Final report Global Fund for Women staff retreat

“Strategic Planning for (and from) the Future”June 25th, 2007

Marin Headlands Institute

Final Version

BACKGROUND

The staff of Global Fund for Women participated in an all-day staff retreat at the Marin Headlands Institute on Monday, June 25th 2007. The retreat was facilitated by Ellen Sprenger, an independent consultant who has been contracted by Global Fund for Women to facilitate Global Fund’s strategic review and planning process.

The agenda for the retreat was as follows:

ITEM TIME1. Introductions, Purpose and Agenda 9:00-9:302. The Strategic Review and Planning Process

9:30-10:00

3. Reflecting on the Future (‘Backcasting’)

10:00 – 11:30

4. Reflecting on the Future (Sharing) 11:30-12:305. Lunch 12:30-2:156. Exploring a New Strategic Direction for 2009-2013

2:15-4:30

7. Next Steps 4:30-5:008. Evaluation and Closing Remarks 5:00-5:30

The purpose of the retreat was two-fold:

1. To obtain and clear and shared understanding of the strategic review and planning process.

2. To share and reflect on key themes, challenges and ambitions of a future strategic direction for GFW.

By focusing primarily on the “Reflecting on the Future” and “Exploring a New Strategic Direction for 2009-2013” pieces, this report will share some of the retreat’s most salient themes around various aspects of Global Fund’s new strategic direction and insights generated by the staff through participation in the day’s activities. The analysis presented in this report was developed and written up by Michelle Morales under the supervision of Ellen.

REFLECTING ON THE FUTURE – “BACKCASTING”

Staff were organized into pre-determined groups of five with each group having representation from each Global Fund department (i.e. Development, Communications, Finance and Administration, Management, and Programs). Each group was instructed to answer the following questions:

Step 1: It is the year 2017. Describe the situation in 2017 when significant achievements in women’s rights are realized. What does the world look like? What do social movements look like?

Step 2, Backcasting: What went really worked, what worked? What opportunities were captured, harnessed? What threats were averted? What contributed to success? Who turned out to be key allies?

After the hour and a half, all small groups returned to the main meeting room where two representatives from each group reported their group’s key responses to the questions above. All groups focused their answers on Step 2, the “Backcasting” piece with “Step 1” responses as brief background contextual information. Below are summaries of their presentations.

Group 1: Rachel, Zeina, Jenifer, Arnetra, Susanna, Alison

Context: There are no more silos and instead more cooperation and collaboration among similarly-minded groups. The U.S. is not a major world power. Women have more access to resources and power. Technology is a status equalizer in that it guarantees access to education and work. Global Fund is capped at 50 staff with “green” office spaces and a daycare center. It is raising $20 million and leveraging billions for the global women’s movement. Global Fund has a 2-track grantmaking program with a cycle of 3 times a year. It convenes global women’s meetings and is a grants and knowledge production and linking hub.

Backcasting: Used technology to garner power. Worked with local organizations who worked with marginalized populations, like immigrants and other key women’s organizations. Linked movements to distribute power. Worked with scholars who have done research and worked with institutions who share similar values. We stepped up to the Bossy Plate. GFW acted as a bridge between Global South and Global North. GFW was a knowledge builder, and “was able to bypass the corruption of political structures and put women in power.” There were large gatherings of grantees that “provided the fuel,” and we [GFW] used technology to map out what was happening.

Group 2: Muadi, Caitlin, Katka, Melissa, Diana, Brittany

Context: There are different ways of socializing people around gender norms, and “feminism [is] part of the normalized discourse.” There is a focus on education as a mechanism for creating a more equitable society. More girls are in primary education, in the public sector, as well as in decision-making processes. Power is decentralized “with more small but effective organizations that coordinate with each other.” There is more acceptance of LGBTQI rights. Nations are poly-cultural. U.S. is a superpower “in decline.” Government has decreased in power while civil society is stronger. National GDP’s include labor, environmental impacts. There is more solidarity in environmental, poverty, and health issues.

