January 18, 2000 -- Meeting Summary January 18, 2000 -- Meeting Summary
9:00am - 12:00pm |
Chaps |
The Radisson Inn |
SeaTac, Washington |
| Commission Attendance |
| Mona Lee Locke and Melinda French Gates Co-Chairs; Kathryn Barnard, Kim Cook, Yolanda Cortinas-Trout, Robbin Dunn, Sheri Flies, Peter Jackson, Marty Jacobs, Lynn Kessler, Mary Ellen O’Keeffe, Dee Ann Perea, Yvonne Ullas, Dee West, Lawrence White and Kyle Yasuda. |
| Special Guests |
| Dave Sharp and Kris Mitchke, Bozell Worldwide |
| Julia Kittross and Kathleen Rasumussen, Pacific NW Grantmakers Forum |
| Meeting Summary |
| Melinda Gates opened the meeting by showing a video about the success of the TEACH project in North Carolina. |
| After the video Melinda explained that Sue Russell will be back in Washington in February to help us move ahead with TEACH. The City of Seattle who is now partnering with the Commission on Early Learning in developing the TEACH project in Washington State. |
| Robin Zukoski announced that Shelley Westall from the Governor’s Executive Policy Office would be filling in for Jennifer LeSourd while she is on maternity leave. Information on how to contact Shelley will be distributed. |
| Robin also noted that several handouts were distributed to Commissioners including responses to the Commission’s TANF letters. |
| Finally, Robin noted a change in the November meeting summary. Cris Shardleman was noted to say "she saw an ad a couple of weeks ago regarding a meeting where child advocacy training was hooked into Headstart/ECEAP and that a session on how to talk to your legislators was being offered." It should read a session on how to lobby your legislators. |
| Mona Locke then explained to Commissioners that Scott Oki will be unable to attend the remaining Commission meetings due to his father’s ill health. He will however keep abreast of Commission happenings. |
| Mary Ellen O’Keeffe then gave the parent education subcommittee update and final recommendations. |
| Parent Education Subcommittee Recommendations |
| The foundation will: |
| Support the training of parent educators. |
| Thirty percent of the money the foundation makes available for parent education shall be used for professional development of existing trainers and training of new parent educators. The goal is to maintain and build the supply of quality parent educators in our community. |
| Increase accessibility of parent education. |
| Seventy percent of the funds the foundation makes available for parent education should go to parent education efforts. These programs could be either an expansion of an existing program or development of a new service. Any program must include an evaluation component. Special consideration will be given to proposals that reflect collaborative and community based planning. |
| Create, or expand an existing, 1-800 number to serve as a referral source for parent education and family support programs. |
| The foundation should issue a Request for Proposals for a statewide 1-800-parent resource and referral line. This could be an expansion of a current program or the development of a new one. The Parent Education subcommittee will draft recommended criteria for the service as guidance for the foundation. |
| Peter Jackson asked if these are strictly recommendations to the foundation and not requirements. |
| Mary Ellen O’Keeffe responded yes, these are only recommendations. |
| Melinda then asked for further comments on the recommendations and suggested that the Commission vote on these recommendations. All Commissioners were in favor and the recommendations were adopted. |
| Presentation by the Pacific NW Grantmakers Forum |
| Julia Kittross and Kathleen Rasmussen from the Pacific NW Grantmakers Forum (PNGF) were then introduced. |
| Julia Kittross started her presentation by giving a brief background of the PNGF. This organization is a nonprofit membership association of 160 public, community and family foundations and corporations that make grants in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. |
| The PNGF was asked to assist the Governor’s Commission on Early Learning in creating a blueprint for a new entity that would continue to try to meet the goals of the Commission. |
| Their scope of work includes |
| Designing new public charity whose purpose is to continue the work of the Commission |
| Determine recommendations regarding its: |
| -Governance |
| -Staffing |
| -Funding |
| Mission & Activities |
| Draft organizing documents for the IRS |
| In order to draft the initial design, PNGF relied on a variety of sources for information about the Commission’s intent. They received input from: |
| Governor’s Commission staff |
| Governor’s Commission minutes and web site |
| Interviews with fundraising and grant making experts |
| Research into similar entities elsewhere |
| Legal Counsel |
| Foundation’s Mission: |
| To ensure every child in Washington State goes to school prepared to succeed. |
| To support learning in children, birth to age five, by: |
| Improving the quality of child care |
| Increasing access to high quality parenting education, resources, and information on early brain development |
| Foundation’s Goals: |
| Deliver educational support and resources to licensed child care providers. |
| Educate and support parents in their efforts to learn behavioral, developmental and health information about their children. |
