190_Nonprofit Collaboration & Mergers Finding the Right Fit

8/13/2019 190_Nonprofit Collaboration & Mergers Finding the Right Fit

1/27

+ =+


2/27

A Collaborative Effort of:


3/27

Introduction 3

Results of United Ways Collaboration Learning Project 4

Insights from 2004 Forum on Collaboration & Mergers 9

Real Collaboration Dened 11

Lessons from Local Collaboratives

Sharing Space 13

Sharing Resources 17

Benets and Obstacles of Strategic Restructuring 20

Lessons from Local Groups Opting to Merge or Not to Merge 21

Conclusions 24

Acknowledgements 25

Table of Contents Table of Contents


4/27

In recent years, a signicant amount of attention has beengiven to the benets of nonprot partnership. Many nonprotsrecognize that complex issues facing communities cannot besolved by any one organization and some have begun formingpartnerships. Within the nonprot sector, a wide spectrum ofpartnerships exists. While some meet informally to exchangeinformation, others collaborate to develop joint strategies thatgo beyond the scope of any one organization. Others are mov-ing beyond collaboration, exploring merger, consolidation, andjoint ventures with increasing frequency.

In the last decade, a variety of publications have explored thebenets of nonprot partnership. Some suggest that a greateremphasis on partnership results in less duplication, less over-lap of service, and better outcomes for communities. Given

that 30,000 new nonprots emerge each year, many fundershave encouraged and supported closer collaboration amongtheir grantees to increase the likelihood that philanthropic dol-lars will be spent on higher impact efforts.

In 2001, in an attempt to learn more about the benets andobstacles of nonprot partnership, United Way of GreaterMilwaukee began the Collaboration Learning Project (CLP). Theproject focused on contributing funding to ve different part-nerships and following their progress over a three-year period.

The three-year project was followed by an educational forumin November of 2004, Nonprot Collaboration and Mergers:Finding the Right Fit. United Way of Greater Milwaukee,the Greater Milwaukee Foundation, the Nonprot ManagementFund, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) Centerfor Urban Initiatives and Research, and the UWM Helen BaderInstitute for Nonprot Management co-sponsored the Forum.

The Forum brought together Robert Harrington of San-Franciscobased La Piana Associates Inc., a national expert on the topicof nonprot partnership, and over 140 local leaders of arts,environmental, and health and human service organizationsto candidly discuss the benets and obstacles of nonprotpartnership. The events of the day covered the range of non-prot partnerships from the more informal activities of sharingresources and space to full-scale merger.

In addition to some of the United Way funded projects, theForum featured partnerships that got an initial start becauseof the signicant investments made by the Greater MilwaukeeFoundation such as the Milwaukee Youth Arts Center, the EarnedIncome Tax Credit Super Sites and the Menomonee ValleyRedevelopment. At the same time, the Nonprot Management

Fund brought key resources and technical assistance to many ofthe projects highlighted, including the Milwaukee EnvironmentalConsortium and the local examples of organizational mergers.

Participating nonprots in the Collaboration Learning Projectand the 2004 Forum provided a great deal of insight into thebenets and obstacles of nonprot partnership. This publicationdraws from the experiences and wisdom of those organizationsand is meant to be a resource for nonprots engaged in col-laborative activities and/or considering a strategic partnership.

Introduction

3


5/27

Project Overview The year was 2001 and collaboration was the buzzword onthe street. Over the course of the year, Peter Druckers book,Meeting the Collaboration Challenge became the new nonprotmust-read and the J.E. Edwards ad featuring a businessmancarrying a picket sign bluntly stating Collaborate or Die ranin the Wall Street Journal .

All of this attention sparked a dialogue at United Way thatled to the development of the Collaboration Learning Project.It was really pretty simple: issue a Request for Proposals (RFP),choose ve promising partnerships responding to unique needsin the community, and follow them over the course of three yearsto gain insight into factors that help or hinder their success.

By design, projects were diverse in scope. Grantees rangedfrom a collaborative intended to decrease duplication in foodpantries to a strategic acquisition or merger of a large andsmall nonprot.

Funding decisions were made by a group of eight United Wayvolunteers who came from as varied backgrounds as the Projectsthemselves, including but not limited to a banker, a psychiatrist,a nonprot consultant, and an environmentalist. The committeewas charged with the task to choose ve out of 33 proposals.Proposals were carefully evaluated using specic criteria,including clarity of partners roles, alignment of partnershipmission with individual organizational missions, and viabilityof goals.

In July of 2001, the committee made funding decisionscondent that that the chosen ve were a natural t.The next three years consisted of surveys, site visits andany other mechanism to learn more about elements necessaryfor successful collaboration.

Throughout the three-year period, grantees cooperated with thecommittees requests to learn more and for the most part gavecandid responses to their questions. The organizations were

good sports as they were prodded about their partnershipsability to resolve conict, carry out planned activities, achieveoutcomes, and deal with the loss of key leadership amongother issues.

Since its inception, the Collaboration Learning Project (CLP)consistently focused on being a learning project. Although theprimary goal was to identify obstacles and elements necessaryfor successful collaboration, the committee believed in thebeginning that the CLP would encourage nonprots to collab-orate, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness and efciency ofnonprot service delivery.

Three years later, the committee still believes in the benetsof collaboration. However, it is much more knowledgeableabout the difculty of partnering with other organizations toachieve a shared vision. Over the course of the three-year period,the committee witnessed key people leave and collaboratives die.

Out of the ve partnerships funded by United Way, three areno longer in existence.

The remaining two, a merger and a cross-sector collaborativeare still alive and well. The collaborative, the HomeownersOptions Program for the Elderly (HOPE), which works withseniors at risk of losing their homes due to delinquent propertytaxes has some of the key ingredients of Paul Mattesichsrecipe for successful collaboration: mutual respect, ability tocompromise, adaptability, unique purpose, and skilled leader-ship among other things. 1 The result of a cross-sector effortthat includes the Milwaukee County Treasurers Ofce, AuroraFamily Service, Housing Resources, and the MilwaukeeDepartment on Aging, HOPE has kept hundreds of seniorsfrom losing their homes.

This section highlights lessons learned from the ve partner-ships. Although the narrative does not identify the names ofparticipating organizations, this does not infer that participantshave anything to hide. The Collaboration Learning Projectwas a learning project that valued the challenges as wellas the benets; removing the identity of participants simplyhelps to focus on the substance of their experiences.

1 Mattessich, P. et al (2002), Collaboration: What Makes it Work: A Review of Research Literature on Factors Inuencing Successful Collaborations, 2nd Editio Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Results of United WaysCollaboration Learning Project

Three years later, the Collaboration Learning Project committee is alot more knowledgeable about the difculty of partnering with other

organizations to achieve a shared vision.

Left: Steve Holt, Chair of United Ways Collaboration Learning Project Committee


6/27

Key Lessons for FundersOver the course of the three-year Project, the committee learnedsome valuable lessons about partnership. Perhaps, the mostvaluable lesson is that funders cannot demand collaborationand expect positive outcomes. When the Project began, oneof the objectives was to provide incentives to encouragenonprot collaboration.

In Real Collaboration: A Guide for Grantmakers (2001), David LaPiana discusses the consequences of starting a collaborativerelationship in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP).He claims that Real Collaboration is voluntary and nonprotsshould come together because they perceive potential synergies,not because a funder encouraged them to do so.

The committee concurs with La Pianas observations and be-lieves that a more appropriate role for funders is to supporttrainings and technical assistance on collaboration and fundcollaboratives that have been in a relationship for at least

one year in advance of any request for funds. As one committeemember stated, If organizations court one another rst,there is a greater likelihood for success.

Characteristics ofSuccessful PartnershipsAs the committee followed the progress of the ve partnerships,it became clear that groups with the following characteristicshad a much higher likelihood of success.

Committed LeadershipSid Gardner, Director of the Center for Collaboration for Children,writes that, successful collaboratives are staffed and ledby people who have a sense of urgency about outcomes anda keen sense of how to get things done. 2 This is clearlythe case with the collaboratives the committee saw ourish.Groups that experienced the greatest success had leadersthat did not view the work of the partnership as external totheir everyday activities. A need was identied and their levelof commitment led them to nd a way to make the partnershipa part of their regular efforts.

Unambiguous GoalsLike strong leadership, a clear set of realistic goals is necessaryfor a collaborative to succeed. Much of the literature discussesthe need for a shared vision among collaborative partners.Although important, a shared vision is not enough to drive apartnership to achieve positive outcomes. In the committeesinteractions with the ve partnerships, there was no doubtthat all possessed a shared vision for how they wantedto improve the community. For many of the partnerships,however, they were unclear about the specic objectives theywanted to achieve. In contrast, those groups that experiencedthe greatest success documented the explicit objectives theywanted to achieve and revisited them at each meeting toensure progress.

Perhaps, the most valuable lesson is that funders cannotdemand collaboration and expect positive outcomes.

2 Gardner, S. (2000), Changing the Rules? County Collaboratives Roles in Improving Outcomes for Children and Families, p. 21.

Successful partnerships hadcommitment at both the executive

and staff levels.

5


7/27

Clearly Dened RolesDeveloping clearly dened roles is another important criteriafor collaborative success. Partnerships that made the mostprogress had a specic plan for how each organization wouldcontribute its unique services to achieve mutually identiedgoals. While partnerships with clearly identied roles hadownership of the group process and product, partnershipswith ambiguous roles had the tendency to feel disengaged.

Commitment at Multiple Levelsof the OrganizationAnother criteria for partnership success is commitment atmultiple levels of the organization. While following the vepartnerships, it became clear that management staff of twoorganizations initiated one of them but played a limitedrole in the implementation of the effort. This created someanimosity with direct service staff that had difculty making

time for the collaborative effort in their already demandingrealm of responsibility. By the same token, another collaborativesuffered when the executive director assigned the primaryresponsibility to a staff person and pulled away from the effort.Partnerships that realized the most success had commitmentat both the executive and staff levels.

Dedicated Staff TimeRegardless of how committed an organization is to the visionof a particular partnership, it is important to address theday-to-day staff time and agency resources the collaboration

will require and formulate a realistic plan for meeting thoseneeds. For some partnerships, it was difcult to transitionfrom the inspiration phase to thinking realistically about theamount of staff time it would take to meet their objectives. 3 Partnerships that realized their objectives had specic stafftime committed to the effort.

Sustainability in the Midst of ChangeOf all of the criteria mentioned, loss of key leadership wasperhaps, the greatest obstacle to participants in the Collabo-ration Learning Project. As mentioned earlier, three of the vecollaboratives are no longer in existence. In almost everyinstance, when one key s taff person left, the collaborativeterminated. This even led two partnerships to return funds toUnited Way before the Project ended. According to La Piana,since so much of the success of any collaborative grows outof the positive relationships of the individuals involved, anychanges in the core founding group can lead to crisis. 4 Forthis reason, it is important to orient new members to ensurethat there is continuous leadership if a key leader vacatestheir position.

Although a variety of factors are necessary for a collaborativeto ourish, committed leadership, unambiguous goals,clearly dened roles, commitment at multiple levels of the

organization, dedicated staff time, and sustainability in themidst of change are the key indicators identied by UnitedWays Collaboration Learning Project Committee upon com-pletion of the three year Project. These were the commonthreads that linked the ve partnerships regardless of thecommunity need they were responding to or the outcomesthey were setting out to achieve.

Groups that experienced the greatest success had leaders that did not view the work of the partnership as external to their everyday activities.

3 In Real Collaboration, A Guide for Grantmakers (2001), La Piana characterizes the inspiration phase of collaboration as uid, creative, and experimental; this is the begi phase of collaboration when organizations come together informally before a formal structure is developed.

4 La Piana, D. (2001), Real Collaboration: A Guide for Grantmakers, p. 13.

Loss of key leadership was perhapsthe greatest obstacle to participatingorganizations.


8/27

The Importance ofEvaluating ProcessOften, partnerships focus exclusively on the goals they areattempting to achieve and the activities that will get themthere. A partnership of organizations, for example, may formto diminish crime in a particular neighborhood and focus

its energies on leveraging resources and developing strategiesto help it meet its objectives. Very little time, however,might be spent on evaluating how the collaborative functions.In Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the Potential , Dr. EllenTaylor-Powell states, How a collaborative functions has agreat deal to do with what the collaborative accomplishes. 5

A frequent frustration with collaboratives is that there are alot of meetings but little gets done. It is relatively uncommonfor collaboratives to reect on process and obtain memberfeedback about the effectiveness of meetings, the satisfactionand participation of members, the quality of the decision-making process, and the level of trust among members.The lack of attention to process often causes collaborativesto falter.

In June of 2003, United Way of Greater Milwaukee invitedDr. Ellen Taylor-Powell to speak to nearly one hundred nonprotrepresentatives on the topic of collaboration. Throughout herpresentation, she emphasized the importance of evaluatingthe collaborative process. She offered examples of how non-prots are assessing factors like clarity of goals, quality ofleadership, and satisfaction with accomplishments through

quarterly reviews, questionnaires, and informal discussion atthe end of each meeting.

In her book, Dr. Taylor-Powell provides a variety of tools fornonprots to utilize to evaluate process. One of particularinterest is the Internal Collaborative Functioning Scale, a tooldesigned for nonprots to assess how their collaborative isfunctioning. This particular tool is included here as a resourcefor nonprots to start thinking about how they can gauge theworkings of their collaboratives more effectively, an importantcriterion for achieving success.

ConclusionsOver the course of the three-year project, United WaysCollaboration Learning Project Committee witnessed somepartnerships struggle while others ourished. I learned thatreal collaboration is voluntary and cannot be demanded byfunders through an RFP (Request for Proposal) process.They also learned that partnerships are more likely to succeed

if they have committed leadership, unambiguous goals, clearlydened roles, commitment at multiple levels of the organization,dedicated staff time, and sustainability in the midst of change.These factors coupled with a regular attempt to step backand reect on the collaborative process (e.g., effectivenessof meetings, level of member participation) are critical topartnership success.

5 Taylor-Powell et al (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the Potential, University of Wisconsin Extension.

A frequent frustration withcollaboratives is that there are a lot

of meetings but little gets done.

How a collaborative functions has agreat deal to do with what thecollaborative accomplishes.

- Dr. Ellen Taylor-Powell

7


9/27

Internal Collaborative Functioning ScalesInstructions: Indicate how you feel the collaborative is functioning by circlingthe number on each that you feel is most descriptive of our collaborative.

Shared Vision We do not have a shared vision We have a shared vision and clearly understood vision

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Goals and Objectives

Members do not understand goals and objectives Members understand and agree on goals and objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Responsibilities and RolesRoles and responsibilities of members are not clear Members are clear about their roles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Decision Making ProceduresWe do not have effective decision making procedures We have effective decision making procedures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Changing Membership

We do not have procedures for changing members We have procedures for changing members

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Conict Management We are able to successfully manage conict Conict keeps us from doing anything

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LeadershipLeadership is not shared and inadequate Leadership is effective and shared when appropriate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PlansWe do not follow work plans Plans are well developed and followed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Relationships/Trust People dont trust each other Members trust each other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Internal Communication Members do not communicate well Members communicate well with each other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

External CommunicationsWe do not communicate well externally Our external communication is open and timely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Evaluation We never evaluate our performance We have built evaluation into all our activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Evaluating Collaboratives University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension, 1998


10/27

As United Ways three year Collaboration Learning Projectdrew to a close, the committee believed that it wasimportant to share its lessons and experiences with com-munity. At the same time, it wanted to convene othergroups across the sector to talk candidly about the benetsand obstacles of nonprot partnership.

The result was an educational forum for Nonprot Managersand Board Members, entitled Nonprot Collaboration andMergers: Finding the Right Fit. The November 9th Forumwas co-sponsored by United Way of Greater Milwaukee,

the Greater Milwaukee Foundation, the Nonprot Manage-ment Fund, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM)Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, and the UWMHelen Bader Institute for Nonprot Management.

The Forum brought together Robert Harrington ofSan-Francisco based La Piana Associates Inc., a nationalexpert on the topic of nonprot partnership, and over140 local leaders of arts, environmental, health and humanservice organizations to candidly discuss the benets andobstacles of nonprot partnership. The events of the daywere held at Boerner Botanical Gardens and covered the

range of nonprot partnerships, from the more informalactivities of sharing resources and space to full-scale merger.

Prior to the Forum, The Nonprot Management Fundhosted a discussion on organizational collaboration withboard members. Both the Greater Milwaukee Foundationand the Nonprot Management Fund have committedsignicant resources to local partnerships. The experiencesof their grantees brought valuable learning opportunitiesto participants.

Insights from 2004 Forum on NonprotCollaboration and Mergers

A Learning Opportunity for NonprotManagers and Board Members

Sculpture outside of Boerner Botanical Gardens, the site of the Forum

9


11/27

Pictured with Robert Harrington,Susan Dragisic (left) and Essie Allen (right)

of United Way of Greater Milwaukee

Forum Background andSequence of EventsAs the Collaboration Learning Project committee reviewedpublications on collaboration, it was drawn to the work ofSan Francisco-based La Piana Associates, Inc. La PianaAssociates is the nations leading consulting rm in thearea of strategic restructuring, including mergers, jointventures, consolidations, alliances, and other forms ofpartnerships. La Piana Associates works closely with fundersinterested in the advancement of knowledge and practicaltools for the sector. Recent publications include RealCollaboration: A Guide for Grantmakers commissioned bythe Ford Foundation, The Nonprot Mergers Workbook: The

Leaders Guide to Considering, Negotiating, and Executing a Merger,and Part II: Unifying the Organization after a Merger .

Since the committee believed that it would be benecial tobring La Piana Associates expertise to Milwaukee, it recruitedRobert Harrington to be the keynote speaker for the event.Harrington brings over 30 years of nonprot experienceto La Piana Associates. In his consulting, he draws on hisextensive experience to assist organizations with mergersand other forms of restructuring. While working at La PianaAssociates, Harrington has consulted with a variety ofnonprots including arts and culture, environment, health,youth development, education, faith based, workforcedevelopment, mental health, and legal.

The morning began with a keynote presentation byMr. Harrington on the elements necessary for successfulcollaboration and was followed by four breakout sessionshighlighting the experiences of local collaboratives acrossthe sector. Breakout sessions included Creating Synergythrough Shared Space, Building Dynamic Arts Partnerships,Sharing Resources for Greater Impact, and Crossing theDivide: A Look at Cross Sector Collaboration.

The afternoon began with a presentation by Harringtonon the benets and challenges of strategic restructuringand was followed by local examples of groups that eitherchose to merge or not. Breakout sessions included To Mergeor Not to Merge and Strategic Acquisitions and Mergers.At the same time, another breakout session, Funders andCollaboration: The Inside Story, highlighted examples ofhow funders are working together to leverage resourcesfor greater impact.

The information generated from the Forum provided agreat deal of insight into the benets and obstacles ofnonprot partnership. Throughout the day, participantsreceived valuable information from the keynote speaker

and twenty-ve panelists from arts, environmental, andhealth and human service organizations as they sharedtheir experiences. The remainder of the publication willhighlight some of those partnerships and provide keylessons for nonprots participating in collaborativesand/or considering merger.


12/27

Real Collaboration Dened The Forum began with Harringtons keynote presentation,Real Collaboration. He dened Real Collaboration as authenticworking together across organizational boundaries towardcommon goals. Throughout his presentation, he reiteratedthat real collaboration has the potential to reduce duplication,decrease competition, and enhance problem solving. However,

he emphasized that real collaboration takes time, is difcultto achieve, and cannot be created by funders. He also arguedthat real collaboration is voluntary and should not beinspired by a grant opportunity. He emphasized that in itsmost authentic form, collaboration can help organizationswork together to advance their missions.

Stages of CollaborationHarrington spent the remainder of his talk discussing thestages of real collaboration: Inspiration, Formalization,Operation, and Institutionalization or Termination. 6

InspirationThe inspiration phase is the informal stage in a collabor-atives development when organizations come togetherbecause they perceive potential synergies. This stage ofdevelopment is creative and experimental. Generally, there isno formal structure or funding; its future, at this stage,is often uncertain.

FormalizationAgencies advance from the inspiration stage to the formal-ization stage when collaboration becomes more frequentand/or there is recognition that collaborative activities arecritical to the organizations missions. At this point, a formalstructure is often put in place and staff beyond the initiatorsare brought into the process. This is also the stage whena memorandum of understanding (MOU), an informalagreement stating the commitment of the parties to worktogether, is created. If the collaborative is driven by awritten agreement at this stage, it has a higher likelihoodof survival.

OperationIn the operation stage, agencies are implementingthe activities agreed upon in the formalization stage.The operation stage has the potential to last for years,particularly if there is little turnover of the originalinitiators of the collaborative.

6 A more detailed description of the collaborative stages can be found in La Piana, D. (2001), Real Collaboration: A Guide for Grantmakers.

Real Collaboration is voluntaryand should not be inspired by a

grant opportunity.

If the collaborative is driven by a written agreement or MOU at theformalization stage, it has a higher

likelihood of survival.

Termination does not necessarilymean failure; it might simply signifythat the collaborative has outlived

its usefulness.

1


13/27

Termination or InstitutionalizationIf the collaborative survives for a long period of time,it is inevitable that some of the key leaders will leave.Oftentimes, this can result in collaborative crisis if thenew leader or staff person does not attach importanceto the collaboration and/or a constituency within the

organization does not nd value in its continuation.If, in contrast, the collaborative is valued by new leadershipand continues to help organizations advance their missions,institutionalization of the collaborative is possible. It is impor-tant to note, however, that termination does not necessarilymean failure; it might simply signify that the collaborativehas outlived its usefulness.

According to Harrington, this four-stage typology canassist partnerships and funders in thinking through thedevelopmental stages of collaboration. His descriptionof the collaborative phases set the stage for the real lifeexamples offered by local leaders of arts, environmental,and health and human service organizations that follow.

Real Collaboration is authentic workingtogether across organizational boundaries

toward common goals.

-Robert Harrington, La Piana Associates, Inc.


14/27

Lessons fromLocal CollaborativesSharing SpacesIn recent years, some nonprots have opted to leave theirindividual spaces behind to share space with other non-

prots. For many, the benets of a bigger facility, loweradministrative costs, and an increased ability to work withorganizations with similar missions under the same roof ledthem to take the leap. Not surprisingly, there are benetsand obstacles to these relationships. At the forum, a varietyof panelists talked candidly about their experiences withshared space. The following describes some of their expe-riences and provides some insight for nonprots consideringsharing space.

The Milwaukee Environmental ConsortiumIn 2002, two environmental organizations, the RiverRevitalization Foundation and Friends of MilwaukeesRivers were contemplating merger. Although one of theobjectives of both organizations is to improve the waterquality of rivers, it became clear after they consideredmerger with the help of a consultant that their organiza-tional philosophies were too different. Recognizing thatthey nonetheless needed to be closer together to be moreeffective, they formed a strategic alliance and pursued theidea of sharing space. At that time, the River RevitalizationFoundation was operating out of a small ofce in a boardmembers ofce space and Friends of Milwaukees Riverswas operating out of a rented living room space. Accordingto Lynn Broaddus, Executive Director of the Friends ofMilwaukees Rivers, We were very isolated organizationallyso we started exploring the idea of shared space.

The strategic alliance between Friends of Milwaukees Riversand the River Revitalization Foundation led to the reno-vation of a facility that now houses eight environmentalorganizations that make up the Milwaukee EnvironmentalConsortium. The eight organizations include Bicycle Fed-eration of Wisconsin, Midwest Center for EnvironmentalScience and Public Policy, Friends of Milwaukees Rivers,Milwaukee Urban Gardens, River Revitalization Foundation,Sierra Club Great Waters Group, The Park People, andUrban Open Space Foundation.

Initial ConcernsAccording to Kimberly Gleffe, Executive Director of the RiverRevitalization Foundation, the boards were the biggestchallenge. Although the executive directors were allinvested in the concept, we had to convince the boardsbecause of the associated risks. At the beginning, theorganizations wanted to sign a joint lease but quickly

realized that they would need to form a new organization,the Milwaukee Environmental Consortium, to make it work.According to Broaddus, This was a very scary processbecause our organizations had to sign a lease for morethan any of our individual organizations could possiblyafford. To respond to board concerns, Broaddus devel-oped a business plan and adjusted the rate structureso individual organizations had to invest more moneyupfront to cover costs in the event that an organizationwanted to pull out of the agreement later on in theprocess. Ultimately, the work the organizations did with

their boards paid off. As Broaddus stated, We asked ourboards to take the leap of faith and they did.

In November of 2003, their dream became a reality. Withthe help of Groth Design Group, a Cedarburg design rm,they were able to create a space with green materials likebamboo ooring and recycled sunower seed hulls thatreects the ideals and values of the organizations that arehoused there.

We were very isolatedorganizationally so we

started exploring the ideaof shared space.- Lynn Broaddus,

Friends of Milwaukees Rivers

Although the executivedirectors were all

invested in the concept, we had to convince theboards because of the

associated risks.- Kimberly Gleffe,

River RevitalizationFoundation

3


15/27

BenetsFor the Milwaukee Environmental Consortium, the benetsgarnered from sharing space go beyond nancial savings.According to Broaddus, The staff morale has skyrocketedsince these groups moved in together. Instead of groupsworking in isolation, they are all working together towarda common vision to improve environmental conditions.At the same time, they now have the ability to share staffpeople when appropriate and make better use of volunteers.While some groups work together on advocacy efforts,others apply for joint grants to leverage more resources.Their shared location has also increased the visibility ofindividual organizations that may not have been as familiarto the public in the past. These benets are likely tocontribute to the strength and cohesiveness of Milwaukeesenvironmental sector for years to come.

United Way Family EnrichmentCenter of OzaukeeLike the Milwaukee Environmental Consortium, organizationsthat now are housed in the United Way Family EnrichmentCenter of Ozaukee were exploring ways to be more effective.According to Cheri Farnsworth, Executive Director of OzaukeeFamily Services, the conversation about the benets ofsharing a costly copy machine contract led a group oforganizations operating individual health and humanservice programs to contemplate sharing space. Since that

conversation in the early 1990s, the group has occupiedtwo locations. In 1995, they moved into a St. Marys ownedclinic in Cedarburg. When the growing clinic needed space,the agencies re-evaluated how the cohabitation was workingand decided to pursue another location.

A surprise offer from a couple that supported the collabora-tion made available the opportunity to design and build abrand new 80,000 square foot building for the group. Theresult today is an attractive, integrated facility that housesten organizations including Balance Inc., Big Brothers BigSisters of Ozaukee County, COPE Services Administrative

Ofces, Independence First, Lutheran Social Services Birthto Three Program, Ozaukee Family Services, Ozaukee Works,United Way of Greater Milwaukee, Volunteer Center ofOzaukee, and the Youth & Family Project. The broad-basedservices currently provided at the United Way FamilyEnrichment Center of Ozaukee include information andreferral, affordable counseling, parent education and supportprograms, services to children, adults, and senior citizens,and volunteer recruitment and training. The Family Enrich-ment Center now operates as its own organization with aseparate Board of Directors made up of representativesfrom each of the participating agencies.

Initial ConcernsAccording to Farnsworth, two of the primary concernsthat the organizations had about sharing space wereloss of identity and loss of donors. Like the MilwaukeeEnvironmental Consortium, Farnsworth believes thatsharing space actually increased the visibility of the

individual organizations. From her perspective, All boatsrise. When her organization was housed in it own location,only donors that had contact with Ozaukee Family Servicescame to the site. Now, individuals that perhaps, are comingto the Center to visit Lutheran Social Services, becomemore aware of Ozaukee Family Services and the otherorganizations. According to Farnsworth, As soon as theywalk through those doors, they know we exist.

Benets

Over the last ten years, cohabitating has reaped tremendousbenets for the organizations housed in the United WayFamily Enrichment Center. Benets include decreasedduplication of service, convenient access to integratedindividual and family focused services, and increasedopportunities for program coordination and collaboration.According to Farnswoth, For those of us who were involvedfrom the beginning, its truly a dream come true; for ourclients, its an amazing place for them to come and getthe services they need in one place.

The site of theMilwaukee Environmental

Consortium, a sharedspace for eight local

environmental groups.

The conversation about thebenets of sharing a costlycopy machine contract leda group of organizations,

operating individual healthand human service programsout of church basements, tocontemplate sharing space.

- Cheri Farnsworth,Ozaukee Family Services


16/27

Milwaukee Youth Arts Center Like many organizations pursuing shared-space agreements,the creation of the Milwaukee Youth Arts Center arose outof a need for more space. However, as Frances Richman,Executive Director of the Milwaukee Youth SymphonyOrchestra (MYSO) stated, it was a dramatic need forspace that developed into a lot more.

The center is the product of a collaborative relationshipbetween First Stage Childrens Theater and MilwaukeeYouth Symphony Orchestra. Both organizations provide artsopportunities for youth but were limited in the numberof youth they could serve because of space. According toRob Goodman, Executive Director of First Stage ChildrensTheater, there were 200-300 children on a waiting list forour theater academy who could not participate simplybecause of a lack of space. By the same token, MilwaukeeYouth Symphony Orchestra heard 1,000 auditions a yearand could only accept 600 or so musicians.

The idea for the center grew out of an informal discussionthe executive directors had in an elevator. According toGoodman, it was a daunting thought for our board tothink that we could actually have a new building untilFran and I started talking in the elevator about the possibil-ity; it was then that the idea really germinated.

Those informal discussions led to the launch of a successful$12 million capital campaign. Today, the state of the artcenter located on Martin Luther King Drive and WalnutStreet has become a reality. This year, the Milwaukee

Youth Arts Center will become home to Milwaukee YouthSymphony Orchestra, First Stage, and a variety of othergroups whose mission is to use the performing arts toenhance childrens lives.

Last year, the collaborating organizations created a new501(c)(3) corporation to own and operate the building.The new organization will employ a facilities manager anda small administrative staff. While the two parent organiza-tions have maintained their own separate boards, thereare always two representatives from each of them servingon the board of the new corporation.

Initial ConcernsAccording to Goodman, First Stages board was concernedabout the nancial aspects of the Project. From his perspec-tive, It had to make sense from a business perspective;you dont want an arts group that has had some successto be buried by a gigantic building it all of a sudden

owns. After some analysis, the board recognized that theorganization would benet from the move since the largerfacility would allow for more tuition-based programming,while at the same time doubling or tripling the amountof available scholarships. In addition, It recognized thatit would be able to terminate leases at smaller sites ofthe city if it consolidated all programs into one building.Once the boards were convinced of the nancial viability,the executive directors needed to obtain the buy-in offunders. According to Goodman, Some funders felt thatnonprot arts groups should not own buildings so we had

to convince them.The challenge of convincing board members and funderscoupled with the incredible time commitment from bothexecutive directors made running the daily operationsof their individual organizations difcult from time totime. Regardless, both executive directors agree thatthe benets vastly outweigh the costs. From Goodmansperspective, The benets are astronomical. Through thiswork, we will be able to create a national model for ourcommunity, which is going to have a signicant long-term,positive, life changing effect for thousands of children foryears to come.

