|
First of all, we still miss Bob Shira, his friendship, and his calm leadership. He has been an inspiration to me and to all of us. He cannot be replaced. But it is up to us to try to continue his legacy with our Foundation in the best manner that we can.
This interim progress report is a new approach to our changing world–one that I think is necessary to cope with a slow economy that is impacting the role of philanthropies, including us. Changing times have resulted in one resolution being offered here for voting by the Foundation Board at this time, before the award judging time arrives.
Dr. Carl Lundgren
Revised Grant Evaluation
Team Format
Under the direction of Foundation Vice President Fred Halik, some fresh and good changes in procedure are in place. The new onslaught of applications, which has quadrupled, will require a great deal of additional time by all concerned. The Executive Director has routinely, through the years, required that all grant applications provide us with an after-grant review of how the money was spent. In some cases, we do not receive a satisfactory report. Before we will send an application to any organization that we have given a grant to, and we have not received a satisfactory accounting, we will not send them an application form until their satisfactory accounting report is in our hands. In our history, perhaps the most complete report has come from the Costa Rica people regarding the line items relative to the Loader-Espinach Award. Every application must contain their overall budget and a separate line item budget of how they expect to use the money. This way we can evaluate it. Every request will be in competition with the others on an equal basis, according to merit. I do not like to do this, but this year we will need to be much more draconian in our awarding process by cutting down on the individual amounts, rejecting some repeats, and setting aside many of those which are less meritorious than others.
In our grant evaluations, up to now, we have been voting yes, no, or defer. The recommendation to “defer” is no longer a viable choice because of the large number of applications that we now have to process. And such is the new resolution.
Board Consideration Changes
Each year, as conditions change and we mature, we find ourselves making adjustments in our format for grant evaluations. This year, we will be considering some additional changes, which will be reported to you if accepted by the Foundation Board.
Fund Raising Perspectives
All organizations’ fundraising programs have experienced the same problem—sharply diminished returns. The Academy’s dues connected Foundation donation collections are down. Major donors have pulled in their horns to save the bottom line. Dental philanthropies are all going after the same donor pool. We have a lack of manpower and resources to conduct a full-scale fund-raising effort, but a limited effort is indicated.
|
|
Investment Strategy
The PFA Foundation continues to function very well. We rank very high in assets among the world’s dental philanthropies. The investment program that was developed in 1994 will continue strongly for many years to come. Most of the money returns are over 7.5%, with the overall return exceeding 6%. Starting out with a little over $5 million in 1994, the total market value now exceeds $7.3 million, even though we have given away $2.25 million in the last seven years. There is no investment program on the horizon that begins to rival what we have achieved. Our income is guaranteed with virtually no effort and no overhead that would require continually shifting portfolios. By comparison, many other charities have suffered crippling stock market losses over the last four years. Our Executive Director and our Treasurer function very thoroughly and professionally. We have one part-time employee, while other organizations have several paid people and a rented office. Our last year’s ratio of operating expenses to total budget was a very respectable 23%. We are quite frugal, because any dollar frivolously spent by the Foundation or by the Academy takes away funding from some painful mouth. We need to look scrupulously at every figure. We take our fiduciary responsibility very seriously to carry out the legacy of Dr. Brenes-Espinach.
Keep in mind that our 2003 budget includes what we awarded to the Academy last Fall. We pay that grant in the year following the Autumn Meeting. Therefore, the Academy grant shows up in the 2003 budget. This arrangement can be changed if the Foundation Board wants to, by directing that the payment be made in the same year as it is awarded. What that would do is give us more flexibility as we approach the total grants package budget each year.
Budget vs. Huge Requests
for Awards This Year
In 1994, when we originally set up the Foundation enlarged format, we decided to devote a third of the grants to dental scholarships and two thirds to service projects. That resulted in 81 scholarships of about $1200 each. The requests for “grants-at-large” awards were very modest, so we increased the scholarship awards to $1500 each. And the overall balance of requests permitted it.
In 2001, the requests and the awards came out reasonably even after the September 11, 2001, disasters. In that year, we had a large carryover.
In 2002, the ADA News gave us no publicity at all, so the demand on our funds was low. So the awards came out about even.
In 2003, the situation drastically changed. The publicity in the ADA News had an unfortunate title applied by their staff. It read “Pierre Fauchard Grants for the Taking.” We now see the specter of our requests having increased fourfold to over 140 petitions for applications, eight of them being from PFA Sections. This will sorely test our Grant Evaluation Team. The Foundation Board will also be challenged in a way never before seen by us. It is easy to foresee that in subsequent years there will be an exponential increasing number of requests as we become better known. Each year, we consider and change some of our format and this year is no exception.
In 2001, the ADA Foundation’s Harris Fund for Children’s Dental Health Grant Program awarded a total of $136,425. There were 29 awards with the maximum award being $5000. Some of the grant seekers were awarded less. Their awards were supported by a variety of dental manufacturers. This year, there are already an astounding 300 applications. That means that for every successful applicant, nine will get turned down. And their committee must judge every one of them! With hard times, the application pool has expanded rapidly and will probably increase continually.
|
|