• Home
  • Reports
  • Blog Directory
  • Blog
  • Media
  • Contact

Some musings on things

How Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Trust spent their $2m in 2015

30/5/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
Now, from where I sit it seems that funding decisions are made without anyone actually looking at where the money goes.  I thought I’d do an occasional blog looking at recent decisions made by specific funders.

You can check it out yourself at http://www.cert.net.nz/ .

From their front page: “The Trust aims to distribute net proceeds to recognised appeal funds for the purpose of assisting with this recovery process.
“This includes making grants to appeal funds such as the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund, The Red Cross 2011 Earthquake Appeal and the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal.
“In addition to the Trust's primary purpose of supporting Christchurch Earthquake Recovery, the Trust may also provide other grants towards general public education, educational scholarships, the promotion of public parks or museums and support for non-commercial emergency rescue services.”

So it’s a fairly general fund.  In 2015 they distributed just over $2m into mostly Canterbury off 6 venues, four in Christchurch, one each in Kaiapoi and Kaikoura.  Note their website points to one in Dunedin, but that looks to have moved to Southern Trust.

Funding decisions in the past 2 ¼ years are set out here.  As expected, Sport certainly receives over half of the funding, and while there is no information, its likely much of the education spend goes towards sports within schools.

Picture
 This is probably driven by who is actually applying to this trust. I looked at 2016 declines: they turned down 19 applications in Q1 of this year: 11 of those were for sporting organisations, and four of these were schools, so, on that basis, that suggests its not a bias toward sports: simply demand from sporting bodies for those funds. 

Where it gets interesting is looking at a breakdown by code.  In Q1 of this year, Bowls received some $94k: 2015 Bowls got more than any other code, receiving just over $200k from this funder.  Burnside Bowling Club in fact got some $41k in 2015, and $44k so far this year.  When I try to see where the funding went, its bit tricky, as their 2015 published accounts (shown on the societies office website) only show just over $11k as grants revenue. However, there is a line in their balance sheet showing just over $100k as “Grants received to Action” which I would assume are grants received for capital development. 

Rowing’s grants were driven by some big money going to Red Bladez.com ($80k in 2014, and $22k in 2015), the St Bedes team.  I see this year the money is headed across town to St Thomas’ rowing team, with a grant of just over $10k earlier this year.  Boxing is interesting too: Woolston Boxing Club received $26k in 2015, and has, so far, received $11k this year. 

But I also found some interesting stuff in the Education grants.  There are grants going to a whole range of schools, from Decile one to Decile 10.  Now, for my sins I have got myself involved in my own school’s PTA.  While its very easy to fill in a funding application and flick it off, I really do believe its better for the community to raise from within: it fosters a sense of ownership, one of belonging, and a stronger community.  And the money that the school probably would have got is available to go to other, hopefully more deserving, organisations.

Now, all these organisations are perfectly entitled to apply for funding, and CERT is perfectly entitled to give their community funding to organisations who meet their criteria.  However, the bigger question is whether these community groups should be asking for funding.  Shouldn’t clubs be mostly sustainable on subs and member fundraising?  If its an expensive sport, then should the community subside participants?  How much is actually needed? 

Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

1 Comment

Would you like funds with that?

12/5/2016

1 Comment

 
I was at Z Energy the other day filling up the tank.  They are promoting the Good in the Hood campaign at the moment, where people can choose where their token goes, in the hope that they receive up to $5k per service station. 

Charities on offer were all good, heart strings organisations such as Ronald McDonald House and Blind Foundation, but I struggled to think which organisation would actually get the most benefit from my cardboard disc.

RMH houses I am sure are a great comfort for families with sick children, and do a great job in galvanising volunteers.  I did start to wonder about just how much McDonalds puts into the Ronald McDonald Homes.  So I have had a look through their latest available (2014) financial statements on the charities office website.


In Christchurch, their operational service made a small deficit of just under $2k in 2014.  78% of revenue largely comes (I assume) from Ministry of Health – taxpayers – in an accommodation grant for families.  They also had an interest revenue of $83k.  Invercargill’s is a bit less balanced, running at a deficit of $58k. 


However, over the top of this is their fundraising account.  In Christchurch it cost them $432k to generate $1.266m.  So that’s around 34% of the costs to get money in the door, leaving them 66%.  I think that’s pretty good: from some googling last year I found out fund raising costs can be anywhere between 20% and 80%.


