burke, The Power of Social Innovation: How Civic Entrepreneurs Ignite Community Networks for Good,

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (2010).

2. See: GrantCraft, Working with Government: Guidance for Grantmakers, New York, NY (2010).

3. For instance, GrantCraft (2010) heard from over 1,500 individuals, in response to a survey, who either were involved or had previously been

involved in a collaboration with government. Most of these engagements took place at the local or state level, reﬂecting the fact that there are

many more foundations that can make the connection to government at these levels.

4. See: A. Wolk & C.G. Ebinger, “Government and Social Innovation: Current State and Local Models,” Innovations, 5:3, pp.135-157 (2010). The

authors examine a number of partnership models for social innovation and entrepreneurship, including efforts to instill innovation in governmental

operations as well as efforts to forge partnerships across sectors. They identify two structural models—liaison and ofﬁce—that can be found

within government, outside of government, or in quasi-governmental roles. These models help to foster government partnerships with nonproﬁts,

foundations and corporations with the aim of breaking down “silos,” leveraging funds, cultivating champions and attacking entrenched problems

in innovative and systemic ways.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

These ofﬁces are relatively young. The Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison for the State of Michigan,

the oldest existing ofﬁce, was founded only in 2003. While the number of ofﬁces has grown since

then, not all have survived.

Thus, it is important not only to understand what these ofﬁces do and

how they operate, but also what it takes for them to succeed. These are precisely the issues at the

heart of this paper. We begin with a general discussion of philanthropic-government partnerships

focused on the institutional logics of both philanthropy and government, the new imperative for

establishing partnerships, and the beneﬁts and costs of such arrangements. Next we examine the

forces behind their creation, how they are structured, their primary missions and strategies and

some examples of their accomplishments. Then we explore more deeply how these ofﬁces work,

the challenges they face, and the tactics they use to overcome such challenges.

5. For example, Wolk and Ebinger (2010) identify government ofﬁces in Ohio and New Mexico that focus on philanthropic partnerships that

no longer exist today. In fact, we found reference to such an ofﬁce as far back as the early 1990s in Detroit; see: J. O’Gara, “Brother, Can They

Paradigm,” Philanthropy Magazine (1997).

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

6. See: K. Prewitt, “Foundations,” in W.W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The Nonproﬁt Sector: A Research Handbook, 2nd ed., pp. 355-377, New

Haven: Yale University Press (2006).

7. Aside from abiding by various constraints intended to limit self-dealing and private gain, prohibitions against foundation involvement in

electoral politics and restrictions on lobbying and its funding, foundations enjoy a wide degree of discretion in choosing the public purposes and

the strategies they pursue.

II. Philanthropic-Government Partnerships

It is generally agreed that a partnership involves a concerted effort at information sharing, coordi-

nating, and ultimately joint decision-making. The precise nature of these partnerships can manifest

in a variety of ways from loose agreements between the parties to highly structured initiatives.

They often involve co-funding, but that does not itself constitute a partnership. The key feature of

the partnerships that are the focus of this paper is a shared commitment between philanthropy and

government to work together to solve public problems. These partnerships involve two parties who

have common missions, possess their own assets, and value their autonomy and independence.

INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS

As institutions, foundations and government have an array of resources that they can contribute to

address common social problems. And, because each strives to achieve greater capacity and impact,

they are motivated to explore the promise of working with each other. Each sector has its own

institutional characteristics—rationales, incentives, and formal and informal rules—that shape their

behavior. These contrasting features provide the potential for adding value from their collaboration,

while also creating additional challenges that entail costs and risks. We consider the differences in

the institutional logics of philanthropic foundations and government.

Foundations, as we know them today, are an innovation of the twentieth century. Historically

foundations both funded and operated hospitals, schools and universities, orphanages, museums,

and other nonproﬁts. At the turn of the century, the American philanthropic foundation was created

to function largely as a grantmaking institution. The prototypical foundation has a permanent

endowment, exists into perpetuity, has no allegiance to a particular nonproﬁt organization, and

focuses on grantmaking for an array of public purposes such as education, health, human services

and the arts.

With a permanent endowment and only a requirement to payout ﬁve percent of its assets, foundations

have a unique capacity to take a long view of their work. An endowment obviates the need for

foundations to raise funds and insulates them—to a considerable extent—from market forces.

Foundations are also relatively free from government regulation in terms of how they direct their

grantmaking, protecting them from political forces to a large degree.

As a consequence, foundations

have substantial ﬂexibility in pursuit of their mission and the ability to take risks to achieve them.

It is up to them to design their grantmaking strategies to achieve impact.

Foundations understand that they have an array of assets that they can call upon to make a difference.

They not only have ﬁnancial resources, but they have information and knowledge about problems

and possible solutions as a result of their work. Foundations also have connections and networks

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

that enable them to serve as a catalyst for action. With these assets, foundations increasingly realize

that there are strategies—beyond simple grantmaking—that enable them to meet their missions.

As a consequence, foundations are increasingly looking for ways to leverage all of their assets—

whether it is impact investing, activating their networks, or working collaboratively within philanthropy

or across sectors—to make a bigger difference.

Governments in the American federal system represent a set of democratic institutions that are

designed to be responsive and accountable to the public so as to address public needs. Through

taxing and regulatory powers, governments have the ability to generate signiﬁcant ﬁnancial resources

and to shape behavior through an array of incentives and constraints. Given their pervasive role

and coercive powers, governments are in a powerful position to solve public problems.

But there is widespread recognition that governments are imperfect in their capacity to solve public

problems. The literature on democracy is ﬁlled with a litany of the imperfections of government

processes for aggregating individual preferences for collective choices. Governments relying on

majority rule are slow to respond to emergent problems and politicians are apt to focus on the

short-term and avoid risk in response to the ebb and ﬂow of electoral cycles. In addition, reliance

on public bureaucracies to meet collective demands is questioned on the grounds that public

bureaucracies lack the sharp incentives and necessary discretion for results-oriented performance

that characterize private organizations operating in competitive markets.

Despite the power of the public purse and its regulatory reach, governments realize that they do

not have unlimited capacity. Cognizant of their inability to develop new responses to public needs,

governments at all levels have been searching for innovative ways to address pressing public problems.

A NEW IMPERATIVE

We recognized that philanthropic funds cannot begin to replace lost funding, but we

also recognized the importance of, wherever possible and appropriate, sustaining

and developing meaningful partnerships between the two sectors.

As both sectors seek ways to expand their capacity to address the public problems central to their

missions, there is a growing interest among both philanthropy and government to work together.

This in and of itself is not new since there are ample examples historically where foundations and

governments have worked together to meet public needs. What are new are the forces that are

compelling governments and foundations to contemplate new models of how they can partner to

achieve greater impact.

Local, state and federal governments are ﬁscally constrained, severely limiting their ability to

mount new programs and even sustain existing ones. Thus, while governments have vast resources

relative to foundations, they understand that partnerships with foundations may give them added

ﬂexibility to pursue new initiatives or innovations. At the same time, the growth in foundation

assets has slowed after the “golden era” of the 1990s, leading foundations to look to new strategies

—including partnerships with government—that can make an impact. This viewpoint is increasingly

prevalent at the state and local level where there is a greater familiarity between policymakers

and foundation leaders, and where a larger number of foundations have a greater sense that their

resources can make an impact.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Beyond the economic pressures that have helped to push philanthropy and government together,

many leaders both inside and outside of philanthropy believe that foundations are well-positioned

to play a “venture capital” role for public problem solving. Largely insulated from markets and politics,

foundations have the freedom to experiment with innovative solutions to pressing public problems.

As a consequence, there is a model of foundation-government relations that sees foundations and

their nonproﬁt partners as developing workable solutions that government can take to scale with

their vast ﬁnancial resources and service delivery systems. This stylized model of foundation-

government relations has long dominated perceptions of how foundations and government can best

work together. While there are numerous examples over the years of this model’s success,

there is

a growing recognition that it is not as prevalent today as the rhetoric suggests. Not all foundations

produce evidence that can be translated into large scale solutions and few governments have

resources to scale up the solutions that are incubated in the philanthropic and nonproﬁt sector.

Instead, governments are increasingly seeking to develop platforms that enable foundation

support at the community level and diffusing practices and programs that seem to be most effective,

particularly at the federal level (e.g., the Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhood and

Investing Innovation Programs and the Social Innovation Fund). Beyond leveraging the ﬁnancial

resources offered by foundations, governments are also pursuing and enlisting the support of

foundations whose issue expertise may inform how a particular program is designed or implemented

and leveraging their connections and networks to address problems locally.

More and more foundations, for their part, view partnership with government as critical to increasing

their impact. The sheer pervasiveness of governments at the local, state and federal level and their

taxing and regulatory powers make government a powerful ally for those foundations whose

philanthropic interests intersect with government’s interests. As a result, foundations increasingly

recognize that working with government may give them an opportunity to more effectively address

intractable problems.

Yet, the recognition by both philanthropy and government that each has resources that can be

leveraged to more effectively pursue their missions is not sufﬁcient to compel partnership. Partner-

ships have costs, and those costs increase when the partnerships are forged across sectors with their

different institutional logics. These differences, which are highlighted in Table 1, make philan-

thropic-government partnerships inherently difﬁcult to initiate, manage and maintain.

First, governments are responsive to public sentiments. Consequently, their priorities and issues

of interest change in response to elections. In contrast, foundations tend to approach problems

incrementally over many years, which can present challenges as to how philanthropic-government

partnerships function. Second, while foundations tend to focus on a few areas of interest central

to their respective missions, governments must grapple with a much wider range of issues in order

to govern. Therefore, the priorities and issues that are important to a particular foundation at a

given time may not be what are important to government, and vice versa. Third, governments and

philanthropy frequently have pre-conceived perceptions about one another. For example, many in

government often view philanthropy only as a resource to ﬁll funding gaps; and philanthropy often

views government as too slow or bureaucratic to be an effective partner. For the most part, government

and philanthropy seldom understand how the other operates or what an effective philanthropic-

government partnership might look like.

8. See: J. L. Fleishman, The Foundation: A Great American Secret, New York: Public Affairs (2007).

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Because of these differences, partnerships between government and philanthropy require more

time and resources to function than they would if working alone. Foundation and government

staff must identify potential partners, develop relationships and trust between stakeholders, and

establish processes and procedures for engagement and decision-making. Efﬁciencies may be gained

if government and philanthropic actors have worked together before, but learning from past efforts

is seldom transferred, even within the same institution. Hence, the costs of forging partnerships

each time and learning anew can be prohibitive.

In addition, cross-sectoral partnerships carry risks. Neither foundations nor governments are

inclined to share authority. Foundations are accustomed to making decisions on their own without

the involvement of outside actors. Governments are also conscious of being transparent and publicly

accountable and are frequently prohibited from delegating decision-making authority. Because part-

nerships imply shared decision-making, philanthropy and government must share the risk of involving

themselves in decisions that are not of their own making. Working together in partnership across

sectors may also be viewed as inappropriate. Foundations may worry about loss of independence,

and government may be concerned about charges of undue philanthropic inﬂuence.

As a result, there has been an increasing interest by both philanthropy and government to develop

new models that begin to address some of the challenges of the episodic philanthropic-government

partnerships of the past. Ofﬁces of strategic partnerships are one such arrangement. They help

to reduce the costs of working around these barriers by creating an infrastructure for partnerships

between the two sectors. Through the work of these ofﬁces, partnerships between philanthropy and

government can be more easily catalyzed and accelerated by reducing the transaction costs of initiating

and facilitating such efforts. The nature of these ofﬁces and the lessons that are emerging from

their experiences are detailed in the following sections.

This table is adapted from Working with Government (GrantCraft, 2010).

TABLE 1. THE DIFFERENT WORLDS OF PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT

We have a certain amount of ﬂexibility about timing

We see this work as a long term commitment

This initiative is a top priority

We can be selective about what we focus on

Government is mysterious

We don’t pick up the tab for defunded services

We have to adhere to annual budget cycles

An election can change everything

This initiative is one of hundreds of responsibilities

We do not have a lot of ﬂexibility in setting priorities

Foundations are mysterious

An important program got cut; let’s get

philanthropy to fund it

Philanthropy Government

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

III. Ofﬁces of Strategic Partnerships

As interest in partnerships between government and philanthropy gains momentum, new

arrangements for how the two sectors can work together to solve critical public problems are

emerging. Building on the work of Wolk and Ebinger (2010), which examines innovations at the

local and state level to advance entrepreneurship in government operations and problem solving in

a more systemic way, we focus speciﬁcally on ofﬁces of strategic partnerships (OSPs) that catalyze

partnerships between government and philanthropy. In this section we examine six ofﬁces: three

municipal ofﬁces (Denver, Los Angeles and Newark); one state ofﬁce (Michigan); and two federal

ofﬁces (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education).

Brief proﬁles of these ofﬁces are provided in Table 2.

MOTIVATIONS AND RATIONALES

While the conditions that create the imperative for government and philanthropy to work together

are ripe, ofﬁces of strategic partnerships are not automatic. A key impetus for their creation is a

champion who believes in the value of working across sectors. A closer look at these six ofﬁces of

strategic partnerships reveals that all were instigated by such a leader. In each case, there was a

leader who, based on previous experiences, understood the potential advantage of philanthropic-

government partnerships and encouraged that approach. To them, public-private partnerships are

not an abstract idea, but rather a tangible strategy for public problem solving. These ofﬁces are a way

of incubating that mindset in government. This is particularly the case where we have individuals

who have prior experience working with philanthropy. But there are also instances where leaders

from philanthropy initiated the conversations with receptive public ofﬁcials which, in turn, lead to

the ofﬁce’s creation.

For example, the three city-level ofﬁces (Denver, Newark, and Los Angeles) had strong initial

support from their respective mayors. In two of these cases (Denver and Newark) the idea of an

ofﬁce devoted to building relationships and partnering with the philanthropic sector stemmed

from their mayor’s prior experiences either as a philanthropist or working with foundations. The

establishment of the ofﬁces at the federal level (Department of Education’s Director of Strategic

Partnerships and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Ofﬁce for International

and Philanthropic Innovation) was fostered by cabinet secretaries who recognized the value of

partnering with the philanthropic sector and tapped leaders within the agency that had previous

experience in philanthropy or with philanthropic partnerships. In contrast, the Ofﬁce of Foundation

Liaison for the State of Michigan, while receiving support from the Governor, was initially championed

by leaders of the Council of Michigan Foundations, who had a long history of working with the

state on public policy issues. Similarly, the Los Angeles Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships grew out

of a close collaboration between a few philanthropic leaders and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and

Liaison to Philanthropy.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Name

Denver Ofﬁce

of Strategic

Partnerships

Los Angeles

Ofﬁce of Strategic

Partnerships

The Philanthropic

Liaison to the

City of Newark

• Location. Internal, department-level

position inside the Ofﬁce of Economic

Development. (See footnoted changes

on page 10)

• Stafng. Led by a Director, with

support of a full-time staff, a part-time

communication coordinator, and

a part-time intern.

• Advisory Structure. One 15-member

commission representing nonproﬁt,

government, philanthropic, and

business leaders who provide oversight

and guidance. Members are appointed

by the Mayor and serve two-year terms.

Most partnerships supported by the

ofﬁce also have their own advisory

committees.

• Funding. Funded by city general

funds; a grant from the Strengthening

Communities Fund (ARRA); CDBG

funds; Xcel Energy franchise funds;

and private donations.

• Location. Internal, executive-level

position inside the Ofﬁce of the Mayor.

• Stafng. Led by a Deputy Mayor,

with support of an Associate Director,

an Administrative Assistant and interns.

• Advisory Structure. Two workgroups:

the Philanthropy Work Group and

the Non-Proﬁt Workgroup. The former,

comprised of members of the

philanthropic community, provides

advice and supports strategic planning

efforts. The latter shares the needs of

the nonproﬁt community, supports

goal-setting activities and assists with

implementation.

• Funding. Funded by foundations

(50 percent) and the City (50 percent).

Annual operating budget of approx.

$300,000/year.

• Location. Quasi-governmental position

inside the ofﬁce of the Mayor.

• Stafng. Led by the Philanthropic

Liaison.

• Advisory Structure. One advisory

committee composed of funders of

the Liaison Ofﬁce, which are primarily

members of the Council of New Jersey

Grantmakers. The Liaison meets and

reports to the Advisory Committee on

a bi-weekly basis.

• Funding. Funded by eight foundations/

private funds. No public funds are

allotted for the Liaison other than

in-kind ofﬁce accommodations at

Newark City Hall.

“ To leverage the best

of Denver’s public and

nonproﬁt sectors to

engage in innovative

and collaborative work.

DOSP believes that by

working collectively,

the public and nonproﬁt

sectors can be even

more efﬁcient and

effective in strengthening

Denver’s communities.”

“ To develop a shared

agenda between the City,

nonproﬁts, philanthropy

and other sectors to

maximize resources and

impact.”

“ To serve as a

bridge between the

administration of the

Mayor Cory A. Booker

and the philanthropic

community, helping both

entities to address the

pressing issues of New

Jersey’s largest city.”

• Building relationships,

understanding and

capacity for the city and

nonproﬁts.

• Working with city

agencies and nonproﬁts

to initiate and support

collaborations.

• Leveraging and

coordinating resources

around nonproﬁt space

sharing and nonproﬁt

access to government

funding.

• Highlighting efforts as a

local and national model

of nonproﬁt-government

collaboration.

• Connecting city

agencies with nonproﬁt

and philanthropic

partners around shared

priorities.

• Attracting and leveraging

philanthropic resources

for joint projects and

initiatives.

• Streamling government

processes for enagement

with the nonproﬁt and

philanthropic sector.

• Leveraging connections

between public and

private entities to

increase the impact of

philanthropy in Newark.

• Identifying and sharing

information across

sectors.

• Matching philanthropic

foundation interests and

the priorities of the city

together.

2004

2009

2007

Founded Organizational Structure Mission/Purpose Key Strategies

TABLE 2. PROFILES OF OFFICES OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Name

Ofﬁce of

Foundation

Liaison for

the State of

Michigan

Ofﬁce for

International

and Philanthropic

Innovation for the

U.S. Department

of Housing

and Urban

Development

Director of

Strategic

Partnerships

for the U. S.

Department

of Education

• Location. Quasi-governmental

inside the Ofﬁce of the Governor.