There are two possible organizational scenarios: 1) Global Fund has experienced no growth and instead is more of a niche-finder; 2) It has merged with Mama Cash and UAF and is more of a peer organization to other women’s funds, and finally 3) Global Fund as a collaborative alliance of grantmakers that does does layered grantmaking and is still a small grants program.

Backcasting: More women in history books. More civic participation, more public financing. Security is a concept used to talk about poverty, security in the home. More civil society watchdogs who are more effective and powerful. “Education policy as our allies.” Other key allies included regional blocks, corporations that are different, educators, men, who are more vocal about women’s rights, men as fathers, and informed celebrities. Threats averted included: nuclear war, less military intervention, increased corporate power and corruption

Group 3: Fennis, Angelika, Kellea, Frances, Jess, Durga

Context: There is a redistribution of resources and power, having had taken advantage of communication, technology, and strategic direction. Technology has allowed integration of final reports and a better connection with the world. There is a decrease in wealth and resources gap. Philanthropists are funding women’s rights, which is key to ending global inequities. GFW has sub-regional offices, which enables closer proximity to grantees. There is less competition and “higher collaboration with other women’s funds and groups.”

Backcasting: Open communication with grantees. Successful interaction with grantees because of more and larger offices. Increased resources. Bigger location. “Everyone felt safe and trusted to work to the best of their ability.” Have identified key partners, brainpower of staff, and really focused on unrestricted donor money. Organized Global Fund differently, with cross team teams. Some threats averted included: not seeing ‘territories’ as such and going beyond these; avoiding burnout, not valuing young women for their ideas. Successes included: humility, stronger tools for communication and decision-making and “not just more staff meetings,” dealt with past tensions, stayed in touch with core values. “2017 as a year when we could start envisioning that happening, when the world didn’t need Global Fund for Women.”

Group 4: Lanell, Sande, Dechen, Loveline, Lindsay

Context: More collaboration with other movements and women’s organizations. Held seminars, worked with other movements, in particular, worker’s movements, women with disabilities movement, LGBTIQ, entrepreneurs. [GFW] is working with young people. Government focuses on people, people put pressure on governments to have international agreements; and health, education, public services are rights enforced by government. More women are in positions of power. There is less government corruption. Palestine and Israel are enjoying 10+ years of peace. Rockefeller Foundation has established and funded new gender department. GFW has offices in every region. U.S – based office is focused on fundraising and awareness – raising, while regional offices are making grants with a focus on policy. Women funds are thriving. Women’s movement has become so “integral to all movements” that there is a new term for it. More girls are graduating from college. National GDPs include caregiving, working in homes, environmental impacts, and cultural, linguistic, and indigenous literacy.

Backcasting: Crises averted include: terrorism, global warming, Pacific Islands are no longer sinking. Successes included peace building in Africa, Middle East, “wall is down between Mexico and the U.S.” Global Fund funds marginalized groups, is working on a regional basis, with offices in the U.S. primarily fulfilling the fundraising and educational functions. Programs teams are based in the regions they serve. Global Fund joined in collaboration between different movements. UN was stronger. Individuals in systems experienced a change in consciousness.

Group 5: Leanne, Sarah Co, Sheila, Maame, Annie, Lauren

Context: “People are living beyond survival”. There is a safer and multicultural society. Men are taking more of an active role in the women’s movements. Women’s rights movements are working together with other movements, such as the youth movement. Social movements are more collaborative that transcend boundaries and borders. There is global power sharing that is nonhierarchical, in which governments participate equally and hold accountability. There is women’s leadership at all levels of government and civil society. There has been a collective shift from definitions to a broader and pro-active vision.

Backcasting: We have tremendous Now or Never funds that go to the heart of the critical issues of barriers with faster funds transfer from one – two weeks. Many crises are averted this way. We’re collaborating with labor, antiracist, environmental movements. Men have a concrete understanding of what the women’s movement is all about. There is more inclusive decision-making. Global Fund is an international grantmaking

and educational institution…still a mobilizer of resources, but also an educational institution. “The role of the Global Fund is to take on the educational piece because women’s funds in other countries have become much more stronger, with local funds strong enough…”

Group 6: Shalini, Nancy, Sarah Ch, Susana, Ashley

Context: Women’s funds have taken over the grantmaking. The Global Fund is an international policy, education, advocacy, and technical assistance – providing institution. More women are in positions of power at all levels of society. There are locally sustainable and accountable economies. Governments are socially responsible entities that fully incorporate women’s issues. The women’s movement is fully integrated. The role of movements ha shifted to monitoring and implementation. Global Fund provides capacity – building and technical assistance and is a leading voice in developing world policy. It has offices all around the world; is much more proactive in linking and networking; and staff are much more engaged with grantees on information-sharing and gathering levels.

Backcasting: Women were central to reconciliation processes. Technologies have helped grantees learn skills. Global women’s funds were fully functioning. Communications and advocacy efforts brought high visibility to strategic audiences. There was a shift in radical, regressive fundamentalism. Achieved high synergy in partnerships to achieve common goals. There is a focus on the issue of poverty and global warming. Found strategic points of commonality with the women’s right. Multi-million dollar endowment. Had our finger on the women’s movement constantly. Major shift in all governments to progressive agendas. Key allies included: feminist pope, progressive feminists in power in U.S., key global donors, other movements, hip-hop movement, truly socially responsible companies, life skills education. Threats averted : no more conservatives in the White House, global war eliminated, global warming, no more corporate monopolies, unfair trade agreements.

Group 7: Dale, Erika, Kelly, Scholastica, Karen

Context: There are feminist leaders, both men and women, in key countries. Technology plays a key role in connecting movements and countries. Women’s issues have become mainstream. Global Fund is better positioned in global market and has shifted its role to be more of a bridging/networking institution balanced with grantmaking. Global Fund is the organization for channeling resources to the rest of the world more efficiently. There are two possible organizational scenarios: 1) Global Fund with satellite offices around the world; or 2) Global Fund with multiple offices across the United States.

Backcasting: Capitalized on what is fresh, fundraising trends, shifting individual resources, political structures, and failure of old paradigms. Learned from past mistakes. Streamlined our processes so that it takes less time to get money. Educated people about the feminist model. Turned competition into cooperation. Managed growth. Contributors to success included: Aligning ourselves with other groups and other movements, adhered to our values, allies. Threats averted included: not turning competition into cooperation, resistance to internal change, not being able to manage growth.

Group 8: Kavita, Randy, Bessma, Erin, Liv

Context: Grantees are working much closer with human rights and environmental issues because of a natural progression towards those issues. There is no gender discrimination. No WTO, instead there is fair trade. Military bases have transformed into retreat centers. There are innovative and clean technologies for a realignment of resources. Iraq is rebuilding. All movements have joined together. GFW is still working, but in partnership with other women’s funds and other orgs. There is a GFW campus with onsite daycare and garden.

Backcasting: Partnerships with others, women’s rights groups, corporations, small businesses, matching gift programs, changing their fundraising financial policies. Used our socially responsible investing model. Intense backlash, so for first 5 years, GFW persevered, did not back down. “Averted backlash by having networks and bringing more people together which we did in the past, but on a much larger scale.” There was a Global Fund campus, childcare, affordable housing for nonprofit employees. Global Fund offered an exchange program, where grantees could come and receive technical assistance, and teach us about their expertise. Not exactly larger, but really working to leverage our experience. Multiple bridges all around. Measuring our successes in different ways, not by how much money we raised, but by how much money we got to the groups we really cared about. Threats averted included: dissipation of the movement from too many groups not working together, right wing fundamentalist groups coming to power in the U.S and around the world.

ANALYSIS: REFLECTING ON THE FUTURE & BACKCASTING

Reflecting on the Future: the World in 2017On the “Reflecting on the Future” piece five themes emerged from the group’s responses. These themes are: Status of (women in) Governments and Multilateral Institutions, Status of Social Movements, Status of Women, Status of Global Fund for Women, and Significance of Technology.

