CityMatCH Expedition 2004 Building Relationships with Foundations and Funders

Learning as We Go Building Effective Communications

Introductions and Goals  Introductions  Thomas Aschenbrener  Mary Lou Hennrich  Expectations  Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives  To improve the communication between funders and Maternal and Child Health program staff

 To identify ways to increase the likelihood of success for MCH organizations seeking funding from Foundations Learning Objectives, cont.

 To review community collaborations; what they mean and what works Learning Objectives, cont.

 To understand what Foundations mean when they talk about evidence based practices or promising practices Learning Objectives, cont.

 To explore program evaluation, for MCH programs; why it must be part of your work Learning Objectives, cont.

 To explore what Foundations expect in the use of program planning, strategic planning and business plan development for governmental- based programs Learning Objectives, cont.

 To explore building community based advocacy for your programs to assure a stable funding base Learning Objectives, cont.

“You cannot build a Strong Nation— a nation that is strong economically, strong militarily, strong socially, and strong spiritually— on the backs of sick people” Senator Mark O. Hatfield Chairman, Northwest Health Foundation

Myths (some) MCH Applicants have about Funders  Funders understand the importance of maternal and child health  Funders understand how your work will improve the health of the community  Funders believe you are the best organization to provide that service

Understanding Foundations  Where did the assets come from?  History of funding  Operating vs. non-operating Foundations  When their mission and purpose (both stated and unstated) is not yours

Myths (some) Foundations hold about MCH Programs ….and why they seem reluctant to fund MCH Programs  “Why do our local officials not accept immunization records from countries which have better immunization rates than the US?”

Myths cont.  “Parents have a duty and responsibility to take care of their children, both born and unborn; why should they be allowed to pass this responsibility on to the government?  “Why should we waste our assets to help people who won’t help themselves?”

Myths cont.  “Most of THOSE people are just coming to the United States to get services; if we do not offer them health services or support them then THEY will not come here and deplete the resources for our own people.”

Myths cont.  “Why should we fund city government programs; that’s what taxes are for. If the broad community is not willing to pay taxes for these programs the burden should not fall to foundations to support them!”

Myths cont.  “Foundations fund sort term projects for new or expanded services; these MCH initiatives are existing programs. We do not fund on-going operations.”

Funding Strategies  Grants  Contracts  Small Grants  Cooperative Agreements  Solicited Proposals

Fundraising Strategies  Getting Internal permission  How will you make a difference?  What programs will be dropped?

Capturing Foundation Interest  Role of Foundation staff  Role of Grant Reviewers  Role of Board  Getting Proposals Right

Effective Collaboration NWHF Collaboration Philosophy “Collaboration is the willingness to enhance the capacity of another for a common purpose”

Arthur Himmelman NWHF Conference on June 28-30, 2004 Improving the Health of Our Communities Through Collaborative Research

Effective Collaboration  Can you move the agenda in your agency?  Managing Power with community organizations  Can you get to scale in your community?  Collaboration is the willingness to enhance the capacity of another for a common purpose

Cultural Diversity  NWHF believes that it takes more than a person of color to create diversity. Especially in our commitment to community, we know that the right person is one who has “paid their dues” and has the trust of the people.  Simply put, the success of your project is dependant on having the right staff to work with the community, not just the available staff.

Brian Gibbs, MD Harvard School of Public Health NWHF Conference on June 28-30, 2004 Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care

NWHF Evaluation Philosophy  The purpose of evaluation is primarily internal learning, not external accountability  Evaluation should involve key stakeholders, be collaboratively designed, and be ongoing

NWHF Evaluation Philosophy  Evaluation starts in the planning phase of program development and should flow from program context  Evaluation should answer the question "How will we know that our work made a difference?"

Why Should MCH Programs Want to do Evaluation?  Define program strengths  Validate existing knowledge  Provide body of evidence  Identify opportunities for improvements  Reallocate resources  Recognize excellence, assist to remedy deficiencies

Building Advocacy  Should governmental agencies organize advocacy programs?

Concluding Thoughts