Participants including Becky Schaid (left), Sister Helen Bristow, Jeanne Rooney and Susan McLoughlin enjoyed Ingram’s assembly that provided a forum for healthcare philanthopists to discuss issues common to their organizations and the region.

These new collaborations can, however, lead to new problems. Jeff Ellis noted, as an example of how the system works against itself,” that the legal side has challenged the idea of data sharing. The participants have had to work through not just legal issues but cultural and technical ones as well to enable them to share this critical information electronically.

Jeanne Rooney praised the community for stepping up and cooperating on the Robert Wood Johnson grant that helped this project off the ground. Rooney saw this as a “perfect example” of how local providers together with local funders can create a national model. “We can provide some of the integrity,” added Rooney, “and make sure it is being done right.”

Hilda Fuentes cited the Funder’s Forum as another example of voluntary collaboration. The various funders meet in a discreet, unforced environment to discuss the priorities of the community and the best way to meet community needs. Admittedly, and understandably, funders are not inclined to pool donor databases, but even in an area this sensitive, there is some movement. Davoren Tempel related that Children’s Mercy Hospital Foundation was doing “something unique” with her counterparts at Truman Medical Center, a project that involves the sharing of donors.

Identifying a Collective Enterprise

More difficult still than establishing the mechanism for collaboration is agreeing on a long-term, programmatic focus.

Janet Baker noted that UMKC has taken on the issue of obesity and collaborates with several other institutions on the issue. “By having those experts work together on strategies,” said Baker, “then we can go after funding beyond Kansas City.” But Baker also acknowledged a more generic goal might have more enduring potential, like funding preventive care among the poor. Dr. Bridget McCandless also argued for collaboration on preventive care, but she stressed the need for it to dovetail with existing care delivery systems.

Dr. Steve Reintjes did not believe an effective collaboration across the board could effectively address single issues. He suggested instead a broader cooperative approach to address indigent care, especially given the failure of tax-driven initiatives like the health care levy or the 2002 tobacco tax to garner public support.

“It’s great to have these discussions,” said Jeff Ellis to the Ingram’s participants. “You are right to challenge us on whether we are collaborating.” Given the complexity of the system, a complexity heightened by a state line in the middle of the metropolis and the natural division between funders and providers, conscious collaboration is useful and necessary even if just to establish what the priorities are. “We need to do this every quarter,” said Ellis.

Communicating the Vision

Given the voluntary nature of so much of their funding, funders and providers both share the need to communicate their progress to their donor base. As Janice Benjamin noted, one drawback to collaboration is the lack of an existing mechanism to let donors know just how much good work is in progress.

Terry Snapp of the Truman Charitable Foundation made the point that communication issues are not unique to health care. Still, given the critical nature of these respective missions, good communication is essential. Funders have to make “a compelling case” for continued giving. According to Snapp, that means showing donors that the program in question has a clear vision, that there will be strong accountability and meaningful feedback on results, and that the program being funded has an opportunity to make a significant impact.

“Outcomes are critical,” affirmed Dr. Mike Jurkovich. Donors have to be educated and kept up to date on the program’s success. “More than ever,” agreed Jan Leonard of UMB, “it’s important to give donors results.”

Providing results is not necessarily sufficient in and of itself. Liz Levin noted that donors want to know which programs will continue. Although this is admittedly tricky to report on, said Levin,“There will be a more positive outcome if you can provide that.” Public funders are likewise concerned about “plans for sustainability,” added Susan McLoughlin. Bob St. Peter noted that, in addition to pressure from within to meet expectations, there is more public accoun-tability and more scrutiny from the state and federal government as well.

Bottom Line

“This meeting has drawn a lot of attention to the problems we will face,” said Terry Snapp in the way of a summary. “At the same time we have an extraordinary story to tell. One of the greatest things [Ingram’s] could do is to paint a picture of the great things that are happening around some very difficult challenges.” Added Bob St. Peter, “Ingram’s can change the perception of philanthropy.” We couldn’t agree more, and we’ll do our very best.