In order to further explore the results of the institutional survey, we re-contacted the 266 institutions we had sent questionnaires to, requesting a ten-minute interview. Since the survey response was so low (2.3%), we thought that perhaps institutions would agree to a short telephone interview. Our assumption was wrong. Only those who had taken part in our survey and who were interested in future partnerships with women's organizations, or who had personal contacts with women's groups, shared with us information about how they chose their partners, and the women's group(s) with whom they would be more interested in partnering.

We interviewed five of the six institutions which had answered our questionnaire and one which had not. The six interviewees included a large labour organization, a large utility corporation, a large financial institution, a medium-sized local food store (which operates three stores in Vancouver), and two small repair services shops. Four out of the six institutions interviewed had answered our questionnaire. Among the six institutions, three have already been involved in partnerships with women's organizations, two have past and present partnerships with other non-profit organizations, and one has never partnered with a non-profit organization.

For legal purposes, these institutions will not be identified. However, we have sketched a general portrait of them in order to provide an idea of what these institutions might expect when developing partnerships with women's organizations.

In general, the analysis of the interviews supports the findings revealed in our review of the literature, and confirms women's organizations' expectations about the lack of institutional interest in supporting violence against women prevention programs, and the costs of such partnerships for women's groups.

I - What Institutions expect in their partnerships

Institutions have different expectations of their partnerships depending on their principles. While some believe in working together with non-profit organizations to achieve equality and social justice, others appear more interested in supporting non-profit organizations that can offer public recognition.

1. Public recognition

Large corporately managed private institutions have recently begun developing partnerships in the hope of building their profile. By supporting a non-profit organization, they expect to be seen as being socially responsible in the eyes of their customers and as a result, hope to gain the business of more customers. These institutions expect to gain public recognition in order to reach a bigger market through their partnership.

One of the two large institutions we interviewed already serves 95% of the province of British Columbia and therefore does not feel the need to widen its markets. It only supports programs that are chosen by its customers and that are province-wide.

"We go back to what our customers are concerned about and what issues are of value to them. Then we try to find programs and initiatives in the areas determined by our customers."

2. Respect and equality

Fortunately, although a few institutions admit that public recognition is an attractive bonus to a partnership, they have other expectations from their partnerships than building their image. For example, the financial institution we interviewed was founded fifty years ago with a strong commitment to strengthening the community. In 1989, this institution established a community foundation based on the following three principles: (1) to serve the community; (2) to respect the environment; and (3) to work toward social justice.

"I don't think the key issue is a typical sponsorship issue. It is nice to get but I think we don't put a lot of emphasis on that. In terms of partnership, we like to develop partnerships that go a little deeper in terms of maybe a business relationship, maybe a support relationship where we can use our skills as financial service providers to help the non-profit organization."

The labour organization we interviewed also had additional expectations beyond image building. In fact, its first expectations of partnerships are to exchange knowledge, to work towards equality, and to respect each other:

"We hope to share and learn from each other."

"We expect equality, balanced relationships and respect in our partnerships."

In contrast with image building, these institutional expectations fit more appropriately with women's organizations' needs in developing future partnerships. However, it is important to know that women's organizations need financial resources as well as business expertise, opportunities for educating new audiences, and respect for the value of their work.

3. Limited resources

On a smaller scale, small businesses may also enter into partnerships for the same reasons as big corporations: to build a socially responsible profile and access a new pool of customers.

One of the small business owners we interviewed explained that through his partnerships, he would expect to promote and advertise his business:

"I suppose I would partner with a non-profit for advertising and promotional reasons."

Although women's organizations may be more comfortable supporting community sustainable small businesses than big corporations, the key issue is that, as a woman explains:

"Institutions need to support what women's organizations know is right to be doing, not what institutions want us to do."

Otherwise women's organizations may for example end up losing control over violence against women prevention programs, and projects which would have to conform with what institutions would be willing to support. As a result, women's organizations may also lose credibility from their supporters and clients by getting involved with institutions whose activities conflict with feminist principles. They would feel, as they have expressed, they were selling their connections to the women they serve, in other words betraying them. This explains why it is crucial to women's organizations that they be able to set the terms of their partnerships depending on their needs.

4. Strengthening community links

Five of the six institutions we interviewed are already involved in helping others in the community and have expressed the desire to continue to exchange goods and services, and to join forces to make the community a better place to live for all:

"We would exchange our services and expertise for free ads in newspapers."

"We want to be involved in the community, and give what we can give."

"We are locally focused."

In fact, most of these institutions have already shown their interest in partnering with women's organizations. Two of the institutions we interviewed have already been involved in helping women's organizations in a number of different ways (i.e., food, clothing, and financial contributions).

5. Growing demands

Motives for developing partnerships with non-profit organizations differ from one institution to another. However, institutions all appear to expect some kind of recognition for their support. As we noted earlier, several institutions prefer their partner to show their appreciation in a very public way as opposed to others who admit this public demonstration is attractive but not required in a partnership.

"It is important to know that you are appreciated. There are so many people asking for help that it is easy to be choosy, and therefore when you feel you are not appreciated what is the point?"

Thus, the growing demands for restricted institutional funding by non-profit organizations is allowing institutions the power to choose their potential partners on their own terms. As a consequence, women's organizations are being torn between their need for funding and their need to stay free-standing in order to fulfill their purpose as social change agents.

II - How do institutions choose their partners?

