Semantics of Partnership

I've always been something of a jargon junkie. When I enter a new subculture I quickly seek to understand and adopt the particular language that marks one as a member. That has also been true in Philanthropy.

The most difficult word to parse has been "Partner" as I blogged about months ago.

In our society the word is used to describe business arrangements, romantic relationships (same sex and straight), friendships, and numerous other aspects of human interaction with varying degrees of formality.

In philanthropy it seems to indicate the relationship between donor and charity, but this can have so many different aspects.

When we identify what we call Strategic Partners for Catalyst we intend that the relationship extend beyond the merely mechanical exchange of finances, but also incorporate something more involved. But it has been difficult to define what that involvement might be.

Here's a draft list of aspects that might become a part of a Strategic Partnership Agreement as we continue forward:
1. Site Visit by Catalyst staff or principals to field work of the organization.
2. Informal Consulting between organization’s leadership and Catalyst
3. Promotion of partner through Catalyst website, blog, newsletter, and other materials, as well as personal advocacy
4. Annual Leadership Event with other Catalyst contacts
5. Catalyst Bonus Awards applications available to reward superior performance by staff
6. Catalyst Mentoring Program made available for a small cohort of staff and/or volunteers at no cost
7. Board Consideration for Catalyst director or principals to join partner’s board of directors
8. Strive/CCCC/Catalyst board development teleseminars could be made available
9. Referrals through the developing Catalyst menu of leadership development opportunities
10. Volunteer Involvement by Catalyst at programs or events
11. Fund Raiser participation/promotion through Catalyst channels

What could you add to the list? Where are the landmines?

Picking Favourites

We are partway through the process of evaluating our applicants from this funding cycle. It has been a large learning experience. In a few weeks I will post some of what we've learned in the hope of becoming better at it next time around.

One of the challenges at times in our discussions has been in explaining what it is about certain applications that appeals to us. There are obvious factors: people we know, those who have clearly done their homework on us, ones that presented their request effectively, those that are intuitively a fit for our strategy and direction...
But there's also something else, something that I couldn't easily explain around our table but that is more clear to me after reading an excellent article by Andy Crouch this afternoon. I am enthused about supporting and partnering with people who are engaging with our culture in ways that involve creating and cultivating.

I've had Andy's book on my shelf for a couple months at the urging of Mark Petersen, but haven't taken the time to read it yet. That will have to change. In trying to be strategic about the use of the finances at our disposal we need to be thinking about the issues raised here.