The status of (women in) governments and multilateral institutions.Two groups envisioned a world where the U.S. was declining in power and influence, while another group specified that the U.S. “was NOT a superpower at all” in 2017. One group reported that there is less government corruption. Other groups envisioned that national governments are providing for basic human needs, such as housing, healthcare, and education from a “human rights” perspective, which then allows people “to live beyond survival.” Another group foresaw the power of national governments as actually declining and becoming a more decentralized force with the rise of civil society. Almost all groups alluded to the importance of more women in positions of power at all levels of society and government and some predicted that a growing number of governments will be governed by feminist politics. Several groups envisioned that peace between Palestine and Israel had been achieved, and immigration issues between Mexico and the U.S. resolved. Almost all groups envisioned the year 2017 as a year when global power was a more shared, nonhierarchical commodity, with all national governments participating in decision-making processes equally in strong and effective multilateral bodies.

Status of Social MovementsMost groups forecasted that all social movements would be fully integrated with each other, with leadership being sought from all types of social movements – people with disabilities movements, racial minorities movements, the LGBTIQ movements, working class movements, youth movements, environmental movements, and the women’ s movements. Groups differed in the role women’s movements would play in the integration of these various social movements. For instance, one group felt that women’s movements would provide the intellectual and values-based discourse on which all social movements would be based while others felt that women’s movements would become so mainstream that there would no longer be the need for a definitive “women’s movement”.

Status of WomenAll groups reported that women have experienced some significant advances in their social, political, and economic statuses. Almost all groups saw more women in powerful leadership positions at all levels of government and society. In fact, one group specified that the year 2017 would see “3 times more women presidents” as there are now. Other groups envisioned that more girls would be in primary education; others saw more women graduating from college. Almost

all groups envisioned that men would play an instrumental role in both movement-building and in the advancement of the status of women worldwide.

Status of Global Fund for Women and Women’s FundsAll groups reported that the organizational structure and mission of the Global Fund for Women would change by the year 2017. The degree to which Global Fund would change and the amount of growth generated by these changes varied from group to group. Almost all groups reported a transformation of GFW mission from that of a grantmaking institution to a mission that includes advocacy, educational, awareness-building, connecting and linking women’s groups across the globe and technical assistance institution. Those who suggested that GFW would no longer make grants based this on the assumption that local women’s funds would be fully functioning, freeing Global Fund staff from the responsibility of grantmaking. In terms of future organizational structure ideas varied from a focus on the US, with offices in every state, to a global focus with offices in different regions (satellites) or one or two offices in the US primarily engaged in awareness-building, fundraising, and public education. Many groups expressed some reluctance to increasing the number of staff beyond fifty.

Significance of TechnologyAdvances in and access to technology seemed to play central roles in the development of the group’s visions for the year 2017. Many saw that advances in technology would expand the reach of women’s movements and accelerate its effectiveness. Some credited advancements in technology for the increased access to education, information, and resources for women.

Backcasting” How did we Get There?The following analysis is taken from a careful review of the group’s responses to the Backcasting exercise.

What Went Really Well, What Worked? Most groups contributed the successes and achievements of 2017 to the improved quality of Global Fund’s internal organizational structure and grantmaking processes. One group stated that “open and successful communication with grantees, the identification of key partners, the [unleashing of staff brainpower]”, as well as the focus on unrestricted donor money allowed for resources and power to be redistributed in 2017. Others credited the expansion of Global Fund’s role to that of efficient resource allocator and women’s rights educator for a U.S. - based audiences (i.e. major institutional funders, individual donors, policymakers) for the achievements of 2017. Other internal organizational factors included: Global Fund’s ability to streamline grantmaking processes for quicker resource mobilization and improved grantee relations, the expansion of Global Fund offices into non-U.S regions, and strategic g

Related to this, several groups cited macro-level partnerships and forces in the educational sector, such as “primary, grassroots, public education” on women’s rights and feminist discourse and academia, and the nonprofit and for-profit sectors as reasons for Global Fund’s success in contributing to the women’s rights achievements of 2017. Partnerships with both corporations, such as Google and Microsoft, and nonprofit organizations, like women’s funds and human rights organizations, were cited as factors that “worked.” These partnerships allowed various sectors and entities to see the commonality in their social justice efforts and achieve common goals.