• Stafng. Led by the Foundation

Liaison with the support of a

full-time staff and a part-time staff.

• Advisory Structure. One advisory

committee of ten foundations, who

provide guidance and oversight in

helping to set priorities for the ofﬁce.

• Funding. Funded by a consortium

of 17 private foundations; also

receives in-kind support and

$24,000 a year from the state.

Currently it has three-years of

funding ($1.4 million).

• Location. Internal, department-

level ofﬁce housed within the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s Policy Development

and Research Department.

• Stafng. Led by the Deputy

Assistant Secretary, with support

from a director and a coordinator-

level position.

• Advisory Structure. No Advisory

committee or outside governing

structure. (Not allowed).

• Funding. Funded exclusively through

federal funds allocated to HUD.

• Location. Internal, position

located within the U.S. Secretary

of Education’s Ofﬁce.

• Stafng. Led by the Director of

Strategic Partnerships for the U.S.

Department of Education with the

support of other leaders and staff

in the department.

• Advisory Structure. No Advisory

committee or outside governing

structure. (Not allowed).

• Funding. Funded exclusively

through federal funds allocated

to DOE.

“ To identify and broker

strategic partnerships

between the state and

foundations to encourage

the success of programs

or policy reforms that

would improve the lives

of Michigan residents.”

“ To use the best available

evidence, innovations, and

lessons from philanthropic

and international partners to

help assure HUD achieves

long-term community-

building results and return

on taxpayer dollars,

supporting a “triple bottom

line” approach—ﬁnancial,

social, and environmental

accountability.”

“ To accelerate high impact

business and philanthropic

sector involvement to

advance and sustain

systemic ‘cradle to career’

education reform.”

• Educating state ofcials

about foundations.

• Forging relationships

and supporting the

development of partner-

ships between the state

and foundations.

• Attracting new federal

grant dollars.

• Responding to

opportunities for new

local and regional public-

private partnerships.

• Coordinating information

dissemination and

exchanges across

sectors.

• Brokering partnerships

across sectors and

international boundaries.

• Coordinating research

and knowledge

management.

• Conducting joint

research projects.

• Engaging the private

sector in support of the

Department’s missions

and programs

• Developing policy that

promotes effective private

sector engagement

• Serving as liaison

between the Department

and the private sector

• Investigating and

promoting effective

strategic partnership

models and best

practices

2003

2010

2009

Founded Organizational Structure Mission/Purpose Key Strategies

TABLE 2. PROFILES OF OFFICES OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS (CONTINUED)

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

All of the ofﬁces are relatively small in terms of budget and staff. They are primarily comprised

of a principal position and 1-3 supporting staff, with the exception of the ofﬁces in Newark and

the Department of Education, which have a sole person. There is considerable variation in their

organizational structures, their reporting relationships and how they are funded. These structural

differences reﬂect the experimental nature of the ofﬁces and how they have developed. In fact, the

organizational structures of some of the ofﬁces with a longer history (e.g., Denver and Michigan)

have sometimes evolved, at times in response to changes in an administration.

The ofﬁces are all embedded within government. Four are housed at the executive level: the

Mayor’s ofﬁce (Los Angeles and Newark); Governor’s ofﬁce (Michigan); and Secretary’s ofﬁce

(Department of Education). The other two (Denver and HUD) are embedded in an agency and

exist as separate ofﬁces. For those rooted in the executive’s ofﬁce, there is a sense that the ofﬁce

provides more direct access for the philanthropic community to elected ofﬁcials and enables them

to more easily span across departments and agencies. Those located inside a department suggested

that it was in part a strategy to ensure sustainability during executive transitions (e.g., Denver).

The Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison for the State of Michigan is funded primarily by the foundation

community, though it receives some direct and in-kind funding from government. The Philanthropic

Liaison to the City of Newark is funded entirely by foundations in recognition of the city’s budget

constraints as well as a desire to “maintain its independence.” The Denver Ofﬁce of Strategic

Partnerships and the two federal ofﬁces are funded exclusively by government. The Los Angeles

Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships is funded evenly by philanthropy and the city, not including the

costs of ofﬁce space, supplies and pension and health beneﬁts provided by city funds.

A common organizational feature of the state and local ofﬁces is an advisory committee. These

committees are an important mechanism for setting priorities for the ofﬁces as they allow the

philanthropic community—including those that fund the ofﬁces—to provide input and help to set

the agenda. In contrast, the federal ofﬁces operate without an advisory committee because of rules

regarding transparency and accountability. Because they are in many ways breaking new ground,

federal ofﬁces have spent a substantial amount of time working with their general counsels to gain

clarity on what is or is not acceptable in working with philanthropy and the broader private sector.

9. For example, in the spring of 2012, the Denver Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships was written into ordinance under the Agency for Human Rights

and Community Partnerships. As a result, funding, stafﬁng and reporting relationships in the Denver Ofﬁce have changed.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

MISSIONS AND STRATEGIES

The primary mission of ofﬁces of strategic partnerships is to catalyze and accelerate effective

philanthropic-government partnerships. While the focus is primarily on philanthropy, in some

instances, such as Denver and Los Angeles, there is a concerted effort to include the nonproﬁt

community. The strategies used to achieve their missions in these ofﬁces vary, particularly from

the local and state level when compared to the federal level.

At the state and local level, a common approach advanced by the ofﬁces is to develop a shared agenda

between foundations and government that can lead to the identiﬁcation of speciﬁc opportunities

for working together. By contrast, federal ofﬁces do not work with a set group of foundations;

they have no advisory committee; and they do not make decisions jointly with the philanthropic

community. They instead focus on creating platforms and opportunities for information sharing

that increase coordination and alignment of resources across the sectors so as to increase the

effectiveness of problem solving efforts.

Despite these differences, ofﬁces at all levels of government use a range of similar strategies to

accomplish their missions. Prominent among them are demystifying the sectors, convening stake-

holders, and leveraging resources. Each of these strategies helps to lower the transaction costs of

partnership by creating an infrastructure for new and ongoing engagement across sectors.

• Demystifying the Sectors. Critical to enabling partnerships is that both sides understand each

other and have reasonable expectations about what they are able to do. The ofﬁces can help to

educate government about philanthropy and philanthropy about government. They also coach

each side about how to work with the other, encourage the cultural change for working across

boundaries, and share best practices with leaders on what it takes to work together effectively.

