In this edition of New Dialogue we explore some of the issues surrounding funding and sustainability. We all want our organisations to be sustainable so that we can continue the work we think is important. Some of the key questions to consider are:

where we want our organisations to be one year out, five years out, ten years out and beyond
how we can pursue a mix of funding options that allows us to be true to our missions
how we want to continue delivering our services
the amounts of money we need, what it is for and the conditions we are and aren’t willing to accept.

What is sustainable funding?

Andrea Goble, Social Services Waikato

Back to top

It’s the dream of most funders that Tangata Whenua, community and voluntary organisations achieve sustainable funding. Is this dream ever likely to become a reality when there is no guarantee that any funding will be sustainable forever?

Even those organisations that are fully funded by government know that having all their eggs in one basket is a risk especially when there is an election coming, a change of government or a significant change in government policy.

It can prove difficult to get government agencies to fund anything new or innovative as government is essentially a ‘no-risks’ funder . Some statutory trusts pay more attention to how they make and invest their funds than how they distribute them and many philanthropic trusts are conservative. However there are a few funders that will take a risk and will look for the innovative approach and the unusual or potentially risky project. They will often fund for a longer period to ensure a new idea gets a chance.

There are funders who are starting to fund in multi-year lots and they are leading the way for a more strategic approach to sustainability. The funding may stop at the end of three or five years but it gives organisations breathing space in which to get on with providing services instead of searching for funders and making applications and it provides time to plan funding strategies.

Strategies and strategic planning are crucial to sustainable funding. Financial sustainability won’t happen without putting in the time and resources to thinking and planning. Think about where your organisation might be in five years time and what it will need to achieve that and develop a funding plan.

Use the tools at your disposal such as the FundView and CorporateCitizens databases. Use them at a library or pay the subscription – it’s a cost to you but if it helps you to get funding then it pays for itself. Use FundView and your networks to identify appropriate funders and then take the time to build relationships with them. The time you put in may be a cost to you in terms of time lost to providing services but in the long term it will pay for itself. If a funder understands what you’re doing and can see your organisation is a credible and doing great work they may be more inclined to fund you more generously and for a longer period.

There are organisations, usually large ones, that have bequests and other donations invested to give them a substantial reserve and some funding for projects from the interest. So there is one way to make the dream a reality – try for a substantial bequest or donation, or several, and invest wisely. You may be tempted to use the donation or bequest for current services and you will need to think strategically to resist that temptation and invest the money for the future.

As part of your plan you might look at who is using your services and whether there is the possibility of charging for a part of the service you provide. Or perhaps you could charge particular users of the service. Do you have a publication people love to read? Could this be available on subscription? Is there a part of the publication that could be available only to members and for a fee to others? Do you have staff with expertise that could be used to help other organisations for a fee? Could some of your work be done in conjunction with another organisation?

It is a concern that government provides adequate funds for the services it provides but when community provide the service in place of government then funding is provided for the service provision but not for the operational, infrastructure costs. We want full recognition of our work by government providing adequate funding for the whole cost of the service provision including operational costs.

Investing in infrastructure is a vital part of building the sustainability that will allow you to maintain and develop your organisation. When developing your funding plan you need to take into account the costs of recruiting and retaining good staff, acquiring and maintaining good equipment, and developing and implementing good operational, management and governance systems. The more sustainable you can make your organisation the more likely you are to be successful in getting funding

Is sustainable funding an oxymoron? I think so. Let’s start collaborating to ensure we are valued for the work we do and the cost of doing it and develop more effective relations between funders and the community.

Visit Social Services Waikato website:

www.socialserviceswaikato.org.nz

Creating your fundraising plan

Heather Newell, Foresee Communications

Back to top

Many organisations dive into a fundraising plan with only a cursory thought as to what they really want to achieve, and with a focus on the short term. Heather Newell of Foresee Communications, publisher of Sponsorship Profile and Fundraising in New Zealand says many organisations call her about sponsorship first but without a fundraising plan they will have little chance of finding an interested business willing to invest in their organisation. “Sponsorship is a very visible fundraising tool,” she said “so people think it’s an easy option. The truth is that there are very few companies in New Zealand who want to build relationships with community organisations, compared to the number of non profit organisations seeking business relationships.”

“The fundraising plan is fairly simple in itself. It’s the who, why, where, what, when and how. “There are, however,” said Heather, “two important steps that demand more of an explanation.”

“The first real step in creating a fundraising plan” she said “is to determine what your overall strategy might be. Does your organisation want to grow, to gain more profile and publicity or perhaps be more efficient at what it does? Will you be around for the long haul or simply until you’ve addressed a short term problem? You will need to understand what your organisation has planned for its future to decide what fundraising tools are best for you, how much you should invest in your fundraising and what sort of specialist fundraising skills you will need. For example if your organisation is going to be around for the long term, bequests must be part of your fundraising tool kit. If you are only addressing a short term issue you need to concentrate on income sources which give quicker results.”

The next step is to develop your case statement. “It’s vital to be able to explain to people why you are fundraising” said Heather. “The case statement is not your mission or vision statement. It’s a story that tugs at the heart strings. If someone gets a lump in their throat from reading or hearing your case statement, you are on the right track. It should generate an emotional appeal. You might write the story about the life changing work you do. It could be a testimonial from someone you have helped. It could be some interesting statistics and an explanation of the need in the community for your service. This part of your fundraising plan will be used for grant applications and personal appeals for funds.” Heather often challenges people to think about what they would say at a cocktail party when someone asks you why you are fundraising. “You can’t go into any great detail, and you need to be able to catch their attention immediately.”

The rest of the format for the plan will be recognizable to anyone who has written a communication or marketing plan. First you set your objectives, how much money are you planning to raise. Next you consider who will make donations to you and what fundraising tools will make it easy for your supporters to contribute towards your cause. “Despite what people think,” said Heather “the options are fairly simple. You could choose from face to face requests for donations and bequests through to direct mail, telemarketing, special events like street appeals, grant applications, sponsorships and business support. Income into the non profit sector actually comes from (in order of size) government contracts for service delivery, donations from individuals and bequests, philanthropic grants, from regulated means like gaming machine trusts and lottery grants, grants or sponsorship from local government and contributions from business.

Budget, timing and responsibilities are probably the next most important factor. Do you need to establish a donor database? Who will administer it, enter the names and addresses and send thank you letters? Do you need to invest in print and promotions? Will you need an appeal envelope? How many volunteers are needed? Set a timetable. When do those grant applications have to be ready? Will you need committee authorisations and how long do those take to set up?

And when you’ve done all that, the job is not yet over. “Accountability to donors,” said Heather, “is one of the last tasks but probably the most important. If you don’t build relationships with people who support your cause, you are doomed. If you can’t account for the donations to the people who made them, don’t even begin this process.”

For more information on Foresee Communications visit:

www.foresee.co.nz

Talking across the fence

Iain Hines & Tina Reid

Back to top

This article is a synopsis of a presentation by Iain Hines of the JR McKenzie Trust and Tina Reid, Executive Director of NZFVWO at the Funders Forum held in Wellington in May 2006. They examined the relationships between grantmakers and grantseekers and how these are crucial to successful grantmaking and sustainability.

Organisations need to have a degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead. It can be frustrating to be funded on a project by project basis. Realistically, most organisations will always need some external funding – very few can plan to be self sufficient. There is a need for ongoing base funding, as well as one off project or development money. This is why sustainability is so important.

Sometimes a funder saying, “You need to be sustainable” can be heard as, “Go and find another funder who will support you long term, because we won’t”! But “sustainability” cannot be dependent on a single funder – for instance, sometimes government has taken over funding of effective projects. But equally, many things may never be funded by government – and therein lies the nub of the matter: sustainability generally requires a mix of funding from different sources. It will be different for each organisation - depending on factors such as the kind of service/activity they run, other funding sources for it or if it’s seen as a government responsibility.

The relationship between grantseekers and grantmakers is coloured by the huge diversity of organisations involved on both sides. Those who have been involved in grantmaking or grantseeking both appreciate the enormous amount of work and thought that is put in to either activity – so respect between the two is incredibly important for a successful relationship.

For most grantseekers, however, funding will be a perennial concern. It is always the first topic that comes up in discussions around sustainability. One of the difficulties grantseekers continually face is balancing their sustainability “needs” with overly bureaucratic accountability processes and a reluctance by grantmakers to fund things like salaries and operating costs.

So why don’t grantmakers aid sustainability by funding things like salaries? The reality is that even for grant makers, there is only a finite pool of money. For many grantmakers, funding certain things like salaries and operating costs is just not practical because it is expensive and costs more money than they have. Grantmakers are more likely to fund an organisation’s achievements and outputs rather than the basic operating costs like salaries or rent. Some are more comfortable with projects that include a justifiable component of salaries and overheads.

Grantmakers want to maintain their independence as well – this is done by making sure organisations don’t become “dependent” on them, thereby limiting their options for being able to co-fund new applications in the future.

As far as accountability goes, it is as important for grantmakers as it is for grantseekers to ensure that resources are being used well. But there isn’t a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to the need for accountability. Generally, grantseekers are very aware of the importance of being accountable to multiple stakeholders, e.g. members, clients, managers as well as several different funders. Grantseekers therefore hope for some flexibility about reporting requirements so that the process serves their internal purposes as well as the funders.

This is where having a relationship with a funder plays an important part. If relationships are to work, there needs to be trust and an opportunity for dialogue so that the risk of negative effects from any process can be mitigated.

For this to happen, the involvement of grantmakers at networking and information sharing opportunities can be incredibly useful. It is only through discussion that we can understand where each other are coming from and the larger context in which we operate.

Grantmakers agree that it is always useful to see the bigger picture – that the community and voluntary sector plays a vital role in a healthy society that provides opportunities for participation, the expression of values and so on.

However, even the biggest grantmakers are not big enough to do everything – there are different niches for different funders. It is actually an ongoing challenge for grantmakers to identify how they can make the best contribution to the ‘bigger picture’ with their resources, not just in terms of funding, but also their skills and insights.

A range of relationships and ways of working are possible between grantmakers and grantseekers. In this article we touch on only a few of the dynamics involved, but see this as an ongoing dialogue that is about development together.

Grantseekers need to be clear about what kind of mix of funding they are seeking – and that developing relationships with funders is seen as part of their commitment to fulfilling their mission, rather than being a quick approach to uninvolved outsiders for a cheque.

Funding the community and voluntary sector: a few thoughts

Katherine Baxter, Ministry of Social Development

Back to top

Katherine Baxter, the Ministry of Social Development’s General Manager Social Inclusion and Participation offers some observations on the relationship between government and philanthropic funders, and the community and voluntary sector.

Where there are tensions in the relationships between government, philanthropy and the community sector, it can help if we tease out the differences in our roles, and governance – to enhance our understanding of the day to day operating realities of each.

The community-government relationship, for instance, is particularly complex, with no clear distinction between each sector: ‘Community’ people are also citizens and taxpayers, and they and their organisations are both stakeholders and, at times, clients of government. In our Westminster-style democracy, when government funds activities in the community sector, it is making an allocation from the taxes collected from all citizens to a sub-set of those citizens. And the activities funded or ‘purchased’ are part of a social and political agenda that we all have the opportunity to influence – through the election cycle, lobbying and submissions, direct engagement in policy development etc. While the links between political commitment and delivery can be tenuous, and processes may not always work as well as we would like, the underlying intention is to strive for fairness, transparency and a politically negotiated agreement on services supported by a large proportion of the population.

By contrast, the philanthropy-community relationship seems more straightforward: one party has funds to distribute, the other is seeking funding – and proposals are either supported or declined. Philanthropic funders must operate within the law and within the rules of their own trust deeds but their decisions are, by definition, ‘private’. They have the freedom to remain local, eccentric and immediate in responding to community initiatives. They may also choose to innovate, to take risks and/or to become more strategic and deliberate. This very different role provides an alternative, enlivening ‘voice’ without our democracy, an opportunity to contest or step outside the collectively negotiated commitments of government.

Different roles and accountability requirements give rise to different funding mechanisms. The diagram below (source Lawrence, OCVS) suggests a continuum, with philanthropy and government primarily funding at different ends.

The majority of government funding to the community sector is delivered through contracts with recently a discernible shift in some areas from formal ‘classical’ contracting to longer term ‘relationship-based’, outcome focused contracts. In effect, through this funding, government is ‘co-producing’ services with non-government organisations (whether for-profit or not-for-profit). Only a small proportion of government funding is provided as ‘conditional’ grants to support, within broad criteria, community-initiated proposals.

For the philanthropic sector, while there are some moves to more structured arrangements requiring a higher level of engagement between the funder and the community recipient, the bulk of funding is likely to be provided as unconditional grants.

Given these differences, where can we best work together?

Despite these differences, government and philanthropic funders can and do work together, alongside local government and community and voluntary groups. Three phases where collaboration can be considered include:

(1) gathering information: identifying and understanding community needs and assets

This might involve:

§ sharing understanding of critical social issues and effective responses

§ linking into, and contributing to, Long Term Council Community Planning

§ sharing information from FACS Local Services Mapping and MSD’s Social Report

(2) developing specific proposals: where ideas can be explored and debated – and funded or declined

This might involve:

§ sharing experiences and tools, such as partnership templates

§ standardising some aspects of funding agreements

§ partnership funding

(3) monitoring and evaluation: reviewing achievements and assessing what worked well and what could be improved.

This might involve:

§ common monitoring and audit reports

§ sharing the results of evaluations and research

§ joint training in evaluation methodology

§ shared evaluations of clusters of funded activity.

Sustainable resources on CommunityNet Aotearoa

‘Organisational Sustainability’ has joined the CommunityNet Aotearoa set of ‘How-to Guides’. It links to selected on-line resources for building and strengthening organisational sustainability in voluntary and community groups. The guide covers four key aspects of sustainability:

Economic (money, buildings, infrastructure),
Human (volunteers, staff, committees, boards, knowledge, information)
Natural (healthy environments, sustainable natural resources)

§ Review and renewal (shared values, capacity, culture, evolution of groups, taking stock)

Resources linked include guides, checklists, case studies, email lists, website links and news.

The guide joins ten others, including Governance and Management, Funding, Campaigning and Advocacy, Volunteering and Getting Started: Legal Structures. It is edited by Kate Drury, a newspaper journalist and law student with a particular interest in the community and voluntary sector having worked, and still working, as a volunteer for many groups.

For more information visit:
www.community.net.nz/How-ToGuides/sustainable

Working with corporates

Louise Parkin, Saints Information Ltd

Back to top

In a joint venture with the Funding Information Service (FIS), Saints Information has been interviewing New Zealand’s top companies about the contribution they are making back to their communities. The aim has been to create the country’s first directory of corporate community involvement – CorporateCitizens, specifically designed to help all of those organisations seeking relationships with companies.

While Saints Information does not normally provide consultancy advice on how to develop these relationships with corporates, the experience of researching the CorporateCitizens project has provided some valuable insights. These relate to the lead in time required, the types of relationships on offer and expectations of duration of support.

One of the most significant outcomes relates to timing. A large number of companies set their budgets in March and do their planning in the months running up to that. September is a good time to be getting requests in for the next budget year. Therefore it is generally not a “quick cash” solution, taking anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to get a result – especially for complex relationships.

Secondly, the days of pure philanthropic cash donations are a thing of the past for all but a few companies. It is all about their support being part of an integrated marketing strategy that can deliver benefits in both directions. So ensure that your organisation has a sound fundraising strategy prepared with a well thought-out corporate component including benefits for the corporate partner.

Companies are also consulting their staff more and more for input on choosing charities as partners and being actively involved through volunteering or fundraising. Think about what your organisation can offer in this area and how you can influence choices.

As part of this preparation, it is vital to do your research and use all of the tools/advice available to your organisation. Competition is fierce and the old scatter-gun approach is no longer viable. Outfits like Foresee Communications have a range of excellent tools including the “Beginners Guide to Sponsorship” as well as specialist consultancy advice. CorporateCitizens will help you narrow the number of possible prospects as it is searchable by cause (education, disability, arts, health), brands and business activity (finance companies, electronics, airlines etc) but you might want to explore other avenues as well. For instance check out the Robin Hood Foundation, which helps companies develop their corporate community-involvement strategies and choose partners.

Most community and voluntary sector organisations are desperate for cash for operating costs and particularly salaries, which are often outside the funding criteria for trusts. While cash donations are an area that companies are increasingly moving away from, there are many other ways to engage with a company, which can free up cash from other parts of your budget:

§ “Sponsorship” is a generic term that can include some or all of the following relationship types:

§ in-kind support – donations of goods or services.

§ staff involvement - mentoring, volunteering, fundraising or governance.

§ Payroll giving – where staff nominate a regular cash donation from their salaries to go to their official company charity, sometimes matched by the company.

§ Cause related marketing – where a percentage of sales of a product or service goes to a charity for a limited time.

Finally, a word about stewardship. It is often an area that is inadequately supported by many organisations whom, once landing a relationship with company, quickly move on to landing the next without putting an effort into keeping the sponsors happy. It is common for companies to commit to a three year relationship but don’t take this for granted. Set up rules in your organisation for lines of communication with sponsors, keep good records on your database about all contact made and having listened to what the sponsor wants, make sure you deliver your end of the deal.

Louise Parkin is the founder and Managing Director of Saints Information - New Zealand’s only dedicated fundraising research agency for the Community and Voluntary Sector.

Related websites:

www.corporatecitizens.org.nz

www.saintsinformation.co.nz

www.robinhood.org.nz

www.foresee.co.nz

Socially responsible and environmentally sustainable investments: issues for the sector

Robert Howell, Council for Socially Responsible Investment

Back to top

Many voluntary organisations do not have significant investments, and therefore may think that socially responsible and environmentally sustainable investment issues (socially responsible investment or SRI for short) are for someone else. This is not the case. The issues are how you use your money, even though it may be limited, and in particular, how you relate to financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies, funding agencies, as well as investment organisations.

The key questions relate to ensuring that groups such as banks, insurance companies, funding agencies, investment groups, are operating in a way that is consistent with your organisation’s purpose and values. For example, if your organisation’s purpose is dealing with the harmful effects of tobacco, the questions you might want to ask are:

§ does your bank invest in tobacco companies, or provide loans to tobacco companies?

§ does your insurance company use your premiums to invest in tobacco companies?

§ does the agency that provides you with financial grants invest in tobacco companies?

If the purpose of your agency is to deal with the environment, climate change, human rights, housing, domestic violence, people with disability, blindness, or whatever, then change ‘tobacco companies’ and insert a phrase relevant to you such as ‘companies that do not observe human rights standards’.

When you ask these questions you will get surprising answers. When the Council for Socially Responsible Investment (CSRI) put such questions to the government’s Crown Financial Institutions (CFIs) the answers we got showed that the 5 CFIs were all investing in tobacco companies, and companies that had poor human rights and environmental standards. This, despite government policy in recent years opposing tobacco use, and government ratification of international treaties dealing with climate change and human rights (eg the UN Declaration of Human Rights). We were also surprised to find that the Accident Compensation Corporation (as one of the 5 CFIs) had investments in tobacco.

There are international as well as domestic precedents for ensuring all our activities, including funding and investing, are carried out with our social responsibility at the fore. When some of the philanthropic and church groups overseas began to ask such questions they found that their investments were being used in a way that was inconsistent with their own purposes and values. When they began to challenge the use of their money, they found that the effect often had more strategic value and impact in promoting their cause, than the voluntary work that they traditionally carried out. They found that challenging the use of their investments meant that they could influence apartheid, sweat shops for clothing companies, or help contain the spread of HIV Aids.

When Trust Waikato trustees asked such questions they began to put in place polices dealing with their investments to try and ensure consistency. They wanted to ensure that the grants to community groups in the Waikato area were not compromised by their investments that worked against the very community groups they were giving grants to. The journey that they took will be described at our forthcoming conference in October 13, Resilient Returns from Responsible Policy. Trust Waikato, as well as a number of other speakers at the conference will be speaking on how to move towards becoming a SRI organisation.

One of the things to bear in mind is the immense value for organisations in working together on issues such as this. If you find that your bank, insurance company, funding agency, or investment group does not have adequate SRI policies, and does not report annually on these matters, then it is unlikely that your questions and requests for change will have much effect on their own. It is only when groups work together, can the small voices be heard. The purpose of CSRI is to provide that means for collective education and advocacy.

Council for Socially Responsible Investment:

www.csri.org.nz

Kick starting alternative and sustainable funding plans

Zoe Martin, Problem Gambling Foundation

Back to top

Securing alternative funding streams takes planning. It is not a quick and easy process, however if organisations get it right in the first place it can provide a reliable, predictable form of income.

As not-for-profit expand in size and intricacy, the greater the need for financial sustainability. It is at this growth phase - when things are developing quickly that organisations are at risk of failing. This crucial stage is fragile because it is often when any cracks in financial planning start emerging.

Cracks in financial planning can surface due to a tendency for not-for-profit’s to turn to quick, easy to access sources of funding. Relying heavily on quick and easy forms of funding solutions (like pokie revenue) provides little opportunity for future developments.

So how does an organisation start putting into place some actions to secure their future? To really know how your organisation can do this, you must take a good look at your organisation and clearly take note of the strengths your organisation has. All organisations have strengths, but not all organisations take the time to identify them and use them to their advantage in regards to capturing funding opportunities. Your organisation’s strengths can provider attractive incentives for giving.

The process of identifying your organisation’s strengths can be maximized if done in a group setting. If you have strong connections with other organisations identify each other strengths. Getting the perspectives of organisations outside your immediate inner circle provides a wealth of opportunity to identify strengths previously not considered.

Once your strengths are recognized, planning for alternative funding streams can begin.

It is vital that a collective approach is taken in this planning approach. The key to a successful sustainable funding plan is making sure the plan includes a diversified funding strategy. The more heads put together in the planning process, the more thoughts on possibilities for diversification. Furthermore working in a group allows more opportunity for picking out the strengths and weaknesses of a plan.

The development of diversified funding strategies opens many doors. Diversifying through gaining support and building relationships with the business sector and/or developing your organisation’s own business arms are areas that should be high on the priority list. If your organisation does decide to start up a business arm a good starting tip is that service industries are easier then manufacturing/retailing as they require lower overheads.

It maybe that some not-for-profits are a little scared of branching out into the business sector because of the view that the business sector could influence negatively on their core values and social mission. Not for Profits do need to make sure that any business partnerships don’t interfere with the reason they exist. Careful planning and matching of values and ethics will assist with avoiding this trap.

To put any further concerns to rest it might be useful to discuss with the planning group that many of the organisations that have concerns about building partnerships with businesses often do accept pokie funding without much of a thought, yet pokie machine money undermines many of our core values and missions, and is definitely not a sustainable form of funding. Relationships with the right businesses would be far healthier option for your organisation, and for the future of your community.

To conclude this short guide to kick starting alternative sustainable streams, I would like to stress that by developing relationships with businesses, or building your own business does not just provide opportunities for securing sustainable alternative funding, it also assists in getting your social message to people not normally reached - thus expanding your organisation’s circle of influence. As stated by Hutchinson 2001 “Social entrepreneurs are innovators who pioneer new solutions to social problems- and in doing so change the patterns of society”.

For further information on alternatives to pokie funding, please contact Zoe Martin at the Problem Gambling Foundation: 09 369 0622. For an extremely worthwhile funding course that explores philanthropic models, sponsorship, membership-based systems and entrepreneurial opportunities contact UNITEC, about the Graduate Diploma in Not-for-Profit Management: 09 815 4321 ext 5968.

Have you a contingency plan?

Even with good funding streams and prudent business planning, voluntary organisations remain susceptible to some shortfalls, or sudden cuts in funding. Having a financial reserves policy can help see organisation through some testing times. An excellent How-To Guide written by Pat Hanley, member of the Wellington / Wairarapa Lottery Committee, on formulating a financial reserves policy is available from CommunityNet Aotearoa.

Visit the How-To Guide on Financial Reserves Policy:

http://www.community.net.nz[...]financial-reserves-policy.htm

Federation focus

A view from our President…

Judith Hoban, President, NZFVWO

Back to top

A final word…

In the last edition of New Dialogue Federation Vice president, Dion O’Donnell wrote this column as I was in Jerusalem serving a short term at the St John Eye Hospital. Thank you Dion for all of the additional support you offered the organisation during April and May.

Jerusalem was quite an experience. Despite political unrest in that part of our world, we never felt threatened or unsafe and returned home greatly enriched by the experiences we were offered. Most enduring are the memories of many children whose plight is tragic. It was quite sobering to exist in an environment where any help given is received with such generous thanks and never taken for granted.

In a future New Dialogue I shall share a little of the experience with you.

As this edition of New Dialogue goes to print I am about to vacate the Federation President’s Chair. So, time to clean out the files, archive the “must keeps” and hand the rest to the incoming President. Time too, to reflect for a few moments on the three years which followed my entirely unexpected catapult into this chair.

When taking on a new responsibility I usually have my life organised to do so. Three years ago when I accepted the reins of The Federation that was certainly not the position. The Executive found itself unexpectedly without a Chair and I came away from that first meeting agreeing to consider the role. The rest is history. I am now three years older, a whole lot wiser and have learned more about this sector than I could ever have imagined. I have encountered people whose capacity for work and giving is unbelievable. I have been forced up against bureaucratic nonsense which if it were not for the commonsense and resilience of many who drive this sector would bring organisations tumbling to their knees.

Rightly or wrongly, I operate within a philosophy of teamwork where there is no room for passengers and where all share the load. Furthermore I prescribe to the concept that where a team of any name is elected to guide and lead an organisation then it takes every member of that team to achieve that goal. It also takes a committed, skilled and resourceful administration team to support the agreed direction of any organisation. NZFVWO is served superbly by two teams which subscribe to these sentiments. They are absolute gems.

In acknowledging the individuals on your Federation Executive I wish to make special mention of the member organisations who have supported their staff members as members of our Executive. Federation work can be very demanding of time, energy and resource. Without the support of our organisations it would have been impossible for any of us to have contributed in the way we have. So to all of our members, we say thank you.

The Federation works alongside a range of like minded groups and individuals and especially value our relationship with other umbrella groups. While we each represent some unique sector interests, we do share common threads of interest and so by combining our expertise and understanding, can better advocate for our membership in achieving positive outcomes. There is strength in unity and effectiveness in that positive strength.

As I move out of this role and hand the reins to the incoming President I do so greatly enriched by the opportunities I have been offered. The most enduring memory for me will be the determination and passion of a caring and greatly under resourced sector achieving monumental progress which reflects the strength, goodwill and energy of its people – its absolute strength.

From the Executive Director’s desk…

Tina Reid, Executive Director, NZFVWO

Back to top

Mind the gap – strategising about partial funding in our sector

Issues about funding and contracting are constant themes of conversations we have with members and the wider sector.

We have recently had a conversation with a group of national and umbrella groups which highlighted a range of interrelated issues:

Increases in contracting for services over last 15 years has led to huge income flows into our sector, with associated "professionalisation"
demand for services frequently outstrips the agreed funding
The processes of contracting and accountability focus on very specific services, frequently not reflecting holistic approaches and range of services and activities
“Mission drift” as organisations focus on delivery of services and lose sight of their mission and values
Diminished focus on advocacy role, in terms of providing an independent voice on both case land issues level
Capacity needs of organisations and infrastructure is frequently not adequately supported in contracts
Philanthropic funders are frustrated at being continually approached to “top up” government funding of services
Short term and contestable nature of much funding leaves organisations without certainty for planning and development of their agency

· Finding ways to fill the gaps are a constant source of tension and lead to burn out and high turnover of people in this sector.

These were highlighted four years ago in the community consultations that I was part of on the Community Sector Working party – and at that time we worked with MSD to establish guidelines for government funders – which became www.goodpracticefunding.govt.nz.

It is depressing that the situation for organisations does not seem to have changed – and reminds me that these are issues which need a range of interrelated responses and constant work and development. They are complex and interrelated issues, and require similar levels of response.

No one agency or umbrella group can do this alone – we need to recognise and articulate the underlying concerns, and pool ideas and responses. We are committed to following through over the next year on these issues. From our recent discussions we are thinking about:

It is unrealistic to expect that government is able to 100% fund every service that we identify – who decides what at what time?
Contestable funding creates competition rather than co-operation across services – can we ameliorate this?
We are advocating for opportunities for sector involvement in policy and services planning at high levels in government – how can we manage communications and conflicting interests to ensure realistic and significant input? ( i.e. not sabotage each other?)
Processes of funding between government and the sector – what are the options and alternatives to contracting?

We have begun to explore these “big picture” issues in a combined submission to the enquiry into quality and care of services provision for disabled people. We have asked to make an oral submission – and believe that the experience of talking together about these issues to a Cabinet Committee is an important part of the process we see ahead.

Recognising that funding and sustainability raises key issues for all social service organisations – we challenge all organisations to consider how we might better address these issues by working together.

Hence the theme of this issue of New Dialogue.

Members Forum: How can organisations benefit from sharing resources?

Every issue, we ask three of our members their opinion on a topical issue. Many organisations find themselves sharing premises or offices because of the affordability it brings. However, there are benefits to be gleaned from these situations – we ask our members to outline some of their experiences.

Building trust and supportive communities

Volunteering Canterbury, Ruth Gardner

Back to top

Since it opened in 1988 Volunteering Canterbury has shared premises with other voluntary organisations. In 1990 we were inaugural tenants in the first Christchurch Community House, and twelve years later we moved into the current House Te Whakaruruhau ki Otautahi, which we share with 38 others. The House is jointly funded by the Canterbury Community Trust and the Christchurch City Council. The tenants administer the House through a representative Trust, which seeks funding for paid staff and such resources as photocopiers, fax, shredder, data projector, etc. Most facilities are free to tenants with a nominal charge to other voluntary organisations. If we want to hold a meeting there are rooms available free for small groups. Colour photocopying is available at cost.

However it is the less tangible sharing that has perhaps the most benefit. Information and support are freely shared, at a weekly morning tea, and at numerous other times. There is ongoing mentoring among tenants, and always someone available to bounce ideas around with, share celebrations, or provide a shoulder to cry on. Tenants work together towards common goals, and this helps to build relationships. Currently we have a roster of tenants weekly sharing their mihi. This is helping to build our knowledge of Te Reo while we learn more about each other and the things we have in common.

Volunteering Canterbury also shares its resources/services with voluntary organisations in the wider Canterbury area and beyond. Most of our services are free of charge, and we try to work on the basis of koha. While there are fixed charges for membership and workshops we never turn anyone away because they are unable to pay. This helps us to build relationships, which are reciprocal, so that we also benefit. None of this would be possible if our funders didn’t share their resources with us.

The competitive environment in which so much of our society operates stifles co-operation and breeds professional isolation. Volunteering and sharing resources help to build trust and supportive communities (which is our ultimate aim). Volunteering Canterbury has a strong kaupapa of co-operation and sharing resources which mirrors the work of volunteers, who give their energy without expecting payment.

Getting the wider picture

Kites, Marge Jackson

Back to top

Within Education House on Willis Street in Wellington you will find on the 6^th floor, a group of organisations who are all involved in mental health:

Kites Trust – a community development organisation,
Temporary Solutions – a temping and recruitment agency,
Case Consulting – a consumer ethically driven agency that provides services for an improved mental health sector,
Buddies – a peer support service,
Speakers Bureau - part of the Like Minds Like Mine campaign,
Platform - who give voice to the non-government organisations (NGOs) that provide health and disability services in communities throughout New Zealand,
Wise Management – a charitable company that offers a suite of management and development services to inspire innovative solutions throughout the health sector and
Central Potential Te Rito Maia – a consumer networking and advocacy service.

Kites Trust holds the 3 year lease with the landlord and the other groups sub lease from us. We have formal lease agreements, which cost a little to put in place but offer fairness and protection to all the organisations. We worked out each contribution based on cost per metre of floor space. Payment for electricity, broadband, and other incidentals which Kites holds the contract for are worked out based on the number of employees. The photocopier lease is held by Kites and organisations are invoiced monthly per number of pages.

One of the most important benefits of these shared floor arrangements is the ability to gain sector knowledge through the variety of work we undertake. We hear about events, news and as we all fulfil our various roles we feel we gain a wider picture than we otherwise would. As our perspectives are different we gain a cross fertilisation of ideas and therefore there are more potential solutions to problems. Much of this happens in conversation in the kitchen and is quite spontaneous. Some of the organisations are small and the shared space prevents isolation and enables access to resources we could not have afford on our own, such as a shared meeting room, whiteboard, data projector etc.. The cost sharing is a positive aspect of the arrangement as it enables us to make our meeting room available to others.

The downside to the arrangement is the same as in any organisation – who does the dishes and cleans out the leftovers in the fridge? Kites does have the extra workload of preparing monthly invoices but this is not a major problem.

Communication is the key to making this work and we occasionally hold “floor meetings” to discuss any issues that arise from time to time.

Learning, sharing, and giving

New Zealand Federation of Family Budgeting Services, Raewyn Fox

Back to top

The New Zealand Federation of Family Budgeting Services has been part of the Betty Campbell Complex of community group offices for seven years. The time has now come to move to new premises and we have taken the opportunity to reflect on the experience of being in the centre and what our needs are for the future.

Late in 1998 our Federation made a strategic decision to move its National Office from Auckland to Wellington. Being based in Wellington I was given the task of finding premises. As usual in community groups, we had a big wish list and a small budget. At the time I had been part of the steering group that had established Pember House in Porirua and was very committed to that concept so talked to the Wellington City Council who introduced us to the Betty Campbell Complex which luckily had appropriately sized rooms at a good price.

When our National Office move in I was a brand new CEO with two other new staff and between us we had very little knowledge of the “Wellington Scene”. Being able to talk to other groups in the centre and find out who was who, what networking opportunities existed, which forums were useful to attend and to get some introductions was all extremely valuable and helped us to get established. Use of shared resources, meeting rooms and generally helping each other out has saved us much money and energy over the years.

Managing a not-for-profit organisation can feel very lonely sometimes and having peers down the hall to talk to is very valuable.

Our organisation has now grown to the stage that we no longer fit into our current offices and even if the decision had not been made to discontinue Betty Campbell Complex, we would have needed to find larger accommodation very soon.

After considering many accommodation options around town, we have decided to continue sharing premises with other groups and hope that we can be of support to other smaller groups and give back some of what we received in the early days.

Sector news

Clearing the fog

Jeremy Irvine, Executive Officer, NZCCSS

Back to top

“There are days when it seems that there is little point in trying to resist the irresistible. There are also days when you kick the ball to try to reach clarity and it falls well short of the goal. It’s a difficult day when those two intersect.

Sitting where we sit at NZCCSS this is one of the most important ‘games’ in town. Our mission to be concerned about poor and vulnerable people means that we are vitally concerned about what happens to children, young people and the families that they are a part of.”

So begins the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services’ report – ‘Clearing the Fog’ – the third and final report in a series published by the Council over the past year. The reports attempted to get to the bottom of what is happening in policy development terms in the child, youth and family sector.

One of NZCCSS’ strategic goals is to influence the development and implementation of policies that protect children, young people and their families and promote their well being. ‘Clearing the Fog’ notes that policy development in a democratic society is, by its very nature, a complex thing. There are protocols, rules, established procedures and the ‘machinery of government’. There are the big players, the up and comers, the establishment and those seeking to move things in a new direction. Policy development is not for the faint hearted or the uninformed. The tragedy, the report says, however, is that the needs of the most affected can easily be forgotten in the policy development game that can ensue.

The report attempted to explain in an accessible way what is happening in policy development - who is proposing to do what about the issues we face, where they are up to and when we can expect to see some results. However, it notes that the irresistible conclusion is that it suits someone, somewhere, to have the fog that shrouds what appears to us to be an underwhelming performance. It’s an irresistible conclusion but resist it we must.

To settle on that conclusion, the report observes, would be to admit defeat and assume that no-one who reads this report will care enough to do something about the situation, that the agencies that contribute to this sector, at either policy formation or grass roots service, do not care enough to say that what we see in front of us – the grey nothingness – is an acceptable way to care for the poor and vulnerable of our society.

The report found a variance of progress in initiatives in the care and protection area – with the merger of Child, Youth and Family and the Ministry of Social Development of note, as well as highlighting the gradual progression of Differential Response Model which is expected to be introduced throughout the country in 2007.

A copy of the report can be found at:

www.nzccss.org.nz

UN Convention on the rights of disabled people

Gary Williams. CEO, Disabled Persons Assembly

Back to top

Gary Williams was present at most of the negotiations that took place at the UN in New York.

At the end of August, a United Nations committee agreed on the text that would be presented to the UN General Assembly for adoption as the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The committee had been meeting over a four year period to develop the Convention because the UN had recognized that disabled people’s rights had been ignored by existing international human rights instruments.

The Convention specifically prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in all areas of life, including access to information, public facilities, together with the right to education, health and employment.

Governments now have a duty to enable disabled people to realize their rights. For example, the right to education might only be realized if people are taught using modes of communication that they know e.g. sign language. Another aspect of the Convention was the need for a paradigm shift so that disabled people become an integral part of society instead of being demoted to the sidelines in special school, residential institutions and sheltered workshops.

New Zealand played a significant role in the development of the Convention. The Chair of the committee was Ambassador Don MacKay, NZ’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva. Ambassador MacKay’s skill in getting agreement, especially in the last few hours of the negotiation process, was crucial.

In keeping with Government policy, representatives of disabled New Zealanders were an integral part of each NZ delegation that attended the committee meetings. Their role was to ensure that the delegation had direct input from disabled people.

Outside the delegation, there were also New Zealanders from Non-Governmental Organisations who were international experts in their own right.

The partnership between Governments and NGOs was a first, in terms of working methods, for the UN and helped facilitate a speedy negotiation process.

The process proved to the UN that NGOs can be constructive partners in their work. Now that the easy part is over and as we look towards its implementation, I expect our Government to show leadership once again by being one of the first countries to ratify the Convention.

For more information on the Convention visit:

www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/

Extreme makeover - Keeping It Legal Online

Kathryn Paton, Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector

Back to top

Its new! Its simple! Its slick! Keeping it Legal E Ai Ki Te Ture is now an interactive website that can be used as a tool to manage your organisations legal risks and responsibilities.

For those readers who haven’t come across it yet, Keeping It Legal E Ai Ki Te Ture is a colourful resource designed specifically for the community and voluntary sector to manage their risks and liabilities. The first print run was published in December 2005 and following the wildly successful series of national Keeping it Legal E Ai Ki Te Ture presentations earlier this year, the 6,000 hard copy print run was snapped up. Demand for the resource continued, and it became a priority not only to reprint the resource, but to also make the online resource more user-friendly – thus, www.keepingitlegal.net.nz was born.

The Federation and the Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector (OCVS) seized this opportunity to incorporate the f