A community health organization provides meeting and counseling space to a domestic violence prevention program. A workforce-development organization provides employment services to participants in a housing program while the housing organization provides navigation support to participants in the workforce program. Several small nonprofits jointly contract for accounting and information-technology services that none could efficiently maintain on its own. Sharing staff, facilities, technology, professional expertise, purchasing arrangements, data systems, or other resources can strengthen organizational capacity and improve services. It can also reduce duplication and help organizations coordinate around shared community goals. Resource sharing is not automatically less expensive or easier than working independently. Shared arrangements can create new responsibilities involving supervision, employment, accounting, insurance, privacy, technology, contracts, grant compliance, decision-making, and communication. Successful arrangements therefore require more than goodwill. Partners should understand what they are sharing, why they are sharing it, who is responsible for what, what the arrangement actually costs, how risks will be managed, and how the relationship can be changed or concluded if circumstances change. This section discusses: Why organizations may want to share positions or other resources When a sharing arrangement may make sense Different forms of resource sharing Resources that can be shared How to design and manage a sharing arrangement Common risks and how to address them Why share positions or other resources? Organizations may share resources for financial reasons, but cost should not be the only consideration. Resource sharing may help organizations: Obtain expertise or infrastructure they could not efficiently maintain independently Improve access to services Coordinate related programs Reduce unnecessary duplication Strengthen organizational capacity Improve continuity across services Develop new partnerships Share learning and professional development Respond to emerging community needs Make more efficient use of facilities, technology, or specialized personnel Financial and operational capacity Small and community-based organizations may need accounting, human-resources, legal, evaluation, technology, clinical, communications, facilities, or administrative capacity that would be expensive to maintain individually. Several organizations may be able to share those resources through: A jointly funded position A shared-services organization or provider Group purchasing Shared facilities Shared technology A collaborative grant Reciprocal service arrangements Cost savings should not be assumed. Some collaborations require additional coordination, technology, legal work, management, and administrative capacity. Before entering an arrangement, estimate both the savings and the new costs it may create. Better and more coordinated services Sharing may improve services when organizations contribute complementary expertise. For example, a housing organization and an adult-education provider might coordinate so that people experiencing housing instability can access education without navigating two disconnected systems. A health organization and a transportation provider might coordinate access to appointments. Several community organizations might share interpreters, outreach staff, evaluation expertise, or training. The purpose should be to improve the experience and outcomes of the people involved, not merely to reduce organizational expenses. Shared goals and collective capacity Organizations may also share resources because they are working toward compatible community goals. Several public-health organizations might coordinate communication, jointly train staff, share evaluation tools, or support complementary advocacy efforts. Partners do not need identical missions or perspectives. They do need enough alignment on the purpose of the arrangement, ethical standards, responsibilities, and expected outcomes to work together effectively. Mission should remain central A new grant, donated facility, staff-sharing opportunity, or technology platform may appear financially attractive while pulling an organization away from its mission. Before agreeing, ask: Does this arrangement advance our mission? Does it address an actual organizational or community need? Do we have the capacity to manage it? Will it improve or maintain service quality? What new costs and risks will it create? Does it create burdens for staff or participants that have not been considered? When should an organization consider a sharing arrangement? When a needed resource becomes available An organization may learn that another group has available space, technology, staffing capacity, expertise, or funding that aligns with a need already identified. Availability alone is not enough. Determine whether the arrangement makes strategic and operational sense before committing. When several organizations are addressing the same or related community need Organizations may be able to coordinate more effectively than each could work independently. For example, an increase in unmet HIV prevention or care needs might lead health organizations, community organizations, and outreach programs to coordinate staff, referral systems, testing access, or communication. An economic downturn might lead workforce, education, housing, and human-service organizations to coordinate services for people experiencing unemployment or financial instability. When a specialized resource is needed only part of the time An organization may not need a full-time: Accountant Human-resources professional