Best Practices in University- Nonprofit Partnerships December 2012

Best Practices in UniversityNonprofit Partnerships
December 2012
In this report, Hanover Research reviews best practice literature on university-nonprofit
partnerships. We first provide general guidelines for establishing, developing, and
evaluating partnerships with nonprofit organizations. We then discuss partnerships with
community-based organizations and joint fundraising initiatives between public research
universities and their campus Hillel organizations.
Hanover Research | January 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Key Findings .......................................................................................... 4
KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................4
University-Nonprofit Partnerships ....................................................................................4
University-Hillel Fundraising Partnerships.........................................................................5
Section I: Best Practices for University-Nonprofit Collaboration ........................................ 6
ESTABLISHING THE PARTNERSHIP ....................................................................................................6
Carefully Choose a Partner ................................................................................................6
Empower Collaboration Leaders .......................................................................................7
Define the Partnership.......................................................................................................7
Clarify Shared Mission and Goals ......................................................................................9
Divide Responsibilities .......................................................................................................9
Craft a Memorandum of Understanding ...........................................................................9
SUSTAINING THE PARTNERSHIP.....................................................................................................10
Build Trust with the Partner ............................................................................................10
Evaluate the Partnership .................................................................................................11
BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS .......................................................................................11
Section II: University Partnerships with Community Based Organizations........................ 12
VALUE ADDED BY UNIVERSITY VS. COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS ..............................................12
FRAMEWORK FOR “AUTHENTIC COMMUNITY-HIGHER EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS” ................................13
PROFILES OF UNIVERSITY-CBO PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................................14
University of Kansas Midwest Cancer Alliance ................................................................15
Ohio State University + Charles B. Wang Community Health Center .............................16
University of Kentucky + Southeast Kentucky Community Access Program ...................17
UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT METRO UNIVERSITY AT DENVER ........................................19
Center for Urban Connections .........................................................................................19
Family Literacy Program ..................................................................................................19
Section III: Profiles of University-Hillel Fundraising Partnerships ..................................... 21
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY ..............................................................................................................21
Initiating the Partnership .................................................................................................21
Terms of the Partnership .................................................................................................22
Limitations of the Partnership .........................................................................................22
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
2
Hanover Research | January 2013
Benefits of the Partnership ..............................................................................................22
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT ......................................................................................................22
Initiating the Partnership .................................................................................................23
Terms of the Partnership .................................................................................................23
Limitations of the Partnership .........................................................................................24
Goals for Partnership Enhancement................................................................................24
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON .............................................................................................................24
Endowment vs. Earmarking .............................................................................................25
Benefits of University-Hillel Collaboration ......................................................................25
Reasonable Expectations For a Nonprofit Partner ..........................................................26
Appendix: Sample Memorandum of Understanding ....................................................... 27
MISSION .................................................................................................................................27
PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................27
RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................................................................................................28
TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING ........................................................................................................28
AUTHORIZATION .......................................................................................................................28
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
3
Hanover Research | January 2013
INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS
Public research universities are in a position to both serve and benefit from partnerships
with nonprofit organizations serving the local and broader community. Cross-sector
relationships can diversify university resources and opportunities for students, increase
university giving, leverage existing university resources to benefit society, increase the
visibility and appeal of the institution to broader groups, and enhance the university’s
reputation as an agent of public good.1 On the other hand, university-nonprofit partnerships
carry some risks and can demand a significant amount of time, money, and human
resources.
Hanover Research has created this best practices report to inform the development and
maintenance of nonprofit partnerships. The contents of this report are organized into the
following sections:

Section I provides general guidelines for establishing, developing, and evaluating
partnerships with nonprofit organizations.

Section II focuses on partnerships with community-based organizations, providing
examples of practices in the health and education sectors.

Section III offers detailed profiles of fundraising partnerships between public
research universities and their campus Hillel organizations, to offer potential models
to inform the development and maintenance of such partnerships.
KEY FINDINGS
UNIVERSITY-NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIPS
1

Memorandum of Understanding - Prospective partners should identify
collaboration leaders and clearly define a shared mission and objectives as early as
possible. A memorandum of understanding may be created to record and
communicate these aspects, as well as the roles and responsibilities of each partner.
Joint fundraising arrangements can become problematic very quickly; as such, it is
critical to ensure that all facets of the arrangement are clear from the very
beginning, and to anticipate potential areas of conflict.

Partnership Sustainability – Best practice literature suggests that successful
partnerships tend to develop organically over time, rather than in response to grant
proposal or other deadlines. Approaching a partnership as a marathon (rather than
as a sprint) facilitates strategic planning and goal-setting, the identification of
potential problem areas, and the natural development of trust between key
Publow, M. and the Compassion Capital Fund. Updated by the National Resource Center in 2010. Partnership
Frameworks for Working Together. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/partnerships.pdf
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
4
Hanover Research | January 2013
stakeholders. It is important, furthermore, to consistently evaluate and improve
relevant aspects of the partnership.

Balance of Power – Sharing control and recognition is common challenge for
university-nonprofit partnerships. Since universities often hold more power than a
community partner, it is important for institutional leaders not to inappropriately
dominate and dictate the terms of collaboration. Respecting, supporting, and
responding to the concerns of the nonprofit partner can result in a more successful
and sustainable partnership.
UNIVERSITY-HILLEL FUNDRAISING PARTNERSHIPS

Joint Fundraising Models - Hillel organizations often partner with a university
foundation - a separate 501(c)3 distinct from the public institution it supports. Joint
fundraising practices Hanover observed include the following:
o Earmarking Donations – This model involves the least amount of
collaboration, and simply allows donors to direct their university donation
(or a portion of their donation) toward Hillel’s account. This structure
requires a notification system in which Hillel staff are alerted when a
university donation has been earmarked for their organization. Using the
university as a middleman allows private donors to avoid Hillel’s “religious
organization” label in order to leverage restrictive employer gift matching
programs.
o Endowment – In this model, Hillel opens an endowment through the
university foundation. Donations toward the endowment remain invested,
while interest accrued is distributed to Hillel on a quarterly or annual basis.
Scholarship funds can also be set up using this approach.
o Integrated Fundraising – In this model, Hillel is acknowledged as an official
fundraising arm/partner of the university or foundation development office.
Hillel staff may be given full or case-by-case access to the university’s donor
database. A Hillel representative may be included on some donor meetings,
and a consultative relationship may develop wherein Hillel educates
development officers about how to court prospective Jewish donors.

