II. Purposeful Partnerships:
Opportunities For Different Types Of Interaction

B.    Examples of USG-FOUNDATION Interactions

1.    Incidental Overlap

Incidental overlap occurs when USG and foundations (or other philanthropic entities) have common interests and target similar problems, populations, or geographic areas. Donors do not take particular account of each other’s actions and strategies to shape their own agendas, nor do they work together to align goals or strategies. Recognizing when such overlaps occur, however, can be useful, because these provide potential opportunities to explore common goals, build relationships, and, if appropriate, communicate in order to divide tasks and advance shared goals.

An example of incidental overlap that led to communication can be found in the infrastructure development work of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) in Armenia. MCA-Armenia—the in-country implementing entity for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)—and various existing donors operated independently of each other as they sought to achieve similar development goals in the country. The Lincy Foundation, for example, had already undertaken road-building projects in Armenia when MCA selected road reconstruction as one of its top development priorities. MCA-Armenia persuaded the Lincy Foundation to cover areas beyond the MCC-funded projects so that the amount of reconstruction was expanded. The ability of MCA-Armenia to augment its resources in this way certainly made road reconstruction a more attractive investment for MCC, but the two donor organizations did not share decision making about strategies, resources, or implementation.

2.    Supplementary Action

Supplementary models of interaction occur when some goals are shared but strategies differ, so neither resources nor implementation are aligned. They occur when donors or sectors are unable or unwilling to address a particular need using similar strategies—or when they simply choose to take different approaches. This may happen because of some constraint under which a philanthropic organization or sector operates, such as national security responsibilities, differences in core values, aversion to risk, or a lack of technical expertise.

Because of these potential differences, partnerships are not always necessary or practicable even when goals are similar or shared. The use of varied strategies and multiple players may in fact be the best way to address some problems, especially if this allows donors to take advantage of their different strengths or address different aspects of a problem. Target populations may be more fully served when one sector provides a good or service that the other cannot or does not.

An example comes from the Ashoka Fellows program, which provides grants to social entrepreneurs with innovative ideas that have the potential to bring about systemic change at the country, regional, or global levels. Ashoka takes its program approach from the world of business, where one entrepreneur can create value from an idea and encourage others to embrace it. By funding individuals, Ashoka seeks to activate and enhance human resources that more traditional public aid or private philanthropy might overlook. Ashoka has been able to partner with various foundations to strengthen its network of Fellows but has thus far sidestepped collaboration with government agencies because they see reforming government as one important goal for many of the Fellows. Although the program avoids direct collaboration with governments, the Ashoka Fellows have many interactions with government programs and agencies, both domestically and internationally.

In such instances of supplementary action, however, USG may be able to learn from, and possibly emulate, some foundation approaches (and vice versa). In this example, if the federal government believes the Ashoka model to be effective, USG may consider providing support for social entrepreneurs in some situations or as one element of an overall initiative or grant program.

In addition, where supplementary efforts occur, there may be opportunities for communicating and sharing information. Even if the federal government could not adapt Ashoka’s approach of funding individuals, shared communications between individual Ashoka Fellows and USG might be productive in some situations. For example, between 1990 and 2006, Ashoka supported 18 Fellows in combating the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa—also a goal of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR; Office of the United States Global AIDS Coordinator 2004). Opportunities to piggyback on each other’s efforts may be worth exploring.

3.    Communication

Foundations and USG sometimes communicate explicitly and take account of each other’s strategies in their decisions, while still making their decisions independently. This is a form of partnership that appears to be most appropriate when problems are not well defined or are very broad in scope. Though both partners may devote resources to communication, program activities do not involve joint funding or shared implementation, which, in some sectors and situations, could overburden philanthropic efforts or be unachievable due to disparities in the underlying values and/or specific goals of philanthropic actors.

This level of partnership can help to identify and fill gaps, such as in funding or territory, which might otherwise persist in the overall activity of the philanthropic entities. Exchanges of information can enhance relationships between stakeholders, and stimulate new ideas to solve problems, while keeping partnership costs, such as the need for contractual agreements or on-going strategic planning, low. This type of partnership does not require formal agreements. Structures such as task forces or affinity groups may be established, but participants are typically able to engage only to the extent that they perceive participation benefits them.

The value of communication as a form of interaction is illustrated by the Nurse Funders Collaborative, convened in 2003 by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) to bring together public and private funders interested in addressing the U.S. domestic nursing shortage. The Collaborative consists of more than 100 organizational members, including foundations, corporations, and 10 agencies within DHHS, including the Administration for Children and Families and the National Institutes of Health. The Collaborative’s quarterly meetings facilitate information-sharing about members’ nursing initiatives. Although members do not pool resources, information gathered by the Collaborative helps members to identify areas of overlapping funding, as well as areas that receive little attention where more action may be needed.

Such broad membership arrangements are commonly made by foundations but less commonly by the federal government. Foundation-led collaboratives of this sort sometimes include researchers or other experts, advocates, service providers, and others who work in a common problem area. While USG operates similar internal groups, such as federal interagency work groups, these less often extend to private philanthropies or other stakeholders. 

4.    Coordination

Stronger partnerships include shared goals and coordinated decision making and, hence, some level of alignment in strategies and resources. Coordination appears fruitful where problems are defined clearly and donors have already developed interventions that they implement on their own. This type of partnership can help to avoid redundancies and enable donors to build consciously on the efforts of others. Strategies can be revised or funds reallocated by partners in response to one another’s efforts, yet decisions are still autonomous.

The President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI; Loewenburg 2007), led by USAID and implemented with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, illustrates coordination in philanthropic efforts. PMI includes partnerships both within and external to USG. Partners not only communicate with each other but also adjust their strategies, use of resources, and implementation efforts based on what other partners are doing. The importance of coordination within PMI is indicated by the title given to the Initiative’s head: U.S. Malaria Coordinator. This position oversees both PMI and USAID’s non-PMI malaria programs.

PMI coordinates the anti-malaria efforts of various federal agencies and its own anti-malaria program. Within USG, the U.S. Malaria Coordinator has decision-making authority over all federal anti-malaria efforts and resources. Outside of PMI, the Coordinator provides USG’s lead representation at all international malaria prevention and treatment meetings, including those sponsored by non- and quasi-governmental groups, such as Roll Back Malaria, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF. PMI leadership thus participates in shared decision making with these and other entities, such as the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Through these efforts, partners design and adjust their strategies and interventions to maximize the effectiveness of their efforts. For example, the Global Fund procured more than 8.7 million anti-malaria treatments in Uganda, while PMI resources were used to support the distribution of these treatments to local health facilities and community drug distributors. In Zambia, PMI partnered with PEPFAR and the Global Business Coalition to distribute more than 500,000 nets to persons living with HIV. PMI focuses on four well-developed interventions, centering on malaria prevention and treatment via insecticides or netting and existing medicines, respectively. These efforts are coordinated but have minimal overlap, with the Gates Foundation, the major foundation stakeholder working on malaria, focusing heavily on vaccine development and distribution.

5.    Collaboration

The fullest and most formal approach to partnership is illustrated by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), a public-private partnership created in 2000 and currently being restructured as a foundation based in Switzerland. GAVI brings together stakeholders committed to improving access to immunization in poor countries, and centralizes the processes of setting goals, developing strategies, guiding implementation, and allocating partners’ donated resources in its independent administrative structure. The founding members of the Alliance include the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the Gates Foundation, and the World Bank Group. The partnership includes many other players: developed and developing country governments, research and technical institutes, the vaccine industry in both the developed and developing world, and civil society organizations. GAVI follows a full partnership model. Donors pool resources, and the Alliance itself governs the project and allocates funds. The U.S. is one of the original six donor countries and currently is represented by the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Global Health at USAID, who presently holds a seat on the GAVI board.

Such full and formal partnerships appear to be an option when a problem is well defined and interventions are fairly well-understood, stakeholders view each other as equals in addressing the problem or program area, and resources are adequate for supporting the partnership function. Collaboration can create an effort that is “greater than the sum of its parts.” However, it requires a high level of commitment from participants and that participants cede a substantial degree of control over the resources they commit. While such partnerships can be very effective in leveraging resources, they require large up-front investments to function properly. In some cases, the potential benefits may be outweighed by the substantial transaction costs incurred in the process of identifying partners, seeking common ground, establishing formalized structures and agreements, and maintaining governance. It appears to be difficult to quantify such costs, but their significance was emphasized in both the literature (Sandfort 2008; U.N. Foundation n.d.) and interviews conducted as part of the case studies.

C.    No “Best” Partnership Model

The level and type of existing or possible interactions between foundations and the federal government reflect a complex web of factors. The nature of the specific problems they address may affect interactions between the two sectors. In some cases, the factors involve the availability and willingness of key actors to engage with each other and bring resources to the table. The culture and constraints within which each sector operates—including governance and organizational structures, rules, regulations, reporting requirements, time horizons, and stance toward risk—can constrain or facilitate different levels of interaction. Substantial transaction costs may limit the viability of formal collaborations; larger gains may be available through seeking opportunities for complementary action or coordination.

This suggests that there is no one “best” model of interaction or partnership to be sought or fostered in every situation. Instead, policymakers, federal planners, and administrators should first make themselves aware of any USG-foundation interactions that exist, for example, around shared targets or similar goals. They can then consider whether more formal partnerships could better advance philanthropic goals, and what type of partnership might be most productive and achievable.