By demystifying the sectors, the cultural and institutional barriers to partner are lowered.

• Convening and Facilitating. Beyond education, the ofﬁces are able to stimulate conversations

among diverse stakeholders—government agencies, foundations, nonproﬁts, and other critical

constituencies—with the purpose of having them understand their mutual interests, exchange

information, and recognize the opportunities for partnership. The ofﬁces focus on brokering

relationships to spark partnerships. They typically do not devise, implement or manage

partnerships.

• Leveraging Resources. Given their knowledge of both sectors, the ofﬁces help to identify

resources in both government and philanthropy that might catalyze or support a particular project

or initiative. This includes both ﬁnancial resources, such as philanthropic grantmaking efforts

that align with government priorities, and human resources, such as issue experts whose

involvement might add value. The ofﬁces help to create the conditions under which such

resources can be identiﬁed, matched and leveraged more easily.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Ofﬁces of strategic partnerships note a number of important accomplishments that have resulted

from their efforts. While grounded in the missions, strategies, and settings of each ofﬁce, collectively

they demonstrate the potential of this institutional innovation to achieve greater impact.

Ofﬁces at the state and local levels refer to a range of accomplishments in the areas of capacity

building, technical assistance and leveraging of philanthropic and government funding. For

instance, the Denver Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships points to an ongoing series of workshops it

created for nonproﬁts to develop cross-sectoral partnerships of their own. Follow-up surveys of

workshop participants suggest that approximately 50 percent are either in the process of forming

a cross-sectoral partnership or have done so already as a result of the training. The Denver OSP

notes other successful collaborations with the foundation community such as the city’s Teen

Pregnancy Prevention Partnership, the Denver Transit Oriented Development Fund, and the

Green and Healthy Homes Initiative. The nature of these collaborations with philanthropy varied

from program coordination to public related investments to direct grant funding.

The Los Angeles Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships also points to successes in securing and leveraging

funds among its accomplishments. For instance, it helped to guide the formation of the Neighborhood

Revitalization Work Group—comprised of city, county, nonproﬁt and philanthropic partners—to

make Los Angeles more competitive for federal funding, including two grants from the Department

of Education Promise Neighborhood Grant program. Similarly, in partnership with the California

Endowment, it brokered a joint grant application between the city and county, bringing new resources

to the region. It also notes the work it has done to streamline and coordinate the city’s grants and

contracting processes for nonproﬁts; its help in securing foundation funding for a range of local

programs; its work with both foundation and nonproﬁts to coordinate Census outreach efforts; and

its efforts to organize the city’s ﬁrst “nonproﬁt day.”

Instances of accomplishment for the Philanthropic Liaison to the City of Newark primarily revolve

around identifying and coordinating opportunities to bring additional funding to the city for local

initiatives. In close partnership with the Council of New Jersey Grantmakers and the Newark

Funders Group, the Philanthropic Liaison has helped to secure more than $46 million in private

and public funding for programs and initiatives ranging from prisoner re-entry programs to work-

force development grants to environmental sustainability initiatives to education reform.

Michigan’s Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison, created in 2003, has brokered more than $100 million

in foundation investments for economic and workforce development, K-16 education, health,

early childhood, and land use programs and initiatives since its inception. But its successes extend

beyond securing funds. The Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison brought together a diverse group of

government and philanthropic stakeholders to reform state and federal beneﬁts systems for low

income families, thereby expanding access. And, there is ample evidence that leaders involved

with Michigan’s OSP recognize its impact: 87 percent of government and foundation leaders

surveyed in an assessment in 2010 agreed that the ofﬁce had increased government-philanthropic

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

10. Community Research Institute (CRI) at Grand Valley State University, “Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison: Findings from the 2010 Assessment.”

A Report to the Foundation Liaison Advisory Committee, June 30, 2010.

partnerships in the state. A recent assessment of the ofﬁce concludes that it has “evolved into an

important networking agent for government and philanthropy” and suggests that it has played a

key role in “building partnerships” in the state that help to increase government’s effectiveness.

The accomplishments of the ofﬁces at the federal level are consistent with their different role and

contexts as compared to the local and state ofﬁces. Rather than leading with securing funding,

federal ofﬁces point to successful efforts to facilitate matchmaking, innovation and more efﬁcient

government processes. For example, HUD’s Ofﬁce for International and Philanthropic Innovation

developed an open source web platform that provides information about funding sources and

potential partnerships for local urban development efforts (Partner.HUD.gov). The Department of

Education’s Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships created a similar platform, the i3 Registry, in partnership

with the philanthropic community and the Foundation Center, to match the department’s grantees

with philanthropic and business resources. Federal ofﬁces have also supported catalyzing efforts to

spread innovation across sectors. For example HUD’s ofﬁce developed an open, online platform to

collect and disseminate best practices and innovations in housing, community development, and

the built environment; it partnered with the business and philanthropic community on research

initiatives related to program related investments and impact investing; and it developed an award

in partnership with the Council on Foundations for community foundations whose work through

a public/private partnerships led to meaningful and measurable results.

In the process of achieving these outcomes, those spearheading the efforts have developed a deeper

understanding of what the challenges are of making philanthropic partnerships work and how ofﬁces

of strategic partnerships can best catalyze those partnerships. Based on their experiences we now

turn to the challenges that these ofﬁces have encountered and the tactics that they have found

effective to overcome them.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

IV. Challenges and Tactics

As the experience with ofﬁces of strategic partnerships grows, there are a number of lessons that

we can learn from those who have been at the forefront of these innovative efforts. The following

section takes a closer look at how these ofﬁces do their work, the difﬁculties that are inherent in

working across the two sectors, and the issues that ofﬁces identify as critical to ensuring their success

and sustainability. The primary challenges identiﬁed by the ofﬁces are: changing the behaviors of

the two sectors and managing their expectations; matchmaking between the issues, institutions

and individual actors; ﬁelding the right team, with the right skill set, to lead the ofﬁce; ensuring

transparency and accountability in the ways the ofﬁces operate; and sustaining the ofﬁces over

time. We discuss each in turn along with some tactics that these six ofﬁces use to address them.