The Milwaukee Youth ArtsCenter arose out of a dra-matic need for space that

developed into a lot more.

- Frances Richman,Milwaukee Youth

Symphony Orchestra

5


17/27

BenetsAlthough the facility is a new endeavor, the collaboratingorganizations are already reaping some of the benets.According to the Goodman, Staff are thinking bigger;its expanded their world view beyond their own depart-ments. From his perspective, The Project allows us to

dream beyond ourselves. By the same token, Richmansites The synergy in the building and the opportunity tobrainstorm with a whole new cadre of professionals asprimary benets.

In the long term, both executive directors believe that thefacility will help to reduce duplication and boost economicdevelopment in the whole area. At the same time, they be-lieve that the facility will spark more artistic collaborationamong youth. According to Richman, There is enormousopportunity for artistic collaboration just being in thebuilding with 600 kids at one time with some of themplaying instruments, some of them singing, some of themdancing-- the kids themselves will seek out exciting new,challenging artistic collaborations!

Both executive directors cited shared mission as one ofthe most important ingredients for collaborative success.As Richman recalled, when Milwaukee Youth SymphonyOrchestra initiated the collaborative relationship with FirstStage, some were asking why MYSO was not collaboratingwith the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra (MSO) and whyFirst Stage was not collaborating with the Milwaukee Rep-

ertory Theater. Her response was that Although we havea terric artistic and administrative relationship with MSO-and of course we play the same music, our goals andmissions are very different. It just made more sense tocollaborate with First Stage, whose mission, like ours, isto use the arts to enhance childrens lives.

The Project allows us todream beyond ourselves.

-Rob Goodman,First Stage

Childrens Theater

Both executive directors believe that the facility will help reduceduplication and boost economic development in the whole area.


18/27

Sharing ResourcesWhile some nonprots opt to share space, others maintaintheir individual facilities and collaborate by sharing resources.Shared resources include anything from funding to staff.At the November 9th forum, a variety of panelists sharedhow they were stepping out of their own comfort zones toachieve greater impact. The following highlights some of

the key lessons derived from their experiences:

Madre Angela Dental ClinicThe Madre Angela Dental Clinic grew out an unmet need.According to Bill Solberg, Director of Community Servicesat Columbia Hospital, When County Hospital closed, dentalcare was left by the wayside. While St. Bens Clinic andHealthcare for the Homeless could provide primary medicalcare, they were not equipped to provide dental care.Solberg recalls getting three to ve people a day at theseclinics requiring dental care. At the same time, emergencyrooms were reporting that the same people requiring dentalcare were visiting them time and time again. From Solbergsperspective, People in poverty could not nd a dentistso there was a real crying need that had to be served.

This unmet need led to the development of the MadreAngela Dental Clinic. Although the Clinic appears to be afreestanding entity, it is a project of Columbia St. Marys andmany others. The Clinic is a collaborative effort involvingcommunity organizations, dental residents, dental students,and hygiene students from area colleges and universities,

volunteers from the Greater Milwaukee Dental Association,and three local hospitals. Key partners include ColumbiaSt. Marys Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, St. Lukes Hospital,the Childrens Health Alliance, the Greater Milwaukee DentalAssociation, Marquette University, Health Care for theHomeless, and the Wisconsin Hospital Association. FromSolbergs perspective, If it were just Columbia St. Marysdoing it, it would be too difcult to sustain the effort.

An advisory board made up of representatives fromparticipating organizations oversees the Clinic. A variety ofwritten agreements and memorandums of understanding

(MOU) clearly dene the roles of each member in thepartnership. Thus, for example, while Marquette is respon-sible for providing students for the dental residency program,the nancial and legal matters are the responsibility ofColumbia St. Marys.

ObstaclesLike most collaboratives, Madre Angela Dental Clinic hit astumbling block when the partners were forced to gureout how they would sustain themselves in the midst ofchange. Due to nancial reasons, the partner that wassupporting a dental residency that supplied 40 percentof Madre Angela staff was unable to continue. In spiteof the obstacle, the commitment of the partners prevailedand they were able to develop a dental residency programwith Marquette.

BenetsWithout question, the benet of the partnership is theability to provide much-needed dental services to clients.Annually, the Clinic provides emergency extractions, llings,root canals, partials, and dentures to thousands of low-income clients. From Solbergs perspective, Funders geta 3:1 return on their investment; it costs us approximately$450,000 to run a clinic that provides 9,600 people with

dental care worth $1.2 million each year.

People in poverty couldnot nd a dentist so there

was a real crying need thathad to be served.

- Bill Solberg,Madre Angela Dental Clinic

Funders get a 3:1 return on theirinvestment; it costs us approximately$450,000 to run a clinic that provides9,600 people with dental care worth

$1.2 million each year.

7


19/27

The Menomonee Valley TransformationLike the Madre Angela Dental Clinic, the Sixteenth StreetCommunity Health Center is responding to an unmet need.They also went beyond the traditional scope of servicesoffered by a health care provider and are working to linkthe economy, the environment, and community healththrough urban browneld development and sustainable

land use planning. According to Peter McAvoy, Director ofEnvironmental Health at the Sixteenth Street CommunityHealth Center, We felt that if we could address some ofthe important environmental problems of our neighborhoodthat were contributing to poor health outcomes, we couldbe ahead of the curve while being consistent with ouragencys focus on preventative care. We knew the challengesof the Menomonee Valley would require a different levelof expertise than we had at the Health Center, hence theneed for partnerships.

The Menomonee Valley lies in the center of the city and hasthe largest number of brownelds in the State of Wisconsin.According to McAvoy, We had a situation where therewere a signicant number of individual sites that wereeither abandoned, underutilized, or contaminated. At thesame time, many of the jobs that were part of heMenomonee Valley landscape left. As a result, the SixteenthStreet Community Health Center decided to start a programto clean up the browneld sites, redevelop them, and bringnew jobs back to the families served by the Health Center.

According to McAvoy, Our role became a broker or facilitator,

but it was driven by the vision that if we could clean upthe environment and bring good family supporting jobs tothe Valley, our families would be able to afford high qualityhealth care, buy homes, and invest in improvements totheir homes to cut down on the lead problem that isstill so prevalent in our neighborhood as well as otherenvironmental conditions that are driving adverse healthimpacts.

To assess the browneld sites and identify solutions,the Sixteenth Street Community Health Center enlistedthe help of private sector rms, the Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources, the City of Milwaukee, and others.

They also formed a consortium with nearly 200 individuals,private businesses, government agencies and communityorganizations. The consortium developed and released

A Vision for Smart Growth, a booklet that presents innovativearchitectural designs for buildings and land use generatedfor the purpose of attracting new investment to theMenomonee Valley.

After years of effort, the Menomonee Valley is starting totake shape. According to McAvoy, New bridges that arereally quite stunning in their architectural design connectthe community to the oor of the Valley for the rst timein 100 years. Other infrastructure and environmentalremediation have taken place. That is helping to spurmajor economic development activity in the Valley.Sigma Environmental recently built a new building on a

formerly contaminated site and Harley-Davidson is planningon building a museum and moving some corporate ofcesthere. The consortium has also been successful workingwith existing businesses to form a business improvementdistrict and a nonprot organization devoted to the rede-velopment of the Valley, the Menomonee Valley Partners.These activities coupled with a signicant investment fromthe City of Milwaukee are contributing to the transformationof the Menomonee Valley. More long-term projects like thedevelopment of a public green space that recycles storm-water and a light industrial park that will employ 1,000

will take shape in coming years.

We knew the challengesof the Menomonee Valley would require a differentlevel of expertise than wehad at the Health Center,

hence the need forpartnerships.

- Peter McAvoy,Sixteenth Street Community

Health Center

Successful partnerships have clear visionand share credit to ensure that members

stay with you to sustain the effort.