Information-technology specialist Evaluation specialist Interpreter Communications professional Grants professional Attorney or compliance professional Sharing access to specialized expertise can sometimes be more practical than each organization creating a separate position. When a short-term disruption requires a temporary solution A temporary arrangement may help when: Facilities suddenly become unavailable Equipment fails A key position becomes vacant A service faces an unexpected interruption A community emergency creates additional demand Emergency arrangements should still address safety, confidentiality, supervision, accessibility, insurance, and other essential requirements. When organizations want to explore deeper collaboration Resource sharing can also be a deliberate strategic choice rather than a response to financial pressure or crisis. Organizations may jointly explore whether shared services, coordinated programs, affiliation, co-location, or another arrangement could improve community impact and organizational sustainability. Different types of sharing arrangements Donated or in-kind resources Businesses, organizations, individuals, public agencies, faith and spiritual communities, property owners, and other partners may donate or provide access to: Goods Supplies Equipment Facilities Professional expertise Staff assistance Transportation Technology Clarify the nature and value of the contribution for accounting purposes and do not make assumptions about its tax treatment. In particular, the value of donated time or professional services is generally not treated the same way for federal charitable-deduction purposes as a donation of qualifying property. The use of facilities or equipment may also have different tax treatment from an outright property contribution. Organizations and donors should obtain appropriate tax or accounting advice when necessary. Reciprocal service or resource exchanges Two or more organizations may agree to provide resources or services to one another. For example: One organization may provide career-navigation services while another provides educational services. One partner may provide meeting space while another provides training. Organizations may exchange specialized professional support. Even when little or no cash changes hands, document the arrangement. Clarify: What each organization will provide Expected volume or level of service Timing How the resources will be valued for accounting purposes when necessary What happens if one organization can no longer provide its part Reciprocal arrangements may have accounting, employment, tax, insurance, or contractual implications even when they are informally described as barter. Shared costs Organizations may jointly pay for: Facilities Personnel Technology Equipment Insurance Training Purchasing Professional services Costs do not necessarily need to be divided equally. They may instead be allocated according to: Staff time Number of users Square footage Transaction volume Expected use Another documented allocation method Agree on the allocation method before costs are incurred and review it periodically to determine whether it remains fair and accurate. Collaborative grants, subawards, and contracts Two or more organizations may collaborate on a funded project. Possible structures include: One organization serving as the primary recipient and providing subawards to other organizations One organization purchasing defined goods or services from contractors Several organizations carrying out clearly assigned portions of a project A consortium or other formally structured collaboration For federal awards, the distinction between a subrecipient and a contractor is based on the substance of the relationship, not merely what the parties call the agreement. A subrecipient generally carries out part of the federal program, while a contractor generally provides goods or services needed for the project. A pass-through entity may have responsibilities involving: Subaward terms Risk assessment Monitoring Financial and performance reporting Recordkeeping Corrective action Closeout Review the specific award terms and current federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, or private-funder requirements rather than relying on informal descriptions such as "lead agency." Different types of resources that can be shared Shared staffing Organizations may share a staff member when each needs only part of a position or when one employee's expertise supports several related programs. Examples might include shared: Finance staff Human-resources staff Information-technology staff Interpreters Community outreach workers Counselors or clinicians Evaluators Grants professionals Communications staff Shared-staff arrangements require especially clear planning. Determine: Which organization is the employer of record Who issues payroll and provides benefits Who supervises the employee Who sets priorities How time is allocated and documented Who conducts performance reviews How leave and scheduling are handled Which policies apply How workplace accommodations are handled How confidentiality and data access are managed How conflicts between organizations are resolved What happens if one partner withdraws Depending on the arrangement, employment-law questions may arise concerning the employer relationship, wages, benefits, workers' compensation, supervision, or other obligations. Obtain appropriate professional guidance when necessary. Involve the employee from the beginning Do not design a shared position entirely at the leadership level and then hand the resulting responsibilities to the employee. The person doing the work should understand: Duties Workload