coordinating committee meeting notes
october 27, 2010: 1 – 2:30 pm, meeting via conference call
Meeting Outcomes - Partners will leave with:



A briefing on the AG & CPEDV feedback regarding the SFP Institute idea
An update on planned SFP activities for 2011
A review of SPR’s evaluation update memo of observations to date
Attendees (all via phone):





BSAV:
JRG:
CPNT:
WFC:
DV Field:
Bess Bendet, Christi Tran
Fran Jemmott, Jonathan Macaranas
Marissa Tirona, Michelle Gislason
Surina Khan, Maya Thornell-Sandifor
Tara Shabazz, Beckie Masaki

Guests:
Jo-Ann Adefuin, SPR
Elizabeth Waiters, SPR
Welcome, Check-in and CC Updates
CPNT
 Conducted a very successful webinar on assessing financial health.
 Convened Leaders in Berkeley on October 22, 18 cohort members attended, with
discussions focusing on understanding their organization’s dual bottom-line matrix,
managing change, and leadership sustainability.
 Observed that participants continue to be incredibly engaged and committed and
willing to tackle new challenges and activities.
 Initiated individual development planning coaching model upon completing 360
assessments.
 Introduced a new staff member who will also support SFP: Leslie Brown who has
previous experience with transition-aged youth.
 Observed a common theme that Leaders really appreciate being taken care of,
including the thoughtfulness behind developing the agenda, as well as logistics. .
An Independent Licensee of the Blue Shield Association
Bess opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and sharing that this was the CC’s first
meeting since the brief in-person CC meeting during CPEDV’s Annual Membership Meeting
and Annual Training Institute in September in Long Beach. After a quick check-in, Bess
opened the discussion to brief CC Partner updates:
WFC



