-
Best PracticeThe Australian
Grantmaking QuarterlyThe essential newsletterFor every state,
Federal, Local Government, Philanthropic and Corporate Grants
Program.Achieving the Best Practice with your Grants, Awards and
Scholarship Programs.
Building Stronger Communities through Stronger Community
Organisations
ourcommunity.com.au
ContentsPerformance Measurement in Grants Programs
p.4Establishing a Proper Framework for improved Grantmaking
Feast or Famine p.8New Research discovers how much information
grantmakers are REALLY providing online.
Grants funding p.12Are multicultural groups getting their fair
share of your funds?
Grant Rage p.17We ask a series of multicultural grantseekers to
nominate the barriers in accessing grants funding.
Innovate. Evaluate. Disseminate p.19 A guide to sowing the seeds
of a good idea in new fields
Building Community on a strong Foundation p.27Local money for
local projects - the challenges of setting up a Community fund
The Final Report p.33 What information do you require from grant
recipients and what do you do with it? We ask the grantmakers.
Look before you leap p.37 How a careful scan of the horizon can
ensure grantmakers make the most of their funding
opportunities.
Getting to the core of the issue p43Measuring the impact of core
and project funding.
PLUS conferences, jobs and news
EDITION 3
"http://www.ourcommunity.com.au"
-
2. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Contributing Writers: (this edition)Ellen Arrick & Felicia
Khan Chris BorthwickJane BreadenSylvia MentzelTim PeglerDhana
QuinnKathy RichardsonBrian Walsh
We are pleased to accept stories and articles that will assist
in developing the nation’s capacity in grantmaking. All potential
authors should speak to Brian Walsh, the Editor of this newsletter.
Editorial control is vested in the Editor.
The Australian Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly is published
by:Our Community Pty LtdNational Headquarters51 Stanley Street West
Melbourne VIC 3003 Australia (PO Box 354 North Melbourne VIC 3051
Australia) Telephone (03) 9320 6800 Fax (03) 9326 6859 Email
[email protected] Website
www.ourcommunity.com.au
© Our Community Pty Ltd. This publication is copyright. No part
may be reproduced by any process other than for the purposes of and
subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act. The newsletter is
available to the subscriber of the service and is not meant to be
distributed or made available to the full membership of any
organisation.
The articles in Australian Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly
do not necessarily reflect the views of Our Community, its staff or
members.
Next Newsletter Issue: Next Newsletter Issue: August 2003 (Copy
Deadline: July 31, 2003)
Subscription Inquiries:
Payment: Payment may be made by cheque, bank transfer or by
Visa, MasterCard or Bankcard. Payment includes postage and
handling.
Yearly Subscription Fee: $280 Email Newsletter $380 Printed
NewsletterDirect Inquiries to:Customer Care Team Our
CommunityPhone: (03) 9320 6800Email:
[email protected]
Editorial Inquiries: Brian WalshOur Community51 Stanley Street,
West Melbourne VIC 3003Phone: (03) 9320 6813
The Australian Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly publishing
details
The Australian Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly is published
four times a year by Our Community
"mailto:[email protected]"mailto:[email protected]"http://www.ourcommunity.com.au"
-
3. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
RHONDA GALBALLY AOChief Executive Officer
Welcome to The Australian Best Practice Grantmaking
Quarterly
WELCOME to our third edition of The Australian Best Prac-tice
Grantmaking Quarterly and a special welcome to all those new
subscribers who join us this edition.
Again we thank readers for their suggestions and ideas. We are
excited by some of the topics that we will be tackling in the
coming editions of the Quarterly and some of the contributors who
have agreed to research articles on some of the issues facing the
grantmaking community.
This edition of The Australian Best Practice Grantmaking
Quarterly is a strong edition with some lively topics for
discussion and debate.
Jane Breaden, a Government specialist with consultancy firm
Ernst & Young, has provided some interesting thoughts and
examples of the process required to institute a successful
performance management regime. Increasingly this is an area where
Government grantmakers (Federal, State and Local) are being called
on to provide more evidence of program effectiveness and
accountability for the money invested. But it is not just the
government programs. More and more corporate and philanthropic
foundations are being asked by Boards and Trustees for evidence on
whether their funding policies are translating into results on the
ground.
Another issue we look at in some length is the challenge for
multicultural groups in accessing grants funding. Research from
Britain shows that ethnic groups have a significant disadvantage in
winning funding and those working in the field say the studies
resonate in Australia. Grantmakers face a challenge to get the word
out into the community about their programs - and an even bigger
challenge in creating aware-ness and the confidence to apply for
ethnic communities.
And what do the groups themselves say about funding pro-grams
and their accessibility? We asked grantseeking rep-resentatives
from the Russian, Tongan, Turkish, Vietnamese, Romanian and Muslim
communities for their reaction and
advice on the problems they encounter within the grantmak-ing
process.
We have also analysed the grants featured in the Easy Grants
newsletter over the first three months of the year for a story on
the amount of information grantmakers make read-ily available.
While the vast majority of grantmakers now have their own websites,
there is quite a disparity between Best Practice and Worst Practice
as to what information is publicly available.
We talk to the inspirational Dr Dorothy Scott, the executive
secretary of the Ian Potter Foundation, who is one of the leaders
in the Australian grantmaking field when it comes to evaluating and
disseminating valuable information from suc-cessful projects.
Dorothy sums up her grantmaking mantra as “Innovate. Evaluate.
Disseminate.” Her discussion will have many people in the field
wondering whether all their energy is going into the first aim with
little or no effort going into ensuring good ideas are passed on so
that “the few can help the many.”
At Our Community we have been advocating about the unfair-ness
of the limited number of groups that have access to Deductible Gift
Recipient Status (just 19,000 out of 700,000 groups). The tax laws
need reform so the legislation better reflects the work of local
community building organisations and not the current Elizabethan
view of “charity”.
The thorny issue of DGR has again raised its head in the
establishment of community foundations and need for DGR status and
also their ability to distribute money to all groups - not just
those that have DGR status (again only a small percentage of the
total number of groups active in regional Australia). As a new
submission to the Federal Government says, the issue needs urgent
attention.
We also thank Sylvia Mentzel from the Lloyds TSB Foundation of
England and Wales for her summary of her recent research into the
impact of grants funding for core operations and also Ellen Arrick
and Felicia Khan of the Ford Foundation for their contribution on
scanning the landscape before launching into new programs.
We look forward to your thoughts, reactions, ideas and
suggestions which you can forward to Brian Walsh at
[email protected] .
RHONDA GALBALLY AOChief Executive
Officerwww.ourcommunity.com.au
"http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/grant_main.jsp""http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/grant_main.jsp""mailto:[email protected]""http://www.ourcommunity.com.au"
-
4. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Effective performance measurement has been a key component of
many recent public sector business improvement initiatives. With an
increasing focus on outcomes and accountability, the capacity to
measure performance has become critical.
From an accountability perspective, expenditure of public monies
on grant programs is no different than any other expenditure. As
such, measuring the performance of grant programs is a challenge
faced by all grant managers.
Reality Check
An important first step in improving or implementing performance
measurement is a reality check of how well performance is being
measured now. This will allow the grant manager to identify the
scope of improvements necessary.
At the macro level, a review of government audit reports
available on the internet shows a number of common themes in
relation to the management of grant programs. These include
inadequate measures of outputs and outcomes, poor monitoring of
performance, limited analysis of performance data and lack of
adequate reporting arrangements.
The outcome of such a reality check is the identification of
what aspects of performance measurement need to be improved. This
can range from basic amendments to individual measures to a
complete restructure of the approach to and management of
performance.
Performance Measurement Fundamentals
Before launching into the establishment or improvement of
performance measurement, it is important to first establish a few
basics.
1. Identify a Performance Measurement Framework
A key component of the framework is the terminology that will be
used. Many a performance initiative has been plagued by constant
debate and dissention around the myriad of terms that can be used
in measuring performance. These include
For grantmakers - whether running Federal, State or Local
Government programs or a philanthropic trust - accountability and
the ability to judge the effectiveness of what your program is
doing continues to grow in importance.
The need for more information and the ability to analyse
performance means that grantmakers need to establish effective
systems where indicators and results can be accessed, measured and
analysed.
In this article, JANE BREADEN, a senior manager in the
Government Advisory Group of financial consultancy firm Ernst &
Young, talks about the fundamentals for grantmakers wanting to know
how their program is performing.
Performance Measurement in Grants ProgramsEstablishing a Proper
Framework for improved Grantmaking
Viewpoint
JANE BREADEN, Senior ManagerErnst & Young
First Aid for Grants
One grant-managing organisation implemented a ‘Sick Grants
Clinic’ to encourage grant managers to identify under performing
grants and implement a more rigorous approach to grant management
that includes improved performance monitoring.
Grant managers were encouraged to use their own initiative to
identify grants that could benefit from some first aid. Managers
brought their sick grants along for a consultation in which
experienced managers and advisers examined the grant, and
identified opportunities for improving grant management. In more
severe cases, an adviser was allocated to provide ongoing first aid
for a number of weeks or months as required.
"http://www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/Australia/Home"
-
5. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Establishing a Proper Framework for improved Grantmaking
(continued)
Performance Measurement in Grant Programs
Viewpoint
goals, strategy, key performance indicators (KPIs), key result
areas (KRAs), objective, outputs, outcomes, indicators and so on.
In many cases, each attempt to monitor or report on performance is
prefaced by a debate on the terminology.But there is a simple
solution:
• Select a set of terminology that will be used; • Define what
each component of that terminology will mean (including how they
relate to each other; • Apply the defined terminology
consistently.
For example, you may select the following three components for
your performance measurement framework: outcomes, outputs and
indicators. Each component could then be defined as:
Outcomes - the overall impact/effect that the grant program
seeks to achieve.Outputs - the products or services produced by the
grant program.Indicators - measure of performance that will provide
evidence that outputs are being delivered and outcomes are being
achieved.
In relation to this last point, indicators may be needed that
allow two questions to be answered: how will the government know if
the grantmaker is succeeding and how will the grant-maker know if
the grant recipient is succeeding.
Consistent application of the agreed terminology can then
minimise debate and allow focus to remain on performance outcomes
rather than the performance measurement process itself.
2. Develop a Reporting Framework
This is an area in which many grant programs have already
identified opportunities for improvement. That is because effective
performance measurement involves further action beyond obtaining
performance data - that data must then be analysed and then
reported.
A reporting framework provides the basis for completing the
performance measurement process by getting performance information
back to the people that need it to make decisions. Key aspects of a
reporting framework are:
Identification of responsibility for capturing and analysing
performance data. It should be noted that both the grant-maker and
the grant recipient can play a role in capturing data.
Identification of measurement and reporting timeframes - for
example, formal performance reports may only be produced annually
but monitoring of performance may be more frequent.
Mapping of the process for reporting, including how performance
information on individual grants will be aggregated to provide
program-level reports. This may also include arrangements for
sign-off of performance reports by appropriate levels of
management.
Details of feedback arrangements, such as how management
feedback will be provided to individual grant managers.
2. Obtain Agreement from Stakeholders
Once the performance measurement and reporting frame-works are
identified, it is important that stakeholders are given the
opportunity to comment and agree to the processes they contain. As
for any business issue, obtaining stakeholder agreement upfront can
minimise later dissent and allow for a smoother process
overall.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Beware Poorly Defined Outputs
A State Government agency provided a government grant to a
private research laboratory to conduct an assessment of a
particular health issue that had been causing some problems within
that State. The research was expected to take six months.
Two years later the research was still ongoing and the problem
had yet to be solved.
When the grant agreement was checked it was found that it
defined only INPUTS. It specified the hours per week the
researchers were to work, the qualifications they should have and
even the IT systems they were to work with.
It just did not mention any outcomes or outputs such as a
workable solution to the problem or even a report detailing their
findings. So in reviewing the grant recipients performance, the
agency realised that performance could not be criticised in the
terms of the grant agreement.
-
6. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Establishing a Proper Framework for improved Grantmaking
(continued)
Performance Measurement in Grant Programs
Viewpoint
Consideration should be given to including grant recipients in
the process of formulating measurement and reporting frameworks.
They are often in the best position to know what can be measured
(cost effectively) and what types of reporting would suit the work
they will be undertaking.
What Can Grant Recipients Do?
Advise the Grantmaker of those aspects of performance they think
can/should be measured.
Identify what systems and processes they have in place to
facilitate easy measurement, and what they may need to improve or
develop (for their own benefit and that of the Grantmaker).
Advise the Grantmaker early of any performance diffi-culties
they are having. Don’t wait for a performance milestone.
Suggest changes to measures and reports if they think it is in
the interests of both parties.
Now that the basics have been established, you are ready to
implement.
Implementation - Tools & Techniques
The implementation and use of an agreed performance measurement
and reporting framework can be made simpler through a number of
basic tools and techniques.
Measure Profiles
Having developed a list of performance measures, many
measurement programs fall down when it comes time to obtain or
analyse measurement data. At this point, it can become apparent
that:
the effort or cost of obtaining the data outweighs the value
that it provides,
no-one was assigned responsibility to collect the data and hence
it is not available,
the data provided suggests it wasn’t such a good measure to
begin with, and /or
the behaviour that the measure promotes is detrimental to the
grant outcomes or outputs.
These issues can be addressed early through the use of measure
profiles.
A measure profile is a detailed description of key information
that underlies the measure, such as:
description,method of calculation,target,responsibility for
reporting,data source,frequency of reporting,details of any lead
indicator (interim indicators for aspects only measured
annually).
For small numbers of measures a table containing the profile
data is usually sufficient. At the program level however or where
there are a large number of measures, a database may be a more
useful format. This would then support the generation of lists of
those measures particular parties are responsible for and reports
on performance outcomes.
Using Key Performance Indicators
Program level managers face a particular challenge in making
sense of individual grant outcomes and determining what they mean
for program outcomes. One way of doing this is through the use of
Key Performance Indicators (KPI).
KPIs could be included in the program level performance
measurement framework and defined as key indicators of whether
program outcomes and outputs are being delivered. KPIs could be
either:
a specific performance indicator relating to an individual grant
that is key to program outcomes, or
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•••••••
Measure profiling can assist in ensuring indicators are actually
measurable . . .
‘all members of the community are able to access grant
information in an appropriate format’
Can it be measured? Do we really want to measure the whole
community?Who decides what is appropriate?
•••
•
-
7. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Establishing a Proper Framework for improved Grantmaking
(continued)
Performance Measurement in Grant Programs
Viewpoint
an aggregation of performance outcomes from multiple grants to
provide a program level outcome.
Tools for Transforming Data
Performance measurement can elicit large amounts of data, which
can then be transformed into more meaningful information, which can
be further analysed to provide intelligence to inform management
decision-making and guide future action.
The process of transforming data into information and
information into intelligence can often be forgotten in the
excitement of finally receiving performance measurement data. This
is where grant managers need to go back to their old high-school
mathematics lessons and recall the many useful evaluation tools
that can be used to transform data into information, such as pareto
charts, control charts and scatter diagrams.
Such tools can be used to structure data in a way that allows,
for example, identification of:
key drivers of poor or good performance (pareto chart),
when variations in performance are significant enough to warrant
corrective action (control chart), and
relationships or dependencies between aspects of performance
(scatter plots).
Analytical Techniques
If evaluation helps grant managers determine ‘what is’, then
analysis is the next step which informs the ‘so what’. For example,
evaluation of a set of tabular data may allow a grant manager to
determine that the average time taken to produce a report is 26
days. That information determines ‘what is’. But then we must ask,
‘so what?’. How does this compare against the target, industry
standards or the same period last year.
There are a number of analytical techniques that can be used to
elicit this intelligence. The simplest ones to use are:
Comparative (Gap) Analysis. This approach uses a con-tract or
other specifications as the benchmark from which to compare actual
performance. This approach is based on
having a clear understanding of what is required and com-paring
this to what has been achieved. This approach requires ‘apples with
apples’ comparisons to be made. Therefore the performance
information needs to be com-parable between the contract/grant
service specifications and the grant recipient’s measured
performance.
Cause and Effect Analysis. Also known as root cause analysis,
this approach seeks to determine why something was different than
expected (or why it was the same). Cause and effect analysis is
often used in conjunction with gap analysis to determine where the
gap is, then to determine why it occurred. A cause and effect or
fishbone diagram is a tool often used to assist with this type of
analysis.
Trend Analysis. This approach seeks to determine the trend over
time of performance. Once again it can be used in concert with the
two techniques above. Trend analysis allows grant managers to gain
an understanding of systemic performance and identify those one-off
or unusual issues that crop up from time to time. This approach
assists in avoiding ‘knee jerk’ reactions and allows the grant
manager to manage in an informed manner.
Summary
Grant managers are increasingly being required to improve
performance measurement in order to meet accountability
requirements. A reality check of how well performance is currently
being measured is a useful way of scoping the extent of improvement
required.
Ensuring that the performance measurement fundamentals are in
place provides a sound basis for improvement. Beyond that, there
are a number of simple and effective tools and techniques than can
assist grant managers in improving their own performance and that
of grant recipients.
JANE BREADEN is a Manager in Ernst & Young’s Govern-ment
business unit based in Canberra. She has worked with a number of
public sector agencies and and spe-cialises in performance audit,
organisational review, busi-ness planning and performance
measurement.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"http://www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/Australia/Home"
-
8. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Even where grantmakers do have websites, however, only 86.1%
list the grant program guidelines in full. Some grant programs may
think that their purpose and criteria are so obvious as not to need
much explanation, but many sites still require applicants to write
in for the guidelines, losing one of the basic advantages of the
Internet - its ability to mount virtually without cost enormous
volumes of material tailored to suit every situation.
Again, only 55% of grants sites offer the application form
online - and that’s “offer as a downloadable form”, not “offer as a
form that can be filled out and submitted online” (online
submissions, while growing in number, still represent only a small
percentage of all grants). It is only a small step for the laggard
organisations to meet the fairly low standard of providing
downloadable forms online. It only takes the ability to scan in
their form and mount it as a pdf file. A very small number of grant
applications looked at in the study aren’t form-based at all,
allowing the applicant to write the submission as they see fit, but
otherwise for most grantmakers it is far more convenient to put the
form up on the Web. People who don’t know whether they want to
apply or not can get all the information they need without having
to go to the trouble of writing in, and people who do know they
want to be in the hunt can save a few day’s mail turnaround time on
getting the forms back. Both sides save their stamp, too - a
win-win situation.
Feast or FamineResearch: How much information grantmakers are
REALLY providing online.
Research
The Internet has often been described as a case of “information
overload” but does that also apply to sites detailing grants
funding programs? In his study of the online information
performance of grantmakers over the first quarter of 2003, CHRIS
BORTHWICK found that many grants funding bodies were still running
websites on a “need to know” basis.
Grantmaking is now largely an online experience. A study of new
grants listed on Our Community’s Easy Grants database in the first
quarter of 2003 shows clearly that online presentations are now the
norm - and shows, too, that many grantmakers’ sites are not yet
meeting the needs of the grantseekers who are searching through
them.
The study
Ourcommunity provides a subscription service that gives members
(community groups, local councils, statutory author-ities) access
to information on grants that they may be eligible for in their
state or territory. To support this service Our Com-munity collects
data on every formalised grant offer put out anywhere in Australia
- corporate grants, philanthropic grants, and Federal Government,
State Government and Local Gov-ernment grants. This database, the
largest grants information database ever compiled in Australia, not
only provides a valuable service for grantseekers and the community
sector, it also gives Our Community a research resource that can
throw considerable light on the practices and capacities of
Australian grantmaking organisations. To ensure close comparability
of data, this study analysed all grants (Federal and State
Government, philanthropic and corporate) across all States and
Territories during January, February and March of 2003. A dataset
of 308 grants was chosen and rechecked and analysed
statistically.
Facilities
Overall, 91.6% of grants appear on the website of the
organisation that offers them. Web listing is plainly now standard
and expected. The Federal Government has committed itself to “the
transformation of government service delivery through the
appropriate use of new technologies”, and most State governments
have made similar commitments. Most people on finding out about a
grant would expect to access it online. It will not be long before
what was simply a convenience becomes an expectation and then a
right. Any grantmaker without a web presence at this point may need
to reconsider their strategy.
Grant has Website
Grant has Forms
Grant has Guidelines
PreviousSuccesses
EmailQueries
FederalAverage
StateAverage
PhilanthropicAverage
CommercialAverage
94.74% 96.39% 81.04% 100.00% 91.56%
88.07% 83.67% 66.44% 69.05% 78.90%
56.48% 51.39% 44.12% 47.62% 50.65%
4.62% 20.67% 10.63% 21.43% 13.96%
63.84% 73.33% 74.64% 54.76% 70.78%
CombinedAverage
"http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/grant_main.jsp"
-
9. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Feast or Famine
Research
Research: How much information grantmakers are REALLY providing
online. (continued)
Prospective applicants can often be assisted more than anything
else by being able to see what programs and what organisations have
got funding previously, but only a small minority of sites (15.2%)
offer this facility (this figure is lower than expected because
some programs are being offered for the first time and have no
history. If the figure was taken as a proportion of repeated grants
only it would be higher but still well below 40 per cent).
The figures also show, however, that a surprisingly high
percentage of grants - only 29.2% - don’t list the e-mail address
of the contact person at the grantmaker’s office. Almost a third of
grants list only phone numbers (and some few list only mailing
addresses). One can see why a grant-maker might prefer not to
receive online applications - and only 14% of grants listed during
the study period allow for this - but it is not so easy to explain
why they would not wish to be able to clear up inquiries and send
out notifications by e-mail.
It is perhaps possible that organisations that really want to
discourage online applications - organisations that (rightly or
wrongly) require signatures, say, creating a need for hard copy
might feel that the only way to be sure that applicants will not
misread the guidelines and e-mail their submissions is to stop them
emailing anything.
But there are surely alternative means of reaching this end that
do not cut many applicants off from a useful source of support and
advice. Remember, the complaints from grantseekers we listed in our
first Grant Rage article in December’s Best Practice Newsletter
included the complaint that: “Grantmak-ers who treat their
guidelines as if they are highly confidential and want to know
everything about a grantseeker before they will provide them with
further information”.
Again, an email link is mutually beneficial for both parties -
if an inquiry can be answered by email it doesn’t tie up your
phone, you can answer it at your leisure, and it doesn’t involve
applicants in long-distance telephone calls.
Sector by Sector
Within these general trends there are some significant
varia-tions. The average of 91.6% of grants with a home page
obscures internal groupings going as low as 81% for private
philanthropic grants and as high as 96.4% for State Gov-ernment
grants. (Commercial organisations covered in the survey, including
Telstra and the Macquarie Bank, offer web-
sites for 100% of their grants, but these do not yet make up a
significant proportion of the field during the period studied). The
government sector is at least two years ahead of the phil-anthropic
sector in this regard. Only 66.4% of private grants have online
guidelines, and only 44.1% have online forms, compared to 85.3% and
52.8% for combined State and Fed-eral Governments. On the other
hand, slightly more private grants have e-mail contact addresses -
74.6% as opposed to 70%.
Caveats
These figures are offered with some minor reservations. The word
‘grants’ covers a wide variety of funding schemes, ranging from
small sums to encourage good behaviour to vast governmental
programs with multi-mil-lion dollar budgets..
These may not show the full picture, although the grants
represent a statistically significant number of the existing grants
programs currently listed on Our Community’s Easy Grants database.
Just to provide a rough comparison, a 2000 UK study
(http://www.virtualpromise.net/vp_docs/Complete.pdf) of larger
non-profits online by Joe Saxton of the Future Foundation suggested
that 92% of them had functioning websites (although it complained
that only 8% of them had any interactive facilities, only 6% of
them had online forms capacity, and only 2% delivered any of their
ser-vices online). That study included both grantmakers and
grantseekers, and if it had included smaller organisations the
figure would presumably have been lower, and it was done two years
ago, and the figure is presumably now higher; however you look at
it, though, it does not sug-gest that Australia is anywhere near
the lead in these matters.
Financials
Another aspect to providing information about grants is the
amount of financial data listed. Grantmakers can tell appli-cants
the maximum grant size, the minimum grant size, the average grant
size, and/or the total grant pool. All these fig-ures will be
helpful.
"http://www.virtualpromise.net/vp_docs/Complete.pdf"
-
10. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Knowing that the maximum grant will be only $2,000, for example,
may lead some applicants to decide that it would not justify the
work involved in a submission, while knowing that the minimum grant
was $200,000 might persuade them that they were playing outside
their weight range. If the maxi-mum or minimum figures are given,
though, this does also have the effect of restricting the scope of
the grantmaker’s discretion, and many organisations prefer to
retain the flex-ibility to give as much or as little as they see
fit.
In practice, basic information is provided only patchily. Some
55% of grants list their maximums (69.6% for Federal agencies,
46.7% for private philanthropy) and 17.5% their minimums. 28.6%
tell us what the total prize pool is (and here, for a change, the
private sector gets a better rating than the state governments -
26.3% to 23.3% - although the Federal Government scores a much
better 50%). Only 3.9% of grant notifications tell us what the
average grant amounts to (and another Grant Rage entry was “Not
specifying the average grant amount - so grantseekers have no idea
whether to put in an application for half a million dollars or
$2,000.)
Overview
The study found, as one might expect, both that grantmakers have
followed the majority of Australian adults on to the Web and that
they often remain tentative in their use of this very new and very
different medium. The primary advantage of the Web is its ability
to mount large volumes of material at virtually no cost. Staff who
have spent decades cutting down on unnecessary photocopying, or
reducing the weight of a mailout, or emptying out a filing cabinet,
have been conditioned to believe that there is a trad-
Feast or Famine
Research
Research: How much information grantmakers are REALLY providing
online. (continued)
eoff between size and cost. That’s no longer true. You don’t
have to put up just what you need, you can put up what you want -
and there is a considerable difference between the two.
You certainly ought as a minimum to put up not only the
regulations and the criteria and the forms but the guidelines. You
should think seriously about adding the details of other funded
projects, and their evaluations, and frequently asked questions and
anything else that seems relevant. The price of computer memory is
so low that there is very little reason to hold back.
“Knowing that the maximum grant will be only $2,000, for
example, may lead some applicants to decide that it would not
justify the work involved in a submission”
This does mean that we may have to think more deeply about the
nature of the information flows between applicant and grantmaker.
What do applicants ask? What, on the evidence of their
applications, do they tend to guess at? What do they tend to get
wrong? What do you wish they would realise?
If a website is done properly, everybody wins. The applicants
find it easier to draft their submissions, the office staff have to
answer fewer questions, and as there will be more appli-cants and
therefore more competition the aims of the grant are more likely to
be achieved.
Of course, there’s no point in putting up material if it’s not
read, and one of the most common observations made by grantmakers
is that grantseekers don’t read the instructions carefully enough.
This is a problem, certainly, but it’s not entirely the applicant’s
problem. The applicant’s aim is to get the grant, and if they
misread the grant specifications they’ll fail; but your aim is to
get your proposal to as wide a range of organisations as possible,
and if a substantial number of them don’t get it then you, too,
will have failed.
Would a different wording, or a different layout, or a different
site architecture, have been easier to follow? The only hur-dles
that the applicant is supposed to face are those set out in the
project requirements, and if a viable candidate stum-bles over a
removable difficulty then everybody loses. If pos-sible, time and
resources should be allocated to testing the
MaxGrantListed
Av.Grant Listed
Min.GrantListed
TotalPool
Listed
FederalAverage
StateAverage
PhilanthropicAverage
CommercialAverage
69.58% 55.61% 46.65% 71.43% 55.84%
24.67% 14.79% 14.95% 23.81% 17.53%
1.59% 3.03% 7.15% 4.76% 3.90%
49.99% 23.33% 26.26% 21.43% 28.57%
CombinedAverage
-
11. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Feast or Famine
Research
Research: How much information grantmakers are REALLY providing
online.
form and the guidelines on outsiders for comprehensibility; if
not, the grantmaker should still attempt to assess the pages from
the viewpoint of the applicant. More research is needed at all
levels. Grantmakers should monitor their websites and attempt to
analyse client satis-faction through the use of online facilities
for feedback and discussion. Academics should work with grantmakers
and
grantseekers to probe more deeply into the needs of each group
for online services. Organisations in this field should develop
Internet strategies that will bring online the innovation and
commitment that they already give to their clients. The Internet
offers immense potential advantages, but these will not come to
pass unless we take them seriously enough to give our sitemakers
the necessary resources.
Your Say
We would like to hear your thoughts and opinions on articles
that appear in the Australian Best Practice Grantmaking
Quarterly.
Please send any letters via email to
[email protected], fax (03) 9326 6859 or send to us
at 51 Stanley St, West Melbourne. Vic 3003.
Your Say
mailto: [email protected]
-
12. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Are multicultural groups getting their fair share of your
funds?
In ProfileGrants funding
Overseas research over the past few years indicates that ethnic
community groups are at a significant disadvantage in accessing
grants funding. Grantmakers want to make their pro-grams accessible
but as TIM PEGLER discovers, there is still little recognition by
many Aus-tralian grants programs of the difficulties ethnic
communities face in successfully applying for general funding.
In the community sector, the sense of injustice at allocation of
resources can be especially acute as new and small groups compete
with more established organisations for funding from philanthropic
and government grants. While this can present a challenge for any
struggling or under-resourced group, the degree of difficulty
quickly multiplies for those representing Australians from
non-English speaking backgrounds.
Australian Multicultural Foundation executive director Hass
Dellal is particularly aware that smaller ethnic communities and
those comprising relatively new arrivals to Australia can feel the
playing field on which they operate is far from level.
The Foundation recently completed a survey on employment
services for young people from different ethnic communities. They
discovered that while sufficient support services and ref-erence
materials are available, the young people in need do not go to the
venues where information and guidance is pro-vided.
“It’s not that there’s a lack of directories or services out
there,” Mr Dellal says. “It’s just that the smaller groups often
lack the knowledge of where to find them or how to access them. And
there are language barriers too, which does not help.
“So from the point of view of these groups when they miss out on
funds or services it may appear that more established groups are
favoured - and result in them blaming the ‘system’.”
Even those departments and grants programs with the best
intentions still have to work to ensure that the information gets
down to the networks that are at the coalface dealing with the
various ethnic groups, particularly those providing information and
services to the newer arrivals that are not as savvy as the
established communities in knowing where they can access funding
and support.
West Australian Office of Multicultural Interests executive
direc-tor Dr Leela de Mel agrees that small and newly formed groups
from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) back-grounds can
find the going tough when making funding appli-cations.
“It is definitely the new and emerging communities (who
struggle) as this comes down to a question of know-how,” she says.
“It’s not just about language difficulties. Established communities
such as the Greek and Italian communities have been here a long
time and know how the system works. The newer African and Middle
Eastern communities are simply not as familiar with how business is
done in Australia.”
In the United Kingdom, research into the experiences of black
and minority ethnic (BME) groups has painted a grim picture.
Several years ago, the British Home Office published the report
Black and Minority Ethnic Voluntary and Community Organisations: A
Code of Good Practice. The report expressed the following
concern:
“Funding for the BME voluntary and community sector, whether
from existing or new sources, has been significantly below that of
similar organisations in the mainstream voluntary and community
sector. This is all the more detrimental given that the BME sector
does not generally have the windfall legacies, income streams and
leverage opportunities that the more established mainstream sector
attracts.”
The Code of Good Practice was designed to trigger the changes
required to ensure equitable access to funding and support for BME
groups. Its proposals included:
Regular reviews of which BME groups receive funding and how
access, approval and funding rates compare to the mainstream
sector
Publishing reports on who gets what funding
Ensuring that if funding is withdrawn from a BME organisation it
can be diverted to another group equally well positioned to perform
the same work so that vital services to the sector are not lost
A more flexible approach by government to BME groups
experiencing “organisational difficulties”
•
•
•
•
-
13. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Grants Funding
In Profile
Are multicultural groups getting their fair share of your funds?
(continued...)
Recognising that “faith organisations” provide important
community services other than promotion of religion and therefore
taking care not to incorrectly rule such groups ineligible for
funding
Striving for all ethnic communities to be represented on boards
and policy committees to promote “race equality”.
Two years after the Home Office launched its Code of Good
Practice, the UK-based Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a
report entitled The role and future development of black and
minority ethnic organisations. Based on a Warwick University survey
completed by 200 black and minority ethnic groups in England and
Wales, the report found that the most pressing priorities for such
groups were help with grant applications, fundraising and obtaining
sponsorship.
The foundation’s report also highlighted BME groups’ anxiety
about the growth in paperwork required to achieve funding and
feelings of “exclusion from the partnerships and alliances which
now form the basis of much bidding for funds”.
As the philanthropic Rowntree Foundation’s report was being
launched in York in 2001, another, far more damning study of the
struggles faced by the BME sector was being released by the
Scottish government.
The detailed Review of Funding for Black and Minority Ethnic
Groups in the Voluntary Sector, commissioned by the Scottish
Executive, suggested “institutional racism” was nobbling BME groups
attempting to cater for the needs of their communities.
The executive reported:
“At a strategic level, the conclusions point to an overall
focus, in public policy in Scotland, on promoting equality and
tackling social exclusion which is not yet reflected in grant
provision to black and minority ethnic groups. There is an overall
lack of infrastructure for black and minority ethnic groups in the
voluntary sector, and a lack of capacity building work with these
groups, which, coupled with their experiences of racism and social
exclusion, affect their access to grant funding. Paradoxically,
however, some funders are keen to ensure that they provide funding
to black and minority ethnic organisations and wish to encour-age
these. There is a more general lack of monitoring data on the
disbursement of funding to black and minority ethnic groups. The
effect of all of these factors has been an overall lack of a
coherent strategic approach.”
The executive went on to conclude:
“The actual process of securing funding for black and minority
ethnic groups was also found to be complex, with a need to apply to
a wide range of funding sources, with differing requirements and
identifiable barriers for black and minority ethnic groups. These
were found to include, for example, the dissemination of
information about funding using means which may be less accessible
to black and minority ethnic groups, the lack of access to advice
and support to black and minority ethnic groups to help to develop
funding applications, language barriers to participation and the
existence of inappropriate conditions or criteria.”
Another British study, the BME Sustainability Project, began in
June 2000 and is scheduled to wind up in 2003. The project team
released its second report in January which endorsed previous
research suggesting that BME voluntary groups experience the same
difficulties as mainstream community organisations - but “more
acutely”.
The report released earlier this year stated that BME groups are
“finding that funding issues take up more and more time - time that
is then lost to service delivery - as much of their funding is
short term and below the real costs, thereby effectively giving a
subsidy to the funding body. This has a knock-on effect in terms of
the quality and quantity of service provision and the long term
viability of BME organisations”.
The Sustainability Project researchers uncovered numerous
“barriers to fundraising success” encountered by BME groups (see
page 14). They noted that small and new BME groups “lack the
established personal contacts which ‘grease the wheels’ in the
process of grant seeking” and observed that “largely white decision
makers on grants panels were not sensitive to the changing face of
the sector and found it easier to fund larger BME organisations
with a history of survival … rather than supporting new or ‘risky’
causes”.
An astounding 83 per cent of the voluntary community
organisations surveyed believed there was a lack of fairness in
distribution of funds.
Mr Dellal suggests the British findings are applicable - and
instructive - to Australian grantmakers and grant applicants.
“It is not just anecdotal that (new) groups are disadvantaged,
we know it is happening. And printing brochures and directo-ries is
not going to fix the problem.”
•
•
-
14. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
The personal touch is the best way to ensure newer CALD groups
have the advice and access to the funding they need, he says.
“We identify (disadvantaged) groups and the issues they are
confronting. Then I make myself directly available to them … it’s
the only way. We establish focus groups with them and help them
work out areas of need, how to apply for funding and so on. The
more noise they make, the better results they get.”
Mr Dellal says grantmakers should be conscious that many CALD
groups see the word ‘multicultural’ and assume these are the only
funds they can apply for. To counter this misun-derstanding,
grantmakers need to communicate that CALD groups have equal access
to all grant monies.
“It’s also important to make sure that application forms are
readily understood,” he says. “Keep them clean and in plain
English, making sure that the information requested does not repeat
or contradict itself. It’s very confusing when one question on an
application form covers one aspect and then another covers it all
over again.”
“The more noise they make, the better results they get.”
Information on grants is increasingly available on the Internet
and through regular newsletters such as the Easy Grants Newsletter
and Grants Education Service but Australian research has shown
grantmakers should not assume all groups have equal access to the
Web. A joint project between the Ethnic Communities Council of
Victoria and VICNET in 2002 revealed a “lack of awareness of the
relevance and ben-efit of using the Internet” among CALD
communities - particu-larly among older people.
More than one in five Victorians (21 per cent) speak a lan-guage
other than English and websites that offered multiple languages
were both little known and uncommon.
The report called for funding to train people from the CALD in
Internet use, citing “significant gaps in uptake (of web usage)
depending on age, level of English language skills, geographic
location, income and availability of appropriate training and
access.”
Grants Funding
In Profile
Are multicultural groups getting their fair share of your funds?
(continued...)
BARRIERS TO FUNDING: Key findings of the BME Sustainability
Project
Grantmakers may not realise or take into account that applicants
are completing forms in a foreign language and not able to write
fluently. One to one help may be required.
Grant application forms invariably involved a language barrier
to anyone who is not a native speaker of standard English.
Application forms were seen as “unnecessarily complex” and
containing too much jargon.
Rejection letters were considered unhelpful when they did not
contain constructive suggestions on how to improve future
applications
Use of a ‘common application form’, using a standard format for
key information but with flexibility for grant-makers to add
supplementary elements was strongly urged
Fundraising training courses, helplines or drop-in ser-vices
could assist groups struggling to remain viable
Grantmakers could enhance the funding advice they offer by using
interpreters or translators
Grantmakers may require external assistance to design ‘plain
English’ application forms
Information about grants earmarked for ethnic commu-nities needs
to be publicised in a way that it permeates a diverse range of
groups
Small or new groups feel that funders are unwilling to take a
risk on them and therefore favour established, larger
organisations
Grantmakers should actively seek ethnic community
rep-resentatives on their boards - and involve communities in
monitoring which projects should attract grants
Need to establish dialogue between funding bodies and ethnic
communities as this “may be the only way to engender an atmosphere
of trust, co-operation, under-standing and joint working”
Grantmakers could establish their own benchmarks to monitor
whether they support a diversity of organisa-tions.
Source: Finding the fundsSecond report from the BME
Sustainability Project (Jun 2003)
"http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/grant_main.jsp"
-
15. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Grants Funding
In Profile
Are multicultural groups getting their fair share of your funds?
(continued...)
Despite these types of difficulties in accessing the Net, it
remains one of the most effective means of disseminating
information across a continent as vast as Australia. The fed-eral
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indig-enous
Affairs, which administers the Community Settlement Services Scheme
to allocate grants among non-profit com-munity groups, migrants,
refugees and asylum seekers, publishes its information kit on
access to grants online at www.immi.gov.au/grants.
In a bid to further broaden awareness of the CSSS grants on
offer the scheme is advertised in ethnic media and the department
also holds information sessions in each state and territory where
staff can explain the application process to interested parties.
Applicants then have phone access to a help desk during the
five-week application period.
A departmental spokesperson said that while grants applications
are assessed on their merit, “priority is given to organisations
providing services for refugee and humanitarian entrants and family
migrants with low levels of English proficiency who have arrived in
the last five years”.
DIMIA also monitors “grants funding to ethno-specific
organisations” - the ‘who gets what’ aspect of funding.
The problem of awareness of particular programs is not quite as
prevalent with Government funding. State and Federal Gov-ernment
bodies spend a portion of their advertising budget to promote new
grant schemes in ethnic media although, again, this tends to focus
on the outlets informing the established migrant communities. There
are few media outlets for those communities who make up the newest
arrivals.
A greater problem exists for philanthropic and corporate
foun-dations that often have little funds available to market or
advertise their funding generally, let alone to spend money
tar-geting minority groups. Building a better network with ethnic
peak groups, building email networks and ensuring links from
websites that are accessed by ethnic communities is one way of
providing better access. But access is not the only prob-lem.
One of the issues for ethnic groups is in getting their projects
past first base. One of the main concerns raised by ethnic groups
is that a badly written application may not mean a bad idea or a
bad project as much as a difficulty in expressing in English the
benefits of the project to the local community.
In Queensland the Beattie Government’s Multicultural Queensland
Policy requires annual reports to state parlia-ment detailing how
measures to ensure equal access and opportunity for all residents
are being implemented.
Under the 1998 policy, Multicultural Affairs Queensland (MAQ)
has the responsibility of ensuring all Queenslanders have access to
interpreters when required; providing cultural awareness training
for public servants; and maintaining a reg-ister of ethnic
community representatives available to serve on policy-making
boards and committees.
When it comes to access to grants, MAQ director Steve Maguire
also stresses the importance of one on one communication in
providing an equitable system. “We actively provide advice to
people who come forward and say ‘we are applying for grants but
don’t know what to do. This service is available to everyone but
the bigger, more established communities don’t tend to take it
up.”
MAQ also funds 15 workers who advise and support local
government authorities striving to improve access to grants and
services for NESB communities.
“...a badly written application may not mean a bad idea or a
bad
project as much as a difficulty in expressing in English the
benefits of
the project...”
In Western Australia, Premier Geoff Gallop is personally
chairing an Anti-Racism Strategy Steering Committee that has
drafted the WA Charter of Multiculturalism. Dr de Mel says the
premier’s involvement has ensured there is real “clout” and impetus
behind the project.
She considers the WA Office of Multicultural Interests’ own
grants scheme is overly complex and contains too much jargon and
could favour established groups with the ability to prepare their
applications more effectively. The scheme is currently under
review.
In another effort to assist less established NESB groups, a full
time grants officer works with community organisations, and holds
grantseekers’ workshops in conjunction with the Ethnic Communities
Council of WA.
"http://www.immi.gov.au/grants"
-
16. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Sri Lankan born Dr de Mel says she has a unique perspective on
the perceptions associated with the ‘multicultural’ tag - and
behaviours that may confront NESB groups seeking access to funding
and services.
“I have been in this job 1.5 years after 15 years in the public
service in various roles. It is the toughest job I have had in
gov-ernment … and very, very tough to make people understand that
ethnic communities are just the same as everyone else.
“There is a real misunderstanding of what multiculturalism is
all about. It’s not just about arts and festivals. It is about
social justice, equality, inclusiveness and cohesiveness … and
we
Grants Funding
In Profile
Are multicultural groups getting their fair share of your funds?
(continued...)
have a great opportunity now to push this agenda forward.”Mr
Dellal says state multicultural commissions regularly host
community consultation meetings and “money and funding will always
be an issue” for ethnic groups.
“The face of Australia has changed quite a bit in recent years -
and changed quickly. So these issues need to be addressed as soon
as possible.”
And for grantmakers at all levels, that includes questioning
whether ethnic communities are aware of their funding pro-grams and
whether they have a realistic - and equal chance - of securing
funding.
Ourcommunity.com.au AnnouncementLooking for an effective method
to build relationships with groups even when you don’t have the
funds to back their projects?
Join more than 35 organisations from all levels of grantmaking
who are now using ourcommunity.com.au’s gift certificates to
provide unsuccessful applicants with the means to find other
sources of funding.
The gift certificates provide groups with either:• 12 months
subscription to the Easy Grants newsletter, Australia’s most
comprehensive directory to Federal, State and local Government,
philanthropic and corporate funding. Easy Grants details all the
available funding opportunites for community groups along with
advice and helpful tips to help with applying for grants.
• 12 months subscription to the Raising Funds newsletter, the
monthly guide with essential tips, ideas and advice to help groups
with their fundraising
• 12 months subscription to Scholarship Alert which details all
the tertiary, training and leadership scholarships, awards
We can also arrange gift certificates for business grantmakers
to offer unsuccessful applicants 12 months subscription to our
BusiGrants newsletter, detailing all business funding
opportunities.
For more information about our range of gift certificate options
and prices for bulk order, contact Denis Moriarty or Kate Caldecott
on (03) 9320 6800 or email [email protected].
"http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/grant_main.jsp""http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/grant_main.jsp""http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/fundraising_main.jsp""http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/funding/scholarship_main.jsp""http://www.busigrants.com.au""mailto:[email protected]"
-
17. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Grants RageMulticultural groups nominate the barriers in
accessing grants funding.
Resources
So how do grantseekers from multicultural groups rate the level
of access to Australian grants programs? Not very highly, according
to a survey of multicultural group leaders.
DHANA QUINN surveyed community group leaders representing
Russian, Tongan, Turkish, Vietnam-ese, Romanian and Muslim
organisations and found they generally felt bewildered,
disenchanted, excluded and unloved by grantmakers at all levels but
especially by philanthropic and corporate grantmakers.
Here are a selection of their impressions and experiences of
trying to access grants funding.
“In principle, Australians embrace the notion of a
multi-cultural society, but in reality multicultural groups are not
given the same level of access to funds as mainstream groups.”
“Funding bodies often stipulate that a project must have wider
social benefits, and for a small cultural specific group this is
impossible to achieve because the funding is often needed for just
the individual group, so it can maintain cul-tural customs and
traditions in a new place.”
“Grants require a person to be very skilled in English in order
to understand the application form and then to fill it in -
cultural groups don’t always have a person with enough skills to
seek funds.”
“Most grants to fund positions within organisations are
short-term and contract based. This makes it hard to find people to
fill these funded positions because the uncer-tainty of ongoing
work makes the position an unattractive one. And if funding is
received for a position, it is not guar-anteed to be re-funded and
therefore any work achieved is lost when the funding dries up and
the person has to move on to earn money elsewhere.”
“Disadvantaged cultural groups in Australia will remain
disadvantaged unless adequate, permanent funding is directed
towards these groups, and at the moment it is not.”
“The only source of funding for cultural groups is from
gov-ernment. Our group does not even bother with business or
philanthropic groups because we don’t have the contacts, or the
time to lobby them for funding.”
“As a small community we get the feeling that we are miss-ing
out on funds because the funding bodies don’t believe we know what
we are doing and don’t believe that we will be able to administer
the funds. It seems like you need to
be an established group to attract funding, which is hard when
you are a new community trying to establish a sup-port base in a
new country.”
“We have only had success with government grants because one
person has had connections within a depart-ment. That person
therefore knows how to fill in grant forms and understands what
information is needed. If we didn’t have that person, we would be
quite lost.”
“Advertisements for grants always seem to be in English. There
is not enough effort by departments to ensure that advertisements
are also in other languages or in ethnic newsletters.”
“It would be good to have a contact person within a gov-ernment
department who could provide more support to groups that are
applying for grants and also a person who is available for ongoing
support if successful in receiving the grant. It should not be
assumed that cultural groups have the resources to administer funds
because it is likely that they have come from a country without, or
with differ-ent, government systems.”
“Asking for money is not part of our culture, so we find it hard
to apply and when we apply it is hard to justify ‘why’ we deserve
the money because it is hard enough to even ask in the first
place.”
“More information is often demanded from grant making bodies and
when English is not your first language it is hard to explain what
you mean, so it would be good if you could apply for funding in
your native language.”
“The actual process of applying for grants takes a long time and
if you only want a small amount, sometimes it is easier not to
bother with a grant. And most groups are volunteer-based, so no one
really has the time to research grants or fill them out; they
demand a lot of information.”
-
18. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Grants Rage
Resources
Multicultural groups nominate the barriers in accessing grants
funding.
“Some criteria states that you must have an audit, which costs
money and if a grant is only for a small amount, the audit will
actually cost more that the grant itself.”
“We don’t bother applying for large amounts of money anymore
because we never get them and I believe it is because we don’t have
a person dedicated to lobbying or playing the political game. It is
the same reason why we don’t bother asking the corporate sector for
money. You really need to have contacts and the time to lobby
organi-sations.”
“We are not appealing to businesses because our group is too
small; we have never been successful in finding corpo-rate
sponsors.”