Reporting relationships Scheduling Performance expectations Access to systems and information Confidentiality obligations How conflicting priorities will be resolved A shared position should not function as two full jobs compressed into one position. Shared professional development Organizations may jointly provide: Staff training Leadership development Compliance training Clinical training Technology training Conferences Communities of practice Joint learning can reduce costs while strengthening relationships among organizations. Space and facilities Organizations may: Use the same facility at different times Divide a facility among several organizations Co-locate complementary services Sublease space Obtain donated space Jointly lease or purchase property Co-location can make referrals and coordinated services easier, but it also requires attention to: Lease or sublease authority Landlord approval Zoning and occupancy requirements Disability accessibility Safety and security Insurance Utilities Cleaning and maintenance Storage Scheduling Confidential conversations Participant privacy Joint property ownership can provide long-term stability, but it also creates substantial financing, maintenance, governance, capital-repair, insurance, and exit responsibilities. It should be evaluated as a major long-term commitment rather than simply as a way to lock in occupancy costs. Equipment and technology Shared resources may include: Computers Printers and scanners Telecommunications systems Vehicles Specialized program equipment Software Cloud platforms Data systems Internet or network infrastructure Address: Ownership Licensing Maintenance Replacement Scheduling Technical support Cybersecurity User access Data backup Responsibility for loss or damage Administrative and back-office services Organizations may share: Accounting Payroll Human resources Benefits administration Purchasing Information technology Legal services Insurance administration Evaluation Grant administration Shared back-office arrangements can strengthen infrastructure, particularly for smaller organizations, but savings should not be assumed. Adequate implementation and management capacity may require additional investment. Information, referral systems, and data Organizations may share information about: Community resources Referral options Grant opportunities Training Publicly available research or planning data Sharing identifiable participant, client, student, patient, employee, donor, or member information requires much more care. Do not casually exchange mailing lists, contact lists, case information, or other personal data simply because organizations are partners. Determine: What information is actually necessary Whether people have been appropriately informed or have provided required permission What laws, contracts, and organizational policies apply Who may access the information How it will be secured How long it will be retained What happens when the partnership ends A formal data-sharing or data-use agreement may be appropriate. Purchasing and supplies Organizations may reduce some costs through cooperative purchasing of: Office supplies Technology Insurance Training Professional services Program supplies Consider purchasing authority, payment procedures, ownership, warranties, vendor terms, procurement requirements, and how costs will be allocated. How do you create and manage a shared position or other resource? 1. Define the need first Begin with the organizational or community need rather than with an available partner or funding opportunity. Ask: What problem are we trying to solve? What resource is actually needed? Do we need it permanently, periodically, or temporarily? Would sharing improve quality, access, capacity, or sustainability? Would another solution be simpler or more effective? 2. Identify appropriate partners Potential partners do not need to share an identical worldview, but they should have enough compatibility to manage the proposed arrangement responsibly. Consider: Mission alignment Organizational capacity Reputation and reliability Financial stability Governance Service quality Ethical standards Community relationships Accessibility Communication style Experience with collaboration 3. Involve the people affected by the arrangement Leadership should not design a collaboration in isolation when staff, volunteers, participants, or community partners will experience its consequences. Depending on the arrangement, ask affected people about: Workload Access Scheduling Privacy Service continuity Transportation Technology Cultural and language needs Concerns about the proposed partner 4. Conduct due diligence Understand the organizations and resources involved before making a commitment. Depending on the arrangement, review: Financial condition Insurance Existing contracts Lease restrictions Employment policies Technology and cybersecurity Licensure or professional requirements Grant requirements Privacy obligations Past partnership experience 5. Calculate the full cost A shared resource may cost less than maintaining one independently, but include the costs of: Staff time Supervision Coordination meetings Legal and accounting work Insurance Technology Administration Training Compliance Evaluation Do not create a collaboration that appears inexpensive only because one organization or its staff are absorbing uncompensated costs. 6. Define responsibilities clearly Agree on: Purpose Scope Roles Decision-making authority Staffing Supervision Costs and payment Performance expectations Participant communication Data and privacy Ownership of property and intellectual property Insurance and liability Reporting Evaluation 7. Put significant agreements in writing A written agreement might take the form of: A memorandum of understanding A service agreement A lease or sublease A cost-sharing agreement A data-sharing agreement A contract A subaward Another agreement appropriate to the arrangement The agreement should be detailed enough that the partners do not have to rely on memory or informal assumptions when a disagreement occurs. Depending on the relationship, include: Effective dates Renewal procedures Financial terms Deliverables Reporting Confidentiality Insurance Dispute-resolution procedures Corrective-action procedures Termination provisions Transition responsibilities Obtain legal, accounting, human-resources, insurance, or other professional review when warranted. 8. Establish governance and communication Decide who communicates with whom, about what, and how often. Shared staffing may require regular contact among supervisors and the employee. A joint program may require implementation meetings. Shared space may require a facilities contact. A collaborative grant may need financial, programmatic, and evaluation meetings. Establish: Regular meeting schedules Named contacts Decision-making procedures Escalation procedures Documentation expectations 9. Plan for continuity and exit Every important shared arrangement should consider what happens when: Funding ends A key employee leaves A partner withdraws The organizations disagree The resource is no longer needed One organization closes or restructures An exit plan may address: Notice requirements Participant continuity Records and data Equipment Financial obligations Staff transitions Communication with funders and partners 10. Evaluate and adapt Review the arrangement periodically. Ask: Is it meeting the original need? Are services better or more accessible? Are costs consistent with expectations? Is workload manageable? Are responsibilities clear? Are participants experiencing new barriers? Are there privacy, technology, compliance, or safety concerns? Is the partnership still aligned with each organization's mission? Modify the agreement when appropriate rather than preserving an arrangement simply because it already exists. Common barriers to sharing and how to address them Role, resource, authority, or identity conflicts Organizations may disagree about: Which organization leads Who receives funding Who receives public recognition Which organization controls a service area How decisions are made Whose procedures apply These disagreements are sometimes described as "turf issues," but they may reflect legitimate concerns about financial stability, accountability, community relationships, institutional identity, or different service approaches. Address them explicitly rather than dismissing them as ego. Clarify leadership, funding, credit, communication, service responsibilities, and decision-making at the beginning of the relationship. Differences in mission, values, or professional practice Partners do not need to agree on everything, but significant differences may make some arrangements inappropriate. Discuss: Program standards Professional ethics Nondiscrimination Accessibility Confidentiality Evidence and service models Advocacy positions when relevant Compromise can help resolve operational differences, but organizations should not compromise legal requirements, participant safety, professional ethics, or essential service quality merely to preserve a partnership. Unequal power and resources A larger organization may control the money, facilities, technology, or grant relationship while a smaller organization contributes community relationships or specialized expertise. Avoid arrangements in which one partner absorbs disproportionate uncompensated work or has little meaningful influence over decisions that affect its responsibilities. Community-based expertise, relationship-building, coordination, and outreach are real resources and should be budgeted and valued appropriately. Lack of communication Communication should be structured rather than left to chance. Determine: What information each partner needs Who provides it How often How urgent concerns are raised How decisions are recorded Performance or capacity problems A partner may miss deadlines, provide lower-than-expected service levels, lose key staff, experience financial problems, or be unable to meet compliance requirements. Address problems promptly and specifically. A response may include: Clarifying expectations Identifying the cause Providing appropriate technical assistance Adjusting roles or timelines Developing a corrective-action plan Exercising remedies specified in the agreement Ending the arrangement if necessary Staff overload or conflicting supervision Shared employees can experience conflicting requests from several supervisors or organizations. Prevent this by defining: Priority-setting authority Workload limits Scheduling Escalation procedures Performance-management responsibility Monitor the arrangement for burnout and workload imbalance rather than assuming employees will resolve competing demands themselves. Confidentiality and data problems Co-location, shared technology, shared staff, or integrated services can increase the risk that information is accessed by people who should not receive it. Use appropriate: Access controls Data-sharing agreements Confidential spaces Staff training Secure technology Record-retention and destruction procedures Financial misunderstandings Problems can arise when organizations have different assumptions about: Which costs are included Who pays indirect or administrative expenses When invoices will be paid How staff time is documented Who owns purchased equipment What happens when funding ends Develop