Institutions have a lot of leeway in selecting partners: the demand for funding being much greater than the supply, which means that institutions can be more demanding in regard to who they decide to fund and what they expect in return.

For example, one of the institutions we interviewed has chosen to support programs that are: (1) related to its services; (2) designated by its customers; and (3) within the geographical range of its market:

"We service 95% of the province and so we support outreach programs to the entire province."

Another institution we interviewed bases its choice of partners on three principles mentioned earlier, and pre-determined groups with whom it is interested in partnering:

"We do have other partners with so called 'affinity groups,' from an advertising and promotion perspective, different segments of the community that we have targeted as good potential communities to do business with. Those are, for example, ethnic in nature, and the gay and lesbian community."

In the context of limited funding, women's organizations tend to be at a disadvantage in terms of negotiating with institutions.

1. Promoting institutional ideology

The mistake that institutions often make is to think that non-profit organizations, in particular women's organizations, need to be more like businesses. They think that women's organizations should be managed like profit-making organizations and should be results-oriented. In other words, the goals of women's groups and the results of their work are long-term and therefore do not fit the short-term requirements of institutional funding.

"It is important to feel that you are making a difference, and to see your contribution at work."

"I am more into results I can see or feel."

Violence against women is not measurable in these terms. Abused women do not "recover" overnight. Women's organizations' missions are also on-going: preventing or ending violence against women is about achieving women's equality. The institutional results-oriented ideology is not always appropriate to women's organizations.

2. Guidelines and policies

Several institutions we have interviewed have guidelines and policies to determine their choice of partners. These are often directly related to the product or services that the institution is selling, or to its customers. For instance, food stores tend to donate to food banks, cosmetics corporations to women's or more specifically women-related issues, pharmaceutical corporations to medical research and education, and high technology corporations to high technology research and education fields. For the same reason, one of the respondents who was representing a food store explained:

"We have clear guidelines based on community, hunger, health, the environment and non-profit."

Thus, women's organizations' chances of finding new partners depends on how well they fit institutional guidelines and policies. Although, they may fit under certain categories, their partnership opportunities are being restricted by what institutions are willing to fund rather than what women's organizations need to undertake to prevent violence against women.

III - Women's groups with whom institutions might be interested in partnering

In general, institutions prefer to support non-profit organizations that deliver direct services. They like to see direct results and have direct recognition:

"I understand the need for advocacy and research, but I would most likely support a group that delivered direct services because I want to see the direct results."

Institutions want to make sure their support benefits directly those for whom it is intended rather than the non-profit organization more generally:

"We like to know that the funds, whether money or food, benefit the people is it expected for, not getting lost between them and the non-profit organization."

However, many other corporately run institutions are not interested in preventing violence against women because as one of our interviewees simply explains:

"Corporations like nice causes. They have a hard time if the issue is not pretty."

Violence against women is definitely not "pretty" and therefore until women's organizations are able to educate every possible audience, and participate equally in society, this male-dominated corporate ideology will continue to severely limit corporate funding opportunities open to women's groups and organizations working to prevent violence against women, and helping women who suffer this violence.

Women run corporations, like their male counterparts also demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issue of violence against women, as illustrated by the following statement made by a female respondent from a large male-dominated corporation:

"The very fact that it is called 'women's' ... why not have one for violence in general like there is the victim assistance, family assistance program. I think what it is, is that it is so specific."

Many of those interviewed appeared not to understand the causes and effects of violence against women. In other words, they did not understand that while we live in a violent society, violence against women is directly related to women's unequal status in society, and is not just another manifestation of random violence. This lack of understanding constitutes another obstacle that women's organizations face when looking to form partnerships with private sector institutions.

Women's organizations also face a lack of support from women owned and run institutions and small businesses, even though, as a female respondent from a large corporation points out, they are more likely to support women's organizations than male run large corporations:

"I think that what I would do is go to a women who is running a company. What is sad ... not sad but so exciting is that women are doing more and more in small businesses. And that is where I would go. There is relevance there, these are women and you are addressing women's issues. I mean small businesses have to play a socially responsible role just as much as large corporations."

Summary

Institutions have a variety of expectations in their partnerships. However, it appears that recognition whether public or private is very important to all institutions. In fact, for many it is the main criterion for choosing a partner and maintaining a partnership. Respect and understanding of each other, equality and balance are also determining factors for a few institutions. And, while a number of institutions (four out of six in our sample) base their choice of partners on those values, others appear more interested in building a "socially responsible" image without generating profound social change. Our study has also found that institutions seem to like to see the direct results of their contribution and are choosing to support the delivery of direct services, over education, research, or advocacy work.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that we used general pre-screening tools by selecting institutions from the Imagine list or from so-called ethical funds - all of which are intended to indicate a support for social responsibility and ethical business practices - the participation rate of institutions in our research was very low. We assumed these institutions would be more likely to be interested in sharing with us their partnership experiences, and in pursuing future partnerships with women's groups. However, the institutions we selected gave no indication of an interest in community or social responsibility. This has lead us to conclude that an interest in social responsibility does not necessarily mean an interest in women's equality or fundamental social change. In fact, more than 97.7% of our pre-screened "potential partners" do not seem to be interested in partnering with grassroots women's organizations working on projects aimed at preventing violence against women. And, only four of the six institutions interviewed indicated that they would in fact partner with women's organizations working in the area of prevention of violence against women.