Though CHAG's free-form structure has been genuinely successful both in providing a forum for creative exchange and in laying the groundwork for relationships of lasting significance in the community, few would deny that the format has been a mixed blessing. CHAG affiliate and former Executive Director of the South Bend Center for the Homeless Lou Nanni concisely summed up the consensus in observing that "on the upside, the process is non-compartmentalized, non-bureaucratic, and relationship-conducive; on the downside, however, it is often too drawn out, and too diffuse to be maintained consistently." As the number of funded projects has increased over the years, concern has surfaced among group members about a growing need to build more structure and accountability into both the pre-funding and post-funding evaluative processes. Though many of the projects CHAG has funded have been successful, others have proved difficult to sustain after the funding stage or have failed outright for lack of adequate administrative support. Former Memorial Health Foundation Board Member Rose Meissner has been particularly vigilant about this concern: "CHAG could be more effective, I think, if it structured its evaluative procedures so as to better ensure that the money we're investing makes a meaningful and sustainable difference."

This increasing need for a more structured approach to gauging project sustainability is all the more urgent in view of the threat posed to available resources by current financial pressures in the healthcare industry. In short, as resources decrease, the need to have concrete standards for evaluating project viability increases. CHAG member Carl Ellison explains: "If resources are shrinking, there will have to be more emphasis on the demonstrated benefit of activities. Right now we're still in the mode of funding as many new and interesting ideas as we can, and we don't have an exact learning template for every project we fund. Down the road when resources are tighter, the learning criteria for getting funded are likely to be more tightly defined."

In summary, the challenge facing CHAG has been to minimize the risks of project failure without compromising the freedom of participating organizations to experiment. In addressing this challenge, CHAG has discovered that developing a limited number of "strategic alliances" with larger, more experienced organizations increases the probability both of program survival after funding, and of the development of an equal and reciprocal relationship between the participating organizations.