I was trying to convince someone that they needed to spend some money with me to look at funding in their region, so thought I’d have a wee look at the gaming trust spend in their area.  Class 4 gaming trusts operate in New Zealand under prescriptive legislation. You may recall that Canterbury’s Community Funding (i.e., money that goes to community groups from all sources of grants) is about 52% from gaming trusts, Otago’s 29%, so I reckon they are not something to be sneezed at if you are wanting to understand the whole funding ecosystem.

Then I thought it would be interesting to look at this for the country. 

Below is from the DIA website added up for the year, and then summarised by my take on province.  I took the quarterly figures, added them together, and multiplied by .4, which is the minimum return that gaming trusts provide to their communities.  Of course some trusts over stretch this and provide more to community groups.  These figures show pokie income by region.

There are a couple of things I found quite interesting. 

The total dollars available for the country is over $340m. This compares to Lotteries 2016 spend of $182m, the Combined Community Trusts (the regional trusts which came out of TrustBank) of $105m.  The other big player will be local bodies, but the data there is simply too difficult to find.  However, the conclusion does not change: the gaming trusts are big in terms of returns to community.

The second thing is looking at the hypothetical contribution back into the communities which generated it.   The above chart shows income.  Where its spent is another story.  Earlier I have looked at the dollars that came into Otago in 2015.  This showed that in 2015 Otago gaming trusts put around $6.5m INTO the community.  Yet in 2016 they took $10.7m OUT of the community.  Canterbury figures are a bit more balanced, which (I suspect) is driven by earthquake spend.  Of course, gaming trusts do spend with national groups as well, which presumably has benefits to the communities the money came from.

The third thing not mentioned here is casinos.  They operate under different legislation of course, and, in the case of Sky City, is owned by a bunch of investment funds (i.e., our super), or privately held in Christchurch Casino’s case.  I found something quite interesting on the DIA website: in 2016 they reported gambling expenditure of $527m.  If they had the same community requirement as Class 4 pokies, then they would have given $210m back into the community.  Instead they are reported (from the DIA website) to have passed just over $4m through to their community trusts.  Less than 1% of the reported gambling percentage.  Profits from NZ operations of Sky City are around $160m (check out the annual report).  We can’t see Christchurch Casino as that’s privately owned.  Of course these entities pay some tax, and our managed funds invest in casinos, but its quite interesting to contemplate, don’t you think?  Perhaps we should be re-defining gaming trusts as a social enterprise? 

Would love to talk with you if you think this is vaguely interesting.

Back from Nelson, and the photo always on the front page of the paper early in the new year is of the competition winners of the annual Kaiteriteri pageant: Mr and Miss Kaiteriteri.

At the end of the article was an interesting sentence:  “(The organiser) said previously Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve was responsible for organising the event, but this year Sport Tasman had taken up the reins, with the backing of the Reserve's Board.”

Interesting.  The Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve Board looks to be a government appointed body which is charged with managing DOC assets, including the camp ground.  There isn’t too much about this entity that I could find anyway – and they did not receive funding from Tasman District Council in the previous year, which leads me to assume that they self funded this from the camp fees many of my chums are paying at the moment. 

Sport Tasman is one of the regional sports entities, largely funded from local and central government, community funding, and some 24% of self generated funds.  It has a Vision “creating vibrant, connected communities through Sport and Recreation”, with a Mission of “More people, more active, more often. 

With Sport Tasman organising this event this year, I am hoping that Rata, Lion, NZCT, Lotteries, MSD, Sport NZ, local ratepayer or even ASB money was not used for this.  I assume that Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve Board paid them a management fee for this.

Now, the financials of the entity are not particularly up to date, with the 2014 being the latest on their website.  The accounts themselves are summarised, so there will be no way of validating this assumption. 

I guess my issue with this is how a beauty pageant helps Sport Tasman achieve its mission and vision.  Sure, the winners look very fit and healthy, but as most health professionals will tell you, a fit body comes in many shapes and sizes, many of which will not attain our western standards of beauty.  The pageant further south in Caroline Bay was telling as well, with articles stating that they had all of 2 entries.  Perhaps the whole beach pageant thing should be archived as a curiosity of the past – or left to private enterprise – the President Elect of the US is of course is a “big fan” of these things.  Perhaps in the spirit of TPPA the Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve Board could get Trump to organise.  But I digress. 

