I choked on my latte the other day as I was reading Metropol, a lifestyle mag distributed to the leafy Christchurch suburbs.  There was a story about a fashion event designed to benefit Ronald McDonald South Island.  In here was a direct quote from their CEO “… because we receive no Government funding we rely on community support like this”.  Now, last time I looked the Ministry of Health’s Travel and Accommodation Scheme pretty much covered ALL of the operating costs of the organisation.  Maybe the statement that “we receive no Government funding” is correct because the funding is linked to the families staying at the house, so it’s not DIRECT funding, but it sure looks like we taxpayers do actually do what we are supposed to do here.  Semantics?

And this all leads us to becoming less trusting of NGOs, as this survey reported by Stuff suggests.

I have written about Ronald McDonald House South Island (RMHSI) a couple of times, but thought it might be interesting to put this charity through the GiveWell criteria – or rather, a more concise and desk top version thereof.  It’s a tricky one: our hearts tell us to do what we can, but what should our heads say?  I believe all information should be easily accessible, transparent and publicly available.

What does the charity do?
I have grabbed the below from the RMHSI website.  “Supporting families while their child receives hospital care; more than just a House.
Families stay with us completely free of charge while their children are hospitalised so they can concentrate on what matters most – their child. 
Core values

• Focusing on the critical needs of children
• Keeping families close™
• Celebrating diversity
• Operating with accountability and transparency

How are we funded?
We rely on the generous support of the public, businesses and volunteers to operate our facilities and we undertake our own internal fundraising to meet costs. We receive no direct Government funding, although we can receive some support from the Ministry of Health’s Travel and Accommodation Scheme for eligible families.

That is marvellous.  I can imagine how hard it is for a family to have a child in hospital, and being far away from community support must make that so much harder.  I also imagine the community that it forms: having others who are going through similar situations and emotions to yourselves can be most supportive.  However, do they need my hard earned dollars?

The RMHSI accounts are interesting.  Firstly, I have looked at their latest 2015 accounts on the Charities Services website to see where their costs lie to get an understanding of what they actually do.  The 2016 accounts on the RMHSI website do not have much detail – curiously enough there is a comment in the notes section (note 3 page 12) of their 2016 report that for detailed accounts we should contact the Trust office.  I raised an eyebrow as this seems to contradict their core value number four of being open and transparent.

Not surprisingly, RMHSI is really about two things: operating the facility, and generating funds.  However, I have had to resort to the 2014 accounts for real numbers around their service provision, as the 2015 and 2016 ones from their website are a bit less helpful for what I want to do. 

Revenues come in two forms: one from operations, and one from fundraising.  Let’s look first at operations. 

In 2015 they earned some $676,606 from Accommodation.  I believe this is the money referred to above as coming from the Ministry of Health’s Travel and Accommodation Scheme.  This makes sense as it’s cheaper to centralise services, and it’s proper that the taxpayer covers this cost.

It also looks like they make money from subleasing their premise ($67k), but more interestingly generated almost $144k in interest. 

Total operating revenue for 2015 was $905k, up from 2014’s $762k.

Operating costs (which include operating staff expenses, trust expenses, utilities and repairs and maintenance) for 2015 come in at just shy of $600k, up from 2014’s $528k.  Depreciation is on top of this, coming in at $238k.

So the Christchurch operation made an operating surplus in 2015 of $68k, which compares to an operating deficit the previous year of $52k.

However, on top of this there is fundraising revenues.  Both years generated around $1.2m in fundraising income.  This came from donations, grants, fundraising initiatives and direct marketing.  There was a cost to this of $443k in 2015 ($431k in 2014).   This created a fundraising surplus of $840k. 

I should also mention here (as I think it’s a fabulous feature of the organisation) that volunteer hours and donated items are enormous.  In 2014 volunteers gave 16,600 hours of time.  If we use $24 / hour as a surrogate for the cost of that time (for yes, volunteer hours are costed) then that’s an additional $398,400 of cost (offset of course… but it is important).  Donated items are identified, but not included in the financial statements.  Donated items (page 33 of the accounts) is listed which is helpful: for Christchurch the total came to $591k.  If we take out things donated for events, we get $255,286. 

