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

Some musings on things

Rata Update 2019

22/10/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture

One of the things I like to do is sit on the couch and cut and classify data from various funders.  I know, it’s weird.  But I’m a bit fascinated by the dynamics of grant funding, power imbalances and how decisions are made.  Indeed, I have seen this as both a grant maker and a third sector organisation (TSO) seeking funding and reckon there’s a wealth of unexamined stuff that happen here.

I last had a good look at Rata a good eighteen months ago.  What I found there was some increases in the amounts given, to fewer groups.  I had noted a change of Trustees given the change of government (Trustees are appointed by the Minister of Finance) and wondered if there would be material changes in where the money goes.  Since then, we have had two more funding years published, so I’ve taken a deep breath and jumped on in.  I’ve found a few pretty interesting things:
  • Top of the South (Nelson and Marlborough regions) got 30% of 2019 grants, whilst having 23% of the population
  • Rugby is still the number one sport getting funding from Rata.
  • They are giving fewer, bigger grants.
  • The cost per grant has shot up by over $1500.  This is driven by both rising costs and fewer grants.
Now, there are a couple of health checks on this.  Firstly, they have introduced multi-region funding.  Now this is a grand idea as it means that organisations who service the whole area, Canterbury, Marlborough and Nelson don’t need to faff around figuring out how much to apply for in each region.  However, for me, who has decided to look at how the grants are allocated within region, it does complicate things a bit.  So I have applied a wee calculation based on 2018 census data.  Secondly, it looks like in 2018 they re-introduced multi-year funding.  What I did was simply divide the amount by the number of years of funding (generally 3).  A twist on this is that the 2019 grants have not actually been published in the same form as before (although it is stated in the financial statements that they are – oversight perhaps?).  They have been included within the 2019 financial accounts however.  But I have found that key information, such as whether or not the grant is a multi year one, isn’t actually there!  So I have eyeballed each large amount and, based on history, tried to determine whether or not its multi year (2019 – 2021). 
​
They have also changed the way their grants work into several different buckets: Support, Connect etc.  This doesn’t actually tell us much: indeed the bucket any particular group is allocated to can vary year by year.  So I have used their old classifications although of course with some of my own bias in classification.
​
Another wee quirk is the use of “Special Funds”.  After the quakes the Foundation put aside a wedge of capital - $25m – to help with Canterbury recovery (although Top of the South did receive about 20% of this money).  Similarly after the Kaikoura earthquakes, around $1.2m was allocated to recovery.  For the sake of analysis these funds are excluded from the following numbers. 
Picture
Picture
So this is a wee line which shows where the money is going.  Top of the South getting a bit more than before.  Looking at 2019 allocations, these regions got around 30% of the available money, despite having around 23% of the population (2018 census).  I find this a little surprising: bigger cities tend to attract a bit more challenge in terms of social issues so I would have thought more funding would be directed to Canterbury. Although when I looked at where Trustees came from it made a bit more sense: those 2019 Trustees were 50% Canterbury based and 50% top of the south!   And this will be something to keep an eye on this year as two Canterbury based ones have now gone, replaced by another Nelson based chap and a Cantab. 
​
The next question is where the money went. Answer: the usual suspects.  I was surprised again to see this: as any reader of mine knows, there are plenty for places for sports to get grants.  Indeed, rugby has its own pokie!  Community and Economic has grown a bit.  I have tagged all the money given over to capacity building here: it’s the latest and greatest for grant makers to throw money at (although, as one lovely chap running a really innovative TSO told me the other day, I don’t need some kid coming in and telling me how to run my organisation!).  We also have a couple of large chunks to one or two capital projects. 

Sport has seen a jump in 2017 and 2018 with a fall again in 2019.  Organisers of Sport, such as Sport Canterbury or Sport Tasman, have received the most at $437k.  As far as codes go, rugby got the biggest chunk in the 2019 year totalling almost $400k, driven by a big $200k grant to the New Brighton Rugby Club (presumably capex).  Cricket was second getting just shy of $250k, tennis received $221k, and basketball $203k. 

Environment had a big jump in 2019 due to $1m going to a stoat eradication project on D’urville Island.  Health and Wellbeing too has fluctuated, namely due to a couple of large capital donations in 2018.  A few organisations who always did receive funding no longer do: as Rata doesn’t publish declines I don’t know whether they didn’t ask or they were turned down. Interestingly Social Services has dropped a bit too, from 15% of funds five years ago to 12% these days.  While social services do have the highest average grant ($30k rather than the average of $22k) the actual quantum given has dropped by around $500k. 

The trend I noticed previously has continued: namely the average amount of a grant increasing.  This is up from an average grant of $15k in 2014 to $22k in 2019.  The number of grants too has reduced, from 1240 in 2014 down to 841 in 2019.  And this last figure is overstated what with my fudge for multi-regions. 

The last question is how much it costs to get a dollar into the community.  If we look at a simple figure of the staff costs divided by the total grants given, it now costs 9 cents for Rata to get $1 into the community.  This is up from 6.4 cents in 2014.  This is driven by staff costs increasing around 50% over this time period, which is rather interesting, especially given fewer grants are being made now.   We can put this another way: looking at total costs, in 2014 the cost per grant was $2262, in 2019 this rose to $3962.  Now we could argue that better decisions are being made: of course there is (at this stage) no way to measure this.  However, the irony is not lost on me: sure as eggs if a TSO’s costs had risen so much you can be sure the funder would be asking some questions.

Then of course there is the other side: the time and cost for an organisation applying for a grant.  Anecdotally I have heard some pretty outrageous numbers on this.  The challenge is that Rata is the biggest funder in the area, putting around 30% of total grants into the region.  The power imbalance is out of whack.  Media publishes its good news stories (although there has only been one press release this financial year), academia isn’t interested in the ecosystem (I’ve asked!), government perhaps sees organisations such as Rata as a way create a diversion from actually funding TSO provided services sufficiently, and TSOs are obliged to fawn and laugh at all the funder’s jokes in order to keep a relationship, while privately grumbling.  This organisation was set up for citizens of the area covered by the old Canterbury Savings Bank, and as such, us citizens do need to give a rats.  Power corrupts after all, and, as The Tuesday Club weekly emails say (stolen themselves from The Washington Post), Democracy dies in darkness. 

I write about this stuff as believe that as need to understand where funding comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there.  As a citizenry we allow both those supplying money and those asking for money to operate, and as a community we need to ensure we have oversight over the organisations they choose to fund.   Love to talk with you if you think this is at all interesting, and if you want to dive into the data a bit more than happy to do so. Check out my website http://www.delfi.co.nz/

1 Comment
best resume service reviews link
10/1/2020 02:05:14 pm

This article was king of complicated to understand especially I don’t belong in this industry! But still, I had the eagerness to read it because I can feel that if I will make an effort to understand it, I am pretty sure that there is a new knowledge that I can learn which can be beneficial for me in the long run! Whatever these number means, I am hoping that what you’re having on your company is the growth you’ve been wanting to have ever since! I would be very happy to see if that is what’s happening on you right now!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Archives

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

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly