Presentation to Combined Community Trusts conference Christchurch April 2016

1. Maximising the social harvest
through managing funding burden
A PRESENTATION TO THE COMBINED COMMUNITY TRUSTS CONFERENCE
B Y K A TE F R Y K B E R G , TH I N K TA N K C O N S UL TI N G A N D I A I N H I N E S , J R M C K E N Z I E TR US T
1 3 A P R I L 2 0 1 6
24/04/2016 1

2. Outline
 What is funding burden?
 Grantee experience of funding burden
 Funder inquiry into funding burden - J R McKenzie
 Practical suggestions for finding the sweet spot
24/04/2016 2

3. Cultivating the seeds of change
24/04/2016 3

4. Enough
info
Seeking the sweet spot…
Reasonable
Time

5. Funding Burden – Definitions
Funding Burden:
Time and costs spent applying for and
reporting on grants
Net Grant:
Money received minus funding burden
Net Funding:
Total money provided by a funder minus
funding burden for all applicants
5

6. Grantee experiences of funding burden
6
• “Untenable hours and stress. You get jaded, disillusioned – it’s
head-bashing stuff”
• “Reporting requirements meant we spent 300k on a database
and 1000+ hours implementing it”
• “We spent about 1 – 2 days per week for three years before we
were finally awarded our multi-year funding”
• “My team spent about 800 hours after the grant was received
meeting the funder’s demands”
• “They invited funding applications of up to $100,000 – but
didn’t tell us that the grant pool was little more than 200k”

7. Examples of funding burden
7
• “Untenable hours and stress. You get jaded, disillusioned – it’s
head-bashing stuff”
Funding
Burden
• “Reporting requirements meant we spent 300k on a database
and 1000+ hours implementing it”
• “We spent about 1 – 2 days per week for three years before we
were finally awarded our multi-year funding”
20%
• “My team spent about 800 hours after the grant was received
meeting the funder’s demands”
53%
• “They invited funding applications of up to $100,000 – but
didn’t tell us that the grant pool was little more than 200k”
100%

8. The result?
24/04/2016 8
Sometimes our processes reduce the very impact we seek to support

10. Information
Outline
application
Full
application
Shortlisting
Visit
Assessment Decision

11. promotion
Outline
application
Full
application
Shortlisting
Visit
Assessment Decision

12. Outline
application
Full
application
Visit
246
9
number
hours
19
39
Big
grants: 14

13. Funding efficiency (net funding as % of total) 93%
Total funding given 2,758,000
Cost of ‘songs’ 146,400
Cost of ‘operas’ 49,500
Net funding to community 2,562,100

14. • It excludes their reporting
costs
• It excludes all of our costs
Is 93% a pass mark?
• Overall JRMT has “one of the better
processes”

15. What have we done?
 Improved info for applicants (again!)
 Reduced size of Outline Application
 Reviewed the Full Application
 We now ask for feedback in application
forms

16. How to find the sweet spot
16
 Be curious
 Try filling out our own forms
 Ongoing learning and improvement
 Gather information
 Ask for feedback and time taken in our forms
 Commission applicant surveys
 Ask for applicant input on changes we make
 Double check what our decision makers really
need

17. How to find the sweet spot continued
17
Prune our processes
Prepare the soil – be clear what we want to fund,
and how much is on offer
Weed out questions you don’t actually use
Thin the seedlings with two-step processes and/or
processes proportional to what is on offer
Ongoing care and attention – multi-year funding
is better for grantees and funders
Propagate processes – align application forms
and share reporting with other funders

18. Thank you
24/04/2016 18
• Kate Frykberg kate@thinktank.co.nz
• Iain Hines iain@jrmckenzie.co.nz