How cost effective is each programme area?
There are no figures provided for the actual numbers of families helped in 2015, nor in 2016 (over 1000).  I will use the 2014 figures: the annual report states that in 2014 they helped 763 families over 1162 visits, over 30,084 nights.  So if we look at simple division, that equals 30,084 / (598,570+238,605) = $28 / night.  That looks pretty cheap to me!  If we add in volunteer hours and donated items then the cost per night per person increases to $49.55.  Still pretty good!

How robust is the evidence behind the programme?
No evidence provided.  I make the (fairly safe) assumption that they are part of the Ronald McDonald international programme.  I also assume that, as the commercial McDonald’s business has fairly tied down commercial franchise agreements, that they have brought that philosophy to this element.  Efficacy of the programme is probably not that important: just that families feel supported.  Nothing is published about this in the annual report.

How well is each programme implemented?
No evidence provided.  It is very hard to find anyone who has had the experience to say anything negative about the service.  I expect it’s marvellous.

Does the charity need additional funds?
Here’s where it gets interesting.  No.  If we look at their Charities Office profile, they have not made a single deficit in the past ten years. 

They have a solid war chest, with assets of $17m in 2016.  Of course, we have to go back to 2015 to see how this is made up: there are fixed assets of $12.3m, and cash of $4.1m, $2.6m earmarked for building projects.  They have a fund “Operation Provision Funds”, which I believe is there to support the operating costs.  Direct operating costs are around $600k. 

This means that, should they not make ANY money, they should be able to cover operations for two years.  This is prudent to have provisions of course, and two years seems fine.

And there is this.  The name of the organisation. 

Now, one would expect McDonald’s to be a significant contributor to the organisation given they have their name on the door. 

The graph shows the past nine years of accounts for RMHSI.  The last significant contribution from the stakeholder was in 2013 totalling $150,000.  This makes sense: the organisation has a great capability to generate funds for its operations, for growth, and looks well placed for the future, and I guess that the overarching global organisation is focussed on other markets. 

Now, this seems limited to the South Island operation of RMHSI.  The two North Island operations have been gathered under one umbrella, Ronald McDonald House charities.  Here it looks like McDonald’s (as Mission Partner) gave the North Island organisations $1.6m in 2016, up from 477k in 2015. 

The challenge with critiquing such loved organisations is thinking with the head.  I see that they seem to do a wonderful job of supporting families in times of need.  RMHSI has huge brand equity, and McDonald’s certainly gets considerable brand value from this.  But as such, as a community I think we have to ask whether this brand love is deserved.  And whether we should take what these organisations say at face value.

It’s not surprising that people don’t actually trust Not for Profits.  Sorry, I won’t be attending the fashion show.  And if I was the Minister of Health, I’d probably be a bit snippy that the government contribution is effectively sidelined.  After all, there are plenty of other NGOs who could do with a tidy $676k. 

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.

Last time I looked at Rata I did a wee chart to look at count and averages (note – the numbers are different as I have realigned the data in my database to reflect funders’ financial years).  So, again 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).

This is showing what the data hinted at a year ago: yes, that things have changed.  Fewer organisations are getting funded.  Those getting money are getting larger on average amounts.   Rata looks to be funding fewer groups in Arts and Heritage, Education, Social Services, Sport and Young People.   And, except in sport, the average grant is up a bit.  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. 

But, just between you and me, the biggest change is yet to come.  You may recall that board appointments are made by Government, and you also may recall that we had an election last year.  A very wise gentleman once told me that the most effective Community Trust Boards were those with a mix of both opposition and government appointees.  I guess we will see the impact of this in a year or two – it will be interesting to keep an eye on funding to the various sporting codes (especially cricket!).

I do think it’s important for us to understand the funding ecosystem, as the allocation decisions are made on our community’s behalf.  And, with many of New Zealand’s over 100k NFPs crying out for more cash, it’s fairly important that we, as a community, keep a vigilant eye on where our money goes – and what’s achieved from that spend. 

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.

 Last Saturday’s Press had a full page ad telling us that the Christchurch Airport Community Fund, run by the Christchurch International Airport Ltd (CIAL) had given away $45k in the past year to some 23 organisations.

Now, good on them.  They have used the dollars that go into a collection box at the airport, and an unspecified supplement that to create the fund.  They did not have to do this.  But before we cover them in glory, can we just have a wee think about the cost to serve of this money.

This equates to almost $2k per organisation.  Now I guess for some, that’s a lot of money.  But for most, it’s diddily squat: perhaps a small contribution to someone’s salary.  And then let’s consider the costs of applying for the grant.  I don’t know how many were turned down, but let’s say it took some 6 hours to fill in the (admittedly very simple) application form, and get it vetted by others in the organisation.   Let’s say it costs around $25 / hour for that person’s time (and yes, even volunteers have an opportunity cost of their time: US research suggests $24.14 / hour).  That’s a total cost of $150. 

Then the application form is received and read by someone at the funder.  Let’s say it takes about 2 hours to read the application, make sure that the organisation is a goodie, fills in any gaps in the application and complete packs to those who make decisions (I am totally guessing at their process by the way).  And corporate people are paid more than community so let’s put a fully costed per hour cost of $75 – a total cost of $150.

And if we assume that 75% of applications are funded, then that’s a total cost of $9,300.

A committee considers the proposal.  So let’s say two two hour meetings (and one hour each of prep) per year of six people, total cost of $2,700.

And there is the obligation.  In the 2017 annual report (page 42 and 43 dedicated to the fund, which last financial year seemed to give away $53k to 37 groups) it talks of hosting 12 schools it had given $1k each to for an end of year concert.  Not quite sure how much it costs to rent a bus, but let’s say $200 – plus the lost learning time for the grateful kids (and another set of RAMS for the long suffering teachers).  Let’s assume for each “lucky” recipient that the obligation cost is around $200.  That makes compliance cost of $4,600.

We then have marketing costs.  Full page ad in the Mainland section of The Press: $16k.  Preparation of said ad… let’s guess at $4k to have a round number. 

That means this process has cost around $36,000, for a $45,000 grant pool, meaning a total benefit to the community of $9,000.  You will have your views, but I’m thinking it’s not the most productive use of those dollars.

Now, CIAL is actually 75% owned by CCC with the balance by the NZ Government.  How’s this for a wacky idea: let’s collaborate.  The Community fund can hand over their money to the grants programme at CCC.  They have the staff in place to manage that, and certainly have an issue of demand heavily over supply.  And sure as eggs that the vast majority of the groups applying here also apply to CCC.  This could be done at NO marginal cost.  And the recipients of the funds could easily be identified so CIAL can get the photo ops they want.

CIAL are no alone in this: we have Z with their Good in the Hood where groups effectively get around $1k each.  We have Grace removers who recently did an online popularity contest to dish out $2k each to six charities out of 12 finalists.  All of these will provide great photo ops, and enable the business to launder themselves with the virtues of the Not for Profits. 

But let’s be honest.  These small dollops of cash will really make very little difference to the NFP receiving the funds.   Because of course everyone wants their funds to be used for assets, or specific programmes, rather than the things that are boring but necessary to get the funds in the first place, such as admin salaries.  $45k is the cost of one school counsellor (part time).  It’s rounding.   And the irony of the headline “small change makes a big difference” may have been lost on them.

Corporates: I love that you want to do stuff.  But please: I know you all have re-engineered your own processes to get lowest cost service provision.   You have optimised your supply chain to ensure its operating as efficiently as possible.  Can you please take that thinking into your Corporate Responsibility Team?  Can you please treat NFPs as a valued community partner rather than a photo op for your annual review, some sort of power kick, or a tick box for your Employee Value Proposition.

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.

Sport has received some 31% of that money with rounding to other organisations.  So which codes are getting that money?  If we look at all money given in 2016 and 2017 Football got a decent whack, followed by cricket.  What is most interesting is the amount going into horse racing: if I look at the grants its driven by grants given to trotting clubs.  This rise in grants to the racing industry from ARCS has swollen over the last two years: in 2014 the industry received $81k from this organisation, last year it was $200k.

However, these figures pale with the amount given to Mainland Football of over $630k in the past four years.  They were followed by grants to Cashmere Technical who received over $100k of grant money per annum over the last three years.

Anyway – all this is slightly interesting, and can raise eyebrows if one considers issues like ethics of grants, social and gender equity, middle class capture etc.  And there is whole issue of the lack of transparency of this rescue operation which I raised in my previous blog.  But these sorts of questions are above my pay grade.  However, I reckon that ARCS can do a bit more for less.