Now, in terms of money from McDonalds for the South Island locations… well, it’s hard to say.  In the accounts we can see money from money boxes, of $15k.  I think this comes from the in store boxes, so is the money from customers.  In the accounts there is not enough broken down to see corporate support, although they are mentioned as a room sponsor, along with another 24 large and small business room sponsors.  And this contribution to their fundraising efforts are $122k.  Most of the $1.266m comes from events, at $371k.  And this money seems to go into reserves.  So in 2014 they were able to add an additional year’s operating cost to their reserves. 


At the national level there is Ronald McDonald House Charities NZ.  It looks like their job is to provide operational grants to the regional bodies.  This body has total trust capital of $8.9m, with $3m in the bank, and a few loans out to operational RMHs in the country.   In 2014 customer donations accounted for $662k of their total $1.4m revenue.  Two things: the accounts do not identify specific grants from McDonalds corporate, nor did RMHSI receive any operational support in 2014 from the national body, presumably because they didn’t actually need any.


Needless to say, my cardboard disc did not end up in the RMDSI Good in the Hood box.  But apparently most people disagree with me.  While I totally agree that the cause is certainly worthy, and I cannot imagine the pain and support required of having a really ill child, I am not sure that financial support is required at this stage.  It would be quite enlightening to see the actual amount of McDonald’s support for them to have such a brand halo effect: given the amount of operational support provided (presumably) by Ministry of Health, perhaps a rebrand is required?  And perhaps corporates could utilise their enormous power for good by understanding great organisations which actually need support.


Balancing the heart and the head is a real challenge in not for profit.  But in a world of finite resources, I reckon it would be useful to have less photos and more transparency.


Would love to talk to you if you think this is quite interesting.

1 Comment

Just say No

8/5/2016

0 Comments

 
There are many reasons Not for Profits do not receive the funding they ask for.  The funder might simply not have enough to hand out.  The organisation might have too much in the bank already.  Or the programmes they are wanting to do are deemed high risk, not proven, or just plain weird. 
Assessing a funding application can be a tricky thing, and many hours can be put into making the right decision.  Its relatively easy to say yes when it’s a proven group with proven programmes, but saying no can be difficult: indeed it’s often easier to say Yes But… 

But there is a need to say NO.  New Zealand now has over 50,000 Not for Profit organisations, many of which will be asking for funding, increasing demand. And, on the other hand, supply of funding reduces (see my previous blog there).  So funders have two options: fund everyone but less, or go all out on the better organisations. 

An assessment that an organisation is not so great may come from a whole range of concerns:
·         Concerns about governance (too many family members involved in a group)
·         Efficacy research inconclusive – or worse, ineffectual
·         Organisation too small to be effective
·         Organisation working beyond its capacity, or mandate
·         Outreach organisation with no social media presence
·         Start up not working with incumbents
·         Tip offs from others that organisation has issues
·         Organisation utilising illegal employment criteria
·         Organisation pursuing model which hasn’t worked for others
·         Groups looking to gold plate their facilities

​A perfect funding decision requires perfect information.  Of course this is well-nigh impossible, so decisions have to be made on the best available information.  But there is where there is often an information void. This can result in poor allocation of resources. 

Example?  A friend on a national board decided to close certain clubs due to lack of use: so the club goes off and supports themselves through community funders.  End result: national body undermined, and more resources into a couple of ineffective organisations not even supported from their national body. 

Relying on the group to say how effective they are is like making a recruitment decision purely off a CV: often the best looking CVs are not the best people for the job.  Nor are the sexiest organisations with the glitziest brands best positioned to help address some of the complex issues within our society.   What can also be interesting is to understand who else has contributed to the organisation.  In some cases this provides a “stamp of approval”.

Turning down a request for funds takes time.  Time to read the application, google research, staff and board, and to have conversations with people whose opinions you respect.  A full day to recommend a decline of an application costs around $360 (variable cost only).   And that does not include the angst of making the wrong recommendation!  This will be replicated across many different funders – although the costs will vary based on a funder’s process around application assessment.

In 2014 Canterbury funders funded 4,800 applications: now how many were declined?  25%?  10%?  That’s a cost of anywhere between $173k and $432k in Canterbury alone.

Would it be quite useful to have a central database where funders could look to see who had declined a group for funding – and why?  That information could really assist funders to make more decisive decisions more quickly.  And at lower cost.  Many of the gaming trusts do publish that information, and some even code as to why the application was refused.  But that data is buried in pdfs in the corners of the internet.  I am sure this could be done, if there was a will and desire to improve the decision making information.    I reckon a simple open source database could be done quite simply if there was a will to do so.  Result of this: funder resources could be better directed, resulting in more funding for good groups.

Would love to talk to you if you think this is quite interesting – and you have a will to make a difference.
0 Comments

    Archives

    March 2025
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    January 2022
    February 2021
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly