Build on Each Other's Strengths
The collaboration is a win-win for both partners. The Foundation had a decades-long history of supporting social causes and a commitment to producing systems and population-level change. Additionally, the unique funds established by Foundation donors specific to substance use disorders efforts requires that funds expand and complement—rather than duplicate—existing state prevention services. The state had a newly reorganized regional prevention infrastructure capable of producing this level of change—but in need of additional support.
"It was important to find those places where we had unique value and bring those to the table—while staying focused on our common end goal," Rourke says. "There are unique elements of what we each do. We’ve taken advantage of these to improve our collective impact."
The Foundation provided critically needed funding to BDAS contracted providers at a time when the state had drastically cut funding for substance misuse prevention, treatment, and recovery due to the recession in 2008.2 The additional funding allowed the state to bolster existing work at the regional level to address underage drinking, and support new services to address the growing opioid epidemic. The flexibility of unrestricted private funds also allowed state contracted providers to engage in on-the-ground public education and policy support. For its part, the state brought experience and expertise in data collection, monitoring, and reporting.
Morgan adds that the Foundation's willingness to work with the state, and within the state's infrastructure, was key. "It wasn't like they wanted to go off on their own down some other avenue," she says. "Tym made sure that the Foundation built on the work we’d already begun."
Recognize Organizational Differences
From the start, the partners acknowledged differences in work style and culture, and worked to address them. For example, state offices operate according to federal and state funding cycles and requirements, which determine when grant monies are awarded and activities can begin. By comparison, the Foundation had more flexibility about when it awarded grants, and so could get work up and running faster.
The partners also worked hard to be transparent and accountable. This was not unfamiliar turf for either the state or the Foundation, but both had to deal with the other's process of reporting up through their chain of command. "There was some tension initially, as in any collaboration, regarding the different roles we play and the people we're accountable to," Morgan said. "I had on my state hat and Tym had on his Foundation hat."
Through regular meetings and direct conversations, both state and Foundation leaders came to understand and accommodate each other's work styles and organizational requirements. It helped that Rourke, who also chairs the Governor's Commission, has past experience running a Drug-Free Communities Coalition in the city of Manchester. "He knows what it's like to be a provider in the field," Morgan says. "We were able to hit the ground running because of Tym."
Rourke's insights into how both the public and private sectors operate helped smooth over rough patches on a very practical level. For example, to avoid creating extra paperwork for grantees, the Foundation awarded grant monies in sync with the state fiscal year—so grantees who were already providing information to the state could use that information to also meet the Foundation's grant requirements.
The state did its part by providing clear guidance on the differences between Foundation and state funds, and what each could and could not be used for. "We had to be crystal clear with our [providers] that yes, you've got two separate sources of funds here and there are different things that you can do with those funds," Morgan adds. "We had a learning curve for how we could use the Foundation money, including understanding the donor intent for the money."
Morgan created a "dog-and-pony show" presentation for the state’s 13 regional offices to "help them understand the deliverables [for the different funding mechanisms], as well as the difference between private funds and state and federal funds. We've become smoother at delivering our messaging."
Keep Meeting Participants Well Informed
Clear, consistent communication has been key to making the collaboration work at all levels. A core team of Foundation staff, Morgan, and Center for Excellence staff meets monthly to keep the collaboration on track. "The touch point every month is our State Prevention Team coming together," Morgan says. "This includes the people at the state levels doing the work and moving the ball down the court. We know where we all want to go, and [these regular meetings help us] all move in that direction."
Team leaders meet with coordinators and providers from the 13 regions every other month. Rourke says it's important to regularly bring regional prevention staff to the table, to support them in implementing the Governor’s Commission’s strategic plan and to address any issues that come up. The Foundation tries to make meetings more inviting, knowing prevention professionals have very busy schedules. "You can't get people to meetings without bagels, pizza, and water," Rourke says. The Foundation funds can be used to provide food and beverages for meetings which—as anyone who's attended long meetings knows—provide a welcomed and refreshing boost.
Morgan adds that good communication means not being afraid to pick up the phone and tackle problems head on, as they happen. Don't let potential problems fester or risk misunderstandings that can happen with a quickly dashed-off email. Her advice to other states seeking to collaborate with private funders is this: "Be transparent. When challenges come up, talk about them honestly and come together to overcome them. Tym and I have each other on speed dial, and if something comes up, we pick up the phone."