“Grants are too rigid in their criteria especially in rural
areas. It is hard to find a grant to suit our group’s needs.”
“There is not enough information about what is available. I have
no idea who I should approach for funding outside the government
grants that we already apply for.”
“Some grantmakers have suggested we apply for grants under a
bigger umbrella of our cultural group, but in reality it just means
more administration and I feel small groups
are just as valid as a larger organisation. There should be more
recognition that small groups are just as permanent as larger
groups.”
“There should be more recognition of the work ethnic groups play
in society, but this is not reflected in the amount of money we
receive. In order for people to feel secure and add to a society
they need to feel attached to a community; if fully resourced we
could perform this role more effectively.”
“It helps if there are people in grantmaking organisations who
have a strong social welfare background and an understanding of
different cultures and cultural needs. We have a good relationship
with a local council worker and we have been able to achieve a lot
because we have received advice and support and we know what
resources are available to us at a local level.”
“It is hard for a new group to prove it deserves funding.”
“It is hard for a small group to prove it deserves funding.”
“It is hard for a cultural group to prove it deserves funding
especially when you have to detail how your group ben-efits the
wider community.”
-
19. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: How would you sum up the
Potter Foundation’s attitude towards evaluation and dissemination
because it seems that it is something that the Foundation regards
as a priority.
Dr Dorothy Scott: I think we have been more focused on
innovation and talking about it in the context of the trinity of
process of Innovate, Evaluate, Disseminate - a little mantra. Given
the immensity of the need and the finite resources of philanthropy
and the desire not to fund what should be the role of the state or
the market, then the most equitable way and the most valuable way
of grantmaking is to support innovation which has the capacity to
ripple through - not trickle down - to affect many others.
In this sense we focus on helping the few to help the many. So
by supporting an innovative approach whether it is around
indigenous maternal and child health, whether it is about
salinity or accessibility and the arts it doesn’t really matter.
Supporting something that is innovative and has the capacity of
sustainability is really important and it is really critical that
it has a life and you are not creating something that will then die
which can actually damage communities more than it can assist
them.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: Is that a realistic concern
that grantmaking can actually do harm while trying to do good?
Dr Dorothy Scott: I think grantmaking can actually do damage by
raising expectations and drawing on the social capital - the hope,
community spirit and the volunteer and monetary resources - of
communities for initiatives that have very little prospect of
sustainability. If you walk away after two or three years of
supporting a pilot program that is not sustainable you can leave
the community more damaged than you found it.
Governments and, perhaps, philanthropic foundations are
developing an insatiable appetite for launching new initiatives.
Unless we really pay attention to the issue as to whether these are
sustainable new initiatives we have the capacity to inflict greater
harm than good. I am increasingly concerned and guided by the
principle of “First do No Further Harm”.
The other question is how does philanthropy avoid falling into a
vacuum created by the retreating state? Or doing what the
Innovate. Evaluate. DisseminateThe Secret to Sowing the Seeds of
Success
In Profile
Supporting an innovative project is one thing. Trying to take
the knowledge gained and then spread it to other areas or groups is
another challenge altogether for grantmakers - whether at
Government, philanthropic or corporate levels. It is also one area
where there is still much work to be done. One organisation at the
vanguard in trying to create a greater emphasis on disseminating
knowledge is The Ian Potter Foundation.
The Foundation, established by stockbroker and benefactor Sir
Ian Potter in 1964, has had a long history of providing grants for
innovative projects, and then working to ensure the successful
elements of that project are spread as wide as possible. Often more
money is spent on supporting the dissemination than on supporting
the original innovation.
It is a policy that Executive Secretary, DR DOROTHY SCOTT OAM,
now sums up with the simple mantra: Innovate, Evaluate,
Disseminate.
Those words mean the Foundation is selectively looking to fund
projects it believes have the best chance of achieving a common aim
of “helping the few to help the many” and that given the demand for
funding far outstrips the ability to meet it, grantmakers have an
added responsibility of making sure as many people as possible
benefit from those projects that are funded.
"http://www.ianpotter.org.au/"
-
20. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
market should do. And how does it meet the enormous need which
it doesn’t have the resources to meet in the most effec-tive
way?
It’s about supporting innovation but also building in
evaluation. If the evaluation shows that the innovation was
effective and cost-effective is it possible to disseminate that
innovation and possibly take it to scale across a service
system?
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: What is a best practice
example of that Innovate. Evaluate. Disseminate policy at work
where you take a good idea to scale?
Dr Dorothy Scott: The Potter Farmland Plan, supported by the
Foundation in the 1980s was a good example. It was a very ambitious
initiative to demonstrate sustainable agriculture by promoting
improved farm productivity while reversing land degradation and
halting erosion and salinity.
It was an example par excellence in the history of the Potter
Foundation and - to be fair - in the history of Australian
philanthropy and it was before my time, so I am not singing my own
praises.
It was the Board with the active engagement of my predecessor
Pat Feilman who pioneered the Potter Farmland Plan and who first
demonstrated the Plan on a farm, then demonstrated that plan to
farmers as partners in the environmental movement - not enemies -
and showed how you might achieve environmentally and economically
sustainable agriculture. Then, through initiatives like Landcare,
that message was disseminated to farmers across the country and
beyond Australia’s borders.
The Potter Foundation got involved in that before the issue of
salinity was in the consciousness of the general public or the
consciousness of most political leaders. It was certainly in the
minds of environmentalists and the minds of leading Australian
scientists but the Foundation didn’t even have an organisation
through which it could give money to do anything. It actually had
to go out and set up its own program.
That is visionary philanthropy which was committed not just to
innovation but to evaluating whether its new land management
techniques were actually effective and equally committed to
dissemination so that’s quintessentially Innovate, Evaluate,
Disseminate.
In my time at the Potter Foundation I have been really keen to
see whether we can translate that model of Innovate, Eval-
uate, Disseminate from the environment to other areas of
grantmaking, whether it is engaging cultural groups that have been
disconnected with the arts to participate in the life of art
museums, whether its indigenous maternal and child health, whether
it’s innovative mentoring programs like STAR at Mur-doch
University. Can we practise this model of philanthropy and what’s
involved in doing so? It’s intellectually demanding but ultimately
it’s the only way of philanthropy achieving the maximum outcome for
its investment.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: How important is the
evaluation in the process?
Dr Dorothy Scott: It’s evaluation that has been the weak link in
the Innovate, Evaluate, Disseminate template.
That’s because often organisations that are pioneering the
innovative ways of working are not research bodies. They are very
close to the community, they are at the coalface, they are doing
it. They are not really concerned about helping the few to help the
many because, fundamentally, their constituency and their mission
is really more local. So they are really concerned about indigenous
mothers and babies in Townsville or what they are doing in
Gippsland about salinity or wetlands.
We as a philanthropic foundation may well have the mission of
letting their innovative work ripple through to the rest of the
world, and they are not opposed to that, but they may not have the
infrastructure or the resources to do that or the reality is that
saving the world is not their primary mission. It’s caring for
something much closer to home.
We supported a three year $300,000 initiative called Shared
Action by St Luke’s Anglicare in Long Gully near Bendigo, a
community building development project aimed at promoting the
safety and wellbeing of children. We then supported the evaluation
of that program through Bendigo University, Latrobe University and
Melbourne University so we built in to that $300,000 grant an
evaluation process. We have since given small grants to help St
Luke’s disseminate that through the making of the video, the
publication of a book which is a nice example of taking that
Innovate, Evaluate, Disseminate maxim and taken it to community
rebuilding.
The Victorian State Government has now seen that St Luke’s model
of community rebuilding as an exemplar in its community rebuilding
strategy. The State Government is now trying to “seed” the St
Luke’s experience in other Victorian regional communities.
The Secret to Sowing the Seeds of Success (continued)
Innovate. Evaluate. Disseminate
In Profile
-
21. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
St Luke’s is a community agency, not a research institute but it
developed regional links with Bendigo University so it can have its
evaluation done by people who understand the community in which the
work is being done while still drawing on the expertise of, say, a
consultant in program evaluation at Melbourne University. One of
the challenges is getting really sophisticated evaluation which is
not just about outcome evaluation (what worked?) but is about
process evaluation (how was this achieved?)
It requires a combination of quantitative and qualitative
meth-ods and requires the capacity to not just measure according to
some pre-determined performance indicators but to give the “thick”
description or the analytical narrative of how some-thing was
achieved, including the things that didn’t work.
You need a rich understanding of how innovation is achieved.
That’s essential for the replication of it - not that you can
replicate it in another setting by some “one-size-fits-all”
process. It might be more a case of transplanting the approach in
other communities with adaptations to fit different contexts. What
worked in Long Gully will not necessarily work in Latrobe Valley or
Melbourne’s western suburbs but the core ingredient probably will.
It requires adaptation and that’s where the critical, analytical
narrative comes in. Not just a celebratory “this is what we did” or
concrete description but analytical and critical and
self-reflecting analysis about how we went about doing what we
did?
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: Is it sometimes too
tempting for grantmaking bodies and recipients to talk about
projects in positive terms of what works while ignoring the
negatives?
Dr Dorothy Scott: Absolutely. The “positivistic” paradigm in
program evaluation is very much focussed on measuring outcomes and
that is important but it is only half the story. We need to be able
to measure outcomes, we need to be able to have evidence-based
community building but we also need to know how we achieved that
and it is the how that is most valuable to others seeking to try
something similar.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: Is the problem that
recipients are scared to fail? They are worried about saying you
gave us $25,000 and the project didn’t work?
Dr Dorothy Scott: We probably have to accept that it is unlikely
that all grantees will be completely frank about proj-ects. I say
to them let’s tell it as it is, whatever it is (the out-
come). We say it’s marvellous if we find out things don’t work
because then we don’t have to try it again.
The fact is that no knowledge is wasted. What is required is a
partnership between the grantmaker and the grant recipient that is
really based on trust and honesty.
What does not work is just as important as what does. That’s not
a failure. That’s a success. That’s knowledge and I reassure them
that reporting “limited” success will not go against them in future
applications. Some grant recipients feel they must demonstrate that
things work and are afraid of rigorous evaluation. In part, that’s
for understandable reasons. Because of the enormous unmet need,
increasingly, many non-government organisations feel that in order
to survive they have to dress up what they are doing as
“innovative” and “new” just to keep on doing what they already know
in their bones is worthwhile.
In a sense philanthropic foundations that pursue this strategic
model of philanthropy around innovation in an environment of
resource scarcity may well be inadvertently encouraging many
organisations to dress up what they are doing as innovation in
order to get some financial support. Groups are driven by survival
needs but it means we are not really partners in innovation because
we are not equally open to disconfirming evidence about the success
of the initiative - not equally open to something not working.
They are some of the really fundamental tensions for any
grantmaker. While we say the best way to help the many is to help
the few, the many still say ‘we desperately need your support and
if you say you are only going to support innovation, we are going
to jump through that hoop. Just like we have to jump through hoops
for Government and twist ourselves into the boxes for priorities
that Governments say they will fund.’
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: How difficult is it for
grantmakers to say we funded it, it didn’t work but let’s celebrate
it? Is there a pressure from Governments or corporations to only
fund “successful” projects?
Dr Dorothy Scott: I think corporate philanthropy would find it
difficult to embrace “failure” because corporate philanthropy wants
to be associated with success and achievement. Phil-anthropic
trusts and foundations really should have the cour-age to embark on
risk. Really what we have is venture capital and we never expect
the venture capitalist to only fund safe bets - that is not what
venture capitalists do.
Innovate. Evaluate. Disseminate
In Profile
The Secret to Sowing the Seeds of Success (continued)
-
22. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
So if philanthropic trusts and foundations are venture
capitalists for the common good, then we must really have the
courage to take risks, to back people who are prepared to take
risks with us for the possible positive outcome and not be fussed
about PR gloss that needs the positive outcome for its own public
relations image. That’s not real philanthropy.
That would be very self-serving if we were only prepared to
invest in that which is an assured success. Hopefully trusts and
foundations that are able to take that risk will support some
initiatives that will prove to be successful that corporate
philanthropy will then feel they could embrace.
I think it is unfair to expect corporates to take big risks
particularly in areas that are potentially stigmatising like drug
dependence, some of these very controversial, high-risk areas. It’s
a hard ask for a corporate but I don’t think it is a hard ask for a
philanthropic trust or foundation to do that. What corporates could
then do is welcome and embrace what we have been able to nurture in
a more high-risk venture, to pick up some of the recurrent costs of
successful initiatives.
For example if we can show that peer mentoring works with the
Murdoch University STAR program (a project in which undergraduate
university science students tutor high school students to help with
their understanding of science) then it will be wonderful for
corporates - as some corporates such as Hamersley, Rio Tinto and
BHP have already done - to embrace peer mentoring programs in
science education to build Australian science into the future on a
strong platform while we get on and do something else at the risky
end.
Philanthropic foundations just don’t have the money to provide
recurrent spending and that is why sustainability strategies are so
important to us. Things either have to be as cheap as chips or they
have to deliver fairly major savings in government expenditure in
the fairly immediate or short term so that Government resources can
be re-directed to that which can, say, prevent child abuse or
neglect or drug dependence or juvenile crime or they have to be
attractive to corporate sponsors or public donors - or a
combination thereof.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: What is the prefer-able
form of evaluation or is it dependent on the amount of money you
are giving and the type of project that it is? Dr Dorothy Scott: I
think for a small-scale pilot project initially where you are
wanting to pioneer, develop, nurture a program
early on you might encourage an internal evaluation. When they
think they have developed something that is sound and rigorous one
should be encouraging an external evaluation because it does bring
a greater degree of objectivity and it is seen to have, in the eyes
of others, greater integrity than internal evaluation. And it may
be able to investigate issues of replicability elsewhere etc.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: So it might pick out those
core or essential elements that can be adapted in other areas or
other sectors?
Dr Dorothy Scott: Some program evaluators talk about it being
unfair to evaluate programs until they are “proud”. And by that
they mean programs that have ironed out their wrinkles so sometimes
I think we are in danger of imposing a very demanding external
evaluation on new initiatives where they haven’t learned to crawl
let alone walk.
If we can, if we do have the resources, let programs learn to
crawl and learn to walk with an internal evaluation which is very
reflective and feeding back into the evolution of their creative
work prior to moving onto a more rigorous external evaluation.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: Getting down to tin tacks,
what sort of things would you have evaluated for a smaller
scheme?
It would be good to know that they have already built into their
data collection systems, ways of monitoring possible changes that
were indicators of success. Something that can be very modest but
gives some thought early on to the sort of data that would be
helpful to collect in a low-cost, simple way and will be easy to
analyse.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: Do you have evaluation
built into all the programs you support?
Dr Dorothy Scott: Yes, to some degree, with the exception of
very small grants.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: Do grantmakers do enough
with the evaluation material they have?
Dr Dorothy Scott: It’s a really big challenge for us. There are
some good examples of philanthropic foundations that do such as the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (www.jrf.org.uk) I understand that they
disseminate the evaluation by asking
The Secret to Sowing the Seeds of Success (continued)
Innovate. Evaluate. Disseminate
In Profile
"http://www.jrf.org.uk"
-
23. www.ourcommunity.com.auBest PracticeGrantmaking QuarterlyThe
Australian
their grant recipients to not only provide a full report but a
very carefully written report that goes onto their website. All
their hard copy publications carry the findings so the information
on what worked and what didn’t is available to the whole
com-munity. It’s a condition of the grant.
Bernard Van Leer in the Netherlands is another grantmaker, one
that puts in large resources into the evaluation and dissemination
of information and distributes wonderful material on projects.
I think we in Australia have got a long way to go in really
addressing dissemination.
Best Practice Grantmaking Quarterly: So what can we do?
Dr Dorothy Scott: We can use our websites so much better than
what we do - and with links to information - and we can ask grant
recipients to write reports in a succinct, accessible way that
could go on their website, the grantmakers’s website and also the
peak association’s website so that people looking for grants or
wanting to know what else has been tried can actually check if
anyone has done anything similar. I think we can all use our
websites to far greater effect in dissemination but also use the
mass media to better effect.
Again some philanthropic foundations put a lot of resources into
communications strategies and communications consultants and I
think there is a ge