Cost Sharing – When managing an account for Hillel (or other partner
organizations), the university may claim a percentage of incoming donations. An
administrative fee of three percent on all donations funneled through the university
foundation to Hillel is in place at the University of Connecticut. Once Hillel opens an
endowment at University of Oregon, the Oregon Foundation will charge the
organization a one percent management fee.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
5
Hanover Research | January 2013
SECTION I: BEST PRACTICES FOR UNIVERSITY NONPROFIT C OLLABORATION
In Section I, Hanover presents a review of best practice literature on establishing,
developing, and evaluating partnerships between nonprofits, with a focus on cross-sector
partnerships involving institutions of higher education. We first discuss the importance of
clearly defining the terms of the partnership as early into the collaborative process as
possible. In many cases this involves drafting a memorandum of understanding or legallybinding contract. Additionally, we highlight the relational elements necessary to build trust
and healthy communication patterns between partners, as well as the importance of
accountability and evaluation to the growth and improvement of collaborative processes.
The section closes with an inventory of common barriers to successful partnerships.
Key resources for reference include the following:

Partnerships: Frameworks for Working Together – a guidebook in the series
Strengthening Nonprofits: A Capacity Builder’s Resource Library;2



The Foundation Center’s nonprofit collaboration resources page;3
Community Campus Partnerships for Health;4 and
Mississippi State Department of Health’s “Partnership Tool Kit Resource List.”5
ESTABLISHING THE PARTNERSHIP
CAREFULLY CHOOSE A PARTNER
A guidebook designed for nonprofit leaders, entitled Partnerships: Frameworks for Working
Together, states, “The first step in evaluating a potential partnership is to recognize and
agree upon the need.”6 It is important for both universities and nonprofits devote careful
consideration to this preliminary stage. Before commitments have been made, stakeholders
must weigh the potential benefits and desired outcomes of the proposed partnership, as
well as the human and financial resources necessary for the collaboration to be successful.
Partnerships can carry significant risk and tend to demand exceptional conflict management
from both sides. A Foundation Center article “To Collaborate or Not to Collaborate:
Nonprofit Networks and Coalitions” warns:
For all of the benefits of collaboration, it's not always the right choice for everyone.
Truthfully, collaborating requires a significant amount of time and resources, and
2
Publow, M. and the Compassion Capital Fund. Op. cit., p. 6
“Nonprofit Collaboration Resources.” Foundation Center.
http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/collaboration/
4
Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/index.html
5
“Partnership Tool Kit Resource List.” Mississippi State Department of Health.
http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/2767.pdf
6
Publow, M. and the Compassion Capital Fund. Op. cit.
3
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
6
Hanover Research | January 2013
you need to think about whether you can realistically afford to devote so much time
and so many resources toward collaborative projects.7
Because this early development stage is so critical, successful and sustainable partnerships
often develop naturally over time, rather than in response to imminent programmatic or
grant proposal deadlines. According to Dr. Sarena Seifer, Executive Director of CommunityCampus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), “When the partnership develops as a result of
genuine needs, and not just because of a grant, the
“It’s much better to solidify
likelihood of sustaining the relationship over the long
8
the relationship and define
term is so much greater.” The mission of the
your own mission first, rather
partnership, she notes, should be an organic
than let the funding drive
response to the needs and objectives of each
what you’re doing.”
organization. “It’s much better to solidify the
relationship and define your own mission first, rather
than let the funding drive what you’re doing.”9
EMPOWER COLLABORATION LEADERS
Once partners have agreed to work together, they must define the terms of the
arrangement. Initially, leaders of the collaboration must be identified within each
organization. Selected decision-makers should be respected and empowered by their own
organization and trusted by the partner organization.10 Leaders will need to be skilled in
conflict management, communication, and building consensus. Their first order of business
will be to negotiate the terms of the proposed partnerships.
DEFINE THE PARTNERSHIP
The literature on university-nonprofit collaboration emphasizes the importance of designing
a clear plan of action which serves the interests of both parties and allows for adaptation
throughout the course of the partnership. In its Nonprofit Collaboration Database, the
Foundation Center provides a collaboration summary for each partnership. We highlight 10
of the 18 characteristics especially relevant to consider when initiating a new partnership,
using the case of Metro State Family Literacy Center as an example. While some
descriptions of the partnership are rather vague in nature, they provide a basic framework
for consideration:11
7
“To Collaborate or Not to Collaborate: Nonprofit Networks and Coalitions.” June 1, 2011. Blog post from:
Philanthropy Front and Center – New York. Foundation Center.
http://newyorkblog.foundationcenter.org/2011/06/to-collaborate-or-not-to-collaborate-nonprofit-networks-andcoalitions.html
8
Minkler, M. March, 2003. “Bending the Ivory Tower: Communities, Health, Departments and Academia.”
Community-Based Public Health Policy and Practice, Issue 7, p. 4.
http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/pph.pdf
9
Ibid., p. 4.
10
Publow, M. and the Compassion Capital Fund. Op. cit.
11
Bullet points taken nearly verbatim from “Metropolitan State Family Literacy Center.” Foundation Center.
http://collaboration.foundationcenter.org/search/detail.php?id=4177
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
7
Hanover Research | January 2013
Example Collaboration Summary (Metro State Family Literacy Center)

Identify all partners
o Metro State University Foundation, Family Literacy Center, Denver, CO
o Denver Public Schools, Extended Learning Department, Denver, CO

Determine the type of collaboration
o Administrative consolidation & joint programming through a contract/
agreement and the creation of a new organization

Designate the geographic scope
o City (Denver)

Clarify the focus of the collaboration
o Education

Isolate the populations served through the collaboration
o Economically disadvantaged families, children, and youth

Clarify joint goals and community impact pursued by the partnership
o Address unmet and/or escalating community need
o Expand reach and/or range of services / programs
o Serve more and/or different clients / audiences / organizations

Acknowledge the circumstances prompting the collaboration
o Advance a shared goal
o Respond to a community need
o High/increasing costs

Clarify the management or reporting structure
o Manager(s) employed by one partner but reporting to both partners

Identify challenges and potential obstacles
o Raising funds or integrating fund development to support the collaboration
o Addressing lack of staff or allocation of staff resources
o Retaining staff or staff departures
o Costs of collaboration

Highlight the resulting organizational efficiencies
o Financial savings through shared development function and the
consolidation of management/administration
o Fund development through access to new/more sources of funding
o Shared and/or improved human resources, training, and professional
development
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
8
Hanover Research | January 2013
CLARIFY SHARED MISSION AND GOALS
As the above list suggests, partners must decide upon the joint mission and goals intended
through the collaboration. The resulting rationale should highlight a shared vision which
includes objectives important to both partners and lead to “improved coordination of
policies, programs, and service delivery, and, ultimately, better outcomes.”12 Because most
partnerships are not mergers, it is important to acknowledge and affirm autonomy and
distinct roles for each partner. The process of blending and communicating the shared
purposes should allow for “separate organizational aims and objectives and their
connection to jointly agreed aims and objectives.”13
DIVIDE RESPONSIBILITIES
With key leaders in place, the basic features of the collaboration established, and the
shared vision and objectives agreed upon, it is time to get down to the nuts and bolts of the
partnership. At the broad level, partners should assess and cultivate awareness of the
various types of resources each organization brings to the collaboration. Based on this
shared information, roles and responsibilities should be clearly delineated, distinguishing
between individual and joint responsibilities. These structures should be organized with an
appropriate balance of power and participation among members. Accountability structures
should also be established, with a focus on “process and outcomes, not structure and
inputs.”14
CRAFT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Once the basic building blocks of the partnership have been selected, it can be useful to
establish of a formal written agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). An
MOU should clearly and concisely “outline the goals, expectations, and duties involved in
the collaboration.”15 We include a sample MOU template recommended by the Foundation
Center in the report appendix. In the case of a significant joint venture or merger, partners
may decide to make a more official commitment and draw up a legally binding contract. In
either case, the resulting document may reflect any or all of the features shown in Figure
1.1.
12
Publow, M. and the Compassion Capital Fund. Op. cit., p. 5.
Ibid., p. 7.
14
Ibid., p. 8.
15
“Developing a Contract or Written Agreement for your Nonprofit Collaboration.” Blog post from: Philanthropy
Front and Center – New York. Foundation Center. http://newyorkblog.foundationcenter.org/2012/04/developinga-contract-or-written-agreement-for-your-nonprofit-collaboration.html
13
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
9
Hanover Research | January 2013
Figure 1.1: Key Components of an MOU16,17
Mission and Goals of Partnership
Include both partners’ aims and expectations for
the collaboration and establish why these aims will
be best accomplished through a joint endeavor.
This section is intended to “cement the
commitment of each group to the pursuit of the
18
common goal.”
Timetable for the Collaboration
The MOU should specify the intended length of
time for collaboration. Clarify whether the
partnership is expected to be a permanent alliance,
a short term collaboration to meet a certain goal,
or as yet undetermined.
Finances
In cases of joint fundraising, include a description
of how donations will collected and transferred
between the partners or toward a shared account.
In the case of a shared account, determine how
collected donations will be used. Also consider a
publicity plan for raising donor awareness about
the partnership.
Division of Control and Responsibility
List partners’ specific responsibilities (as well as
those shared by both) and highlight the value
added by each participant. A statement on shared
risk, materials, and/or personnel may also be
relevant. Note which partner will take the lead in
certain areas and the level of control each group
will have. Note: not all partnerships need to be a
50/50 split.
Official Contact(s)
Designate a management team or an official point
person from each unit to coordinate the
collaboration. Ensure that each partner knows who
to contact as needed, and make sure to update this
aspect in cases of employee turnover.
Accountability
An MOU may include a plan to measure the success
of the partnership and identify areas of potential
improvement. Note each partner’s responsibility
for evaluation and monitoring, schedule points for
review of the collaboration, and consider
circumstances for terminating the relationship.
SUSTAINING THE PARTNERSHIP
BUILD TRUST WITH THE PARTNER
Partnerships are unlikely to succeed if participants do not trust their counterparts in the
collaborating organization. Therefore, leaders should strive to cultivate mutually beneficial
relationships characterized by respect, responsiveness, fairness, and genuineness. The
terms of the partnership should afford equal status to both partners and “equal” (or
otherwise appropriate) “distribution of partnership benefits or gains,” including credit for
accomplishments.19 Commitment to support the arrangement should be expressed by
senior level leaders (i.e. directors, members, and trustees) in all participating organizations
by the time the partnership is operational.20
Decision-making processes should incorporate all partners and be characterized by
transparency, flexibility, and a spirit of cooperation. This requires that participants develop
open lines of communication with key point people in each organization. According to
CCPH, a good partner makes “an ongoing priority to listen to each need, develop a common
16
Ibid.
Partnership Perspectives. Community-Campus Partnerships for Health.
18
“Developing a Contract or Written Agreement for your Nonprofit Collaboration.” Op. cit.
19
Publow, M. and the Compassion Capital Fund. Op. cit., p. 7.
20
Ibid.
17
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
10
Hanover Research | January 2013
language, and validate/clarify the meaning of terms. If a partnership is going to succeed in
the area of communication, strong feedback loops are required.”21
EVALUATE THE PARTNERSHIP
It is important to build accountability structures into a partnership plan to in order to
measure intended outcomes and identify areas in need of improvement. As Figure 1.1
notes, these structures should include regularly scheduled reviews, and should clarify each
partner’s role in monitoring performance. Guided by “the goal of continuously improving
the partnership and its outcomes,” a partnership can develop in ways that increase and
expand the benefits of collaboration over time.22 According to Partnerships: Frameworks for
Working Together:
Investing in partner skills, knowledge, and competence needs to be highly valued
within the partnership. This open mindset and spirit of facilitation creates
opportunities to shape each other’s work and learn together. In this environment,
members can more effectively reflect on both developmental successes and
failures.23
BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS
Throughout the process of initiating, establishing, and developing a university-nonprofit
partnership, it is best to anticipate and mitigate potential problem areas. The following is a
list of common barriers to partnering with nonprofit organizations. Collaboration leaders
should be proactive in their efforts to avoid these pitfalls:24


Joint mission fails to inspire stakeholders and/or fails to include key interests;

Irreconcilable differences in work style, philosophy, and/or leadership approach
among partners;

Failure to evaluate the partnership throughout the collaboration and/or improve
areas of weakness;

Unequal balance of power in which one partner manipulates or dominates,
partners compete for the lead, or suspicion of hidden agendas develops;

Lack of commitment and/or support from key people or partner organizations with
ultimate decision-making power; and