| Foster public awareness of the importance of early learning on children’s ability to succeed in school. |
| Raise funds to support the foundation’s initiatives. |
| The three programmatic and grantmaking areas will be: |
| Offering scholarships and other support to child care providers to earn credentialed degrees in early childhood education, modeled on a program called TEACH Early Childhood project. |
| Supporting parenting education classes throughout the state that help parents and other caregivers – grandparents, neighbors, baby-sitters – learn how they can stimulate children ages birth to age five to encourage brain development. |
| Providing information and financial assistance to the development of the state’s public engagement campaign, and continuing public engagement and education after this initial two-year campaign, launched by the Commission, is complete. |
| How will this be funded? |
| Gifts from: |
| Individuals |
| Private Foundations |
| Corporations |
| Governments |
| Other public charities |
| Budget Goals: |
| Budget designed to meet the IRS public support test within three years |
| Raise $13 million the first three years |
| Includes $9.5 million in "seed" funding |
| Distribute a minimum of $2.4 million in first three years |
| How will money be raised? |
| The money will be raised, as is usual with public charities, by a sustained, dynamic and passionate combined effort of: |
| Quality and professional staff |
| Expert consultants in fund development |
| And a volunteer board of directors, committed, involved and well-connected |
| The Foundation will be managed and governed by a 15 person Board of Directors and approximately a six person professional staff, plus expert consultants. The staff will include: |
| A CEO |
| A Development Director |
| A Grants Writer |
| A Program/Grants Manager |
| And two administrative staff |
| Governance Criteria |
| Board Members should represent: |
| Knowledge in early childhood learning |
| Good connections within the philanthropic community |
| The corporate sector |
| The public sector |
| CEO should have: |
| Passion for and knowledge of Foundation’s goals |
| Minimum 5 years experience managing similar size organization |
| Excellent skills in program oversight, fund strategizing, fund managing and fundraising |
| Experience in grantmaking |
| Superb Board development skills |
| Discussion |
| Marty Jacobs noted 15 board members and 6 staff seems like a lot. Why was this number chosen? |
| Julia Kittross explained that start-up foundations rely heavily on board member's expertise and connections to get things moving. 15 board members would give the appropriate mix of needed connections. Additionally, the foundation could use outside consultants rather than permanent staff. However, experience suggests that the CEO could end up spending all his or her time managing consultants. In an enterprise of this size, training permanent staff and being to rely on them is important. |
| Marty then asked what the timeline is for getting the foundation running. |
| Kathleen Rasmussen answered that within the next 6 months or so the foundation would be launched. It generally takes two to three months to hear from the IRS after filing papers. |
| Peter Jackson noted that non-profit organizations tend to under staff themselves. Having a larger staff will help build momentum quickly to ensure success. |
| Kathryn Barnard asked how the public engagement campaign will relate to the Foundation. |
| Kathleen Rasmussen explained that it will ultimately be up to the Board and CEO how the relationship will work out. Collaborations will definitely exist. |
| Sheri Flies noted that doing a national search for a Director could take several months and that having a Director as soon as possible would be crucial. Will the 3 initial Board Members hire the CEO? |
| Julia Kittross answered yes, the 3 Board Members could choose to hire the CEO before the remaining Board was brought on. |
| Robbin Dunn noted that it is very exciting to see all of this coming together. For continuity’s sake some members of the Commission should be on the Board. |
| Melinda Gates then asked Commissioners to vote on filing the papers for the Foundation with the IRS, based on the report given by PNGF. All Commissioners voted in favor of filing the IRS documents. |
| Naming the Foundation |
| Kris Mitchke from Bozell Worldwide explained that it is important to come up with a Foundation name that will limit consumer confusion. From the PR point of view using the same name as the public engagement campaign makes sense but many people feel "Connecting with Baby" is not a good name for a foundation. |
| Several options were looked at. Some where too limiting and vague and one other name was already in use. |
| Kris explained that they came up with two possible names and asked Commissioners for feed back. They are: |
| Foundation on Early Learning |
| Early Learning Foundation (as a back up name) |
| Melinda Gates asked Commissioners to vote on these names. Commissioners all agreed to use the name Foundation on Early Learning. If for some reason this name was in use the Commission agreed to use Early Learning Foundation as a back-up. |
| Kris further explained that they would need to do a legal search on these names prior to use. |
| Campaign Update |