CHANGING BEHAVIORS AND MANAGING EXPECTATIONS

One of our early challenges was that government said, ‘Yes, we want to partner

with foundations,’ and foundations said, ‘Yes, we want to partner with government,’

but nobody wanted to change. No one wanted to do it any differently.

At the heart of the work of these ofﬁces is changing the behaviors of the two sectors and managing

their expectations as they work across boundaries to address problems of common interest. As previously

noted, both philanthropy and government have different institutional structures, cultures and

norms that guide their behavior. Because behavior is largely guided by these institutional logics,

government and philanthropy may not be willing to change their behavior. For example, government

ofﬁcials act in response to immediate circumstances and do not typically have the luxury of study

and contemplation as do foundations. Alternatively, the expectations or misperceptions about

philanthropy can be challenging. For example, the notion that foundations are an “ATM machine”

or that ofﬁces of strategic partnerships are merely fundraising entities of government are often

entrenched and difﬁcult to alter.

These ofﬁces have developed a range of approaches to change the behavior and set the expectations

of both government and philanthropy.

• Focus on the Tangible Benets of the Partnership. Ofﬁces frequently emphasize the immediate

value of partnerships to both foundation and government leaders. They focus on highlighting

the importance of shared learning and shared opportunities to make an immediate and lasting

impact on the community. This can include information sharing, joint funding opportunities and

better alignment of programs and systems across the sectors.

• Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with Clear Roles and Responsibilities. Ofﬁces suggest

developing written documents that detail the roles and responsibilities of the OSP at the outset.

This includes the nature of the underlying philanthropic-government partnership, the ofﬁce’s

mission and the expected outcomes. Boundaries, reporting relationships and conditions of funding

should be clearly articulated, particularly in cases where philanthropy is providing funding for

the ofﬁces.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

• Create a Trusting Environment to Strengthen Relationships. All collaborations or partnerships

generally require a trusting environment in order to ﬂourish. Because OSPs focus on catalyzing

partnerships across two distinct sectors, building trust becomes even more important. Ofﬁces

spend signiﬁcant time creating opportunities to build relationships and identifying and working

with individuals who “understand the struggles their partners face.” As one ofﬁce states: “we

need to ensure [government] that they can trust us with their intimate issues and get them to

believe that their partners in the foundation community should be trusted.”

• Leverage More than the Financial Benets of the Partnership. Ofﬁces suggest that the partnerships

they help to catalyze should extend beyond funding alone. One ofﬁce notes that “knowledge

and ﬁnancial resources are equally important.” Another says that “we are not a development

ofﬁce in any way and we don’t lead with the aligning of funds… we lead with innovation. We are

about coming to the philanthropic sector and to others and just trying to ﬁgure out where the

ideas are: what’s working and what’s not working.”

MATCHMAKING

We had to decide right at the beginning what was going to be the focus of this

philanthropic liaison ofﬁce, and we wanted to determine how to match what the

foundations are looking at with what government is prioritizing.

The core work of ofﬁces of strategic partnerships is ﬁnding a “match” between government

and philanthropy. Each has a range of different and often competing interests. Of primary concern

to them are identifying which of these interests are shared across the sectors and may be ripe for

partnership. This process of matching interests is not easy. One ofﬁce notes that the value set of

the nonproﬁt and philanthropic community is sometimes at odds with the political realities of

government. Even in cases where interests may align, the timing of the two sectors may not be in

sync. In addition, each public agency or individual foundation has its own values, missions, resources,

strategies and programs. OSPs can act as a resource to ﬁnd the right match at the institutional level.

Such matchmaking is often easier at the local and state levels where there tends to be a larger

pool of interested philanthropic partners. And, since it can be a challenge to identify who has the

authority and skills to work together across sectors, ofﬁces also act as a resource or access point to

match key actors and decision-makers within government and philanthropy together.

Ofﬁces described several strategies to identify and make the right “match.”

• Recognize that Different Levels of Partnership and Collaboration Exist. As vehicles for catalyzing

government-philanthropic partnerships, these ofﬁces are in a unique position to identify potential

relationships between the sectors that may not currently exist and to initiate and nurture those

in early stages of development. One ofﬁce notes that “you have to explain to both government

and philanthropy that it is not necessary to come to the table with a full-ﬂedged collaboration.”

They emphasize that there can be “many different levels of involvement of government and

philanthropy working together,” from information sharing to coordination to joint funding to

full-ﬂedged collaboration.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

• Understand that Government and Philanthropic Timetables Differ. Government and philanthropy

operate on different timelines. Governments tend to be dictated by budgetary and electoral

cycles while foundations tend to implement their strategies over longer periods. Ofﬁces must

frequently remind the parties of these differences. For example, sometimes they must underscore

for foundations that “if you’re going to play, now is the time to play.” At the same time, they

must explain to government agencies and actors that “you can’t wait until today to ask for money

for something you want next week.”

• Educate Both Philanthropy and Government on How the Other Works. The strategies, processes

and procedures used by philanthropy are frequently unknown to government, and vice versa.

Therefore, ofﬁces must continually educate stakeholders in both sectors on how each operates or

might be motivated. One ofﬁce notes it has been instrumental in “educating not just government

cabinet members and staff about philanthropy but also foundations in how public agencies operate

and work.”

• Be Flexible and Innovative. Ofﬁces of strategic partnerships must straddle two dynamic sectors.

This requires an ability to be adaptable to changing circumstances, stakeholders and priorities.

Moreover, the complex problems that many of these partnerships are grappling with require

creative thinking that may be outside of the comfort zones of either sector. Ofﬁces note that a

“cookie-cutter approach” does not work. Each foundation and government agency is different

and the ofﬁces must ﬁgure out how a partnership might work on a case-by-case basis.

FIELDING THE RIGHT TEAM

What we found time and time again is: if you don’t have this extremely highly-energized

go-getter, eyes-on-ﬁre—‘wow, this is the coolest thing ever’—person, stuff doesn’t seem to

really go anywhere. It’s not enough to sort of broker the interest in this at the very highest

level, but you really need… the social entrepreneur inside government who really wants

to make this happen. And, if not, there’s a real challenge to kind of keep this alive.

Ofﬁces of strategic partnerships recognize the importance of ﬁnding the right individual to lead

the ofﬁce. Nearly all of the leaders from the ofﬁces we talked with have had experience working

in or alongside both government and the nonproﬁt sector before taking on their current roles. Such

prior experience is critical given the need to understand how each sector functions and how to

translate that understanding between sectors. However, as one director states: “we do not have a

deep bench of people who really understand government (in foundations) and understand foundations

(in government),” which limits the pool of new potential leaders for these ofﬁces. Beyond that

cross-sectoral understanding, it is also important to have individuals in these positions who are

entrepreneurial and networkers. The ideal leader is “creative, courageous and tenacious,” and

relishes acting as a relationship broker and catalyst, especially in difﬁcult circumstances.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Ofﬁces suggest several tactics to ﬁeld the right team.

• Find a Leader whose Skills and Experiences Fit. Identifying a leader whose skills and experiences

ﬁt is viewed as critical to making the ofﬁces work. This includes not just knowledge of how

philanthropy, nonproﬁts and government operate in general, but also the ability and experience

to navigate the different systems effectively.

• Act as a Facilitator, Rather than a Project Manager. Ofﬁces of strategic partnerships broker

relationships and frequently have many efforts happening at once. As a result, ofﬁces say that

they do not try to “project manage” all of the ongoing partnerships. “We’re happiest when we

can step away and leave the work to someone else… our goal is not to stay in and run things.”

They emphasize the importance of ﬁnding alignment on issues and helping to catalyze and

facilitate the development of partnerships. They do, however, step in at strategic points to move

partnerships forward.

• Learn How to Say “No”. Ofﬁces must represent the interests of two different sectors whose

ideas, opinions, processes and approaches frequently differ. Not surprisingly, ofﬁces suggest that

perseverance, tenacity and the ability to “say no” are all key leadership characteristics of OSPs.

These characteristics help leaders to establish the founding priorities, advance the agenda when

circumstances change, and overcome obstacles as they arise. They are also important when one

partner (e.g., a government or foundation actor) makes a request that may threaten to derail a

partnership or is clearly against the best interest of the other.

ENSURING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

I think accountability is one of the most complicated pieces of being a good partner

in these kinds of relationships. People come to the table with the best of intentions to

be a partner and put out what they think is right for that collaborative, but there is a

rigidity within government that calls people back based on a changing political context.

There is also the fact that I have a boss, the mayor is his boss, and that—ultimately,

is where the pragmatic accountability comes in...

Ofﬁces of strategic partnerships are embedded in executive ofﬁces or agency departments of

government. Therefore, they must play by government rules of transparency and accountability.

These rules are often complicated and not always apparent. Moreover, complex reporting relationships

in the government agencies that may be involved in partnerships, as well as political pressure on

those agencies or ofﬁcials, may render efforts to hold them accountable difﬁcult. At the same time,

because philanthropy is critical to the mission of OSPs, and they often receive both funding and

input from foundations, ofﬁces must understand and be responsive to their norms and rules of

transparency and accountability as well. Ofﬁces must at once ensure that they are following government

rules and regulations, and that the sectors maintain their independence, while also sharing information

with and eliciting input from philanthropy.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Ofﬁces recommend a number of practices to address these challenges.

• Document What You’re Doing. Ofﬁces frequently record what they are doing. This helps to ensure

accountability to their superiors in government, their foundation partners and the public as well.

Such documentation emphasizes both their actions and their achievements. Taking it a step further,

as a condition of funding for the Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison for the State of Michigan, the

foundation community requires an outside evaluator to assess the ofﬁce in delivering its mission.

• Communicate Regularly on Actions and Decisions. Sharing information before, during and after

a decision is made to relevant stakeholders helps to increase transparency. Establishing how

information can and should be shared and the process that the ofﬁce will use to make decisions

and advance project goals is critical to manage expectations about transparency.

• Draw Lines and Boundaries. Ofﬁces should be clear on both what they are able to do to catalyze

and facilitate a partnership and what they are not able to do. In addition to the strong leadership

of the ofﬁce’s director, such lines and boundaries should be explicit in the memorandum of

understanding between parties. This process frequently includes working with legal counsel to

ensure compliance with government and foundation rules and regulations.

SUSTAINABILITY

We realized that if we were going to survive, we really needed to create an infrastructure

for the ofﬁce that would withstand term limits and changes in administration.

There are no assurances that the ofﬁces will become institutionalized. Ofﬁces in some cities and

states that were highlighted in Wolk and Ebinger’s 2010 article do not exist today. For example, the

idea behind the creation of the Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison for the State of Michigan was spurred

by an effort in Detroit in the early 1990s, which had faded even before the Michigan ofﬁce was

established in 2003. Thus, the promise of the ofﬁces will only succeed to the extent that they are

both ﬁscally and politically sustainable.

Many government agencies and executive ofﬁces have successfully launched ofﬁces of strategic

partnerships with the ﬁnancial support of the foundation community. Such a strategy provides a short-

term ﬁnancial solution, but not one that is necessarily sustainable in the longer term. Foundation

interests and priorities change, and there are currently no ofﬁces of strategic partnerships with long

term guarantees of funding. And, while the structure of the federal ofﬁces currently entails public

funding, they have yet to survive beyond the current administration. Beyond ﬁscal sustainability,

ensuring the political support of OSPs in the transfer of power from one administration to another

is critical. They must win the support of political and nonpolitical appointees prior to their

establishment, maintain that support through the administration’s tenure and be savvy enough

to gain the support of new leaders when they turnover.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

A number of ideas were mentioned as best practices for sustaining OSPs.

• Identify, Cultivate and Leverage Champions. Just as champions are important to the initial devel-

opment of OSPs, they are also central to their sustainability. Champions in both government and

philanthropy can advocate on behalf of the ofﬁces. One of the ofﬁces that successfully managed

a political transition ﬁrst established relationships with many different departments through

various projects. They then systematically coached them to say: “when your new directors and

managers get here, you need to have this project on your list to talk with them about as a priority.”

The same ofﬁce leverages its relationships with philanthropic leaders and associations to promote

the ofﬁce to government ofﬁcials as well as aspiring candidates for ofﬁce.

• Develop Support in the Community. OSPs seek to develop a broad community of support for

the ofﬁces that extend beyond just the foundation sector or government. As one ofﬁce states:

“We had some amazing advocates rise up out of the community to really talk in very strong terms

about what our ofﬁce had meant for them, for their work and for the way they thought things

could work to enable them to do their jobs better.”