20/27

The Milwaukee Asset Building CoalitionAnother model partnership is the Milwaukee Asset BuildingCoalition, a coalition created to expand access to free taxpreparation assistance sites, increase awareness about theEarned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and connect EITC recipientsto asset building opportunities through nancial literacytraining and bank accounts. The coalition consists of

over 30 partners, including nancial institutions, privatefoundations, churches, community based organizations,government, and the IRS. According to Deborah Blanks,Executive Director of the Social Development Commission,

If you want to move families out of poverty, you have tohelp them build their assets and create wealth they canpass on to the next generation.

Research from the UWM Employment and Training Instituteindicates that there is at least $27 million in unclaimedtax benets available to Milwaukee residents. Oftentimes,many eligible workers are unaware of the credits or donot know how to apply. As a result, families lose out onthousands of dollars that they can put toward bills, housing,education, and other assets.

That was the catalyst for starting the Milwaukee AssetBuilding Coalition four years ago. From Blanks perspective,

If you can help the working poor bring back money thatthey actually worked for and earned, you can help them

start a bank account and hope that they will eventuallybuy a house or perhaps an education for their children.

Over the course of the last four years, the Milwaukee AssetBuilding Coalitions strategy has been to provide servicesthrough Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Sites. The coalitionhas processed over 20,000 tax returns bringing more than$20 million back to hard working families and the community.Last year, they expanded their efforts and now have

Super Sites that offer free preparation of state and federaltax forms as well as access to other social services,traditional banking services, and programs of the Cityof Milwaukee Health Department.

According to Blanks, Now, when people come in, theycan get their taxes done, talk to someone from the healthdepartment to nd out if they are eligible for Badger Care,take a nancial literacy class, and talk to a MilwaukeeSaves coach about saving.

Since the coalition began, thousands of working poor have

been able to access free income tax assistance and accessthe benets they have earned. From Blanks perspective,

Our coalition tries new ideas, learns from past mistakes,and keeps improving. We have a coalition that feels goodabout what weve done; Helping 10,000 people last yearreceive $10 million in earned income tax credits, childtax credits, and refunds, makes us feel like our time iswell spent.

The above case studies offer examples of how

local nonprots are exploring innovative ways towork together. Although participants acknowledgethat there are obstacles to collaboration, they havesucceeded in overcoming barriers, advancing theirmissions and impacting the community in waysthat would not have been achievable alone.

If you want to movefamilies out of poverty,

you have to help thembuild their assets andcreate wealth they can

pass on to the nextgeneration.

- Deborah Blanks,Social Development

Commission

We have a coalition that feelsgood about what weve done;

Having helped 10,000 people last year receive $10 million in earned

income tax credits, child tax credits,and refunds, you feel like your time

is well spent.

9


21/27

Benets and Obstaclesof Strategic Restructuring While some nonprots are collaborating, others are de-veloping more formalized partnerships through strategicrestructuring. Unlike collaboration where decision-makingpower remains with individual organizations, strategicrestructuring involves shared decision making or a change

to corporate structure, including creation and/or dissolutionof one or more organizations. Strategic restructuring occurswhen two or more independent organizations establishan ongoing relationship to increase the administrativeefciency and/or further the programmatic ends and socialmission of one or more of the participating organizationsthrough shared, transferred, or combined services, resources,or programs. Strategic restructuring always involves a partialor total change in the locus of control of one or more ofthe partnering organizations. 7

To introduce forum participants to the concept of strategicrestructuring, Robert Harrington provided denitions of thetypes of strategic partnerships nonprots are pursuing andshared ndings from the most comprehensive study conduct-ed to date on the subject that assessed the experiencesof over 190 nonprot social service and cultural organizations.The purpose of the session was to introduce strategic restruc-turing as a possible vehicle for organizational change.

According to Harrington, merger is just one form of strategicrestructuring. From his perspective, nonprots pursuingmore formalized relationships have multiple options.

Relationships span the continuum from a joint programmingalliance (a restructuring that includes the joint launchingor managing of a program(s) to further the programmaticmission of both organizations) to a management serviceorganization or MSO, an integration that creates a neworganization to integrate administrative functions. FromHarringtons perspective, it is important to increase awarenessabout the spectrum of partnerships since many nonprotsare unaware of the many strategic restructuring optionsand how they can help to build organizational capacity.

As nonprots explore strategic restructuring with more

frequency, there has been an effort to learn from their

experiences. In the most comprehensive study to date onthe subject, over 190 organizations pursuing strategicrestructuring were surveyed. 8 At the Forum, Harringtonshared the ndings. When nonprots were asked whythey decided to restructure, the highest percentage indicatedincreased efciency (83%) followed by increased competitionfor funding (60%), increased overhead expenses (47%),and pressure from funders (30%). Other factors mentionedby nonprots included leadership challenges, a tired board,and an opportunity to better serve the community.

Of those groups that pursued strategic restructuring, thegreatest percentage (74%) reported that the relationshipresulted in better programmatic collaborations with part-ner organizations, followed by improved services (67%),increased administrative capacity (63%), and increasedmarket share/competitiveness (60%).

The majority of respondents afrmed that certain factors werecritical to success. The most commonly mentioned success

factors included initiation of the alliance by a key staff orboard member, positive past experiences with collaboration,board encouragement and support, an organizationalgrowth orientation, and positive board-executive relations.

Harrington ended his presentation with some recommen-dations for nonprots considering strategic restructuring.He suggested that nonprots perform a self-assessmentto understand their own motivations for considering astrategic partnership. He also suggested that groupsevaluate their nancial situation and complete a partnerassessment to gauge the level of trust between organizationsand the potential for complementary skills and assets.

Upon completion of his presentation, Harrington leftparticipants with a list of due diligence documents (e.g.,insurance, real estate) partners should assemble andexchange and a set of questions for partners to considerduring the merger negotiation process. These tools aremeant to help nonprots considering strategic restructur-ing identify and analyze key issues prior to developing aformalized relationship.

From Harringtons perspective, when a nonprots strategic

restructuring effort is successful, its ability to fulll itssocial mission increases dramatically.

nlike collaboration where decision-making power remains with individual organizations, strategic restructuring involves shared decision making or a change to corporate structure,

including creation and/or dissolution of one or more organizations.

7 Connolly, P. & York, P (2002), Pulling together: Strengthening the Nonprot Sector Through Strategic Restructuring:Preliminary Evaluation Findings for the Strategic Solutions Initiative (1998-2001).

8 Findings from the study and more detailed descriptions of strategic restructuring options are published in Kohm, A & La Piana, D. (2003),Strategic Restructuring for Nonprot Organizations: Mergers, Integrations, and Alliances, Chapin Hall Center for Children.


22/27

Lessons from Local Groups Opting toMerge or Not to Merge:Harringtons lecture on strategic restructuring set the stagefor local groups to share their experiences with mergers.For some, the term merger conjures up images of hostiletakeovers and acquisitions. However, as Harrington articu-lated, a well-executed merger of two nonprots with

complementary missions and values can achieve efcienciesand synergies that individual organizations could not haveachieved alone.

For some of the local groups proled at the forum, thiswas truly the case. However, for others, merging madeless sense as they got further into the process. The followingprovides a synopsis of some of their experiences.

The Nonprot Center of Milwaukee and the Volunteer Center of Greater Milwaukee

After thirty years of being its own independent organization,the Volunteer Center of Greater Milwaukee, a clearinghousethat connects volunteers to nonprot organizations, wasseeking ways to be more effective. According to BonnieAndrews, former interim Executive Director, We were lookingfor economies of scale how we could do things smarterand grow. From Andrews perspective, the organizationwas in need of greater nancial stability and had somechallenges raising funds, in part, because of a messagethat was difcult to communicate.

