5.1      Overall Ranking of Proposed Incentive Types

The ratings of incentive potential from the field research provided a ranked list of incentives types (Table 2 - Ranking of Incentives by Type). Overall, it was the Education grouping of Leadership Development and Collaboration Promotion Organisation that attracted the highest level of support, with the Analytical Review grouping of Diagnosis and Remodelling of Success and Asset Allocation Mapping very close behind. Financial incentives and Convening also ranked highly. However, when the views of foundations and charities were compared, an interesting divergence was observed. Whilst foundations ranked Financial incentives as having the highest potential to encourage collaboration by some margin, charities only ranked this type of incentive fourth preferring Education and Analytical Review followed by Convening.

Table 2 – Ranking of Incentives by Type

This discrepancy in the views of the ‘funders’ and ‘funded’ about which incentives are most likely to encourage collaboration is illustrated in Diagram 1 where the boxes relating to each incentive type have been scaled in proportion to their score in order to give a clearer visual impression of the relative importance the foundations and charities placed on each incentive type.

The diagram shows how the two highest rankings for foundations (Financial and Administration) are perceived as much lower potential by charities. As will be shown in the following section the major reason for the change in Administration was the relative importance foundations and charities placed on collaboration-friendly administration systems (as both felt Supporting Shared Services was a good idea).  Therefore, a potential explanation for this high ranking of Financial and Administration incentives might be that these two areas are ones that foundations might legitimately feel they have the most direct control – what they fund and they handle the charity application procedure. Interestingly, it is the areas where foundations have less direct control that seem to have more interest for charities.

5.2      Overall Ranking of Individual Incentives

At the commencement of the interviews, the respondents were asked to identify any incentives to collaborate that they could think of unprompted. For foundations, 56% mentioned Priority Funding and Joint Funding and 44% suggested Convening Dialogue and Focus on Charitable Purpose. 60% of charities identified Priority Funding with 20% naming Joint Funding, Charitable Purpose and Supporting Shared Services. 

The lists below (Table 3 – Ranking of Individual Incentives) shows how the individual incentives were ranked by foundations and charities. In most cases the unprompted suggestions ranked highly with the notable exception of Funding incentives in the view of the charities.

Table 3 – Ranking of Individual Incentives

The top three incentives overall (Convening Dialogue, Leadership Development and Supporting Shared Services) figure highly in the rankings from foundations and charities. Priority Funding rated highly with foundations (as did the other funding incentives except Milestone Funding). Diagnosis of Previous Success ranked highly with charities but only mid-field with foundations (as did the other Analytical Review incentive Asset Allocation Mapping). 

5.3      Analysis of Individual Incentives

5.3.1      Top Five Incentives by Ranking 

The complete analysis of individual incentives is shown in Appendix C – Analysis of Interview Feedback on Individual Incentives but the interview responses received for the top five are discussed in detail below:

Convening Dialogue  

"Dialogue prepares the ground for collaboration” – Private Foundation.

Convening Dialogue was the highest ranked incentive overall (1^st for charities, 2^nd for foundations). As well as scoring highly there was a high level of consistency in the high scoring.

Foundation Perspective:

Foundations felt that they had a key role in advancing discussions between charities and being "intentional around appetite for collaboration” (Private Foundation). They saw these informal dialogue sessions as a good way to build trust between partners that formed the basis for strong relationships and more progressive thinking. They felt that the format enabled the examination of cross organisational issues and was particularly useful at the “commencement of early discussions where the way forward was unclear" (Private Foundation). There was recognition that success would be heavily influenced by having the right people in the room. The only concern was that it “might end up as just a talking shop” (Gaming Trust).   

Charity Perspective:

Charities were similarly enthusiastic about these relatively open discussions between organisations with different perspectives on issues. ("I like this approach as it brings a mixture of wisdom, skills and experience into the room and promotes a deeper understanding of the issues” – Local Community Charity). It was felt that foundations needed to be good at process and ‘present’ in the conversations and to do that it was important them to do the background work to truly understand the issues.

Leadership Development  

“I see a real need here. It would incentivise me no end.” – Local Community Charity.

Funding Leadership Development to better enable senior and second tier executives in the charitable sector to lead in collaborative situations was highly ranked at 2= overall (charities 2= and foundations 5=) but whilst charities were consistently supportive of this incentive, foundations were more varied (standard deviation ranking 17/19).

