MECOSS Review of the Role of Funding Agencies
Summary
- There are 4 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
-
Posts with files From File Date Alice Murphy 2007 Jul 24 12:06 NZST - Latest post made by Vanessa Gray at 2007 Aug 06 17:18 NZST
Alison Dyson has submitted a report by the Manukau East Council of Social Services on the role of funding agencies in the NGO sector: http://cst.org.nz/r/post/1RyfF0fVPR4NCnWL1fAvvq I've opened this topic for members of this Goverment Resourcing group to discuss the report, and I've also reposted the report here.
Alice
The following file was added to this topic:
Vanessa Gray added the post below to the "uploading onto TASKFORCE website" topic. http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/5YUJBPfVjXnpvqP0j12Boq Because Vanessa's post is about the MECOSS Review, and not about uploading files to the site, I have copied it to this topic. Please add further posts about the MECOSS Review to this topic, either via the web using the link at the bottom of the email version of the post, or simply by replying to the email. cheers Dan . . . . From: Vanessa Gray Date: 2007 Jul 25 09:55 NZST http://cst.org.nz/r/post/5YUJBPfVjXnpvqP0j12Boq This document is so on the ball. I have long wished to speak to funder meetings to try and explain how their policies create a huge administration overhead for small community organisatiions that is almost impossible to fund. I hope this document is taken note of. I'd probably say a panel approach may have problems that could prove a disadvantage to smaller less understood causes, last year we experienced this when two COGS committees in our region combined. However there are other ways that could possible improve efficiency and cut the administration burden, such as, a standard "approved by all funders" application form and a simple and standard reporting/accountability document/process. Another alternative would possibly be for organisations or fundraisers to be able to achieve an "approved" status with funders in some way, which could then negate the need for repeating some of the basic requirements that funders currently require. Funding application packages in some cases are huge and timeconsuming to put together, it would be really helpful to minimise this, leaving time to be better spent on development and service delivery. Well done MECOSS!
Hi Folks, Please take care to make posts to a topic with a title that describes what you are posting about. This is really valuable conversation, but I doubt that anyone would think to look for it in a topic entitled "uploading onto TASKFORCE website". http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/4akpqqKInhsqVTIO3GxQv3 To see what I mean, take a look at the home page of the site. http://cst.org.nz/ All topics with new posts appear there, creating an excellent resource for the entire community sector. Maybe even "MECOSS Review of the Role of Funding Agencies" is not a good title. Please change it to a better one, if you wish. For now, though, I am copying the posts from the other topic to this one. cheers Dan . . . . . From: Peter Zapasnik Date: 08:44 NZST http://cst.org.nz/r/post/7lvCmFkDsKCr7fJhPbXO0R Hi Vanessa In principle I would support having a “approved” status that all Government agencies would accept but I fear in practice this would be hard achieve. An example of this is the ideal of integrated contracts, in principle nearly all, but not all, Government agencies say they agree with them. In practice no Ministry or agency wants to relinquish; control over their portion of contract, insist that their reporting and compliance requirements. I do not want to sound too negative because I would whole heartily support any moves to having a generic approved status. Regards Pete Zapasnik Manager Tararua REAP From: Vanessa Gray Date: 14:29 NZST http://cst.org.nz/r/post/4akpqqKInhsqVTIO3GxQv3 Hi Pete Thanks for that, I realise that any perceived loss of control would be of concern, however, I think Government Agencies and more importantly the Government who they are contracted by, to spend our taxes for the benefit of New Zealand communities, need to understand the wastage that goes into multiple application and reporting on small parcels of funding. Joint funding agreements are not new, I have worked with them previously in the UK and they can make a huge difference to the operational wellbeing and effectiveness of small community groups of which there are hundreds in NZ carrying our vital work for the wellbeing of our communities. An example from my own desk - it has taken 98 individual applications to achieve funds of over $500k to run our organisation in the past six years, 26 of those applications have been to Department of Internal Affairs administered funds - COGS/Lottery, 29 to gaming trusts that operate under DIA rules - each application requires duplication of information. Accountabili ty for the 26 DIA Administerded applications has usually required interim reporting and attendance at accountability meetings (some of which involve 400km round trip to attend as we work regionally) and all this with no financial support for administration coming from the Government sector, yet we are an employer, gst registered and have all the compliance costs and responsibilities of a small business. The Government "responsibility" or Ministries of interest for our work fall within the realms of MOH, MSD and ACC with smaller interest falling within other agencies such as Corrections, Justice and LTNZ - it would be so much more efficient and cost effective to be able to talk the same talk to all of them to save time, energy and ultimately $$$s. I'm hoping (but I am realistic) this forum can be a starting point to press this forward and maybe eventually a bit of a mind shift will happen ;-) Kind Regards Vanessa Gray General Manager Brain injury Association Northland Ph: 09 459 5013
Hi Folks Just to add another dimension to this discussion, I have today received a letter from a Gaming Machine Trust wanting us to make a submission to our Local council on their Gambling Policy Review, our Council have a "sinking lid" policy which will gradually reduce the amount of funds available to be given as grants to community groups like ours. We have over the last couple of years seen a reduction in funds along with changes in policy to limit our access to these funds. However, it cannot be denied that Gaming Machine Trusts have funded our service to a significant degree over the past 5 years - $150,000+ mostly for hard to come by salaries, whilst we have been trying to become less dependent on this type of funding, it still remains that we are. I am struggling with the dilemma on how to approach the issue, on the one hand questioning the ethics of funding a service from the proceeds of gambling but on the other, the fact that local government does not allow us to apply for funding (as we receive a small amount of central govt funding) but is making decisions that will probably effect some organisati ons to the point of putting them at risk of survival, resulting in loss of support services in our communities. I'd really appreciate some thoughts around this. Kind Regards Vanessa Gray General Manager Brain injury Association Northland Ph: 09 459 5013 Please note that the contents of this e-mail are Confidential to the sender and the recipient and may be legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and contact the sender.
======================================== From: <email obscured> To: Internet Mail::["Government Resourcing" <email obscured>>] Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] MECOSS Review of the Role of Funding Agencies Date: 8/1/07 2:45 p.m. Hi Folks, Please take care to make posts to a topic with a title that describes what you are posting about. This is really valuable conversation, but I doubt that anyone would think to look for it in a topic entitled "uploading onto TASKFORCE website". http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/4akpqqKInhsqVTIO3GxQv3 To see what I mean, take a look at the home page of the site. http://cst.org.nz/ All topics with new posts appear there, creating an excellent resource for the entire community sector. Maybe even "MECOSS Review of the Role of Funding Agencies" is not a good title. Please change it to a better one, if you wish. For now, though, I am copying the posts from the other topic to this one. cheers Dan . . . . . From: Peter Zapasnik Date: 08:44 NZST http://cst.org.nz/r/post/7lvCmFkDsKCr7fJhPbXO0R Hi Vanessa In principle I would support having a approved status that all Government agencies would accept but I fear in practice this would be hard achieve. An example of this is the ideal of integrated contracts, in principle nearly all, but not all, Government agencies say they agree with them. In practice no Ministry or agency wants to relinquish; control over their portion of contract, insist that their reporting and compliance requirements. I do not want to sound too negative because I would whole heartily support any moves to having a generic approved status. Regards Pete Zapasnik Manager Tararua REAP From: Vanessa Gray Date: 14:29 NZST http://cst.org.nz/r/post/4akpqqKInhsqVTIO3GxQv3 Hi Pete Thanks for that, I realise that any perceived loss of control would be of concern, however, I think Government Agencies and more importantly the Government who they are contracted by, to spend our taxes for the benefit of New Zealand communities, need to understand the wastage that goes into multiple application and reporting on small parcels of funding. Joint funding agreements are not new, I have worked with them previously in the UK and they can make a huge difference to the operational wellbeing and effectiveness of small community groups of which there are hundreds in NZ carrying our vital work for the wellbeing of our communities. An example from my own desk - it has taken 98 individual applications to achieve funds of over $500k to run our organisation in the past six years, 26 of those applications have been to Department of Internal Affairs administered funds - COGS/Lottery, 29 to gaming trusts that operate under DIA rules - each application requires duplication of information. Accountabili ty for the 26 DIA Administerded applications has usually required interim reporting and attendance at accountability meetings (some of which involve 400km round trip to attend as we work regionally) and all this with no financial support for administration coming from the Government sector, yet we are an employer, gst registered and have all the compliance costs and responsibilities of a small business. The Government "responsibility" or Ministries of interest for our work fall within the realms of MOH, MSD and ACC with smaller interest falling within other agencies such as Corrections, Justice and LTNZ - it would be so much more efficient and cost effective to be able to talk the same talk to all of them to save time, energy and ultimately $$$s. I'm hoping (but I am realistic) this forum can be a starting point to press this forward and maybe eventually a bit of a mind shift will happen ;-) Kind Regards Vanessa Gray General Manager Brain injury Association Northland Ph: 09 459 5013 ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic: http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/6Qk0Snf1nQ31iW3S6ivdO Info about Government Resourcing: http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing Info about Dan Randow: http://cst.org.nz/contacts/danr To leave Government Resourcing, email <email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject Government Resourcing is powered by OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
Loading…
Privacy | Acceptable Use | Terms of Service | About OnlineGroups.Net | Contact OnlineGroups.Net
Start an OnlineGroups.Net site for easier email collaboration in your organization.
Powered by GroupServer, the open source web-based mailing list manager.