What Opportunities Were Captured, Harnessed?For this question, the themes of cross-cutting partnerships and alignments with other social justice movements, “key allies” (including faith based groups and corporations), and improvements and expansion of internal organizational structures emerged again. Here also, large-scale public education on women’s rights and feminist discourse were seen as opportunities that were harnessed for the advancement of the women’s movement.

What Threats Were Averted?For “threats averted” groups tended to differ in how they defined “threats”. Some groups specified external threats (those forces that are external to the women’s rights movement and those over which major players in the global women’s rights movement have very little control) and internal threats. External threats averted included: increases in military intervention, nuclear war, increased corporate power and corruption. Internal threats averted included: resistance to internal change [from Global Fund staff and allies], inability to transform (potential) competition to opportunities of collaboration, and inability to effectively manage growth.

What Contributed to Success?Here again, aligning and partnering with other social justice movements was a common theme in almost all responses to this question. Some groups cited greater visibility of women’s contributions to civil society (i.e. having more women in history books) and increased numbers of women in positions of decision-making power. Another major theme that emerged was Global Fund’s ability to adhere to its values system and resist the inevitable social, political, and economic backlash against the advancement of the global women’s rights movement.

Who Turned Out to Be Key Allies?Global Fund staff cited specific individuals, organizations, and social justice movements as key allies. Individual allies ranged from a feminist pope to multi-billionaires, like Bill Gates. Organizations included other women’s funds and socially responsible for-profit companies. In terms of other social justice movements potential key allies included youth movements, LGBTIQ movements, and environmental movements. Alliances with the other social justice

movements seemed to be the most dominant theme in all responses to this question.

EXPLORING A NEW STRATEGIC DIRECTION FOR 2009 - 2013

Like the Backcasting exercise, staff was organized into pre-determined groups of five with a mix of departments. Each group was instructed to choose 2 areas of inquiry and spend 30 minutes discussing what they would keep and what they would like to change in terms of the following areas:

Levels and types of resources mobilized The kind of impact GFW wants to have What GFW as an organization wants to feel and look like Strategic grantmaking according to GFW The comparative advantages of GFW relative to other philanthropic

institutions, including other women’s funds Who GFW allies and collaborates with What the communication function look like

After 30 minutes or so, the small groups returned to the main meeting room, where one representative from each group reported their group’s key responses to their chosen area of inquiry. Below are summaries of the responses for each area.

Levels and Types of Resources Mobilized Number of Groups: 2

Keep: Current inventory of resources (i.e. donors, financial resources, expertise, and technology)

Change: Increase resources and number of repeat donors. Leverage donor loyalty and expertise from a wide variety of sources. Leverage donor influence in their own respective communities. Leverage technology to identify gaps in funding. Leverage staff support and expertise, as well as knowledge from other women’s funds. Map where money is going. Connect Programs to Development and Communications. Diversify individual donors and Board.

The Kind of Impact Global fund for Women Wants to HaveNumber of Groups: 1

Keep: The current model of philanthropy that Global Fund for Women utilizes -- trust-based, small grants to smaller women’s groups. Inclusive decision-making process with the use of advisors. Reputation for raising expectations on how much money can be raised for women’s issues.

Change: Increase the number of multi-year grants given. Question the sustainability of the current grantmaking model. More flexibility in giving grants to women’s funds. More money for grantees that provide capacity-building services, more money for networks. Create a large national educational campaign. What Does GFW as an Organization Want to Look and Feel LikeNumber of Groups: 2

Keep: Strong sense of community with internal and external partners. Participatory approach to work where diverse input is valued. Reputation for sense of humility, desire to learn, trust in each other, desire to be responsive to grantees, high level of integrity, real commitment to the values and mission of the organization, and understanding that there is room to grow. Opportunities for intergenerational learning.