As a result, the organization started discussing the possibil-ity of a merger and considered potential partners. Furthercontemplation led the Volunteer Centers Board to approachLeigh Kunde, Executive Director of the Nonprot Centerof Milwaukee, an organization that provides training andtechnical assistance to nonprots in a variety of areasfrom board training to demographic analysis.

According to Kunde, when the Volunteer Center Boardmember approached her about the possibility of merging,she was not looking for a merger partner. At that point,the organization had just completed a strategic plan-ning process and purchased a new building. However, fromKundes perspective, We were open to exploring variousoptions.

As they started discussing the possibility, it became clearthat there were similarities between the organizations.Both were intermediary organizations serving many of thesame nonprots, and both had a commitment to trainingand technical assistance. According to Andrews, The part-nership with the Nonprot Center made the most sensesince we had the clearest mission continuum we werelike-minded organizations serving the same constituency.At the same time, both organizations had a history ofworking together and came to realize that their membersand constituencies would be better served if they merged.

ProcessThis realization led both organizations to start the process.From Kundes perspective, We thought it was essential toput a three-month time limit on the process in the initialstage. We scheduled three, three-hour meetings with fourboard members and staff from each organization, found afacilitator through our Management Assistance Program tolead the meetings, and began the process. A conden-tially agreement was signed by both organizations as theprocess began.

One of Kundes key recommendations is to start out withthe non-negotiables. The Nonprot Center, for example,was unwilling to compromise on the name, location,the mission, and executive director. They had just gonethrough a name change a few years back and purchaseda new building so they were not willing to negotiate thoseitems. By the same token, the Volunteer Center was com-mitted to keeping the same staff and adding volunteerismto the mission. From Kundes perspective, at that point,

Everything else was on the table.

We were looking foreconomies of scale- how

we could do thingssmarter and grow.

- Bonnie Andrews,Volunteer Center

of Milwaukee

In the working agreement,the Volunteer Center dissolved asa 501(c)(3) and came under theNonprot Center umbrella as a

major program.

1


23/27

As the process progressed, both organizations developeda program matrix to compare personnel policies, budgets,salary ranges, stafng, programs, mission, membershipand leases to identify similarities and differences. Aftercompleting the series of meetings, a group of volunteersdrafted a working agreement that dened the relationship,shared it with legal counsel, and presented it to bothboards. In the working agreement, the Volunteer Centerdissolved as a 501(c)(3) and came under the NonprotCenter umbrella as a major program. Through the process,the Volunteer Center retained its name and logo andmaintained a volunteer advisory committee to oversee theVolunteer Center program, a requirement from the Pointsof Light Foundation to remain a part of the VolunteerCenter National Network.

Before they nalized the agreement, the organizationsconvened focus groups of nonprots to gain insight intohow the merger would impact the constituencies. The

organizations also met with their major funders to sharethe news and ascertain the impact on current funding.The majority of nonprot organizations and funders re-sponded favorably and the organizations moved forwardin their efforts to become one organization.

Prior to making the merger public, however, they formeda marketing committee to craft their message and animplementation committee to help the organizations tran-sition within a three-month timeframe. The organizationspublicly announced the merger in October of 2003. Withthe consolidation, the Nonprot Center now has over 600

nonprot member organizations, 20 corporate members,linkages with local and national volunteer associations,and access to individual volunteers for placement in thenonprot sector.

RecommendationsAt the Forum, Andrews and Kunde had the followingrecommendations for nonprots considering merger:

Ensure that Funders do not drive the process. According to Kunde, We all know that many funders

think there are too many nonprots, but dont letthem drive the process since a merger is about the

organizations, the mission, the program, the board,the staff, and the constituency you serve. Organizationsmust do the work to see if there is a good mission tthat will ultimately better serve their constituenciesand the community.

Get to know your partner. Both organizations emphasized the importance of getting

to know the board and staff of each organization.According to Kunde, Just like dating and relationshipbuilding, you learn a lot about people or organizationsin the course of spending time with them- that givesyou the opportunity to say yes or determine that theymay not be the right partner.

Put the elephant in the room. When organizations come together, it is important that

conversations are transparent and difcult issues areaddressed. In the case of this merger, for example, bothorganizations had to confront how the merger of agrassroots organization with an organization that hadmore of a corporate image would play out.

Plan for the transition. According to Andrews, The work is ongoing- its not

over when all of the documents are signed so it isimportant to plan for the transition.

Ensure that your mission will continue ifyou are the dissolving organization.

From Andrews perspective, We felt that the mission ofthe Volunteer Center could thrive at the NonprotCenter instead of being consumed which could havehappened at another organization.

Through the merger process, both groups learned a tremen-dous amount about their organizations, and were able tocreate one entity that better serves their constituency andenhances their social mission. 9

9 Materials, agendas, working agreement prototypes, facilitator resources, andbooks that were helpful to the merger process are available at the NonprotCenter of Milwaukee.

Just like dating andrelationship building, you learn a lot about

people or organizationsin the course of spending time

with them that gives you theopportunity to say yes or

determine that they may notbe the right partner.

- Leigh KundeNonprot Center of Milwaukee


24/27

The Wisconsin Humane Society andthe Ozaukee Humane SocietyLike the Volunteer Center, the Ozaukee Humane Societywas concerned about growth. Located in an old outdoormovie theater snack bar, the organization knew it wouldhave to start a capital campaign to raise funds for a newbuilding. In preparation for strategic planning, the research

was conducted. The leading national humane societiesencouraged the Ozaukee group to consider regionalizingor merging with another humane society to avoid thestruggles that so many groups have generating funds tobuild infrastructure. In conversations with other HumaneSocieties that had merged throughout the country, thefeedback was primarily positive. This led the organizationto consider a variety of partners.

Eventually, the Ozaukee Humane Society (OHS) approachedthe Wisconsin Humane Society (WHS) because they had ahistory of working together. As talks progressed, it becameclear that a merger between the two groups made sense.According to Angela Rester, OHS Board President at that time,

It didnt land on everyone with joy, peace, and harmony;I did get letters from people that felt the loss of localcontrol was something they could not forgive.

However, Rester and the other board members continuedto go back to their mission. Although the organization

was nancially healthy, it believed that merging with theWisconsin Humane Society would enable it to better servethe animals in its care. According to Rester, as one board

member stated, A dog and cat dont know that theresa county line thats dividing where they get service. Asa result of the merger, all of the ofce functions of theOzaukee group were transferred to the Wisconsin HumaneSocietys Milwaukee facility, a state of the art building thatwas completed in 1999 for $8.5 million. The merger hasled to increased efciencies and an enhanced ability tofulll the mission.

Hmong American Womens Association andHmong Educational AdvancementsSustainability was the driving force that led the HmongAmerican Womens Association (HAWA) to consider merger.HAWA is the only Hmong Association in the State ofWisconsin that focuses on the needs of Hmong women andgirls. The organization was founded by a group of Hmongwomen that regularly come together to do a traditionalform of Hmong quilting. In their interactions, they discussed

the challenges of the Hmong community and decided tostart an organization that provided services primarily tofamilies of refugees from the wave of immigrants thatcame from Laos to the United States in 1975.

For many years, HAWA did not have to worry aboutfundraising since most of their funding came from agovernment agency (the Ofce of Refugee Resettlement).However, in the late nineties when Hmong were no longerthe priority refugee group, the organization lost a lot of itssupport. According to Dr. Gwat Lie, past President of theBoard, We had few connections and limited capacity to

fundraise so we became concerned about our sustainability.This led the group to consider merger.

The concept of merger

didnt land on everyone with joy, peace, and

harmony; I did get lettersfrom people that felt theloss of local control was

something theycouldnt forgive.

- Angela Rester Ozaukee Humane Society

Sustainability was the driving forcethat led the Hmong American

Womens Association (HAWA)to consider merger.

Although the Ozaukee Humane Society was nancially healthy, it believed that merging with the Wisconsin Humane Society would enable it to better serve the animals in its care.

3


25/27

HAWA evaluated multiple options and nally consideredmerging with Hmong Educational Advancements, anotherHmong organization located in its same building. HmongEducational Advancements (HEA) provides support forthe Southeast Asian community through a variety ofservices including youth programs and refugee microenterprise. According to Lie, It made some sense sinceboth organizations served the Hmong community and hadsimilar missions. At the same time, both groups broughtcomplementary assets. While HAWA brought more staff,Hmong Educational Advancements brought more resources.

In August of 2002, the organizations started the process.According to Lie, the groups wanted to nish the processby that October but the process dragged on to Februaryof 2003. During that time, HAWA had second thoughts,particularly with the realization that the new organizationsexecutive director might not be a woman if HmongEducational Advancements played the lead role. From

Lies perspective, If we were to merge, we would loseour identity as a Hmong womens association, the onlyone of its kind in the state of Wisconsin.

Although Hmong Educational Advancements was under-standing of HAWAs concerns and remained exible to avariety of options, HAWA ultimately decided against merger.From HAWAs perspective, this was the right decision.According to Lie, When we decided not to merge, manyHmong women let us know months after the decision wasmade that they were glad we preserved the organization.They felt the organization gave them a voice and it wasimportant to protect that.

From these examples, it is clear that merger makes sensewhen organizations share similar values, missions, andconstituencies and the relationship allows them to betterserve their missions. At the same time, it is apparent thatmerger does not always have to be the outcome for

organizations that explore the possibility. Oftentimes,organizations that opt not to merge after completing theprocess benet from reecting on their organizational valuesand purpose. This was clearly the case with the HmongAmerican Womens Association as well as Friends ofMilwaukees Rivers and the River Revitalization Foundation,two environmental groups highlighted earlier that realizedtheir organizational missions were too different to mergebut used the relationships developed through the processto create a model shared facility for eight environmentalorganizations.

ConclusionsUnited Ways Collaboration Learning Project and theNovember 9th Forum linked partnership theory to real lifeexperience. Throughout the process, the CollaborationLearning Project explored the literature on partnershipto understand the phases of collaboration, the benets

and obstacles, and the indicators necessary for success.At the same time, the Project attempted to grasp strategicrestructuring- its different options, benets, and risks.

It also beneted from the experiences of two major funders- Greater Milwaukee Foundation, Nonprot ManagementFund, and their grantees.

This coupling of theory with real experience provides avariety of lessons about partnership. Learnings includehow partnerships waiver when there is a loss of key lead-ership, that funders cannot demand collaboration andexpect positive outcomes, and that evaluating collaborationprocess is important.

At the same time, the Project learned about the many localgroups that are looking beyond their own organizations toachieve greater impact. From the Milwaukee EnvironmentalConsortium to the Milwaukee Youth Arts Center to the MadreAngela Dental Clinic, there are groups across the nonprotsector that are enduring the sometimes difcult road ofpartnership to enhance their ability to fulll their missions.

Likewise, the Project became more aware of local groupsthat explored merger as a way to increase efciencies and

better serve their constituencies. This included witnessinggroups that chose to merge reap rewards and groups thatchose not to merge benet from the process.

The United Way Collaboration Learning Project hopes thatthe lessons and wisdom of participating nonprots will benetgroups participating in collaboratives and/or pursuingstrategic relationships.

When we decided notto merge, many Hmong

women let us knowmonths after the decision was made that they were

glad we preserved theorganization. They felt theorganization gave them a

voice and it was importantto protect that.

- Gwat LieHmong American

Womens Association


26/27

United Ways Collaboration LearningProject Committee

The three year project was led by a dedicated and spiritedgroup of United Way volunteers that includes the following:

Steve Holt Chair, Collaboration Learning ProjectPrincipalHolt & Associates Solutions

Anthony J. LaszewskiFormer Chair, Collaboration Learning ProjectVice President, Commercial LendingTCF National Bank

Clarence P. ChouMedical Director Milwaukee County Behavioral Health

Sernorma MitchellProgram Ofcer Greater Milwaukee Foundation

Jane GellmanCommunity Volunteer

Fran Parker Coordinator, Wisconsin Arthritis ProgramMilwaukee Area Health Education Center

Kimberly GleffeExecutive Director River Revitalization Foundation

Timothy Riley Counselor Vocational Professionals

The committee was staffed by Lanie Wasserman , Commu-nity Impact Manager at United Way of Greater Milwaukee.

Nonprot Collaboration andMergers Forum Committee

The breadth and quality of the November 9th forum wouldnot have been possible without the following individuals:

Steve Holt Chair, Collaboration Learning ProjectPrincipalHolt & Associates Solutions

Stephen Percy Director, UWM Center for Urban Initiatives & ResearchLeadership Council, UWM Helen Bader Institute for Non-prot Management

Jane MooreDirector, Research & DevelopmentGreater Milwaukee Foundation

Patricia WyzbinskiFund Advisor Nonprot Management Fund

We acknowledge the diverse group of local leaders from arts,environmental, and health and human service organizationsthat shared their insight with forum participants as well asthe facilitators that led meaningful discussions with panelists.

Forum PanelistsDean AmhausCultural Alliance of Metro Milwaukee

Leigh KundeNonprot Center of Milwaukee

Bonnie AndrewsVolunteer Center of Milwaukee

Gwat LieHmong American Womens Association

Linda BellCenter for Blind & Visually Impaired Children

Acknowledgements

The Collaboration Learning Project and the November 9th Forum, Nonprot Collaborationand Mergers: Finding the Right Fit was the collective effort of many individuals.

The following highlights those individuals who put a signicant amount of timeand effort into both projects:

5


27/27

Gilbert LlanasNorthwestern Mutual Foundation

Deborah BlanksSocial Development Commission

Robin MayrlHelen Bader Foundation

Trena BondHousing Resources

Peter McAvoy Sixteenth Street Community Health Center

Lynn BroaddusFriends of Milwaukees Rivers

John Miller Goodwill Industries of Southeastern WI & MetropolitanChicago Inc

Patrick BrownBadger Association of the Blind

Matt Plummer Aurora Family Service

Dorothy DeanMilwaukee County Treasurers Ofce

Angela Rester Ozaukee Humane Society

Ricardo DiazCentro de la Comunidad Unida

Frances RichmanMilwaukee Youth Symphony Orchestra

Cheri FarnsworthOzaukee Family Services

Lee SchultzIndependenceFirst

Kim GleffeRiver Revitalization Foundation

Bill Solberg Madre Angela Dental Clinic

Rob GoodmanFirst Stage Childrens Theater

Stephanie Sue SteinMilwaukee County Department on Aging

Forum Facilitators

Sarah DeanCommunity Volunteer

Sernorma MitchellGreater Milwaukee Foundation

Scott Gelzer Faye McBeath Foundation

Jane MooreGreater Milwaukee Foundation

Steve Holt Holt & Associates Solutions

Stephen Percy UWM Center for Urban Initiatives & Research

Paul MatthewsMarcus Center for Performing Arts

United Way Staff and CollaborationLearning Project GranteesThe Collaboration Learning Project and the November 9thforum would not have been possible without the support ofSusan Dragisic , President, United Way of Greater Milwaukee;Essie Allen , Vice President of Community Impact;Gail McCarthy , Community Impact Assistant; and theemployees of United Ways Community Impact Division.We also acknowledge the exibility of Collaboration LearningProject grantees to share their honest feedback with UnitedWay staff and volunteers for the purpose of learning aboutthe benets and obstacles of nonprot partnership.

This publication was produced by Lanie Wasserman ,Community Impact Manager, United Way of GreaterMilwaukee. Comments and inquiries are welcome andshould be directed to the following:

United Way of Greater MilwaukeeAttn: Lanie Wasserman225 West Vine StreetMilwaukee, WI [email protected]

190_Nonprofit Collaboration & Mergers Finding the Right Fit

Documents

Transcript of 190_Nonprofit Collaboration & Mergers Finding the Right Fit