Page 25 - April Report2022

Resilience
Grant Program Committee meeting minutes (3)
Another topic of discussion was the size of grant requests, particularly smaller requests. There is concern that small grantees with potential might be eliminated from consideration because of the size of their ask. On the other hand, requests such as those in the $15,000 range generally require as much staff time as larger ones. The point was made that if an organization asks for $15,000, JSF can make the grant and begin a relationship, which can lead to a larger grant. One such example is Providence St. Mel. There seems to be a perception among grantees that they should ask for less than what they need. Two longtime grantees were asked about this, and they revealed that fear of rejection, rather than need, drives the decision about the amount. It was pointed out that potential grantees can look on JSF’s website and see a list of current grantees and the grant amounts. However, Director Discretionary and Matching Grants are listed on the website along with the Core and grants from the 3 Program Areas. This is something staff will examine. The management of grant request size is an important part of the pre-application stage with staff. There was agreement among the Committee that grantees with good programs and those with whom JSF has a positive relationship could be worthy candidates for additional investment. Often capacity-building needs can be addressed through special grants beyond the requested grant funds. Some examples might be grants to help organizations track alumni or grow their endowments.
The issue of vocational training was raised. As enrollment has declined at traditional institutions of higher education, there has been a renewed focus on vocational education. It was suggested that this might be an area that can be explored as part of the Discovery Project slated for discussion later on the agenda.
6. Budget Items
a. 2022 Grant Distribution Plan
The 2022 Grant Distribution Plan and 5-year projections had been circulated. Dick explained that the delayed effect of the CRUT distribution is largely responsible for the significant jump in this year’s Estimated Distribution Requirement, which stands at $11,219,880 compared to $9,026,214 in 2021. With Committee approval of the proposals under consideration at this meeting, including the increase in the Director Discretionary and Matching Grants, the Foundation’s current distribution deficit for 2022 is about $1.3 million.
b. 5-year grant projections
The projected Estimated Distribution Requirement continues to climb each year, reaching $13,215,882 in 2026 based on estimated earnings. Dick called the Committee’s attention to a notation at the end of the report that states that the Projected Estimated Distribution Requirements are calculated at a projected return of 7.76% (5% plus the average Consumer Price Index for the prior 5 years as of the date of the projections).
The Committee approved the 2022 Grant Distribution Plan and the 5-Year Projections as presented.
7. Mandate and Theory of Change revisions
A redlined copy of the Foundation’s Mandate, which is part of the Core Values, had been circulated. A recommendation was made to replace the term “the disabled” with “people with disabilities” and to add the term “Indigenous Peoples” to the statement. The omission of Indigenous Peoples was likely an oversight, and this new wording does not represent a change in mission or strategy. A brief discussion took place about the language surrounding disability. Previous grass-roots efforts have sought to replace the word “disabled,” but many young people are now gravitating toward it. It was agreed that the Foundation’s work directly affects people, so people with disabilities is the preferred term. Meanwhile, the grantmaking strategies, including the Theories of Change for all 3 focus areas, are under review and will be presented in September.
The Committee approved the change in the Mandate to using the phrase “people with disabilities” and including Indigenous Peoples.
23