Sport Tasman may also manage the pageant in order to create a vibrant community.  However, I reckon that many of the people in Kaiteriteri that day were tourists (mostly from Canterbury I suspect!).  There seems little benefit in an event at this time of year either: indeed, regardless if the pageant was on or not, Kaiteriteri was, and always will be at New Year, packed to the gunnels. 

Actually, when you look at the annual report of Sport Tasman, there are some fairly limited measures why NZ Inc ploughs so much into sports each year.  As they will tell you if funding were cut, NZ is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.  Yet at no stages of this report is this measure captured – I had to google hard to find a figure that 27% of adults in the region are classified as obese.  Instead, the Sport Tasman focus is on participation and management of sporting facilities (I assume on behalf of district councils), and kids sport.  Quite what participation levels would be like without the existence of the entity is of course unknown: us parents do have a rather large role in enabling our kids to participate.  And it’s entirely likely that obesity levels would be the same regardless: as anyone with a Fitbit can tell you, it’s more about what goes in than what’s expended at the gym.

I get nervous when I see organisations on the public dime branching out into areas that are:

1. Not within their central mission
2. Impinging upon for profit (or even not for loss) businesses

I also get a bit fed up with the NZ narrative as a “sporting nation” – Sport Tasman in fact has a target of raising sport participation in teen girls from 45% to between 60% - 80%.  Now, measures are interesting.  Does a power walk around the park a couple of times a week count?  Or do I need to be a member of a club to tick that box.  Hate events – but love the peace and quiet of a quiet bike ride?  Not counted?  Here’s a tip for free – stop the pressure of top performance and let them have fun! 

As a community we need to ensure that those entities charged with delivering things for us stay on track, and reflect what we value.  And, quite honestly, I don’t see a lot of value in a beauty pageant. 

Would love to talk with you if you think this is vaguely interesting.

In the midst of the hurly burly of year end, two news stories, separate but related, caught my teeny grinchy eye.

The first was related to the recent World Bowls Championships in Christchurch.  The article, from the organiser of the World Bowls Championships, stated that the event was a huge financial success, and that they had made a surplus of $330k.  Revenues had come from commercial sponsorship, major events, and community (although ticket sales were disappointing) to fund the $1.5m event. This makes a funding surplus of just over 20%.  Specifically, Christchurch City Council looked to put in $275k, based on economic benefits totalling $5.6m.  NZCT looked to put in over $300k, and Major Events fund, who don’t actually identify their grants, seemed to put in $100k (based on the latest annual report from Bowls New Zealand).  Now, the actual break downs of costs etc will not be available, as the event is run through a company, Bowls Events NZ Ltd.  But we should be able to see a summarised view in due course which will hit the website sometime late next year. 

What possibly won’t be readily available is a business case review: based on my back of the envelope calculations, there were 290 competitors, $5.6m in projected benefits: if we assume that each competitor brought three supporters (admin and family) then that means each person was responsible for $4,800 in local spend.  Heck of a party!

And of course, this is only part of the story.  There are club costs relating to the preparation of venues for the World Cup: I have previously looked at the funding to Bowls by CERT. 

Now, I have no issues with profit making events.  What I do have an issue with is Not for Profits taking community money as grants on the back of worst case budget preparation, and then not having the desire to return it when “real” income, such as sponsorship, ticket sales and broadcast fees push that budget into the black.  I get a need for reserves, but how much is too much? 

The other article that raised my blood pressure was of course news of the pay increases to rugby players.  In case you missed it, NZRFU will be paying their professional players more through improved broadcast and sponsorship deals.  Now, you may recall that I have been looking into grants for a while. In 2014, Rugby Union received $3.5m in Canterbury alone: if we extrapolate that up to a national figure, say 10%, then that would suggest $35m has gone from community funders into Rugby Union: an amount that’s half the professional player payment pool increase (gone from $120m to $190m over the next three years).

It’s great that NZRFU are looking to share their revenue gains with professional players.  But how about those gains are shared with those people who put those professional players there in the first place: the grass roots clubs – the training institutions if you like.  Then requests to community funders could drop accordingly, and that money go to organisations who perhaps could do more with it. 

As an aside, just under 90% of that rugby union funding in Canterbury in 2014 came from gaming trusts: quite possibly funded by those with big dreams of wearing the black strip, peaking at the high school third 15. 

Both these stories illustrate the same thing: the role of community funding within sports.  For those sucking on the teat of philanthropy, its super easy to request and receive this sort of funding based on nebulous community benefits. 

