One of the most intriguing things about CCIs is the way in which they seek to connect individuals, organizations and resources across traditional sectoral and political boundaries. Foundations have been able to use their presence to effectively leverage new kinds of collaborations in a number of ways. They have used their convening ability to bring nontraditional partners together. Funders have underwritten task forces on the condition that diverse constituencies were represented at the table. They have also encouraged broad-based participation by attracting other sources of funding in addition to their own. Foundations have also learned that they need to exercise patience, because this kind of bridge building takes time and effort to succeed.

If a CCI is to take root, the foundations involved must actively seek to identify the institutional self interest of potential partners and ensure that those interests are aligned with the goals of the Initiative. It must be recognized that collaboration often goes against established structures and incentives for organizational behavior. Simply building relationships among neighborhood organizations that have traditionally competed against one another for resources can be challenging. It is even more complicated to engage elected officials and public sector agencies in a project that they have not initiated and do not control.

Too often, foundations place their emphasis on the nature and the quality of the interventions they are supporting rather than the complex web of institutional relationships, roles and arrangements that will ultimately determine the success or failure of the effort. Real clarity of understanding of goals and mutual responsibilities can be hard to nail down, particularly when there’s new money on the table, and everyone’s eager to get to work. The nuances of these kinds of collaborative partnerships are difficult enough to work out at the beginning of a venture, and are even more challenging to sustain over a multi-year period. Continuous candid communication among all parties is essential, but tough to achieve in practice.

Navigating and negotiating those kinds of relationships is not the strong suit of most private foundations. Accordingly, many CCIs have positioned Intermediary Organizations as the day-to-day managers of the enterprise and associated relationships. If the Intermediary is well chosen, it can bring substantial skills, technical knowledge and a relatively neutral stance into a politically charged environment. But it also brings a point of view, and may not completely agree with the funders’ theory of change or sense of what it is most important to accomplish. It may give mixed messages to grantees, and the funders of a CCI have to be alert to the potential for “mission creep.”

Partnering with public agencies and elected officials can be particularly complicated. A number of CCIs have wisely recognized early on that the potential sustainability of their efforts will ultimately hinge on their adoption or absorption by the public sector. Repurposing and realigning public resources, including blended funding streams and new forms of interagency collaboration is frequently the ultimate goal of an Initiative. To that end, some CCIs have targeted relationships with high-ranking public officials as one of their most important strategies. That can be a two-edged sword, however. A project closely identified with a departing mayor can be viewed with disinterest by his successor.

There is also a delicate balance to how many philanthropic dollars can be seen as a magnet for coordinated action before they become a disincentive for public investment. In some instances, communities that were receiving substantial foundation dollars for CCI-related work became perceived as less in need of public resources by local legislatures. In such cases, it’s not sufficient to build working relationships with local officials. State officials and legislators also need to be included in the mix. Systems arguments to “rationalize” public expenditures can also backfire in tight budget times, when programs or facilities in high need areas may be most vulnerable to closure because they are perceived to be underutilized (or substantially subsidized by private dollars).

Another dilemma for CCI funders as they forge working relationships across traditional boundaries is how much control they are willing to cede over the proceedings. Funder control is not a topic that receives much open discussion, but it is central to the grantor-grantee dynamic, and that is particularly the case in a high stakes venture like a CCI. As more voices (and potentially competing agendas) are brought to the Initiative table, everyone will be watching to see to what degree the foundations are truly committed to “walk the talk” about community engagement. Non-negotiables and other funder expectations need to be stated clearly and unambiguously up front in the relationship development process to avoid conflict down the line.

High performers will typically resist external control of their behavior. Others may put up less resistance, but they will require technical assistance to help them meet the standards being established. A major lesson learned from all CCIs is the degree to which capacity building is central to the success of the enterprise, whether that was part of the original plan or not.

Tom David