• Provide Evidence of Value. All of the ofﬁces collect and share information regarding their key

projects, programs and related accomplishments. They can use this as evidence of their value to

enlist and maintain the support of government and philanthropy. This information can also be

used to memorialize the ofﬁce’s mission, strategies and how it functions so as to foster learning

over time. In addition, this knowledge can be disseminated to help those interested in creating

similar ofﬁces elsewhere.

• Avoid the Appearance of Partisanship. Ofﬁces emphasize the importance of remaining nonpartisan

and attacking problems that transcend politics. Becoming “too close” to an administration raises

the specter of a new administration pushing them out. Instead, ofﬁces tend to focus on issue

areas that cut across party lines including: veteran’s issues, economic development, and children’s

health. Such an approach also helps OSPs to galvanize the support of foundations with a range

of ideological leanings and funding interests.

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

V. Conclusions

Ofﬁces of strategic partnerships represent a new form of working together for both government and

philanthropy. They are reﬂective of changing circumstances for both governments and foundations

that are looking for new ways to broaden and widen their impact at a time when resources for the

public good have become more and more limited. The emergence of these ofﬁces reﬂects the

increased interest in partnerships. But they represent more than just an interest. They provide

evidence of increasing efforts to develop and institutionalize mechanisms that can facilitate cross-

sectoral approaches to public problem solving. And, while these ofﬁces are relatively new, we are

beginning to better understand the value proposition at their core, how they do their work, and what

it takes for them to be successful.

All of the ofﬁces of strategic partnerships are focused at enabling government and philanthropy to

work together. They exist at all levels of government – city, state, federal. But they are not monolithic.

They vary considerably in their missions – ranging from securing public/private funding to providing

technical assistance and information sharing to demystifying the processes of both government and

philanthropy. While they differ in how they are funded and structured, they are all relatively small in

terms of budget and staff.

These ofﬁces are at their core relationship brokers. They match interested and relevant partners

from philanthropy and other sectors with the appropriate decision-makers in government where

there is potential value from working together. They serve as a resource for partnerships, making

meaningful connections among the sectors, and stimulating information sharing between them.

The ofﬁces do not devise or manage initiatives or projects. Instead, at the state and local level,

they catalyze and facilitate them. And, at the federal level, they enable greater alignment between

the public and private sectors.

These ofﬁces offer the possibilities for providing greater traction for cross-sectoral partnerships.

Their creation has been championed by those who understand the potential value of these ofﬁces

and their importance in accelerating a new way of addressing public problems. As partnerships

across boundaries become more common in addressing critical problems, the momentum behind

these ofﬁces is likely to increase. To the extent that the success of these ofﬁces is demonstrated,

the possibilities for sustaining and institutionalizing them will be enhanced.

As OSPs become more commonplace, there will be greater scrutiny on the tensions that they present

for those who are concerned with the independence of the philanthropic sector and its role in

ensuring governmental accountability. Likewise, there is a need for ensuring transparency and

accountability for the public sector so that foundations do not have unwarranted access. The best

response to these concerns is to ensure clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the two

sectors and the rules of engagement.

As these ofﬁces grow in number and their experience mounts, there is a need to assess what it takes

to work together across government and philanthropy, understand what these ofﬁces make possible,

and learn what practices are most effective—both from the successes and the disappointments.

Only then will the true potential of these new institutions for working together be fully understood.

*Interviewed as background for the roundtable

Philanthropy

and Government

Working Together:

What Does it Take?

A ROUNDTABLE

April 26-27, 2012

Los Angeles, California

PARTICIPANTS

Aileen Adams*

Deputy Mayor

Los Angeles Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships

Karen Aldridge-Eason*

Foundation Liaison

Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison for the State

of Michigan

Ana Marie Argilagos*

Deputy Assistant Secretary

International & Philanthropic Innovation

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Fred Ali

President & Chief Executive Ofﬁcer

Weingart Foundation

Diana Bontá

President and CEO

The California Wellness Foundation

Theresa Benincasa

Coordinator

Grants Research and Training Center

Fairfax County Ofﬁce of Public Private

Partnerships

Rob Collier

President and CEO

Council of Michigan Foundations

Dana Conroy

Advisor to the Mayor

Mayor’s Ofﬁce of New Urban Mechanics

Maura Dewan

Program Liaison

Ofﬁce of Foundation Liaison for the State

of Michigan

Colleen Ebinger

CEO and Founder

Impact Strategies Group

PHILANTHROPY AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER

Nicole Esparza

Assistant Professor

Sol Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Cara Esposito

Executive Director

Leonetti/O’Connell Family Foundation

Jim Ferris

Director

The Center on Philanthropy and

Public Policy

University of Southern California

Sarah Gillespie

Coordinator

Philanthropic Research and Initiatives

International & Philanthropic Innovation

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Elizabeth Graddy

Jeffrey J. Miller Chair in Government

Business & The Economy

Sol Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Jonathan Greenblatt

Director

White House Ofﬁce of Social Innovation

and Civic Participation

Suzanne Immerman*

Director of Strategic Partnerships

U.S. Department of Education

Jeremy Johnson*

Philanthropic Liaison

City of Newark

Jack Knott

C. Erwin and Ione L. Piper Dean

and Professor

Sol Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Alana Landey

Ofﬁce of the Assistant Secretary

for Planning and Evaluation

U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services

Stephanie Powers

Managing Director

Public-Philanthropic Partnership

Initiative

Council on Foundations

Sushma Raman

President

Southern California Grantmakers

Mike Roque

President

Adobe Consulting

Bill Rustem

Director of Strategic Policy

Ofﬁce of the Governor, Michigan

David Suarez

Assistant Professor

Sol Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Dace West*

Director

Denver Ofﬁce of Strategic Partnerships

Jayson White

Project Manager

Urban Policy Advisory Group

Ash Center for Democratic Governance

and Innovation

Harvard University

Andrew Wolk

Founder & CEO

Root Cause

*Interviewed as background for the roundtable

The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy

Sol Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Lewis Hall, Room 210

Los Angeles, California 90089-0626

Phone: (213) 740-9492 Fax: (213) 821-4126

Email: [email protected]

Web site: www.usc.edu/philanthropy