a complete budget and payment process before implementation. Grant and contract compliance Jointly funded work may create responsibilities that differ considerably from a simple informal collaboration. Review: Award terms Allowable costs Procurement requirements Subrecipient requirements Recordkeeping Monitoring Reporting Audit requirements Closeout Do not assume that every partner has the same legal relationship to a funder simply because all organizations participate in the same project. In Summary Sharing positions and other resources can help organizations strengthen capacity, improve services, coordinate related work, and use specialized resources more efficiently. Shared arrangements may involve staff, space, equipment, technology, professional services, information, purchasing, donated resources, reciprocal exchanges, cost sharing, collaborative grants, contracts, or subawards. Cost should not be the only reason to collaborate. Evaluate whether the arrangement advances mission, improves community benefit, maintains quality and accessibility, and is realistic for the organizations and people involved. Shared staffing requires especially careful planning. Clarify the employer relationship, supervision, workload, compensation, time allocation, confidentiality, performance expectations, and procedures for resolving conflicting priorities. Involve the employees who will actually carry out the arrangement before commitments are finalized. Shared data, technology, and facilities also require contemporary safeguards involving privacy, cybersecurity, accessibility, insurance, contractual authority, and service continuity. Collaborative grants require clear understanding of each organization's legal and financial role. When federal funds are involved, distinguish subrecipients from contractors according to the substance of the relationship and follow applicable monitoring and compliance requirements. Put significant arrangements in writing. Define roles, costs, decision-making, communication, performance expectations, data responsibilities, dispute resolution, evaluation, and termination or transition procedures. Finally, continue evaluating the arrangement. Partnerships do not need to continue simply because they were once useful. Adapt, expand, reduce, or conclude the relationship when evidence, staff experience, community needs, organizational capacity, or funding conditions change. Resources Appendix: Writing and managing a joint grant Writing and managing a joint grant is a special kind of collaboration. Money--sometimes lots of money--is involved; turf battles can erupt; complications can arise. On the other hand, joint grants can be an enormous boon to all the organizations involved. This Appendix will help you decide whether or not a joint grant is the right thing for your organization, and will walk you through the process of writing and managing the grant. Starting out. The spur might simply be the availability of funds: an organization may find a Request For Proposals from a public or private source that either asks for a collaboration or requires a range of service or activity that the organization can't provide by itself. The motivation might also come before the money, from a community need that several organizations recognize; from a philosophical bias toward collaboration as a better way to get things done in the community; or from a perception that the best chance for funding a program is by showing that it covers a number of different areas and crosses organizational boundaries. Here, organizations may first develop an idea, and then search for funding for it. Whatever the reason, the process almost always starts with a single organization suggesting a joint process to one or more others. Making sure a joint grant makes sense. As a first step in any successful joint grant process, the organization needs to look at the implications of such a grant for everyone involved, and discuss internally exactly what it might mean. Will people have to take on extra, or different work? Everyone has to know, or at least have a good idea, what his personal responsibilities will be under this arrangement, and agree that those responsibilities are worth it. Most important, everyone involved needs to agree that... The grant will meet a real need. The grant activity will be consistent with the organization's philosophy and mission, will fit in with what it's already doing, or will allow it to do something it's already considered (i.e., that the grant process is program-driven, not just money-driven) The organization can work with partners, and specifically with the partners it would have under the proposed arrangement This process needs to happen in every organization that is party to the grant. Planning the program. Once a partnership has been formed, all the partners, down to the staff or volunteer level at which the position or other resource will operate, should be involved in planning how the program will work. That way, they can ensure that everyone's needs, both programmatic and financial, are taken into consideration, and that--and this is vital--the grant is written so that all partners receive enough money from it to pay for their parts of the arrangement. By the same token, the actual work should be planned so that... It conforms to the philosophical and other standards of both the funder and all partners It is actually achievable, for both the organizations and the individuals involved It meets the real needs that motivated the partnership in the first place It is important that all the organizations and individuals who will be affected by the grant activity be involved from the beginning in its conception and planning. Not only will such participation build a better program, but it will also mean that everyone involved in the grant will they feel responsible for it, and consider it theirs. If they own the program, if they feel that they developed and nurtured it, then they will be enthusiastic about it and do their best to make it work Writing the grant. Part of the planning process includes deciding who will write the proposal. The writing could be collaborative--people from different organizations could be responsible for different parts of it, for instance, or it could be done by someone from one organization with proposal-writing expertise. Whatever the situation, the responsibilities should be clear and worked out beforehand, so that everyone knows what his role is. Grants have deadlines, and it's important that each partner understands what it has agreed to do, and when. Grant Management: the Lead agency. Virtually all public, and most private, funding sources, deal with only one agency in a funding situation. In a multi-organization arrangement, this is the lead agency, the one that actually submits the proposal in its name; receives, distributes, and keeps records of the money; and is legally responsible to the funder. Which organization is to be the lead agency may be determined by who came up with the idea, may hinge on who has the necessary qualifications, or may be specified by the Request For Proposals. The lead agency usually needs to hold state and federal tax-exempt certificates, and may have to fulfill other requirements as well. Its responsibilities often include writing the proposal (perhaps with help from collaborators), fiscal oversight, supervision of the shared position or resource, coordinating communication, and keeping financial and program records to report to the funder. The lead agency is dependent upon its partners to provide it--on time--with the services and information it needs to fulfill the conditions of the grant. Other partners' obligations might include helping to write the proposal, supervising their involved staff, keeping their own financial and program records that can be passed on to the lead agency, participating in necessary communication, etc. All partners need to take their obligations seriously; the whole partnership can be hurt -- financially and otherwise -- by the failure of one to perform its contractual duties or to provide paperwork or funds when they are needed. Again, it's tremendously important that all of these responsibilities -- from the planning to the evaluation of the program after it's over -- are thrashed out in the course of putting the collaboration together, and again after the grant is received, so that there are no surprises or disagreements about them later. Specifics include... The exact nature of the service that each organization will provide to the community and/or to other partners. The fiscal guidelines for everyone. Who gets paid how much by whom and how and when and for what. The details of communication among partner organizations and individuals. Who reports to whom. Exact deadlines for getting financial or other reports or information to the lead agency so it can report on time to the funder. The wording of contracts or other written agreements. The more everyone knows and agrees to, the smoother a joint grant process is likely to be. You may need to decide whether to share the resources of the grant (one organization paying the full salary of a staff member who will do work for everyone in the partnership, for instance), or to distribute them through contracts. A contract is a legal document in which one party agrees to pay another a certain sum of money in return for certain services or products. In the case of a contract under a joint grant, the lead agency hires a contractor--a collaborating organization--to perform some or all of the work required by the grant. Payment goes in lump sums directly from the lead agency to the contracting organization, which distributes it in whatever way necessary to carry out the work specified in the contract. In some cases, the funder requires that all the contractor's expenses be laid out, item by item; in others, the only thing appearing on a financial report will be the lump sums paid to the contractor by the lead agency. Whether this is the best arrangement for a particular collaboration really depends on the needs of the partners, the nature of the work to be done, and the requirements of the funder. Online Resources National Association for the Exchange of Industrial Resources (NAEIR) (1999). NAEIR charges a membership fee, issues catalogues of equipment and goods discarded, remaindered, clearanced, etc. by business and industry. Members, which must be nonprofit organizations, can order an unlimited amount per year (average organization gets about $2,000 worth of stuff for approximately a $500 investment) for the cost of shipping. If you pick it up in Galesburg, it's totally free. Possibilities range from high-end computers and other office equipment to industrial machinery to clothing, school supplies, and furniture. It's only worth it if you need a lot: a good bet for several organizations to go in together, with one being the member and sharing the catalogues with the others. Many members are school districts, United Ways, etc., although many are also smaller organizations. Contact information: 560 McClure St., Galesburg, IL 61401. Tel. (800) 562-0955. Fax (309) 343-0862. Kluge, Debra (1999). Proposal Writing and Government Contracting. What Makes a Good Lead Agency? (PDF) provides a checklist of attributes that any good lead or fiscal agent should have in order to support the development and operation of a community coalition.
