The last blog I did on a funder got a few comments, so I thought I’d have a crack at another.  It’s also good timing, given the recent announcement of a review of the future of pokies.

This week its Mainland Foundation’s 2015 grants, from 1 August 2014 – 31 July 2015.
Now it’s interesting to look at the authorised purposes that the funder applies their gaming monies to.  There are five main elements:

1. Amateur South Island rugby north of the Waitaki River, including the West Coast
   
2. Amateur sport
3. Charitable purposes for the relief of poverty
4. Cultural grants beneficial for the community
   
5. Grants for education of training

So it’s a fairly general fund.  In 2015 they distributed over $5m into off 13 venues, eight in Canterbury, two in Nelson and three in Palmerston North (from DIA data Sept 2015).  Note the numbers include grants to Wellington organisations: this would have come from a venue which has now moved to another gaming provider. My final figure differs from Mainland’s by $200k.  I think this because I have not adjusted the reported donations back for returns.  However, it seems immaterial. 

Funding decisions in 2015 by province are set out below.  As expected, Sport receives 79% of funding.
So I have broken this down so I can see what sorts of money goes into which code.  Given authorised purpose one, it’s not surprising to see that $2.8m goes towards rugby in Canterbury and Nelson.  Interestingly, we can break this down further.
 
In 2015 Canterbury Rugby Football Union Inc. received just over $2m from the Mainland Foundation.  Tasman Rugby Union received just over $400k, Manawatu Rugby Union Inc. received just over $40k, with the balance of the monies going to clubs throughout the gaming trust’s catchment. 

Now, I had a look through the 2015 books for Canterbury Rugby Football Union on the Societies website, and am ever so slightly confused.  In their accounts they declared almost $1.8m in 2015 from donations - $200k less than Mainland said they gave them.  Of course this could be timing (balance date 31 Oct, whereas the Mainland date is 31 July). CRFU also returned $20k in donations.  The other issue where we have to rely on trust is around the purpose of those funds: remember that the purpose of Mainland Foundation is to support AMATEUR rugby.  The CRFU’s accounts make it difficult to ensure that those donations are for amateur rugby: I am sure they are, but I do think that there needs to be a bit more transparency around this.

Looking at declines was interesting too: although it’s not disclosed why applications are declined, it was heartening to see a full mix of sports clubs as well as other organisations in the decline bucket. 

Now, rugby is allowed to apply for funds, and indeed the union has set up Mainland Foundation to support themselves.  But to me it raises a couple of questions:

• Why do the good folks of Palmie want to support South Island rugby?
  
• Is this something the community sees as important?
• Why do other trusts support rugby at all?  Looking at my data CRFU specifically received funds from Air Rescue, CERT and Rata Foundation.  And if I look at my data for 2014, Mainland Foundation provided just 53% of funding for Canterbury rugby.
• Organisations always want more.  How much is too much?  What is the “right” level of grant support for sport vs self generated and subs? I could be wrong but I could not see any form of user pays from players headed to CRFU. Mainland Football, by contrast, generates around 25% of its income from players.
  
• How does the organisation ensure that the grants go to amateur sports rather than professional?  How does it ensure public accountability around this?
• How are decisions made?  Mainland Foundation seems to have three decision makers: one the CE, and two other men. The only female listed on the website is the Office Administrator.  This demographic skew exists in the other gaming trust I looked at a month ago, CERT, who has four men who are both the officers and on the net proceeds committee.Just a thought: Not for Profit organisations are skewed towards female employees, with some US research finding 75% of the NFP workforce as female.Yet the female voice has not been reflected in the two groups I have looked at, who together put $7.4m into the community last year.
  

I do this analysis as I personally believe we have a very inefficient market for funding dollars, and no one else seems to be looking at this.  I believe that sunlight will restore a bit of equity and perhaps get financial support to organisations who make life better for people.  Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

As a society we have developed many programmes to help children with their lives. When I was looking at funding applications, there were many programmes which made big claims: golf organisation which could change kids’ lives, three day camps designed to change kids’ lives, tickets to sports events which, guess what, could change kids’ lives.  There has been a huge growth in programmes to feed kids, with the likes of KidsCan, social enterprises like Eat My Lunch.  KidsCan, according to a Facebook post in May, provide food into 452 schools, feeding 21,000 kids a week.  Eat My Lunch reckon they will give away quarter of a million lunches next year – which is around 1250 lunches per day. 

These organisations provide evidence of the good they do throughout the country through the metrics on their meals, and glowing photos and references from teachers and children.  Both organisations are growing: Eat My Lunch is currently raising money via a Pledge Me campaign, and KidsCan’s recently published accounts show them growing almost 33% in revenues over the year, with reserves increasing by almost $900k last financial year.   KidsCan shows a growth in services provided (including the provision of a government contract), and measures the metrics of those initiatives they undertake.  Although to be honest, it’s hard to get a decent insight into the workings of the organisations due to the high level nature of the financials provided.

However, a voice conspicuously missing in this issue is the parents.  Now, as a parent I consider it my duty to make three lunches a day, forty weeks a year.  Not a task I savour, but a responsibility I take seriously.  Now, I’m not sure how I would feel if a bunch of well meaning middle class people did this for me, and suggested I was not capable of looking after my own kids.  Would I leave the school and take my kids elsewhere where I felt respected as a parent?  Do those actions increase my family’s dependence on others?  Does it show the kids that someone else will look after their kids when their time comes?  This stuff feels like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, rather than the fence at the top.

If the issue is that kids are hungry at school, then perhaps a better root cause analysis is needed – does the family simply not have enough money, in which case perhaps the charity could give the cash to the parent, or is the family making poor decisions with what they do have, in which case a more intensive wrap around service provision is required – which is really hard, expensive, will possibly result in some failure – but surely far more sustainable and likely to achieve those generational changes we all need to see than a band aid solution currently vogue.  Supporting the family unit, I reckon, is the best way to make positive changes in our kids’ lives – and help those families take the step change they need to help support the next generation’s families through either more cash or wrap around services.

Now, this life changing stuff is hard.  It takes money, time and perseverance to make tangible changes – and to know that those efforts have been effective.  If we really want to make a difference in children’s lives, then we need to support those people who the children spend the most time with: the families – and there are some great charities which do this.  Sadly, this sort of wrap around support will never get the public support it warrants, as it does not have the instant gratification of a lunch provided by a charity – or even worse a gang (what a fabulous recruitment model!).

But we also need to effectively measure what’s achieved.  So rather than growing the number of lunches given away, does success, somewhat perversely, look like a REDUCTION in the number of lunches provided?  This, to me anyway, comes back to really thinking through the mission of the organisation, and ensuring that there is strong evidence of success related to the cause of the symptoms, rather than simply easy to measure justifications of the existence of the organisation.

Solving these poverty issues and helping families make a sustainable generational change is not easy.    And I don’t claim to know the answers: as an expert in nothing really perhaps I am way out of line: although as a bit of a geek I can’t help but feel these are simplistic half measures to complex issues.  And I can’t help but feel that when my kids are parents, they’ll be wondering what was actually achieved with all those dollars thrown at these sorts of solutions.

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