Costs outweigh benefits of the partnership, whether financial or non-monetary (i.e.
time, human resources, organizational reputation).
Lack of clarity/understanding of purpose, communication, and/or division of
responsibility responsibilities;
21
Minkler, M. Op. cit., p. 2.
“Developing a Contract or Written Agreement for your Nonprofit Collaboration.” Op. cit.
23
Publow, M. and the Compassion Capital Fund. Op. cit., p. 5.
24
Bullet points condensed from Ibid., p. 5.
22
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
11
Hanover Research | January 2013
SECTION II: U NIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS WITH
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
In this section, we discuss partnerships between institutions of higher education and
community-based organizations (CBOs). A CBO is a public or private nonprofit organization
which is designed to meet “human, educational, environmental, or public safety” needs
within a specific community.25 According to Community-Campus Partnerships for Health
(CCPH), “Bringing together the wisdom and lived expertise of community members with the
theoretical and research-oriented expertise of academics, community-higher education
partnerships have great potential as agents of social change.”26
VALUE ADDED BY UNIVERSITY VS. COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
The value added by the university depends on the type of project being undertaken, as well
as the units participating. For example, a partnership was formed between the Jim Joseph
Foundation, Citizen Film, and Columbia University to develop the New Media in Jewish
Studies Collaborative. The University’s participation was mainly through (1) the Center for
New Media in Teaching and Learning and (2) the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies.
Because of the nature of this partnership, academic consulting and subject area expertise
were likely among the University’s major contributions.27 On the other hand, partnerships
between the universities profiled in Section III of
this report and their campus Hillel organizations
“Bringing together the wisdom
are more likely to utilize the institution’s
and lived expertise of community
development office, alumni relations, and
members with the theoretical
possibly communications department.
and research-oriented expertise
of academics, community-higher
The value added by community partners also
education partnerships have
varies based on the nature of the organization and
great potential as agents of
the project focus. However, common benefits of
social change.”
working with a CBO include more nimble
community access and the potential for
communicating with, marketing to, and gaining the participation of a different population
(and possibly geographic area). Community partners often provide practical and logistical
expertise, which comes from operating programs within the area of focus. This type of local
wisdom and experience can balance negative impressions of the ‘Ivory Tower’ of academia
as being overly intellectual and detached from the real world.28
25
“Community Based Organization Defined.” National Network of Libraries of Medicine Southeast/Atlantic Region.
http://nnlm.gov/sea/funding/cbodef.html
26
“Community Partner Summit.” Community-Campus Partnerships for Health.
http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/cps-summit.html
27
“Columbia University – New Media in Jewish Studies Collaborative.” September 5, 2012. Jim Joseph Foundation.
http://jimjosephfoundation.org/featured/columbia-university-new-media-in-jewish-studies-collaborative/
28
Minkler, M. Op. cit.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
12
Hanover Research | January 2013
Figure 2.1 highlights these and several other types of contributions commonly added by a
university partner in comparison with those provided by a nonprofit partner.
Figure 2.1: Potential Contributions by Universities and Nonprofits29
Potential University Contributions
Human
Resources
Faculty and staff can serve as
consultants, facilitators and board
members, or provide technical skills.
Facilities
Conference rooms or meeting space,
dormitories or recreation enters can
be opened to CBOs.
Equipment/
Technology
Donations of used equipment,
assistance with technical support or
Internet access.
Policy and
Advocacy
Academic institutions and the
“evidence” they can create through
their research, or assemble and
analyze through literature reviews,
can lend credibility and provide
connections to policymakers and
funders.
Potential Nonprofit Contributions
Community groups often know the best
places to distribute flyers, post signs and
otherwise get the word out about
Publicity
meetings or research efforts. They also can
mobilize numbers to get the attention of
local elected representatives in ways that
academic partners can’t.
Communities can provide indigenous
interpreters, tips on appropriate wording
Cultural and Linguistic
of illustrative examples, whom to approach
Competency
first in a community, so that social
traditions may be respected and so on.
Community representatives can serve on
various boards, especially those that
Membership on Academic
develop guidelines for the academic
Advisory Boards and
institution’s relationship with its
Committees
neighbors. Community representatives can
provide invaluable assistance when serving
on scholarship and awards committees.
Experience and Perspective
Community residents contribute
perspectives based on experience that can
complement academic research and
deepen the understanding of the health
consequences of community life.
Source: Minkler, M. March, 2003. “Bending the Ivory Tower: Communities, Health, Departments and Academia.”
Community-Based Public Health Policy and Practice.
FRAMEWORK FOR “AUTHENTIC COMMUNITY-HIGHER EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS”
It is important for both partners to recognize and keep in mind the contributions they are
able to bring to a partnership, as well as those of their partner organization. Partners that
actively value each other are less likely to fall into irreparable discord. According to CCPH, a
commitment to operating practices which support respect and healthy communication
among partners should define any university-nonprofit partnership from the beginning.
Participants in the 2006 CCPH Community Partner Summit developed the following
framework for creating “authentic community-higher education partnerships”:

29
Quality processes that are relationship focused; open, honest and respectful; trustbuilding; acknowledging of history; committed to mutual learning and sharing credit.
Bullet points taken nearly verbatim from Minkler, M. Op. cit., p. 5.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
13
Hanover Research | January 2013

Meaningful outcomes which are tangible and relevant to communities. For
example: eliminating health disparities, affordable housing, education and economic
development.

Transformation at multiple levels, including:
o Personal transformation, including self-reflection and heightened political
consciousness;
o Institutional transformation, including changing policies and systems;
o Community transformation, including community capacity building;
o Transformation of science and knowledge, including how knowledge is
generated, used and valued and what constitutes “evidence;” and
o Political transformation, including social justice.30
While this framework is designed for general campus-community partnerships, CCPH
suggests several specific applications. One application is the development of communitybased service learning opportunities for students. For-credit service learning courses
typically pair in-class or independent preparation and learning with structured community
service in the field.31 This model can be used at the undergraduate or graduate level.
Community-based participatory research (CBPR), on the other hand, is more likely to
involve faculty and graduate students. According to the WK Kellogg Foundation Community
Health Scholars Program, CBPR is a: 32
Collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the
research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins
with a research topic of importance to the community, has the aim of combining
knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and
eliminate health disparities.
This definition highlights the value of CBPR in public health research – a model for which
many private foundations and public funding agencies have expressed considerable
interest. 33 Nevertheless, CBPR may also be focused on other subject areas, such as
education for example.
PROFILES OF UNIVERSITY-CBO PARTNERSHIPS
In this subsection, we highlight three partnerships between public universities and
healthcare-related nonprofit partners:


University of Kansas Midwest Cancer Alliance
Ohio State University + Charles B. Wang Community Health Center
30
Bullet points taken verbatim from “Community Partner Summit.” Op. cit.
“Service-Learning.” Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. Downloaded from: http://www.ccph.info/
32
“Community Track.” Kellogg Health Scholars. http://www.kellogghealthscholars.org/about/community.cfm
33
Ibid.
31
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
14
Hanover Research | January 2013

University of Kentucky + Southeast Kentucky Community Access Program
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MIDWEST CANCER ALLIANCE34
Hanover spoke with Stephanie Grinage, Vice President for Medical Development at the
University of Kansas (KU) Endowment, about the relationship between the KU Cancer
Center and community hospitals throughout the state of Kansas and southwest Missouri.
These relationships exist in the context of the Midwest Cancer Alliance, which was launched
through the KU Cancer Center in 2007. The membership fee for community hospitals to
participate in the Alliance is $50,000. Benefits include participation in clinical trials,
continuing education for cancer providers, and a myriad of other services and opportunities
tailored to the needs of the member through the KU Cancer Center.
KU, through the Alliance, partners with community hospitals in development planning and
fundraising initiatives. Currently, a regional development director works with the CEO or
development office of a participating hospital to identify joint fundraising opportunities and
tap connections in their various networks. The focus tends to be on public relations rather
than marketing, and local newspapers are often willing to write a story of an upcoming
Alliance event or initiative.
A major focus of joint fundraising has been centered on raising the $50,000 necessary for a
community hospital to become a member. Often this has involved KU alumni in the region
who are prepared to donate time and money and champion their local hospital becoming a
member of the Alliance. The Alliance is currently in the process of developing a statewide
fundraising partnership which will feature at least one community advocate in each
community. Grinage notes that the team has been forced to be very creative as they
develop strategies for fundraising and outreach, as the budget for these activities is very
limited – both through the KU Cancer Center and the partner organizations.
Grinage notes that joint fundraising arrangements can become problematic very quickly,
and that as such, it is critical to ensure that all facets of the arrangement are clear from the
very beginning, and anticipate potential conflict areas. She offers the following
recommendations:
34

Partners should determine together the highest priorities for fundraising, and then
determine how funds should flow in order to best meet those priorities (i.e.,
donations could be directed toward to the university, foundation, cancer center,
community hospital, etc.).

Partners should define clear roles and responsibilities, seek to create a highly
collaborative environment, and avoid making assumptions.
Grinage, Stephanie. Vice President for Medical Development. University of Kansas Endowment. Telephone
interview. November 28, 2012.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
15
Hanover Research | January 2013

Development officers should be open minded and be willing to try unconventional
approaches, understanding that while there may be some level of competition
involved this is ultimately a mutually beneficial, win/win partnership.

Grateful patient fundraising can be especially tricky as partners negotiate who
“owns the patient.” Communication with each other and the donor is critical.

Partners should expect to experience conflict at some point over how/where to
direct a donation, and seek to reach consensus in advance by planning for all
possible scenarios.
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY + CHARLES B. WANG COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER35
This case study focuses on a partnership between Ohio State University and the Charles B.
Wang Community Health Center (CBWCHC), a nonprofit organization serving the Asian
American community in New York City through “comprehensive primary care, mental
health, sub-specialty care, health education and social services.”36 The primary partners also
collaborated with the Asian American Network for Cancer Awareness, Research and
Training.
The partnership was initiated by OSU in 2001, and the University led the first grant
application. Funding was secured from the American Legacy Foundation to design and
administer a “culturally sensitive provider-led smoking cessation program geared toward
Chinese Americans in the NYC Metropolitan area.” 37 Roughly 800 Chinese American
households participated in the project. Unfortunately, the CBWCHC faced some difficulties
priorities with the University.
CBWCHC wanted to use funding first and foremost to “serve their clients and to help people
to quit smoking.”38 Researchers from OSU, on the other hand, were highly concerned with
creating a research design that would “generate publishable data.” After the completion of
this first project, the Health Center took the lead in applying for a grant to fund a second
collaborative project: “New York’s Chinese American Tobacco Control Initiative.” This time
the CBWCHC was able to use the majority of the funding for Center resources and
infrastructure, while still allocating 25 percent of the award to OSU “for project evaluation
and consultation.”39 This was less than the academic researchers had initially hoped for, but
an agreement was reached. Strengths of this university-CBO partnership and lessons
learned through the collaboration are presented in Figure 2.2, below.
35
Kwong, K. “The Charles B. Wang Community Health Center and Ohio State University: Successes, Lessons, and
Compromises.” Achieving the Promise of Authentic Community-Higher Education Partnerships: Community Case
Stories, pp. 28-30. http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/CPS-Casestories.pdf
36
Ibid., p. 28.
37
Ibid., p. 28.
38
Ibid., p. 28.
39
Ibid., p. 28.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
16
Hanover Research | January 2013
Figure 2.2: Charles B. Wang Community Health Center and OSU Partnership40
Area
Shared Mission
and Power
Strengths of the Partnership
Both groups shared the same goal of
reducing smoking rates of Chinese
American smokers and recognized that
each entity has its unique contribution
to achieve the goal.
Lessons Learned
Having more control of components such as funding
allotment help to ensure that community partners get
sufficient resources when they are shouldering most of the
work.

Compromise
Leadership
Community and academic partners had
to struggle with one another to
articulate goals and reach compromises
that took into account their differing
viewpoints.
Both groups had a “champion” who was
willing to do the work to bridge the gaps
between the groups.


There is a difference in the culture, philosophy, and
priority focus of academic research institutions and
community based organizations.
It is important to compromise on issues such as funding
allotment and research design structure in order for
each partner to meet their needs.
Discussions about data ownership and publication need
to take place beforehand, not after data is collected.
It is beneficial to have a champion amongst a group of
academic collaborators, or a person who works closely
with colleagues in the community based organization to
drive the project and is committed to some of the same
goals and health outcomes as the community partners.
Source: Kenny Kwong, Director of Research & Evaluation, Charles B. Wang Community Health Center
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY + SOUTHEAST KENTUCKY COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM
SKYCAP is the acronym used to refer to a partnership between the University of Kentucky
(UK) and two nonprofit partners: Harlan Countians for a Healthy Community (HCHC) and
Hazard Perry County Community Ministries (HPCCM). The mission of this partnership was
“to enhance the health and well being of the uninsured and underinsured.”41 While the
community service outcomes of this collaboration were undeniable, with case management
and referral services provided for over 13,000 clients and close to $7.5 million in
medications accessed on the behalf of clients, the three partners found it difficult to work
together as a team.
The group was originally brought together when the two community organizations decided
that, instead of filing separate and competing grant applications, it would be more
beneficial to file a joint federal grant application with the University acting as fiscal agent
and project evaluator. The UK Center for Rural Health helped to orchestrate this assembly.
Unfortunately, disputes ensued quickly over a variety of matters, including the following:


40
41
Which agency had more claim to SKYCAP program “ownership”?
Who should receive and take credit for national awards given to SKYCAP?
Taken nearly verbatim from Ibid., p. 29.
Roll, G. “The SKYCAP Story.” Achieving the Promise of Authentic Community-Higher Education Partnerships:
Community Case Stories, pp. 4-6, p. 4. Downloaded from: http://www.ccph.info/
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
17
Hanover Research | January 2013



Which partner should take the lead on grant writing?
What criteria should be used in the selection of a program director?
How should grant funds be distributed among the partners? Namely, is UK’s 26
percent share for administering the grant fair and does it benefit the community?
After four years, federal funding for SKYCAP ended, and the group had identified no
alternate avenues for financing program operations. At that point the partnership between
the nonprofit organizations and the University ended. Gerry Roll, Executive Director of
HPCCM, claims that, although the SKYCAP collaboration “was extremely painful at times…
any project that brings together a community of partners is worthwhile.”42 He offers the
following key lessons from the successes and failures of SKYCAP:
42
43

Establish a Strong Foundation for the Partnership - More energy should have been
invested in the partnership itself. Matters such as contract compliance and IRB
should be discussed fully during the formation of the partnership and continually
through the duration of the program.

Facilitate Communication and Conflict Management - SKYCAP’s steering committee
should have met regularly so each partner could articulate how it saw the individual
or collaborative mission shifting. The partnership needed some third party
intervention once it became apparent that the conflict among the parties was
damaging the program and any hope of credible research. There should have been
an honest dialogue, without fear of repercussion.

Prioritize Strategic Planning - There should have been a more organized approach
to sustaining the program after federal funding expired. Once SKYCAP began
receiving national attention, the University should have assigned a researcher to
begin analyzing the data. Various partners reported outcomes that were not really
based in fact. Problems with the commercial database complicated the university's
ability to analyze and collect information that might have informed public policy and
better demonstrated the effectiveness of the interventions.

Support and Recognize the Community Partner - The University partner should stay
focused on the community, since the wisdom of the program ideally comes from
that community. The University should make administrative processes less
burdensome for community-based groups, and aggressively seek waivers or other
accommodations to minimize indirect costs. The University should also make a
concerted effort to recognize and give credit to community partners (including
specific individuals) for the collective accomplishments – particularly in cases in
which awards are received.43
Ibid., p. 5.
Bullet points taken nearly verbatim, but re-organized, from Ibid., p. 5.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
18
Hanover Research | January 2013
UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT METRO UNIVERSITY AT DENVER
Metropolitan State University of Denver provides a unique alternative approach to the
other community partnerships discussed in this section. The University’s 2012-2017
strategic plan includes four “strategic themes,” the second of which is of interest to this
report:




Student and Academic Success
Community Engagement and Regional Stewardship
Institutional Culture
Institutional Resources
Metro State’s plan for “Community Engagement and Regional Stewardship” is the result of
President Stephen Jordan’s vision for the University “be recognized as Colorado’s urban land
grant university, a university that will transform Colorado’s and the Rocky Mountain
region’s urban communities.”44 In 2008, Dr. Jordan’s vision led to the development of the
Civic Engagement/Urban Land Grant task force. Through the efforts of faculty, staff, and
students, the MSU Denver community has researched, proposed, and implemented various
models of community engagement. In 2009, the MSU Denver Center for Urban Connections
was launched.45
CENTER FOR URBAN CONNECTIONS
The Center for Urban Connections now maintains community partnerships with at least 15
CBOs, and provides students with opportunities for service learning and volunteering.
Partnering nonprofits include a refugee resettlement organization called African, a
“culturally competent” health care service provider called Clinica Tepeyac, and a drop-in
center for homeless women and children called The Gathering Place.46 The Center is staffed
by a programming coordinator and three student employees.47
FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM
Dating back to 1994, before the recently energized focus on community partnerships, the
Metropolitan State University of Denver’s Family Literacy Program has been functioning
like a nonprofit housed in and supported by the University.48,49 Although the Program
44
Metropolitan State University of Denver. April 5, 2012. “A Time of Transformation – 2012-17 Strategic Plan.”
http://www.mscd.edu/~collcom/@metro/docs/StrategicPlan04-9-12_1-10.pdf
45
Center for Urban Connections. “History and Mission. Center for Urban Connections.” Metropolitan State University
of Denver. http://www.mscd.edu/urbanconnect/historymissions/#.ULYS4eR0Ot1
46
Center for Urban Connections. “Community Partnerships.” Metropolitan State University of Denver.
http://www.mscd.edu/urbanconnect/partnerships/#.ULbi8OR0Ot0
47
Center for Urban Connections. “Contact Us.” Metropolitan State University of Denver.
http://www.mscd.edu/urbanconnect/contactus/#.ULYXLOR0Ot0
48
“Family Literacy Program.” Metropolitan State University of Denver. http://www.mscd.edu/flp/#.ULYNcuR0Ot0
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
19
Hanover Research | January 2013
operates like a nonprofit and serves children and families rather than University students,
program leaders have elected to remain under the umbrella of the University rather than
pursue 501(c)3 status. While the program benefits from access to some University services
and materials, Metro State’s strategic plan for community engagement is advanced through
the work and exposure of the Family Literacy Program.
The Family Literacy Program has developed four intergenerational and “comprehensive
home- and school-based literacy programs” through partnerships with a number of
nonprofits. Unfortunately, due to some territorialism among nonprofit development teams,
these are strictly programming and not fundraising collaborations. Partner organizations
include the Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning, Denver Urban Gardens, Community
Computer Connection, The Learning Source, and Mother Read. Through collaboration with
these nonprofits and the Denver Public School District, the Family Literacy Programs
operates the following four programs:




Parents as Teachers (PAT) Home Visit Program
Family Focused Early Childhood Education
Families Learning Together program in four Denver public elementary schools
GED program in Spanish50
Hanover spoke with Susan Cotton, the Family Literacy Program’s Adult and Family Education
Coordinator, about the Program’s relationship with the University. She offered the details
shown in Figure 2.3, on the next page.
Figure 2.3: Benefits/Challenges of Family Literacy Program-MSU Denver Partnership
Area
Staff Payroll
University Supports
Metro State’s payroll department cuts checks for
Family Literacy Program staff, but salaries are not
paid for by the University.
Program Challenges
The Program receives no monetary support from the
University.
Development
The Family Literacy Program receives assistance
from the Office of Development, including grant
writing support. Money donated and grants
awarded to the Program are administered
through the MSU Denver Foundation.
The University does not allow the Program to apply
for private foundation grants that other units are
already applying for. This limitation can be
frustrating, though no restrictions are placed on
federal grants.
IT
University IT services, software, and materials are
available to Program staff.
-
Campus
Collaboration
The Department of Teacher Education sometimes
provides the Program with volunteers.
Cotton would like to have a richer partnership with
colleagues and departments across campus, but
institutional politics and the Program’s low profile
prevent this.
Source: Cotton, Susan.
49
Cotton, Susan. Adult and Family Education Coordinator. Family Literacy Program. Metropolitan State University of
Denver.
50
“Family Literacy Program.” Op. cit.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
20
Hanover Research | January 2013
SECTION III: P ROFILES OF UNIVERSITY -HILLEL
FUNDRAISING PARTNERSHIPS
In Section III, Hanover profiles fundraising partnerships between three public research
universities and their campus Hillel organizations:



University of Albany
University of Connecticut
University of Oregon
Although no university foundation or development office contacts responded to Hanover’s
primary research inquiry, our contacts at these Hillel offices were able to offer detailed
descriptions of their fundraising partnerships with the universities.
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY51
Hanover spoke with Rabbi Nomi Manon, Executive Director at University at Albany Hillel.
Manon also serves as part-time faculty member for the College of Arts and Sciences Judaic
Studies Program. During our conversation, Manon explained the partnership between Hillel
and University at Albany as one with clear financial benefits to Hillel but untapped
potential for joint fundraising campaigns and programming collaboration.
INITIATING THE PARTNERSHIP
A formal fundraising partnership was launched in 2010 after a considerable amount of
outreach to the University at Albany Foundation by Hillel staff. Initial contact was prompted
by a long-time donor whose employer offered a matching donations program, but was not
willing to direct funds toward a religious organization. Hillel was interested in setting up a
relationship with the University through which an individual’s donation, as well as his or her
employer’s matching donation, could be directed toward the University at Albany
Foundation and earmarked specifically for Hillel. Unfortunately, two years of attempts to
engineer a joint fundraising partnership with the university were met with lukewarm
responses.
Eventually, Manon reached a turning point with the assistance of a Hillel board member
who has been a significant donor to the university. This donor requested a meeting with the
University at Albany Foundation director, to which Manon accompanied her. The women
explained the proposal, and were met with a positive feedback. Manon notes, hearing the
donor’s perspective on why this type of university-Hillel collaboration would be attractive to
prospective Jewish donors helped the Foundation to move forward with the agreement.
51
Manon, Nomi. Executive Director of Hillel. University at Albany. Telephone interview. November 16, 2012.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
21
Hanover Research | January 2013
TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Since then, the University at Albany Foundation has set up a university account for Hillel,
into which University donations earmarked for Hillel are deposited. In such cases, gift
receipts are provided to donors by the university.
Hillel reports the income as it is redirected toward
The most significant financial
the organization. According to Manon, the most
benefit of this partnership is
significant financial benefit of this partnership is the
the ability for employerability for employer-matched donations to be
matched
donations to be
directed toward Hillel through the university.
directed toward Hillel through
the University.
In addition, development staff members now share
Hillel literature during meetings with Jewish donors,
apprising them of the option to earmark University donations (or a percentage of
donations) for Hillel. This aspect gives the nonprofit the opportunity to reach potential Hillel
donors they may never have come into contact with otherwise. Hillel’s contact at the
Foundation, VP for University Development Michael Boots, then regularly emails Manon the
amount of each new donation earmarked for Hillel. Donor identity is not shared with Hillel.
LIMITATIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Other than this transactional relationship, no joint
fundraising initiatives have been planned with the
The two partners have decided
University at Albany Foundation or University
not to share donor database
Development. Manon notes, “Finances can be
access. On occasion, however,
touchy. Development doesn’t want to give up
Manon requests background
potential income for the university.” The two
information on a Hillel donor.
partners have decided not to share donor database
access. On occasion, however, Manon will request
some background information on a Hillel donor –
household income or value of the donor’s home, for example. This type of demographic
information is usually made available to Manon, though donation history is kept private.
BENEFITS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Overall, Manon suggests that a joint fundraising partnership between Hillel and the host
institution is valuable for both parties. “It is important for Jewish donors to know great stuff
is going on for Jewish students on-campus,” she adds. Support and validation of the work
being done by Hillel on campus improves the University’s image in the eyes of potential
Jewish donors.
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT52
Hanover spoke with Gary Wolff, Executive Director of Hillel at the University of Connecticut
(UConn). Wolff explains that the joint fundraising between Hillel and the University of
52
Wolff, Gary. Executive Director of Hillel. University of Connecticut. Telephone interview. November 26, 2012.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
22
Hanover Research | January 2013
Connecticut Foundation benefits both partners financially, though bureaucratic and
political barriers have prevented the level of trust and cooperation Wolff would like to see
develop.
INITIATING THE PARTNERSHIP
The fundraising partnership between UConn Hillel and the University of Connecticut began
with the 2005-2006 academic year. Hillel’s capital campaign to build the Trachten-Zachs
Hillel building, finished in 2010, was the catalyst which brought the two partners together.
At this time, the University of Connecticut Foundation set up a special account for Hillel,
giving donors the option of earmarking funds be used for the Hillel capital fund. The
partnership gave the Foundation an opportunity to take credit for a large influx of funding
for Hillel at a critical time, while simultaneously giving Hillel greater visibility and validation
among donors. Figure 3.1, below, shows a screenshot of the University of Connecticut
Foundation’s online giving webpage, which allows donors to direct funds toward Hillel.
Figure 3.1: University of Connecticut Foundation Online Giving, Hillel Fund Gift
Designation53
Source: University of Connecticut Foundation
TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
An MOU between the two parties established that 3 percent of each Hillel donation would
be directed toward the University of Connecticut Foundation to offset associated
administrative costs. Additionally, all donations sent directly to Hillel would be re-routed to
Hillel’s University of Connecticut Foundation account and be recognized as monies raised
through the Foundation. A weekly report of all University donations earmarked for Hillel is
sent to Wolff’s office, and gift receipts and thank you letters are sent by both the University
Foundation and Hillel. The MOU between Hillel and the University of Connecticut
Foundation establishes that donations received through the Foundation cannot be used
for Hillel’s operating costs, including staff member salaries. While the joint fundraising
53
“Gift Information.” The University of Connecticut Foundation.
https://secure3.convio.net/ucfdn/site/Donation2?idb=0&df_id=1351&1351.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004
=hid4nm2342.app332b
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
23
Hanover Research | January 2013
arrangement was originally set up to fund Hillel’s capital campaign, the organization is now
able to use the funneled donations for programmatic purposes as well.
LIMITATIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
UConn Hillel currently coordinates joint fundraising
activities with the University of Connecticut Foundation
Three percent of each Hillel
president, the second in charge, and two assigned gift
donation
is directed toward
officers. Wolff observes that the territorialism which
the University of
has characterized the Foundation’s interactions with
Connecticut
Foundation to
Hillel has had some counter-productive effects on the
offset associated
partnership. For example, no strategic plan or joint
administrative
costs.
fundraising goals have been developed in the seven
years since the collaboration began. According to
Wolff, despite the Foundation’s programming office staff members’ interest in working
more intentionally with Hillel, concerns about inter-office politics prevent them from doing
so.
Furthermore, the Foundation does not allow Hillel access to any donor database
information, which Wolff perceives to be the result of concerns that Hillel could “steal
contacts or deter giving.” On the contrary, he argues, Hillel has the capacity to enhance
current investments and contribute to the growth of University total giving. Wolff suggests
that public universities should approach partnerships with Hillel as business-to-business
(B2B) relationships, rather than as aid given to a campus charity.
GOALS FOR PARTNERSHIP ENHANCEMENT
UConn Hillel is in the process of planning a fundraiser luncheon featuring the University’s
President as the keynote speaker. This will be the first time in three-and-a-half years that
Hillel will be partnering with the University in planning a joint fundraising event. Wolff
hopes that, if the endeavor is a success, the Foundation may better understand the financial
incentives of working closely with Hillel and respond accordingly.
Additionally, Wolff is seeking to establish UConn Hillel as a cultural center (rather than a
religious center). Because of rules about the separation of church and state, this shift would
facilitate a change in the terms of Hillel’s partnership with the University. For example, as a
cultural center, Wolff would be able to direct donations paid through the University of
Connecticut Foundation toward Hillel’s operating costs. Wolff is not aware of precedents to
this initiative at other public university campuses.
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON54
Hanover spoke with Andy Gitelson, Executive Director of Hillel at the University of Oregon.
Gitelson, whose position with the University began in August 2012, is in the process of
54
Gitelson, Andy. Executive Director of Hillel. University of Oregon. Telephone interview. November 28, 2012.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
24
Hanover Research | January 2013
developing a relationship with the University of Oregon Foundation. He has met with
various development officers at the Foundation thus far, and intends to both arrange a
Hillel endowment account with the Foundation and pave the way for mutually
advantageous fundraising collaborations.
ENDOWMENT VS. EARMARKING
The type of joint fundraising agreement Gitelson is currently working toward would feature
a Hillel endowment through the University of Oregon Foundation. According to the
Foundation’s Investments webpage:55
Endowed assets are gifts maintained in perpetuity. These assets are combined in
the Willamette Investment Pool. The University receives quarterly distributions
from the Pool. Any returns above the distribution remain invested.
If Hillel were to implement an endowment through the Foundation, a donor could establish
a gift agreement or scholarship fund designated for the Hillel endowment. Then, while the
money invested would remain in the endowment, interest accrued would be distributed on
a quarterly or yearly basis to Hillel and/or the scholarship recipient. This arrangement
benefits the University, as all contributions add to the Foundation’s total assets.
Furthermore, the Foundation would be able to collect a 1 percent management fee on
donations toward a Hillel endowment.
Unlike the other three partnerships profiled in this section, Gitelson does not anticipate that
the University of Oregon will be able to give donors the option to earmark a portion of
University donations for Hillel. Instead, Gitelson hopes to pursue a less formal – but more
collaborative – partnership with the University Foundation. In his experience, Gitelson
observed that an MOU is only as good as the people who signed it. While setting up
mutually beneficial structures and operating procedures can be helpful, Gitelson suggests
that developing functional alliances and professional networks can be even more helpful –
both to Hillel and university development staff.
BENEFITS OF UNIVERSITY-HILLEL COLLABORATION
When describing the benefits of a close working relationship between Hillel and the
University, Gitelson first pointed to the time the University of Oregon accidentally planned a
major alumni fundraising event on Yom Kippur. This gaffe ended up costing the University
several days spent on the phone, backtracking and attempting to repair relationships with
displeased Jewish constituents. Hillel played a role in consulting staff (after the fact) on how
to navigate these apologies, but Gitelson advises that universities should rely more heavily
on Hillel associates for intercultural consulting.
55
“Types of Foundation Investment Assets.” University of Oregon Foundation.
http://www.uofoundation.org/s/1540/foundation/index.aspx?sid=1540&gid=1&pgid=335
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
25
Hanover Research | January 2013
The more familiar a university development officer is with Jewish customs and etiquette and
the more first-hand knowledge he or she has with Jewish life on campus, the “more
powerful the story he will be able to share with a prospective donor.”56 For example, an
officer who can point to a Jewish cultural center, Jewish Studies program, Hillel endowment,
or his personal attendance at a campus Shabbat dinner will be better equipped to build the
trust and enthusiasm of the Jewish patron.
REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS FOR A NONPROFIT PARTNER
Gitelson suggests that a university development office can work best with a nonprofit
organization when the leader(s) understands the organizational, political, and financial
structures in place at the university – particularly as they relate to fundraising. A
prospective partner should understand the nuts and bolts of the fundraising branch of the
institution and have a grasp on key terms and strategies being used (management fees,
endowments, donor agreements, planned giving, etc.). This will help both parties avoid a
great deal of miscommunication, and the resulting confusion and frustration.
When developing a partnership, Gitelson also advises that participants should approach the
relationship as a marathon rather than a sprint. With the development and achievement of
short-term goals, both partners can develop trust and understanding while proving their
worth to one another over time. Ultimately, he notes, the impact of university collaboration
with Hillel (and other cultural organizations like Hillel) has the potential to dramatically
enhance university development efforts, student life and success, and the visibility of
diversity on campus.
56
Gitelson, Andy. Op. cit.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
26
Hanover Research | January 2013
APPENDIX: SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
Memorandum of Understanding57
Between
Your Organization
And
Partnering Organization
For Application To
specific program, if necessary
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes a type of partnership between your
organization and partnering organization.
MISSION
Brief description of your organization’s mission. You might want to also include a sentence
about the specific program if applicable.
Brief description of partnering organization’s mission.
Together, the Parties enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to mutually promote
describe efforts that this partnership will promote e.g. health care or workforce
development. Accordingly, your organization and partnering organization, operating under
this MOU agree as follows:
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Your organization and partnering organization - describe the intended results or effects that
the organizations hope to achieve, and the area(s) that the specific activities will cover.
1. Why are the organizations forming a collaboration? Benefits for the organization?
2. Who is the target population?
3. How does the target population benefit?
Include issues of funding if necessary. For example, “Each organization of this MOU is
responsible for its own expenses related to this MOU. There will/will not be an exchange of
funds between the parties for tasks associated with this MOU.”
57
MOU reproduced from: “Partnership Development Sample Tool.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/nnw/partnerships/partnershipsresources/nnwpartnermou.pdf
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
27
Hanover Research | January 2013
RESPONSIBILITIES
Each party will appoint a person to serve as the official contact and coordinate the activities
of each organization in carrying out this MOU. The initial appointees of each organization
are:

List contact persons with address and telephone information
The organizations agree to the following tasks for this MOU:
Your organization will:

List tasks of your organization as bullet points
Partnering organization will:

List tasks of partnering organization as bullet points
Your organization and partnering organization will:

List shared tasks as bullet points
TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING
The term of this MOU is for a period of insert length of MOU, usually 1-3 years from the
effective date of this agreement and may be extended upon written mutual agreement. It
shall be reviewed at least insert how often, usually annually to ensure that it is fulfilling its
purpose and to make any necessary revisions.
Either organization may terminate this MOU upon thirty (30) days written notice without
penalties or liabilities.
AUTHORIZATION
The signing of this MOU is not a formal undertaking. It implies that the signatories will strive
to reach, to the best of their ability, the objectives stated in the MOU.
On behalf of the organization I represent, I wish to sign this MOU and contribute to its
further development.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
28
Hanover Research | January 2013
Your organization:
Name
Title
Organization
Date
Partnering Organization:
Name
Title
Organization
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
Date
29
Hanover Research | January 2013
PROJECT EVALUATION FORM
Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds member
expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our
reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we
tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this
report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.
http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php
CAVEAT
The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher
and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the
descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by
representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and
completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not
guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for every member. Neither the publisher nor the
authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but
not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover
Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
30
Hanover Research | January 2013
1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20006
P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585
www.hanoverresearch.com
© 2012 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
31
`