| Kris Mitchke explained that the photo shoot for the logo is set for the beginning of February. They were now done with the research surveys and will have a final report prepared by the end of January. 400 parents were surveyed. |
| The goal of the survey was to determine what parents/caregivers know and believe about early learning, and asked what role state government should play in early learning. |
| The result from this research will help develop the creative side of the campaign. What type of tone and messaging to use, etc. The research also tells us where the information needs to be placed in order to best reach the target audience. |
| Kris explained that they plan to start advertising in March and discussions of advertising will take place at the next meeting. |
| Discussion of future Commission meetings |
| Melinda Gates explained that the Commission would not meet in February, April or June. The last two Commission meetings will take place on March 21 and on May 16. In the meantime, subcommittee work will still continue. A draft of the final report will be available in March. Melinda then asked for any further comments. |
| Lynn Kessler noted that the members of the Commission should show their Commitment to the Foundation by each making a donation. |
| Marty Jabobs asked if the Commission was still going to explore policy recommendations for enclosure in the final report. |
| Kyle Yasuda commented that at the beginning we talked a lot about the patch work quilt of children’s services. He is excited about the direction of the Foundation but feels that something still needs to be done to bring the pieces closer together. |
| Mary Ellen O’Keeffe noted that at one point the Commission was focusing on creating a blueprint for an integrated approach to services. Could this still be looked at? |
| Lynn Kessler noted that there is a bill in the legislature that would create a single agency that would focus on child care and early learning rather than having those programs spread out through several different agencies. |
| The Commission asked Robin Zukoski to circulate information about the bill and take an e-mail vote to see if the Commission will endorse the bill. |
| Robin Dunn said she too is delighted with the products of the Commission’s work. But her passion is still around systems. She asked if those who are interested in integrated systems could meet in the interim to shape the final report. |
| Mona Locke responded yes, those who were interested could meet. |
| Those members interested in working on systems issues include: Robbin Dunn, Dee West, Yolanda Cortinas-Trout, Kyle Yasuda, Mary Ellen O’Keffee, Lawrence White and Yvonne Ullas. |
| Peter Jackson noted that the Foundation will pull some of the integration together and should be an information repository. |
| Robin Zukoski recapped her understanding that the Commission’s final report will include where the Commission has been, what we’ve done and include a part on governance. |
| Mona Locke noted that it should also include our vision and goals. |
| Kathryn Barnard noted that if 70% of the public believes government is responsible for sharing child development information there needs to be a way to keep putting pressure on existing agencies. A message should be included in the report that there needs to be a "family friendly" assessment of the different programs designed to help families educate and care for their children. We don’t want to let state agencies off the hook. |
| Peter Jackson further noted that even though the Foundation cannot lobby it still will be a presence in the community and have a role to play in policy decisions. The Commission’s report must provide the Foundation’s Board a blue print of expectations and roles. |
| Sheri Flies suggested that Commissioners send Robin comments on the types of things they would like to see in the report. |
| Melinda Gates requested that everyone remember our focus and please don’t bring in new topics now. |
| Mona Locke noted that the main point of our final report will be what we accomplished rather than what we recommend. |
| Kyle Yasuda stated that the Commission has and the Foundation will continue to bring research to the limelight. It is easier for families and business to understand information that is based on science. The Foundation should have a role of integrating future research. |
| Public Comment |
| Dave Hall noted that he was excited about the Commission’s work. He believes violence prevention – the root of difficulty – is right at the heart of the Commission’s work. He cautions the Commission to look closely at how subsidies work in child care. Many centers can’t afford it and have to close. |
| Dorothy Jane Youtz is impressed and grateful for the focus of the Commission. It appears that all communities are now coming together to focus on this issue. This is for all parents. She thanks the Commission for their leadership. |
| Jean Hueston believes the Commission is doing a terrific job. She is involved with the Children’s Initiative, a program for children 0-2. She is worried about what happens to the children after they are 2. Jean also announced that Robin Karr-Morse would be coming to speak at the Grace Lutheran Church in Demoines on March 30th at 5:00pm. |
| Donna Haggarty Robbins from PEPS reminded that Commission that they should reserve the domain name for the foundation web site soon if it is still available. |
| The meeting was closed. |
| Future Commission meeting dates: |
| March 21, 2000 |
| May 16, 2000 |