Change: More transparency about Global Fund’s grantmaking processes, how staff describes their work. More credit given to grantees and advisors when talking about GFW’s work. More safe space for different opinions. More integration of Global Fund’s values of diversity and inclusiveness in how we interact with each other. Development of structures and supportive systems for identifying effective solutions. More support for a healthy work-life balance. More responsive to the needs of staff and more commitment. Have systems in place to monitor staff performance. Cultivate a spirit of forgiveness and support and understanding. Have more structures in place for clearer communication. Take more advantage of and cultivate the young leadership present in the organization. Change the physical space in which GFW works so that staff can “really see each other and work across teams.” Include more young men in GFW’s work. Physical work spaces because one side is open and colorful, while the other side is not.

Strategic Grantmaking According to GFWNumber of Groups: 3

Keep: Funding networks and marginalized women’s groups. Flexible grantmaking. Trust-based model of philanthropy in which we do not define solutions for grantees. Simple reporting mechanisms. Keep strengthening and linking strategies. Working with regional advisors. Now or Never Fund. Willingness to address controversial issues in grantmaking and willingness to support innovative initiatives. Responsive grantmaking.

Change: Volume of work; labor-intensive aspects of logging in every proposal; Global Fund’s capacity to manage volume of work in different ways. Conduct better evaluations on seeding and strengthening grantmaking. Remove the urgency element of Now or Never Fund. Define Communications role in defining GFW’s grantmaking to external audiences. Have more time for serious reflection. Change how GFW staff writes up the docket. Have a tier system of

what percentage of grantee’s budget is covered by Global Fund grant. Conduct work load audit to determine where the most time is spent and how work processes could be more efficient.

Comparative Advantage of GFW Relative to Other Philanthropic Institutions, including Women’s FundsNumber of Groups: 3

Keep: Physical location for its access to technology, “innovation” culture, and funding. Fundraising expertise. History of growth and uniqueness in the philanthropic sector. Incredible wealth of information. Current collaboration with other women’s funds and other philanthropic institutions. Unique grantmaking approach. Donor travel program. Comfort with risk-taking. Due diligence practices on finance and administration team.

Change: “Articulate and own our power. Walk in our power.” How and the extent to which technology is used to link with grantees and advisors. Build more on knowledge and expertise. Develop measurable goals. Using funds from funders as a way to build relationships and leverage resources. Do more research. Build on donor travel program more. Think of ways to become the “go to” place for gender expertise. Change perception of competition with other women’s funds.

Who does GFW ally/ collaborate with?Number of groups: 0

What Does the Communications Function Look Like?Number of groups: 2

Keep: Everything (group did not qualify this term). Great print media in communications.

Change: Utilize the internet more effectively. Improve protocols for communications. More face to face communications with grantees. Be more strategic in where people are sent, in talking with grantees. Do a better job of dispersing the education that come from site visits and brown bags. Highlight how grantees use Global Fund media. Use staff more as a bridge to the international media. Bringing the grantees’ faces forward. Harnessing staff expertise into public debate. Diversify online media. Respond to successes that grantees have. Use grantees’ successes as opportunities to highlight how Global Fund contributed to that success. Have more time and flexibility to reflect in a timely manner (the new abortion laws are an example). Make online media as great as print media.

ANALYSIS: EXPLORING A NEW STRATEGIC DIRECTION FOR 2009-2013.

While reviewing all insights and ideas generated by staff from this reflection exercise, several themes emerged concerning potential strategic directions for 2009 – 2013.

Maintaining Global Fund’s Unique Approach to PhilanthropyMost groups expressed a desire to maintain Global Fund’s trust-based model of grantmaking, in which funders do not define solutions for grantees’ self-defined challenges and problems, where simple reporting mechanisms reduce bureaucratic processes. While groups alluded to this desire, no groups commented on the provision of general support grants as a feature of Global Fund’s unique grantmaking model.

For the issue area, “Strategic Grantmaking According to Global Fund for Women” groups presented key features of Global Fund’s grantmaking model (trust based, the use of an extensive advisory network in the decision-making process, simple reporting mechanisms) as a definition for “strategic grantmaking.” Specific ideas for changing this grantmaking approach to make it more “strategic” were missing from the groups’ responses. Instead, suggestions for improvements to Global Fund’s internal structure and work processes were offered in lieu of specific ideas.

Improving the Ways in Which Global Fund Conducts its GrantmakingAlthough groups praised Global Fund’s grantmaking model and expressed a strong desire to maintain it, almost all expressed the need to audit the work flow for opportunities to make the grantmaking process more efficient and timely. Re-evaluating the sustainability of the current decision-making process, the docket production process as well as the volume of proposals and grants received was presented as an area for improvement. Many felt that these were barriers to learning, growing, and in-depth reflection on the work of the Global Fund.

Improving Ways of Measuring ImpactGroups tended to shy away from outcomes-based impact and instead focus on realistic goals for outputs-based impact. This could have been due to the acknowledgement that impact, in the traditional sense, is very difficult to measure and quantify. For the issue area, “The Kind of Impact Global Fund Wants to Have,” groups reported numeric goals for fundraising and grantmaking (i.e. “making more multi-year grants”, and “more money for networks and capacity-building organizations.”)

Changes in the OrganizationIn addition to the work processes, groups also expressed that changes to the organizational work culture were necessary for Global Fund to maintain its reputation as a leader in the women rights movement and effectively manage growth. The role of men and young women leaders at the Global Fund for Women was a key factor in this discussion, as groups expressed that the experiences and expertise possessed by these two populations were

undervalued and underutilized in Global Fund’s work. Spaces where dissenting opinions are welcomed should be nurtured and further developed. Physical work spaces were also discussed as potential areas of improvement. The current physical work environment is isolating and prohibits cross-team communication and collaboration.

Strengthening the Communications (and Technology) Function The discussion on “What the Communications Function Looks Like” also provided suggestions for improving the ways in which Global Fund conducts and communicates its work to external audiences. Many groups felt that Global Fund for Women should use various types of technology (like online media) more often for showcasing grantee successes and effective relationship-building with grantees and donors. In addition, groups suggested that Global Fund use technology and media more to advertise Global Fund’s strengths and uniqueness (i.e. donor travel program).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, when considering potential strategic directions for 2009-2013, Global Fund staff preferred to explore opportunities for internal organizational changes, rather than external factors. This somewhat contrasted to the information presented in the Backcasting exercise, where strategic collaborative relationships with diverse social movements and the identification of key allies dominated the discussion.

The data presented in this report suggest two dominant themes: internal changes to organizational infrastructure and mission and external relationship-building with key strategic partners and allies

The most dominant theme for internal changes was expanding the mission of Global Fund for Women from resource mobilization and grantmaking to include one or more of the following functions: technical and capacity building assistance, awareness-building for a U.S. based audience and policy advocacy.

One popular though not as salient as the above-mentioned theme was re-organizing Global Fund’s internal staff structure and decision-making processes. Major decision-making processes that needed re-evaluating and re-organizing included the grantmaking process. Groups felt that the grantmaking process as it is performed now is time-consuming, inefficient, does not adequately accommodate the volume of proposals received, and does not allow for growth, learning, and reflection.

The most dominant theme for external relationship-building was the strategic integration of all social justice movements for more impact. Related to this, the global women’s movement was perceived as fulfilling two different roles in the integration process: 1) The primary leader in linking and connecting the various

social justice movements to each other; and 2) As losing its unique identity as all social movements integrate, with its feminist ideology and values becoming mainstreamed.

Another popular theme was strategic linking and partnering with individuals and organizations not traditionally considered allies to the global women’s movement by finding points of commonality in each other’s social justice efforts. Examples included the religious right, the women’s right, and even national governments.

Considering both these dominant themes an important question to ask is how to build an organization that is able to cultivate, establish and maintain high quality relationships with key external relations and alliances it believes are crucial for the realization of its vision.

FEEDBACK ON STAFF RETREAT

Below are staff feedback regarding the staff retreat itself:

What worked: Working in small groups. Having a realistic agenda. Being allowed to brainstorm without criticism. Having Ellen as a facilitator Having Michelle to help write the report

How the retreat could be improved: Diversifying the profile of the group “leaders.” ; having only the heads of

the organization as the group leaders was a little “unnecessary.” Remembering to recap “the next place where [Global Fund staff] will see

[their] work for that piece.” Better physical space with no pillars. More continuity between morning and afternoon exercises. Having a team building exercise.