Given it’s a “For Purpose” gaming organisation, then why should it not provide all of the funds for the CWCART.  In CWCART’s 2016 accounts, they passed some $5.3m to Garden City Helicopters (down from $6m in 2015).  They could have funded all of this from their gaming operation, but instead chose to give $4.2m in both years, leaving a deficit which was funded from corporate sponsorship and fundraising.  Fund raising raised some $1.76m in 2016, down from $1.8m in 2015.   Operating costs relating to CWCART was $731k in 2016 (down from $834k in 2015).

If all the support for the rescue helicopter operation came from the underlying gaming trust, then could ALL of those operating costs disappear?  Probably not, but let’s be conservative and say $400k of those costs would disappear if ARCS covered all Garden City Helicopter’s needs. 

Now let’s look at the ARCS’s financials.  They run the gaming machine operation, and the grant distribution around that.  Page 4 of their accounts shows total operating costs of $2.5m.  The top cost is depreciation, but if we take that, then we have operating costs of $1.4m, and half of this is salaries.   Let’s say the grants process costs $510k - $3m of non helicopter grants * $0.17 (the cost per grant as per my earlier work).  If this was whipped out, then the cumulative cost saving from both CWCART and ARCS = $0.9m.

That all sounds interesting, but ARCS generated over $8m in total for 2017.  $8m less the $5.3m needed for operating the helicopters leaves some $2.7m.  How does that get distributed?

Well, in my world funders collaborate.  That $2.7m (which would actually become $3.6m because those whipped out operating costs become money which can go back to the community) could go to someone who does this already and who has a similar philosophy.  NZCT looks like a prime candidate as they have a heavy sports skew too.  Of course NZCT’s costs would go up (probably incrementally as they will already be funding many of these groups) and quite probably NFPs costs could reduce … so for the sake of argument let’s balance those off to zero.

So all very simple, the business case is clear with an incremental $900k of community funding, and it’s quite doable. But it won’t happen.  There is no tension to change the status quo.  ARCS are returning money to the community according to set guidelines.  Air Rescue is a heart string operation which attracts attention and money.  And they do cute money boxes.  No-one else seems to be taking an ecosystem view of this space, and that’s what is quite frustrating. 

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.

Postscript: the dog came up with a sterling idea while we were walking.  Let’s let CWCART keep Westpac’s $500k annual sponsorship (BTW that means my $3.6m becomes $4.1m as above).  I reckon Westpac has some systems thinking people who understand the concept of cost to serve… so if they chose to they could leverage that sponsorship and effect some positive ecosystem change.  Now, that would be quite cool.

In case you missed it, the Social Enterprise World Forum is coming to Christchurch.  This will put some focus on social enterprises.

So what is one?  

 Well, according to a bit of a guru in this space, MJ Kaplan (and who I looked for guidance when developing up a Social Enterprise fund), it’s three things according to an article in Flint and Steel 2014:

• Intent.  Social enterprises exist to address social and/ or environmental problems
  
• Business Models. These ventures employ business models, skills and tools to develop products and services that are traded in the market place
  
• Profits. Ownership is structured to assure that profits are reinvested to advance the core social / environmental mission and grow the enterprise sustainably.
  

Now, I have been thinking about this stuff for a couple of years now, but was still somewhat dumbstruck a few months ago when, while making a serious amount of scones I realised that indeed, I was the Chair of a $30k per annum social enterprise. I was trying to convince someone to take over my role (mission accomplished) and as part of selling the role I realised that our school PTA actually ticks all the boxes here. 

• Intent.  We exist to form a village to help raise our kids, and to provide extra cash on top of government funds.
  
• Business Models.  We implement business models by marketing and merchandising uniforms, supplying school lunches, and entertainment opportunities for the school community.
  
• Profits.  All our profits go back to the school to provide items not provided by existing government funding.
  

Wow.  So suddenly I was not just a bored housewife: rather I am part of a growing and rather fab social movement. 

There are a whole bunch of organisations which, on the face of it, tick those boxes but may not self identify as social enterprises.

• Early child education centres exist to ensure that every pre-schooler has a good start in life and earn funding from trading (government contracts and parental fees).
  
• Many sports clubs actually make more money from trading over the bar than they do from subs.I guess that the intent is to form communities.
  
• Churches can trade eternal salvation for a tithe, with the intent of community building and charitable purpose of religion.Others, such as the Seventh Day Adventists have a specific trading arm through Sanitarium, drive profits through a rather large $200m business.
  
• Private schools trade education for parental fees, with the charitable purpose of education and I guess, community building.
  
• Maori charities drive profits back into their beneficiaries.Ngai Tahu is of course the stand out here.
  
• Private Hospitals, such as St Georges, run as incorporated societies, and drive income via trading, government contracts.St George’s objectives (from their website) state: To apply any profits accruing from the activities or work of the Society to the furtherance of its charitable objectives, especially the altruistic nursing of the sick or for such other purposes which accord with its charitable objectives
  
• Gaming trusts.Tricky this one.I postulated that perhaps gaming trusts could be considered as social enterprises, since around 40% of their income (after payouts, before costs) goes to Not for Profit.Whether the social cost is worth the economic benefit is a discussion for another day.
  

We are going to see a lot this week about the new and emerging social enterprises.  And yes, we are seeing more here particularly around “for purpose” businesses as people re-evaluate business orthodoxy around trickle down.  However, in the hype let’s remember that it’s not new.  Kilmarnock, which you will hear a lot about at the conference, is 60 years old. 

I also think that more effort needs to go into measuring the impact of the various organisations.  Many social enterprises have quite a bit of hype, but often propose some sorts of simplistic solutions to complicated social issues.  And perhaps that’s a gap that could do with some support: working with those enterprises and independent researchers to ensure that strong auditable metrics are a key part of the social enterprise proposition – making sure they hype and the good that we think we are doing matches the reality of the issues that are being solved.

We don’t have to be one of the cool kids to be a participant at the Social Enterprise table.  I guess it’s incumbent on all of us, both those in the tent and those who don’t know where the camp ground is, to include, and not go down the usual track of putting language and process around some concepts that in actual fact are fairly old.

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.

It’s that time of year, and my children are at a life stage where education options loom up.  I was chatting with a fellow parent on the sideline of some sports event recently, and he made me think a bit with his statement about private schools: “Well, they really are businesses”. 

But actually, they are charities.  This made me wonder what actual charitable purposes they purport to fulfil.

The Charities Act is based on legal precedents with an Act passed in England in 1601.  At that time of course, Queen Elizabeth 1 was on the throne.  My knowledge of that era is coloured by Phillipa Gregory, but it strikes me that culturally, we have changed our belief sets quite a bit – I’m not sure Catholics are quite the worry they once were, most the witches were dealt with at the time, and rich white men no longer are in charge of everything (well…).  However, the current Charities Act 2005 is heavily based on case law dating from 1601.  The 2005 Act stated that “charitable purpose” must fall under one or more categories.

• The relief of poverty.
• The advancement of education.
• The advancement of religion.
• Other purposes beneficial to the community.
  

Now, many of these provisions, under a modern first world country, are probably a bit redundant.  Education is widely provided by the government, as is poverty relief, health services.  We can argue over the execution, but no one is suggesting we remove any of the above from state mandate.  Religion?  Well, the growing group of New Zealander’s stating no religion is growing.  In the 2013 census, almost 42% of us said we had no religion, up from 34.9% in 2006. 

This then got me thinking what it did mean to be a New Zealander: what are our core values.   I think it’s about equity, respect and creativity.  My forebears came to this country to start a new life without the shackles of European social structures.  Respect comes to respect of our planet and of each other.  New Zealand has a narrative around number 8 wire which I think is pretty cool.  We will all have a different take on this of course, but would be interesting for us as New Zealanders to have a yarn about this.

If you follow the news you will have seen that the Charities Registration Board has upheld an earlier decision to remove Family First from the Charities register as they felt it did not have charitable purpose. They considered that “Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable.”

Now, the Board made the initial decision to remove the above organisation from the register in 2013.  It was challenged, but the decision upheld 2017.  There will be numerous lawyers over this, and at least one economist report.  How much to deregister this one organisation?  I would hate to think. 

You may also remember the kerfuffle almost a year ago when over 100,000 New Zealanders called for a deregistration of Destiny Church.  This was not backed by Charity Services as there seemed “insufficient evidence” to warrant an investigation.  The charitable purpose of this organisation, from the Charities Office website, is religion.  Which is entirely valid, so yes, like it or not, under our current rules it’s a charity.

Religion is an interesting charitable purpose.  The NZ Herald has done an interesting piece of analysis which shows where atheists live… and it’s all in those wealthier suburbs.  So is there a link between poverty and religion?  Does religion (through tithing) actually drive poverty?  This Samoan chap certainly thinks so.  I can’t find much in the way of academic studies on this sadly.

If we look at private schools, their charitable purpose is education.  Which is all well and good, and entirely consistent with legal purpose.  But unlike 400 years ago, in New Zealand we have universal education for all children.  In 2017 does education need to be a charitable purpose?  Further, one of the elements of Charitable purpose is around public benefit.  The benefit must be for the public, or a sufficient section of the public.  And halfway down the page it states “unjustifiable fees that exclude many people would not be acceptable”.  Hmmm.

If we use my Kiwi values as a surrogate for charitable purpose, for the sake of argument, then how many registered charities fit where New Zealand is as a nation? And if we use 400 year old legislation to define what is important to a modern first world economy today, how can we make sure we get the best possible charities sector and services sector which meets the needs of our increasingly diverse communities? 

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.

Apologies to those new readers of my blog. My last blog on Invisible Women which, by my standards, went viral, has attracted a few new people who may not be so keen on this stuff. So I’ll try not to take the smaller readership personally, and completely understand if you just quietly drop me. I actually write about some fairly niche stuff in the grant making ecosystem, so back to this.

Wellington funders got together a while ago and have now produced a report on the grant making space in their city. Heralded on Radio NZ as something done “for the first time” – a claim that I let go after kicking the dog and knocking back a bottle of chardonnay – nevertheless, it’s an interesting look at the grant ecosystem in Wellington.

Below is a comparison with Wellington, Canterbury and Otago – the South Island data you can find on my website. I confess to being a bit surprised by the similarities in the results given my rather dubious categorisation methodology, and the (likely) well-debated methodology of the Wellington work.

There are some clear similarities, with Sport again getting the largest slice of funds. Arts and Culture is interesting: whether this is driven by CNZ’s grants into the capital city (which will, of course, have national bodies) I don’t know. 

Of course, there are numerous issues in the above comparison.

• Classification. One of the issues identified in the Wellington study was a consistent and meaningful classification system. They adopted a standard classification system, but when I looked at this I felt it did not represent the richness of grant making. When I did the Canterbury and Otago work, I did sort of make it up into something that, as a user, was meaningful to me. This included classification by sports code. It's likely that there will be differences in classifications.
• Missing data. My data missed some of the smaller district councils, as getting good data out of them is a challenging task - although they are not perhaps material in any case. And Lotteries, of course, are missing from the Wellington data: in both South Island regions Lotteries make up about 10% of the grants into the area.  Lotteries grants tend to go on the community side of things. And of course, we have to remember that grant income makes up only a percentage of total income for NFPs. Income will include taxpayer funded contracts, self-generated funds, individual giving and fundraisers.
• Effect of gaming trusts. Within the Wellington data is information on NZ Racing Board, Lion Foundation and NZCT. There are another five or so gaming trusts which operate in the region whose data is not within the dataset. Further, when I did research on Otago and Canterbury I ignored NZ Racing Board. Although they are a large operator, they do not give grants out to general organisations. They are counted within the Wellington data, so will skew the sport number accordingly.
• Region.  As the capital, Wellington data could possibly be skewed by national organisations based in the city. This happens quite often: Canterbury funders will give funding to the likes of Royal NZ ballet to give performances within the region. 

It is great that this analysis is happening, and awesome that they have published. However, the devil is in the detail: NFP groups will want to see which funders will fund organisations or specific costs in their sphere. Sports codes may want to see who is sucking up all this sport funding.  Struggling art organisations might want to see who's getting it all.  Funds that go to schools, and may be tagged as education – are often used for things like sports.  And the headline that funds are not getting to those most in need ignores the rather huge role that government contracts play in that space. 

The Wellington decline information is quite interesting, in that they have actually looked into the issue, identifying some 32% of requests as declined. As a grant maker, a decline can be a bit angst ridden and of course high cost. Real time information about this would help decision makers understand other organisations’ concerns.

And as an aside talked about on the wireless during the interview was a concern about a lack of special interest groups applying for funding. Looking at the Wellington data, one could make some assumptions around this. However, I see that most NFPs deal with everyone. A cancer charity works with anyone with cancer. A school educates those who are enrolled. A sports club caters to members. A community group caters to those who live within the community. So to put in some sorts of percentage on special interest has the potential to result in some fairly silly outcomes, with even more replication for a sector with over 27,000 charities.

So where to from here. While the Wellington report talks of this as an interim report designed to encourage funders to share their data, and ends on a desire for funders to pitch in on this, I see that Central Government has to come to the party. They fund themselves, they oversee many other grantmakers, they regulate gaming trusts, and they monitor charities and societies. Funders are, by and large, disparate, regionally focussed, small (within the national context) and I hate to say, see themselves as central to the ecosystem rather than as an enabler. So, while I hope for their sake that they will be able to pull something off, I think that some sort of information solution where Central Government is a key stakeholder (not necessarily project owner) is the best way forward. Looking forward to the DIA’s Community Engagement Feedback due in September to see if there is more on this.

And one more thing. I confess to being a big fan of the 80/20 rule: putting 20% of the effort in to yield 80% of the result (good thing I am not a brain surgeon). My point is that we don’t need to design a perfect platform up front. Something now is better than an almost perfect solution in five years’ time. Be good to get started.

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.

I went to a women’s networking thing a few weeks ago.  Six speakers, some fabulous ideas, and good wine and food.  But... it struck me there is a big elephant in the room which we don’t talk about enough.  The C word.

The C word.  Yes, throws many of us on the corporate slag heap, unable to deliver quite the career potential we had.  Puts us waging an invisible sister to sister battle, unseen by many, but oh so passive aggressive.

Of course, I am talking about children.  

Now, my corporate career pretty much finished on or about 1 March 2004.  Nine months later the baby pops out.  I had this grand vision of having nannies and au pairs, while I could continue to have what I deemed a successful career.  However, number one, a return from parental leave, and the side-lining to a “project role” was followed by number two, a move, and then number 3. 

During this time, I went on a work retreat to some fabulous location.  The purpose was to develop team skills, strategic planning blah blah blah.  We had an inspirational after dinner speaker who had done some marvellous things and was a real success in his field.  But I discovered two things about myself on this trip.

Firstly, I didn’t really want to be away from my children and husband, making small talk with colleagues who, under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t socialise with.  The whole exercise seemed a bit pointless, and the co-ordination required for me to attend this three day event was a logistic challenge.  My career was no longer mine: we had to make joint decisions about work.  From Me to We. 

Secondly, I thought the inspirational speaker was a selfish jerk who did what he wanted to do without much thought for his long suffering wife and children.   Long periods away from home, many missed family occasions.  “Success” seems to be a fairly one dimensional measure, and I rethought what success meant to me.

So, while everyone makes different decisions, as a family we felt it best that they have a parent who is there after school, able to talk when the taciturn one wants to, able to be vented to after a day of challenge, coach their sports team or reading group, chauffeur them and their mates, and help nurture them into amazing human beings.

Parenthood in a corporate sense seems to focus on the baby stage: covering off parental leave and ensuring jobs are still available.  However, as those babies grow into children, and then teenagers, we have the challenge of 12 weeks of school holidays, and a school day of 9 till 3, along with all the demands (and rewards) of community involvement.  Public dialogue drives me a bit batty, with continued discussion about why there are no women in senior roles on boards / in management.  It’s really quite obvious (to me anyway..): the C word.  Many of the women I went to university with are in the same situation as me, and deal with this by making things work as well as we can.  But careerwise: we are out of the game, we are invisible, and we can’t get back in.

And yet we hear, constantly, about the skill gap, which justifies the immigration numbers.  In fact, I heard some words yesterday which made me shake my head: “those who want work are in work”.  Another employer was moaning about how they had to settle for two people job sharing a role, like that was a bad thing.  How about the nature of work changes to make this more accessible for working parents?  Surely employers don’t need to “own” people through employer / employee relationships.  Can projects be done in ten week chunks?

But very few employers offer the flexibility that we need, so we go and create our own niches where we can balance all the elements in our lives.  Talents and experience are enormous, social conscious is usually pretty high, but skills, by and large, are wasted.  We are labelled as Liam’s mum, a school mum.   No longer an individual in our own right. 

Now, this is really a first world problem.  And I could be perceived as a grumpy middle class housewife, and perhaps my corporate career would have petered out if we had chosen not to have kids, or if we had backed my career and not my partner’s.  But here’s my challenge.  As a parent of three girls, how do I counsel them on managing career?  Encourage them into traditional female roles?  Those roles are really flexible.  Choose a partner with a flexible career?  Volunteer myself to be there for their kids? 

Yes, I feel like a total gender traitor writing this: but under current conditions we simply can’t have it all.  The “have it all” narrative is where women must get educated to support themselves well, travel the world, get a great job, pay off debt, find the right man, afford a mortgage and deposit, squeeze out kids, all before the age of 34 when our fertility (apparently?) falls off a cliff.  No. 

Those people I see as successful are those amazing people who manage all the facets of life: they have found something they love to do, they contribute to the community, and they are doing a great job of the juggle.  So, while we may not be headlining conferences, on the rich list, or engaged in discussion of the issue, we are doing what we can to raise great humans, and make some impact on the lives of those around us.  You may be invisible to many, but I see you.

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz

I went to a lunch (and a discussion) on the grant making ecosystem yesterday.  They are being held across the country by Minister Ngaro and the Department of Internal Affairs.  Canterbury’s was the first where it was co-hosted by another funder: in this case, Rata Foundation.  Kudos to Rata for being part of the discussion.  From Delfi’s 2014 grant data, those two organisations make up around 30% of the money going into the region. 

But missing… gaming trusts, and the Council.  It’s difficult to have a discussion about the whole ecosystem if those who are part of it don’t see it as important.

Here were a few things I found interesting.  Firstly, most of the tables identified that “Relationships” with funders were desirable.  I kept quiet: frankly I do what I can to avoid said relationships: every conversation about the grants process puts cost onto the charity I do things for, and cost onto the grant maker.   

I was seated next to a woman I admire a lot.  Her job is to find grants to fund a fabulous charity.  She sources money from over fifty grant makers every year.  50 funders.  Ferreting all these obscure sources of money to keep an essential underfunded service helping families.  This is a similar figure for many of the larger charities.  What value does a relationship with a grant maker add to the organisation?  Does it ensure funding will continue?  Well, no.  Those decisions are generally not within staff discretion.  And just because the grant is a high amount for a specific grant maker doesn’t mean it’s a significant amount for the charity.  What purpose do relationships serve?  If its transactional (how do I fill this form in) then fine.  And if both parties get something out of this, then fine.  But if cost is forced onto the charity because the grant maker thinks it’s the right thing to do, then perhaps no. Or perhaps if the grant makers share the job of strategic partnering the it could make some sense.

Secondly, information.  We talked a bit about this, but I guess it’s difficult to understand what could be if the information was available.  Benchmarking, across sector, region, within code.  Sliced data: there is so much rich information available if only there was a model to support its creation.  We talked about reasons for declines, and all the costs replicated in many NGOs on understanding who gives to who.

Thirdly, I think we should take process away from the discussion.  What is the purpose of community grants?  To fund organisations which service the community (dur).  And what is the purpose of those organisations?  Well, to serve the community I guess (again, dur).  So, rather than a grant maker centric model we have now, how can we create a community centric one.  One where communities get to decide which groups actually deliver worthwhile stuff within their communities.  I pitched this idea to my table: comment from one was “What say we don’t get supported”.  Well, that’s sort of the point.  If you are not actually delivering worthwhile stuff, then perhaps it’s time to do something else.   Our communities deserve a strong NFP sector, and healthy constructive critique beyond brand and into substantive delivery, is one way to help achieve this.

The new reporting standards help identify this, with the development of the Performance Report.  These can provide some great reading (for charities anyway), and staff should totally be aware of what they do and how that impacts what is achieved by the group. 

Part of the challenge is having the discussion challenging status quo at the right level.  We can see many organisations (by no means limited to NFP) where the needs of the staff are put before the needs of customers. 

So lunch?  Was it worth it?  Yep.  A great appetiser to an exciting and potentially disruptive future, and refreshing to feel the discussion and engagement is being held.  However, hard to have substantive discussion and development of concepts in such environments.  However, I am heartened that the Minister “gets it”, having had considerable experience with the sector, and he can certainly see some of the challenges and opportunities.  Feedback will be communicated by September (hopefully sooner), and then we will see if we have a chance for something more substantive than the appetiser enjoyed yesterday.  And, from Delfi’s point of view, it would be amazing to contribute to a better, stronger ecosystem which really delivers strong communities.

Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting. Check out my website www.delfi.co.nz.