My Christmas wish?  Aside from world peace, an end to poverty and for all children to grow up in safe and loving homes, it’s for better information so we, the community on whose behalf this money is spent, can understand exactly what’s happening within the funding ecosystem: where the money comes from, and where it goes.  And I know just the girl to do that.  If anyone else cares about transparency and having good information to make decisions, make it a new year’s resolution to give me a call.

Merry Christmas.

In case you missed it, the Oxford Dictionary word of 2016 is “post truth”, an adjective meaning “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. When we look at world events, then it’s fairly obvious how the use has developed.

When this was being discussed, it struck me that this really is a key feature of giving.  If we boil it down, we will usually make our decisions based on emotion, images and compelling narrative, rather than cold hard facts.  And there is no better proponent of this that the President Elect, but let’s not think about his charitable donations.

Locally, it has been a curious old week with numerous cases where I have explored the concept.  Looking at the news:

A full page ad, and article, by Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue Trust, saying they are in a “very precarious” financial position.  You may recall my blog three weeks ago about this particular organisation: it really is impossible to tell if they are actually in a precarious position, or whether these statements are more cynical and opportunistic: a post truth campaign if you like. There are no  objective facts to support what is being said.  I note the private businesses who also pulled together are not making such public appeals. 

Brian Tamaki courted the headlines as well, postulating around the cause of the recent quakes.  Obviously there were some issues with his lack of objective facts to back up his statements: I looked in vain for his Nature citations but alas, was unable to source.  However, in the ruckus afterwards, and the call to remove Destiny Church from the tax free status they currently enjoy, some statements were made about the social programmes of the church.  So, I went to their website.  Yes, they do offer family violence programmes.  Yes they offer family advice and indeed budgeting programmes.  But there are no objective facts provided to suggest that these programmes change behaviours.  Perhaps they don’t: the $860k of government funding reported in 2011 seems to have largely dried up.  I also muse about the role of tithing within a family struggling with money.  Before we get all shouty about the community benefits of this organisation, perhaps a better question is to ask for the proof.

Lincoln High School were this week’s Good Sorts on TV1 on Sunday.  The student council did a massive job of raising over $40k for charity, through various events.  But one piece missing from this great example of civic duty was critical thinking: one of their charities was Ronald McDonald House.  Now, I assume it’s the Christchurch one (RMHSI).  You may recall my earlier blog on this one.   Since I wrote this they have released their 2015 accounts.  These showed a trading profit of the centre– BEFORE ANY FUNDRAISING – of $68k, with income from government and interest.  Nett fundraising now sits at over $840k, which has gone to a capital fund.  For next year, I would suggest getting the accounting teacher involved in selection of charities to help separate emotions from objective facts.

We teach our kids to be cynical about advertising manipulation, but often do not apply the same thinking to charity.  And it’s easy to get caught up in the hype and feeling of being part of something bigger, and it’s nice that giving or fund raising can give us that feeling of control over the uncontrollable. 

We are starting to see the disturbing consequences of a post truth world.  If we want our money to do the most good, can we ask to see the evidence of the good the organisation does?  Can we ask to see how this organisation compares to others?  And can we ask to see how the money will be spent?  The new reporting standards go some way to separating reality from hyperbole, and perhaps we should actually look at these reports and attempt to unpick what they mean. 

Would love to talk with you if you think this is vaguely interesting.

 
Air Rescue Community Services (ARCS) have over 400 machines in 30 venues throughout the South Island.  They are a For Purpose Class Four gaming trust, meaning that, for 2015 calendar year, some 60% of  their giving goes through to the associated charity, Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue trust (CWCART).  The balance, goes largely to sport, with the remaining 7% through some select groups in various other sectors.  So the data is quite interesting, but not particularly surprising.

However, what is interesting is a wee look at the financials of the organisations involved in the chain (30 June 2015). 

Firstly, we have this gaming organisation, ARCS.   It’s a fully owned subsidiary of CWCART, with two of the same directors.  Last year they look to have given just under $4.3m from the gaming trust to CWCART – which is great, as that is what they were effectively established for.

CWCART’s additional funding state they received $748k from Westpac, $210k from NZ Coal and Carbon, $720k from direct mail, $273k from Westpac’s Awareness month, and “other donations” of $416k – raising a total of $6.9m.

CWCART itself seems to act as a simple pass through of funds to the service provider of the helicopters, a private business called Garden City Helicopters (GCH), which shares a shareholder with CWCART.  The costs taken out of the Trust are largely administration costs at $922k, and included some $245k for wages of what seems to be the fundraising team (from a Stuff article), and an intriguing $222k for a fundraising review.  You can check out their unaudited accounts on the Charities website.

The balance of the revenue – some $5.9m – seems to be distributed to GCH, who run the operation.  They will be the ones who own the assets, who receive government funding for operations, employ the staff, and who manage operations.  All very admirable.  Unfortunately, we have no insights into how well that money is used: the website has no data on missions and minimal on cost structure.

I googled and found some interesting comparisons in terms of transparency.  Otago’s charitable entity operating the helicopters there is Otago Rescue Helicopters Ltd, and Otago Rescue Helicopter Trust runs the fundraising side.  A private business, Helicopters Otago, seems to own the helicopters, and I assume from the accounts that front line staff are employed by the Trust. They show some fabulous disclosure on their website: indeed I could see when they flew my mate Pete off Cardrona.   Their annual report is a thing of beauty to a geek like me: we can use their numbers to benchmark. Otago’s accounts also have great notes about related party transactions – something also missing from CWCART’s accounts. 

So if we look at Otago, we can see that in 2016 the taxpayer put $7,158 in per mission, which was topped up by donations of $1,698 per mission.  Their costs / mission were $8931, which means they made a small loss in 2016.  I do suspect that Otago’s flight times may be fairly high given the geography they cover: it looks like each mission takes around 1hour 40.  So the costs per flying hour are around $5,113.

I had a look at other parts of the country to see what they do.  They all seem to have different operating models.  Now, the data is not always there to see what’s happening, but I have managed to pull something together.  Canterbury?  No data.  We have no insights into how much you and me as taxpayers or givers, put in, as those funds go straight through to the privately owned business.  So in terms of measuring how effective our tax, grant or sponsorship money is, then that takes some assumptions. 

CWCART states on its own website that each mission costs $8625.  Also on their website they state that they rescued over 800 people.  Now, not every mission is about people, and over 800 is a bit vague, so let’s go with 900 missions.  900 * 8625 = $7.7m. They also state that 30% of costs are covered by the taxpayer – 900*8625*.3 = $2.3m.  $7.7m less $2.3m means we can see a funding gap of $5.4m.  However, the Trust actually distributed some $5.9m through to GHC.  So why the excess $500,000 distributed to GHC?

The chart shows the workings: the operating costs look pretty similar.  Total costs take operating costs and add on admin costs like fundraising.  These costs of course are totally valid, as without spending the money, you can’t get the income.  The variance in government dollars is puzzling: I put this down to different rates paid for different things – for example hospital transfers can be scheduled, but accidents of course require stand by.

Now, I love that this service is here.  It’s most reassuring as I snow plough down Hutt that if I get wiped out by snowboarders I will be whisked to a hospital quickly.  However, the lack of disclosure makes me uncomfortable, and I believe that donors – and tax payers – deserve a bit more around the efficiency of the organisation.  All sorts of questions come to mind: is the operation subsidising other commercial elements?  Why does the IP sit within a private business?  Other structures have the human capital within the charity.  How can we ensure the service provider is competitive in what should be an open tender process?  I see GHC have had their contract reconfirmed by the CDHB (Star, October 20 2016).  How could another provider actually have a crack at that contract?  Legal billings for both ARCS and CWCART total $220k.  Really?  I have some mates who would like that client!

I also would hope that Westpac, who last year put $748k into CWCART, and CDHB, who together with other government agencies cover a stated 30% of the costs of this, are making their decisions on better information than what’s presented here.  I also believe that, given they actually operate a gaming trust which, in 2015 took some $20m[i] out of the community, there is an obligation back to the community to show us that those funds are used in the most effective manner. 

I could put in an OIA request and maybe get the information.  But I shouldn’t have to, and really, as an organisation looking for support it’s actually incumbent on them to let us know they are doing.  I would love to talk with you if you think this is vaguely interesting.


[i] Figure mentioned for maximum outrage.  Almost half of this goes to the pubs themselves, the DIA for problem gambling services, and running of the machines themselves.  It’s likely that the venue themselves would like machines regardless, so this dollar amount stays the same.  The entity itself has costs of $2.5m which must be within the DIA guidelines.  The balance went to the community.

I was actually using the database for a spot of work the other day, and noticed that I hadn’t looked at Lion Foundation for a wee while.  I’ve now cut in the data up till September 2016. 

Lion Foundation are really helpful in terms of disclosure.  Check their website out: they make it super easy to see who was funded by Territorial Authority, AND they also show who did not receive funding.  If I had a criticism, it’s the gap around the WHY (and that’s where Pub Charity’s disclosure is pretty good). 

And the other thing that separates Lion from many of the gaming trusts… they actually have women making decisions around where the funds go.  I know!  What a crazy idea.

In their financial year to 31 March 2016, they spent a total of $1.6m in grants, and in a wide range of places.  Of course, 40% to sport… and of course rugby union and cricket got the largest amounts.  Health and Wellbeing are a surprise, but looking at the data that’s driven by $200k to St Johns – probably for some capital spend.   Nice to see a complete balance of spend. 

One comment however: cost to serve.  They made 205 grants in Canterbury.  Some 117 of these totalled less than $5000.  My (admittedly wobbly) numbers on cost to serve from last year suggest they have costs of over $4k per grant.  So… it’s costing more to get the grant out than the grant actually being given.  And it’s is before the cost of applying for the grant by the not for profit is taken out.

Now, one concept I have been hearing a bit about lately is Middle Class Capture – which I guess means that the folks who actually don’t need stuff get stuff. A slightly uncomfortable concept in a so called egalitarian society.  This can be seen at universities, where scholarships are set up for post grad study – when actually the desire was for getting the poorer but able kids into higher education.  I can see this as well with grants. 

Using the Phil Twyford methodology to identify “middle class” groups, and looking at the Lion data, some 59% of money is going to those “middle class” organisations, 32% to the wider community (ie, anyone) and the balance to poorer communities.  Included in the Middle Class group are arts groups such as the Sweet Adelines, sports clubs such as Bowls and Marching (and of course rugby and cricket), some schools, such as Rangi Ruru.  Now, us middle class are perfectly entitled to ask for support, but this entitlement can sometimes mean that what is to all intents and purposes a hobby can become a leech on the philanthropic dollar.  If you want to get together as a group and sing then that’s great.  Just not quite sure why you expect that the community should subsidise you to do that.  And if the group is getting funds because it drinks at the local gaming venue… well, I do suspect that behaviour may be frowned upon by DIA.

Now, you can argue my categorisation and methodology: after all, I have no basis for the categorisation other than my own bias.  But regardless of the numbers: it’s an important conversation for us to have.  What is the public benefit of some of this stuff vs the private benefit?  How can we reduce the transaction costs? 

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

At the risk of never picking up paid work again, I thought it would be quite interesting to have a wee gander to see how Rata’s funding decisions have changed over the time.  Last year Rata announced the new funding framework.

They have recently published their year end 31 March 2016 grants, and published their YTD grants to 31 July 2016.  Now, those eagle eyed readers will of course know that I’m developing up a mega database of grants, so I thought it might be interesting to look at some trends.

The chart below shows the Canterbury sector, and the percentage of their funding to go to each sector since 2013 (excluding earthquake funds).

What (I think) is interesting here: this year’s growth in the proportion of Youth sector grants, Health and Arts.  Now, with the latter two this could be driven by the “old” model in terms of timing of their sectors.  But the Youth in interesting: traditionally their sector closed in March, which means they pretty much got their funds from the 2015 year, and then turned around and applied again.  Something Sport, with their old February timeframe, didn’t quite think to do.

So, using the magic of Pivot Tables, let’s have another look.  In blue are the numbers of applications approved.  And in pink are the average grants given (in thousands) above.

 So what this is showing: fewer organisations are getting funded.  Those getting money are getting larger on average amounts.   Rata looks to be funding fewer groups in all areas, except for Education and Young People.   So it should be some good news if you are getting money from Rata as you are likely to be getting more.  The list of those who are declined is not provided, so it’s uncertain as to whether this is driven by groups not applying, or groups being declined.  And its early days yet on the new funding framework, so it remains to be seen if this results in a significant change in the sorts of organisations receiving money. 

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

In 2014 the Canterbury funders gave around $600k in 97 grants to 58 early learning centres.  Not really a huge amount, but something I find interesting.  Almost $300k came in the form of rate payer rebates on rental income to 9 not for profit early learning centres.

Preschool decisions are a bit fraught.  I recall the decision making we used while trying to figure out where to send the kids: a private one, I thought, would require less from me in terms of selling things like chocolate bars, trike a thons and cake baking.  A private one would also provide me with some respite from my three under 4 as sessions not dictated by school holidays! 

We also recall the sigh of relief when our youngest started at school, ridding our monthly budget for the cost of the privately owned preschool of around $250 per month per child. 

I have had a wee look at five relatively simple preschools: single non profit entities.  I have used both their Charities office financial records, along with enrolment figures from ERO.  It’s quite interesting.

Wages, predictably, make up between 77% and 88% of total costs.  And it looks as if the ECE funding supplied by the tax payer pretty much covers wages.  The next biggest cost can be rent: but again, it depends.  Some own their land and buildings, a testimony to the work of previous generations. Of course, that then pushes more cost to insurance, especially in a post EQ Christchurch.  Others get subsidised rent through a relationship with a local school.  And still others pay commercial rents.

Parent contribution can range from 17% of total revenue, down to 4%.  Obviously this ratio will depend on the parents’ ability to pay, but its interesting (I think!) that for those with a lower parent contribution have a higher cost per child (almost $16k per child in one case) to the preschool with a higher parental contribution having total costs of $9k per child. 

So where is the extra money coming from?  Grantmakers.  There is an easy narrative around applying for funding “for the children”.  Sand pit covers, Red Cross courses, shade sails and theubiquitous and never ending bucket of ICT. 

So all very interesting, but to me, the bigger issue here is the relationship back to private enterprise.  According to the Education census, last published for 2014 data, there were 4299 licensed services.  This excludes playgroups, of which there are 857.  Now, sadly, the census does not take ownership model into account.  But what is interesting here is this chart, taken from the government’s education census.  It shows the number of enrolments  / attendances in licensed services by service type.  Now, this chart does not identify what is privately owned, BUT it’s fairly easy to see where the growth is.  And I would hazard a guess that many of these service providers in the education and care sector are privately owned.  These privately owned businesses are “making it work” with available resources, available funding, and providing a return to the owners for doing so.  IRD tells me that private enterprises of the size I have looked at will make a return on equity of (on average) 22%.  The organisations I looked at?  All except one made a loss last year.

Now, I know that choice is a marvellous thing, and I understand that people tend to be wedded to the decisions they have made for their kids.  But I also know that sometimes it’s difficult for a not for profit to make some hard calls around the commercial realities of doing what they do, and that a wider strategic analysis can be hard.  Going to grant makers for support is an easy option, but not necessarily the best.  It would be interesting to look at small private businesses, larger ones, and some of the larger not for profits (such as kindergartens who present consolidated accounts). 

And why is this important to grant makers: opportunity cost.  A dollar is a dollar, and if you do want to front up to your stakeholder to justify your role in the community, or justify the tax free status you receive, then there is an obligation to ensure that each dollar of spend delivers maximum bang for your community.

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

Writing funding applications can be rather tiresome.  Reading them can be worse.  A bunch of applications where the details are fairly sketchy can mean the reader has to spend many hours googling to colour in the picture. 

So, in the spirit of making my life slightly more colourful, I’ve pulled together my list of things I look at when reading grant applications.  There will be resources out there to help people pull their information together, but from what I’ve been seeing recently, they aren’t getting read!

When writing an application, a key thing is to think of the end user: why would the person reading this application think your project was worth investing real money in. 

1. Put some cash in yourself.  If you are looking for at a community project, it’s good to show some skin in the game.  This should involve either using some of your own reserves, or involve some funding from your community – good old quiz nights, auctions and the like.  It could involve a spot of labour as well: volunteer time which can be costed into your project if they are actually doing work like painting.  I like proactive communities.  It also helps get that sense of ownership within your community: which should translate to better maintenance and pride.
2. Look to leverage your community.  If you are in an area where there are not many jobs, can your building project provide training opportunities for young people in the area?  I know that Health and Safety can be a reason not to do this stuff, but perhaps you can work with someone who might try? 
   
3. For a capital project, figure out you will manage the project in an ongoing manner.  Who owns it?  Whose responsible for maintenance?  Where will you fund that from?  Or will it earn you an income?
4. Get people to endorse your project.  This can include the local MP and district council, and potential users of the facility. This shows that there is some wide spread support from the community.  However, these need to be more than simple “great idea” endorsements.  For example, if a school is a potential user of the asset, it’s helpful to understand where they see this project within their overall priorities.  People doing the endorsement should ask themselves whether this project is the most effective spend of money within their community. 
5. Offer up a quick “competitor” analysis.  Sometimes it’s hard to understand the micro role of the organisation within the context of the larger community.  For example, is it the only community space in the area?  What other clubs are around?  What do they charge?  Why is your organisation different from the others in that space?
6. How many people use your facility?  Are they regular users: is that 100 of the same people every week, or different people every week? Are you a dying club?  Be honest: will a dollop of cash just hold back the inevitable?  What’s the role of fees within your organisation?  Why can’t you put them up?  How often are you busy?  
7. Budget up the whole project, and then break it down for the specific bit you want the funder to fund.  This helps to understand who else is involved, and where the money for the project is coming from.
8. Baby steps.  Prove that you can do what you want to do by starting small.  This shows that you can deliver, and that you do have community buy in.  A funder is unlikely to hand over large wads of cash to an unknown entity.
9. Who do you collaborate with?  Reinvention of the wheel is a fairly common thing – you should try to show that you know best practice, and how you would leverage this.  Can you find a mentor in another part of the country who can help you?
10. Think of how you are governed.  Look beyond the family and friends. Find people who will disagree and challenge you – in a productive manner of course!
    

There are an awful lot of community projects and groups out there all looking for money.  If you are going to get support, then the project needs to stand out.  A good application will have more information than the funder actually asks, and should demonstrate genuine community need verses committee want. It should show where the project fits strategically within the community, and how you make the world a better place.

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

Husband and I are off to the school ball tomorrow night.  It will be a great night out: we get to hang out with friends we have made through the school, have a bit of a boogie, tell some lies, create (and probably forget) some memories, and get some cash in for our new senior playground.  We should raise around $20,000 from our community through auctions, and give business owners within our community an opportunity to profile their wares and their skills. But more important than that: we will have forged a tighter parental village around our children. 

The reason I mention this is because Rata Foundation has just released their 2015 grants.  I am busy cutting them into my mega database, but was struck with a few thoughts on their Education grants. 

I really don’t quite understand what high decile schools are doing applying, and usually receiving, grants.  In the Rata list, we have Ohoka, Swannanoa, Sumner, St Albans Catholic, Cobham, Christchurch Boys’ and Middleton Grange all getting various amounts of money from Rata.  All decile eight and above.

Now, I know that deciles don’t actually translate to a bunch of rich parents at a local school, and that it’s a very blunt instrument with which to administer funding.  I am also aware that there are arguments that free education is something our society is based on, and that the ever insidious “parental donations” can be a source of angst amongst some.  I recall some early conversations with parents about not wanting to bake another “flipping” cake, and that they should just add to the parent donation.

However, after being involved in the PTA, and had children come through primary, I now totally get the need for community building around the school base.  There is that rather awful image of the parenting community, and I guess it can daunting for some.  The PTAs role is not to compare against the Jones’s, but rather to make sure that me, as a parent, has the social connections with my kids’ families, so we can create that village to raise children in.  And this is where the money thing comes in: tomorrow night I will reconnect with people who I don’t see at the school gate.  I will meet new people who could well be a part of my kids’ community for another decade.  I will find out other parents’ concerns, delights and challenges in the most important job we do have.  Fund raising is the nominal reason we are there, and yes we’ll be encouraged to spend too much on things we may not need.  But the real strength in these sorts of things is the community bonds which are formed and forged.

Sure it’s a truckload of work (fortunately not for me), but the team putting it together have developed skills and relationships, and will have a great knowledge now of their community.  I could have spent a couple of days producing up funding requests for the same thing, and yes, they probably would have been supported by the likes of Rata, or a gaming trust.  However, the collateral benefits from the ball would not have been realised, and our community’s lives would have been that much poorer.

I really feel that in the narrative around communities, many groups forget about the fluffy stuff.  If a community has the wherewithal to be self reliant, then I really believe it jolly well should be.  Just because the money is actually available doesn’t mean it should be tapped.

Another component to our entitled young offspring is getting them to work for it.  This could be through some form of child centred fundraising: mufti days, swim a thons or whatever.  Getting the kids to have some skin in the game on things that benefit them I reckon goes a long way to having them respect what is provided for them.

Now, Rata’s grants list don’t actually show what the money goes towards, and its often hard to understand where the grants go to from individual school communications.  There are some instances when the money is totally justified: before we ask can we please understand the want verses the need, and secondly, consider the resources of the community.

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