Foundation Perspective:

Only one foundation felt that leadership development had no potential to incentives collaboration and this led to the lower figure for foundations overall and the high standard deviation. The large majority of foundations were very positive rating it high or very high. The importance of leadership development was noted (“in every endeavour leadership is the starter" – Private Foundation. "This is absolutely critical” – Statutory Trust. “Really important as it is critical who is leading, and how they are doing it, in a collaborative arrangement” – Private Foundation). The programme run by Leadership New Zealand and the Kaipara Community Programme run by the New Zealand Leadership Institute at the University of Auckland Business School were identified as good models that could be further developed particularly as they brought together people from multiple sectors and perspectives and used sustained development practices and workshops over an extended period. Foundations felt that we needed to develop strong collaborative leaders and were critical of heroic and charismatic leadership types "we are not looking for the heroic leader we need people who can develop excellent shared leadership” – Private Foundation. One respondent suggested that leadership development was required at the board level in charities too.

Charity Perspective:

Most charities felt that foundation support for leadership development would make a major impact on collaborative leadership (“we definitely need strong investment in leadership” – Regional Migrant Charity. "We need to create a culture where we are developing leadership” – Regional Social Services Charity.) Many felt that traditional leadership development was too individually focussed and that for this incentive to work collaborative leadership models should have precedence. An 'appreciative inquiry’ approach was recommended.

Supporting Shared Services  

“Quite easy to do – should be a bit of a no-brainer.” – Peak Body 

Supporting Shared Services was one of the highest ranking incentives (2=/19) with both foundations and charities consistently rating it positively.

Foundation Perspective:

Foundations were very positive about the concept of using shared services to encourage collaboration and the practicalities of making it happen (“there are huge cost savings, it is very effective” – Private Foundation. "Whilst it is perhaps more of a tool that an incentive, it can make a real difference” – Statutory Trust. “This approach naturally fosters collaboration” – Private Foundation). Sports House in Whangerei was cited as a good example where a large group of sports organisations had found increasing number so f ways to collaborate after being collocated in a well designed space. It was felt that it was important to develop not just the hub but also “the tangible incentives to join it” (Private Foundation). 

Charity Perspective:

Charities were also enthusiastic about the benefits from the support of shared services and the way it led to collaboration leadership between likeminded non-profits (“really simple and a good driver for other areas - a quick win” – Regional Health Charity. “It can only be efficient - good idea" – Local Community Charity. “That sort of support is actually very difficult to find and important to get” – Local Community Charity. Commenting on the challenges, respondents emphasised the importance of bringing “people along with you – you can’t dictate” (National Youth Charity) and “recognising their independence and the integrity of each organisation to respond to its specific community of interest” – Local Health Charity.

Diagnosis and Remodelling of Previous Success

“This is a proactive approach could be very helpful” – Local Community Charity       

Diagnosis and Remodelling of Previous Success was ranked 4^th overall and 2^nd= by charities. The low standard deviation figures show the relative unanimity of support for this incentive (particularly by charities).

Foundation Perspective:

In general, foundations thought that this approach was a “nice Idea” (Statutory Trust) that built on best practice and strong relationships. They felt it was highly achievable (“it is probably not going to be rocket science working out what the key success factors were” – Private Foundation) and were aware of circumstances where it had been used in New Zealand to good effect.  Whilst they recognised that it might mean funding less new things this was not seen as a bad thing as the proliferation of small new grants was seen as one factor that perpetuated the survival of small duplicating organisations and “that might be outweighed by the opportunity to build on success” (Private Foundation). A number of foundations queried the assumption that the characteristics of the collaboration partners would stay the same and they noted that when key people move the whole nature of an organisation and its capacity to collaborate may change too. This incentive also required proactive funders and one respondent stated that there were only a few of these (“most of us are driven by the morning's mailbag" - Statutory Trust).

Charity Perspective:

Charities were very supportive of this incentive (“all upside - no weaknesses” – National Youth Charity. “Would build on good practice” – Local Community Charity. “Very effectively links organisational learning and development. Comes from a funder having 'appreciative enquiry'” – Regional Health Charity. “Would be good to copy other excellent ideas” – Local Health Charity. It was felt that the diagnosis learnings would have to be widely shared to be effective and that it was also worth examining things that didn’t go so well so we could also learn from mistakes. It was felt that a high level of sector specific expertise would be required to do this well (“Some social issues require a level of expertise and so I suspect this model is not totally transportable” – Regional Social Services Charity.             

Priority Funding For Collaborations

"Money talks" – Gaming Trust.

 Although Priority Funding for Collaborations was seen as one of the most obvious incentives available and was the most common incentive mentioned in the unprompted part of the interview, there was a wide range of views about its effects and its effectiveness. Foundations ranked it 3^rd in terms of potential whilst charities rated it lower at 8^th. On the positive side, it was seen as sending very clear messages about the requirement for collaboration, but there was a fear that it created “collaborations of convenience” (National Health Charity). It was the highest ranked financial incentive overall (although the foundations rated Joint Funding higher).

Foundation Perspective:

Although most foundations rated Priority Funding highly, they still recognised its shortcomings. They acknowledged the pragmatism of its highly tangible nature but were concerned about the way it might change charity behaviour (“we need to watch out for funding hijack and mission drift - there is a real danger of organisations blindly following the funding” – Private Foundation). There was a concern that it implied a slight arrogance on the part of the funder (“It is as if we are saying "Philanthropy knows best"” – Private Foundation). In general, it was agreed that it was a useful tool but not one to be used in isolation (“Priority funding could really tackle duplication if it was done in a holistic way backed up with research, engagement and honest intent and followed through in the long term, but it has to be what the community wants to do” – Statutory Trust). It was also felt that there needed to be serious money on the table with funders committing significant resources over the long term.

Charity Perspective:

Whilst a number of the charities interviewed recognised that Priority Funding was very powerful ("the ultimate incentive” – National Youth Charity, Regional Health Charity) and that it could lead to high impact there was significant concern in three key areas. First, as with the foundations, charities felt that it could lead to the wrong behaviours with collaborations forming simply to take the money (“fraught with danger - - is it a rort or a real collaboration?" – National Health Charity. “You need to ask yourself - why have two organisations who have never worked together suddenly turned up on a funder’s doorstep - just how sincere is that?” – Regional Social Services Charity). Second, there was a concern that funders could actually do harm by encouraging collaboration holus bolus without a clear understanding of the strategic challenges and specific needs of sectors ("do trusts and foundations really understand the need?" – National Youth Charity). Third, it was felt that it paid too little attention to the requirement to build collaborations upon trusted relationships ("It is a blunt instrument. If the relationship is all about money it is unlikely to be successful at achieving a greater purpose and there is more potential for conflict” – Regional Social Services Charity).

5.3.2      Agreement and Difference in Incentive Ranking

There was consensus between foundations and charities that Convening Dialogue, Leadership Development and Supporting Shared Services were strong incentives for effective collaboration. There was also agreement at the bottom end of the ranking scale with foundations and charities consistently negative in their assessment of the Alliance Marketplace, Prequalification Procedures and Network Administration Organisation (all Intermediary incentive options) and Proforma Contracts.

However, there were other areas where agreement between foundations and charities was not present. Foundations, for example, saw promise in Joint Funding, Block Funding and Administration Infrastructure, but it appeared that charities are not yet convinced of the importance of these measures. On the other hand, charities saw merit in Asset Allocation Mapping, Collaboration Promotion Organisation and Focus on Charitable Purpose, but these were not rated to the same high level by foundations. The consistent factor in both sets of incentives was the search for order and meaning. In the case of foundations, they sought better procedural knowledge through smarter funding and administration. In the case of charities, they were looking to better understanding what worked in a complex social area and better and focus on their overall charitable aim.

5.3.3      New Incentive Ideas

Perhaps surprisingly, few new incentive ideas were proposed by respondents during the research, which suggested that the initial list was reasonably broad and comprehensive. One idea that did emerge was the possibility of funding charities with a strong track record of collaboration to provide mentoring for newer or smaller charities and thereby lead by example and potentially identify areas that they could work together. A Regional Health Charity that suggested this incentive had taken on this mentoring role previously and it had led to strong collaborations. Other ideas suggested tended to be either blends of sub-segments of incentives already proposed.

5.3.4      Foundation perpetuation of lack of collaboration

Dialogue with respondents around the Collaborative Administration Infrastructure incentive revealed a number of areas where current foundation behaviour and processes might actually perpetuate a lack of collaboration. It was generally agreed that in most cases it was very hard for collaborations to apply for funds as the application forms for most foundations only worked for single organisations. In addition, the common restriction to funding only ‘registered charities’ meant that only individual collaborative partners could apply for funding rather than the collaborative unit. In addition, the “competitive funding model” (Private Foundation) did little to engender collaboration since everyone was in direct competition for the limited funds. Finally, the size and duration of grants from many foundations was felt to further exacerbate the lack of collaboration. “Lots of small grants to keep everyone happy” (Statutory Trust) were seen as encouraging inefficient charities to limp along without seeking out collaborative partners or mergers (a ‘survival of the unfittest’). The tendency of foundations to want to fund exciting new ideas and projects rather than stay the course with long-term funding for proven providers in strong collaborative partnerships was also seen as diluting support for collaborative endeavour.

NEXT SECTION

[1] In some cases the wide nature of the deviation reflects a bimodal distribution rather than a standard deviation.