Transcript United We Stand: National Fund Sites and Local United Ways

N AT I O N A L F U N D S I T E S & LO C A L U N I T E D WAY S
PRESENTATION AGENDA
1. Introductions and session overview
2. Case study #1 – Greenville
3. Case study #2 – Philadelphia
4. Springboards and Landmines
5. Discussion
INTRODUCTIONS & SESSION OVERVIEW
Who are you?
Where are you from?
Tell us 1 reason why you’re attending this session.
Session Objectives
•
Facilitate deeper and more effective collaboration between National
Fund sites and United Ways in order to sustain and scale successes.
•
For sites that are not yet collaborating: provide concrete examples of
collaboration and tangible steps for developing relationships.
•
For sites that are working together: explore how to maximize the
partnership, drive greater impacts, build on past successes and
overcome stubborn obstacles
CASE STUDY #1: GREENVILLE REGION WORKFORCE
COLLABORATIVE
2009/10
2010 - 2012
2012 - 2014
•Researched model
•Piloted 2 cohorts of classes
•UWGC leading thought and
leveraging resources, but
not taking active role
•Received NFWS grant
•Built out partners (WIB,
•Sector expansion
•System level changes
•Program growth
•Pivot towards
regionalism
technical college system,
service providers, funders,
employers)
•2011 – UWGC
becomes Fiscal Agent
Lessons for UWGC
From
To
Transactional
Relational
Isolation
Integration
Barriers
Solutions
Compliance
Impact
CASE STUDY #1: GREENVILLE REGION WORKFORCE
COLLABORATIVE
UWGC’s 5 Lesson/Action Points
Convene
Communicate
Integrate
Leverage
Advocate
CASE STUDY #1: GREENVILLE REGION WORKFORCE
COLLABORATIVE
Action
Was
Is
Outcomes
Convene
• provided site for Board
meeting
•Prescriber
• leading thought,
insulating and supporting
activities of GRWC,
responding to needs of
GRWC
•Influencer
• more meaningful
relationships, better/more
efficient work, renewed
energy
Leverage
• No connection to
campaign (not even a
designation account)
• Transactional marketing
• Leadership-board
champions
• Workplace Campaign
alignment
• Proactive Marketing
Advocate
• Reactive, non-effective
public policy
• Relational/human
capital advocacy –
city/county council, WIB,
state officials
• greater influence as a
workforce systems level
leader in region/state*
• technical college system
funding
• sector diversification
Integrate
• GRWC and other
investments separated
• IDA, VITA, front end
service providers aligned
to insulate and build
parallel pipeline(s)
• scale
Communicate
• UWGC staff member to
GRWC ED
• multi-level
communication chain
• a greater understanding
of how this works and why
we are doing it
• Greater integration of
Resource
Development/Marketing*
CASE STUDY #2: JOIN
Brief History of the JOIN Collaborative
Phase 1- JOIN’s
First Three Years
•Launch Phase
•Program Years 1 thru 3
•Largest Funder$: Knight
Foundation
2008
2009
2010
Social
Innovation Fund
Phase
Phase 2 –
JOIN’s Next
Three Years
•Transition Phase
•2nd half of PY3 thru 1st
half of PY5
•Largest Funder $:
Social Innovation Fund
•Momentum Phase
•Program Years 5 thru
8
•Largest Funder$:
(proposed) United Way
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Why build stronger ties between JOIN & United Way? Proposed Value Proposition
JOIN
United Way
Track record of innovation, flexibility and
entrepreneurialism in grant making, convening and
research projects (ex: WPSI, ROI 360)
Brand recognition and increased regional footprint
provide infrastructure through which to disseminate
work
Strongly positive relationships with employer, funder
and program partners
Organizational capacity (including Communications,
Resource Development staff)
Product that can be used to connect with new funders
and increase investment
Deep relationships in the business community that
align with JOIN’s mission
JOIN’S INVESTORS WERE ASKED TO HELP
EVALUATE THE VALUE PROPOSITION
And identified the following…
Strengths
Natural connection to UW’s education and income work (and opportunity for
many more aligned funds as a result) • Regional infrastructure presents
scaling and branding opportunities • If funding can support operations,
tremendous ability to sustain collaborative work
Uncertainties
How do we preserve this collaborative spirit with UW taking on a more
significant role? • What are the implications for the JOIN’s staff? • Will there
be new staff as a result of expanded responsibilities? • How will competing
internal funding priorities at UW impact JOIN’s fundraising efforts?
FY15 LOOKED DIFFERENT FOR JOIN: SOME EXAMPLES
Change
Scale of impact
Program
United Way’s education work enhanced connections with
career and technical education practitioners and funders.
Difficult to predict at this early
stage.
Staffing and
responsibilities
JOIN director oversaw direction of approximately $3M in
aligned funding as part of the UW gen op funding process.
Significant
Branding
UW wants additional connection to the project.
Ex: JOIN powered by UW; JOIN managed by UW
Uncertain: we will work with the
IC to approve any co-branding.
Operations
Yes. JOIN will shift to a July 1 – June 30 fiscal year.
Minimal.
SPRINGBOARDS OR LANDMINES?
Depending on your local UW and workforce collaborative, the following may
represents assets or threats to your relationship. Where would you place the
bubbles? How do we make as many as possible into positives?
Definitions
Branding
Collective
impact
Tolerance
for risk
Aligned
resources
Outcomes
Defining the
population
Shared
agenda
DISCUSSION: UNITED OR UNTIED?
• Branding and Messaging
• To logo or not to logo
• Programmatic Connections
• Funder collaboratives in the context of other
workforce initiatives
• Resource development
• Workplace Campaigns
• Relationship Management with the Corporate Partners
• Overlapping (or not) Geographies
• Butting into other UW’s territories, literally
TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION…
Presenter Information
Jennie Sparandara, Director
Job Opportunity Investment Network AND
Secondary & Post Secondary Education, United Way of Greater Phila & S. New Jersey
[email protected]
215.665.2434
John Young Shik Concklin, Program Investment Manager
United Way of Greenville County
[email protected]
864.467.3531