The case for collaboration—and how to do it well
In my conversations with nonprofit leaders this year, one word has stood out to me more than any other: competition. Funding is scarce at a time when needs are growing. As a result, they’re focusing their energy on standing out from the crowd to attract philanthropic investment.
There’s truth to that, of course. Some types of funding are more competitive, such as public funding and foundation grants. Some types of donors are shifting giving patterns due to changing incentives and risks—especially corporations.
Overall, though, we do not have a lack of resources in the United States—or a lack of people willing to put their resources to work to make the world a better place. What we do have is a challenge mobilizing those resources—and people—to create a better world.
When we zoom out, our ‘competition’ in fundraising is not other nonprofits; it is the dollars not being deployed to strengthen and benefit our communities. Our real competition is poverty, disease, environmental degradation, lack of education, rising costs, pressures on our workforce…all the things our missions are solving for. Our real competition is information overload, overwhelm, apathy, consumerism, greed…all the things that limit our ability to effect change.
To become (and remain) competitive, we need to reimagine how we view ourselves—and how we work together. It’s time to stop vying for a larger slice of the ‘philanthropy pie’—and focus instead on increasing the size of the whole pie. It’s time to work shoulder to shoulder with other nonprofits, collaborating—directly or indirectly—to solve the bigger challenges in front of us.
This is, of course, easier said than done.
In our recent panel, Jim Chesire, Colleen Clark, and Atiba Edwards shared their experiences—and practical tips for the rest of us.
Below: Watch the video recording of our recent panel discussion, ‘Are you working in collaboration or competition?’
Collaboration can accelerate solutions
Nonprofits are great at collaborating in moments of crisis. Jim Chesire shared how during the pandemic, Imagine Science became a vehicle for cross-organizational response, helping public libraries, YMCAs, Boys and Girls Clubs, Girls Inc. affiliates, and 4-H staff and volunteers coordinate everything from books to food distribution.
Once things settle back to ‘normal’, though, that collaboration can be hard to sustain. In our current environment, with organizations facing drastic and unexpected funding cuts, it’s tempting to batten down the hatches and focus inward.
Even where scarcity is real, it does not have to become strategy. The strongest organizations believe: ‘our people are out there, and we can find the resources we need to fulfill our mission.’ And they work accordingly, spending their time externally building relationships and partnerships. Critically, they build those relationships and partnerships even when they don’t need them. That is, they anticipate future challenges and opportunities and build up the network they need—in advance—to address them. They become future-ready and resilient.
Collaborative organizations can take on bigger, more complex challenges, with each organization focusing on its niche value-add.
Funders increasingly recognize the power of this approach. Atiba Edwards described a funder who made a direct challenge to cultural organizations in Brooklyn: Why not come together with one stronger idea instead of asking for separate, smaller investments?
This is more than a prompt to make the funder’s application review easier; it’s a call to shift our focus to our holistic solutions and biggest dreams. What can we do together that none of us can do as well on our own?
Strong partnerships need purpose, trust, and clear roles
That said, our panelists were clear: Partnerships between organizations should be approached selectively.
Our sector will be more powerful when rooted in a spirit of collaboration and abundance—but it remains true that direct partnership takes time, energy, trust, staff capacity, and sometimes money. Without clear purpose, partnerships can become another version of the dreaded group project: uneven contributions, unclear accountability, and one partner quietly carrying more than its share.
Jim offered four useful tests for collaborative fundraising: funded, focused, functional, and flexible.
Funded: Partners should not ask teams to deliver outcomes without resources.
Focused: The work should have clear goals and measures,
Functional: …fit how organizations actually operate,
Flexible: …and allow enough flexibility for local context.
Atiba offered another framework: A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes (wh)Y.
Accountability: how will partners hold one another responsible?
Expertise: what does each organization bring?
Interest: why now?
Operations: how will we communicate, meet, decide, and deliver?
Understanding: what does success mean?
And, most importantly, why does this collaboration matter?
Those questions are also what make trust practical. Leaders build stronger partnerships when they know each other before a proposal is due, a crisis has already hit, or a funder has asked for a joint response.
Atiba described a different practice emerging among cultural leaders: regular conversations, text threads, quick exchanges, and a willingness to move ideas faster. Trust grows through repeated contact, shared problem-solving, and the simple confidence that another leader will answer when you call.
This kind of relationship-building helps organizations see each other more clearly. Instead of asking, ‘How do we build this ourselves?’ leaders can ask, ‘Who already does this well?’ That shift can unlock stronger programs, better use of space and assets, and deeper community access.
Shared scale works best when it honors local expertise.
For networks, coalitions, affiliates, and federated organizations, collaboration requires balance between shared scale and local knowledge. Colleen put it plainly: national reach does not equal national expertise. Meals on Wheels America can identify patterns across thousands of local providers, describe national trends, and make the case for investment. But local organizations understand their communities, routes, kitchens, volunteers, waitlists, partners, and seniors.
The power comes from pairing those strengths. Colleen described how local insight helped Meals on Wheels America identify more than $420 million in one-time infrastructure needs across the network. Local providers knew what stood between them and serving more seniors. The national organization could connect those needs, see the pattern, and translate it into a stronger case for investment. That same clarity matters to donors: Partners need a shared story that keeps the focus on the problem, the opportunity, and the impact made possible by collaboration.
One audience question went straight to a practical concern: When multiple organizations collaborate, how do we avoid confusing donors about where money goes and what it supports?
The answer is to organize the complexity before inviting donors in. Partners should align on the program idea, roles, budget, fiscal process, communications, and reporting before they go to a donor. Then they can present one clear opportunity, with transparent roles and a shared story of impact.
As Colleen noted, donors care about the problem they are helping solve. The collaboration matters because it makes the solution stronger, not because it showcases organizational logos. The case should make clear what partners can do together in a bigger, better, and more durable way.
Collaborative proposals require upfront work
When it comes time for collaborative asks, our panelists recommended planning on extra conversations and intentionally with both partners and the prospective funders. They recommend investing ample time in relationships with peer leaders.
When it comes time to collaborate on the ask, follow these steps:
Name the shared purpose. What can you accomplish together that you cannot accomplish separately? What community need, systems barrier, or strategic opportunity brings you to the same table?
Clarify roles and expertise. Identify what each partner brings, where each partner should lead, and where each partner should not overextend. Collaboration gets stronger when organizations respect each other’s lanes.
Put the operating model in writing. Document the purpose, decision-making process, meeting cadence, budget, communications plan, deliverables, and measures of success. Revisit the document after debriefs or leadership changes.
Design the donor story around impact. Lead with the problem, the opportunity, and what the partnership makes possible. Then make the funding flow, partner roles, and reporting expectations clear enough to build confidence.
When we collaborate with purpose, we do more than share work. We build the relationships, trust, and clarity that help good ideas move faster and farther.
For nonprofit leaders, the next step may be simple: Name the organizations already solving adjacent problems, start the conversation before there is an urgent ask, and look for the places where working together could make the solution stronger.
