CI is Stand Alone Charity or Non-Profit with Backbone Staff

PROS

·         Board of directors with clear governance structure as identified in charitable and non-profit models

·         Mission and vision aligned with the leadership table

·         Ability to provide a charitable number for funding purposes

·         Board of Directors assumes risks:  hiring/firing staff, financial oversight, etc.

CONS

·         Support two leadership structures which might be in competition, board and leadership table

·         Partners might perceive that funding is going to support the stand alone charity

·         Requires own infrastructure – accounting, back office, office space, etc

·         Partners might perceive that the charity is in competition with other charities in the community

·         More complicated ‘to go out of business’ when the goal has been achieved

·         Board member terms might be shorter than leadership table member terms

Backbone staff housed across multiple organizations

PROS

·         Engagement of multiple leadership table partners in the role of the backbone

·         Risk is shared across a variety of organizations in a way that no single partner assumes all the risk

·         Role clarity amongst the partners

Is required when multiple organizations are involved

CONS

·         Confusion for staff about who is accountable to who or which organization for what

·         Greater ability for conflicts to emerge when one partner thinks it is doing more than the other partners

·         Allows for duplication and requires greater collaboration across backbone staff team

Backbone staff housed in another organization (Fiscal Sponsor)

PROS

·         Fiscal sponsor assumes risks:  hiring/firing staff, financial oversight, etc

·         Fiscal sponsor may provide infrastructure support – office space, accounting, financial management, HR management

·         Fiscal sponsor may have  credibility to bring influential partners to the table (funder, large organization, business, government)

·         Role clarity between the fiscal sponsor and the Leadership table is helpful (MOU)

CONS

·         An additional layer or layers  of accountability for backbone staff reporting both to the leadership table and to the fiscal sponsor CEO and Board of Directors

·         Conflicts may arise between the fiscal sponsor mission and the CI mission/common agenda

·         Fiscal sponsor may only be committed to this support role for 3 – 5 years thereby requiring the CI Leadership table to find a new fiscal sponsor

Leadership table takes on the backbone functions with no staff

PROS

·         Leadership table members deeply engaged in the collective impact effort

·         Backbone functions shared across multiple organizations and leaders in the community

·         Risk is shared across a variety of organizations in a way that no single partner assumes all the risk

·         Role clarity amongst the partners

Is required when multiple organizations are involved

·         May be a useful approach for small communities

CONS

·         Collective impact effort may become a side of the desk activity because the individual organizational outcomes have priority

·         Greater ability for conflicts to emerge when one partner thinks it is doing more than the other partners

·         Allows for duplication and requires greater collaboration across backbone staff team