JRG






Conducted quarterly check-ins with each OSG grantee.
Observed that while OSGs are in very different stages of implementation, they are
conducting impressive work on their SFP grants, highlighting:
o Marjaree Mason Center which contracted with Laura van Dernoot Likpsky from
the Annual Members Meeting (AMM) plenary session to conduct relevant
training to DV organizations in the Central Valley.
o Women’s Center of San Joaquin Valley which is conducting an extensive
community assessment involving over 40 partner sites/locations.
Slated November 12, 2010, for the first OSG Convening in Oakland for Cohort 1, with a
very interactive agenda planned.
Primarily focused on working with CPEDV to compile and report the evaluations from
the AMM and Annual Training Institute (ATI).
Reported phenomenal attendance for this year’s ATI and investigating what
contributed to that, including input from SPR and others who may have additional
insight.
Also looked at SFP Regional Workshop (RW) evaluations with an eye to possibly keeping
the same format in terms of having RW content connect and build momentum to the
ATI.
Strategized with CPNT on cultural competency and diversity throughout SFP, including
for possible Cohort 2 outreach efforts.
Developed and circulated the “SFP Institute Concept Paper.”
o Received feedback from BSAV and need to ensure CPEDV is aware; awaiting
discussion with SPR before sharing findings.
 JRG focused on 2011 and plan for next year, including geographic systems and
geo-mapping work.
- ATI and RW evaluations indicated enthusiasm for continuing the GIS
work.
- Strategize on how to implement without overwhelming the
organizations.
Announced new JRG staff member filling the role and position Sarita vacated: Taigy
Gooding, DrPH, starts November 8, 2010.
DV Field
 CPEDV recently concluded a retreat on their Policy Agenda which will cover budget
advocacy and education around two pieces of legislation: teenage dating violence
and batterers’ accountability/non-revocable parole.
BSAV
No update from Foundation.
2
SFP 2011 Calendar
JRG presented a draft 2011 calendar to the CC. JRG will continue to poll CC Partners and SPR
to gather information important to scheduling SFP events and key activities for 2011. Items
raised during the discussion include:
 CC Planning Retreat for 2012 is tentatively slated for October, but should probably
occur earlier in September.
 JRG also working closely with CPEDV to schedule Regional Institutes* during the best
times for the CA DV Field.
o * The new thinking for further discussion is for Regional Workshops, which was
previously only 5 hours long, to expand to 8 hours beginning at Noon on day 1
and running through Noon on day 2 and to be renamed “Regional Institutes.”
 General comments about the 2011 SFP Calendar of events/activities
o Please keep an eye toward adaptive capacity of SFP Cohort 1 OSGs and LDPs
as it appears much will be asked of them by the various SFP CC Partners and the
SFP Evaluator (SPR).
 Partners noted that the Calendar also serves as a tool to identify months
with high-volume of proposed activities and reschedule and/or modify as
necessary. Many items identified on the Calendar are actually
placeholders and are tentative.
o CC Partners asked to identify any missing items and provide feedback on
appropriate level of detail to be effective and efficient.
 It would be helpful to identify who the audience is for a given
activity/event.
 The calendar should provide clarity on expectations and roles for each
SFP partner, for each scheduled item.
 It might be also be useful/helpful to see key dates that each respective
CC Intermediary has, related to BSAV grant/contract conditions.
 Could include exact dates for LOI deadline and Board Meetings.
o Tangential comments/feedback include:
 Referring the calendar at the beginning of each CC discussion/meeting
might be useful/helpful.
 As we plan and schedule for the Cohort 2 application/selection process, it
would be good for CC Intermediaries to have discussions with BSAV well in
advance of determining the first slate of recommendations to ensure
good information-sharing as it relates to BSAV expectations.
 SPR’s 2011 calendar is very flexible and responsive with only a few
activities that cannot easily be rescheduled.
 Consider sharing appropriate parts of the calendar with the field so they
can plan to participate appropriately and with as much advance notice
as possible.
 JRG plans to create an easy-to-use, dynamic, multi-layered calendar
spreadsheet where certain cells are linked to other worksheets that
provide even greater detail.
3
SPR Evaluation Update
Bess provided the context for the next agenda item, referencing the September 30, 2010 “SFP
Evaluation Progress Memo, June- September 2010” memo written by SPRA and asking “What
are some emerging themes that we are seeing?” and suggesting that all SfP partners can
utilize this information to help us remain adaptive and create best possible outcomes for the 4year SFP. She then turned the conversation over to SPR.
SPR referred to the following highlights from the Update Memo handout. Discussion then
ensued.
Highlights from the discussion included:
 What role should SPR continue to play or be playing differently while still being mindful
on delivering their core promise?
 The Foundation shared that much of the SFP’s effectiveness relies on trust in one
another to make the right judgement calls. Each CC Partner is responsible primarily for
a specific SFP component. The Foundation’s hope and design are focused on
collaborative work wherever and whenever possible.
o The Foundation has an opportunity to budget differently to ensure CC Partners
are allocating sufficient resources as their time allows to engage in what they
believe is the right level. The Foundation is looking to each Partner to determine,
and communicate with the Foundation, what they believe is the right approach
and prioritize time and allocate resources accordingly.
 The Foundation noted that CC Partners have been good about asking about
expectations and encouraged more of this.
o CC Partners should feel comfortable sharing/suggesting what the Foundation
should be focusing on.
o Some of the complementary work the Foundation is doing is deliberately
complementary to, though not considered a part of, the SFP.
o The Foundation does not expect that everyone on CC participate in all SFP
activities.
 CPNT recommended that allowing space for reflection during CC meetings is useful;
helps when prioritizing.
 WFC observed that they are asking how we’re going to connect the SFP to other
movements that can help build the capacity and effectiveness of the DV field.
 A DV Leader shared that the NOVO Foundation is launching a national capacitybuilding initiative that might be relevant to SFP.
o Can we piggy back or align to help DV field connect with the larger social
justice movement-building picture?
o Could reach out to Movement Strategy Center, one of the NOVO intermediaries
 JRG suggested we may need to reflect back to think more strategically about what
we’re doing and up until now perhaps our CC meetings have been more
technical/logistical.
o Perhaps we can have a discussion at an upcoming meeting on our adaptive
capacities that go beyond what the calendar shows?
4
How can we be more strategic?
Is there a way we need to think differently about our organizations in the field as
well as other funders?
o Should the CC be considering leverage points with other organizations?
Should the CC delve deeper into an appropriate analysis of SFP program issues and as
a whole? For example, identifying diverse leaders for the next cohort.
 The pool at large is not that big. This suggests the possibility of a systemic
problem. It would be great to learn how to address this.
The Foundation shared that part of its task is to keep SFP focused on the defined
outcomes in the SFP logic model – this is a field-building effort , not a movementbuilding effort.
o Also we use some time in the November or December CC meeting to discuss our
respective organizations’ 2011 visions – as suggested by CPNT.
A DV Leader referred back to the SPR Memo which doesn’t include the activities
CPEDV conducts over the course of the year.
o there is some overlap with SFP and CPEDV activities This requires more
coordination.
o Need to figure out strategy/process to look at some of the existing things that
have already been institutionalized with CPEDV.
o We need to give thought to not overwhelming the field and provide the time
and space to discuss and coordinate – it shouldn’t be just sharing dates.
Perhaps more negotiation?
 JRG suggested the possibility of coordinating/enhancing regional
meetings.
 If there is a scheduled, CPEDV regional meeting, perhaps it can be
supported by adding a SFP workshop, too.
 This shows CPEDV’s other funders that they are leveraging
resources.
o
o



SPR Staffing Update:
Jo-Ann will leave SPR in December. Elizabeth “Liz” Waiters has been shadowing her for a
couple of months to ensure a smooth transition. Hanh will be co-project manager with Liz.
OTHER IDEAS
What’s the best way to obtain updates? Oral is so much more preferred over written, but
please provide any thoughts, insights, etc.
Follow-up Actions


Maya will send out agenda to OSG convening in Oakland scheduled for November 12.
JRG to share SFP Institute one-page concept paper, indicating pros and cons.
5
Group Agreements

Need to talk about visions and intentions for 2011.
Next CC Meeting

CC call-in meeting: November 16, 2010.
6