Posts in Funding Relationships between the Sector and Government

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Funding Relationships between the Sector and
Government:
http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/63NpbBXCJRPIZP11x9608X

To leave Funding Relationships between the Sector and Government, email
<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe

Start your own free groups and site with
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Regards
Alison

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanessa Gray <email obscured>]
Sent: Monday, 6 August 2007 17:17
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] MECOSS Review of the Role of Funding
Agencies

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

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic:
http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/4LX6TCA6FCuyimp3Aw15EF

Info about Government Resourcing:
http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing

Info about Vanessa Gray:
http://cst.org.nz/contacts/vanessagray

To leave Government Resourcing, email
<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject

Government Resourcing is powered by
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net

========================================

From: <email obscured>
To:  Internet <email obscured>>]

Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re:Sustainable Funding & Accountability
- who's responsibility iis it?
Date: 8/2/07 9:09 a.m.

Hi Iris
I agree, but the real issue is that once again the NGO's are taking the
initiative - where are the funders in this discussion, why are there no
'Funder-led' new initiatives being investigated? How is it that they
consistently do not recognise their responsibility to the outcomes the
sector needs to achieve at a regional and national level (rather than
at a
'one-off' funder driven level), but continue to engage in micro-management
of their segment of the funding pool?
The real potential of NZ society to achieve change and improvements across
many areas will only come when funders decide to look beyond their own
fragments of interest and engage in a new type of funding process.
It is, we suggest, the responsibility of funders to drive forward some
constructive thinking and initiatives; they are at the core of the funding
problem, they need to fix it. At Board level and Government senior planning
level there needs to be a real focus on change and strategic planning
to
implement change.
While NZers wring their hands about the social ills that are an indictment
on our society, the institutions that control the fiscal catalysts for
change appear to be non-responsive and do not recognise the urgency of
their
responsibility in this.
Alison
-----Original Message-----
From: Community Sector Taskforce
<email obscured>]
Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2007 07:54
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re:Sustainable Funding & Accountability

Kia ora Koutou

All of these anxieties were expressed during the 17 Regional Forums held
throughout New Zealand recently.  There are a truckload of issues and
the
Community Sector Taskforce and as stated in the Taskforce's latest Panui
http://cst.org.nz/r/file/808068-2007-08-01T061936Z there was a call for
a
sector-led review, with government, of all funding relationships with
the
sector.

Keep the conversations going as these conversations will contribute to
that
review.

Iris

-----Original Message-----
From: Alison Dyson <email obscured>]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2007 5:49 p.m.
To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re: uploading onto TASKFORCE website

Hi All

Thanks for the ongoing conversation and interest in this discussion around
funding, which I believe is so critical to the outcomes we can achieve
for
the community.

I am appalled when listening to the current government backed strategy
to
'screen all women and older persons for abuse through the DHB's' because
I
am so aware of the lack of funding and subsequently service provision
in
this area alone. As ever, the key targets for this screening are women
at
the 'high risk' end of the spectrum. Unfortunately while we continue to
fund
and focus our attention on 'tertiary services' and women (who are primarily
the victims not the 'agents'); with these services provided by small
agencies who are under resourced; we will continue to slip backwards.
Funding and resources need to be allocated for men's services, out-reach
parenting programmes and a spectrum of other related services. Men, women
and children are in the cycle and families as a whole need to be targeted
-
so who is looking at the appropriate resourcing for this? Have the agencies
that will be required to deal with the work load been consulted? Where
are
the funding partners and are they aware of the structure of the services
that are currently in place nationally, do they hold a view of the whole
puzzle or do they hold just one piece of the puzzle? These questions are
pertinent to the Funding debate as they highlight the damage and poor
outcomes that are the consequence of 'patches' of funding provided by
a
higgledy-piggledy funding stream. Already our local CYFS cannot cope with
the current number of Police referred cases; and there are insufficient
NGO's on the ground in our area for them to refer on to. Family Violence
is
only one example of this yawning gap in funding communication and
application.

The evidence given by Vanessa of the Brain Injury Association seeking
funding through 98 applications over a 5 year period is testament in itself
of the inadequacy and damage of the current set-up. While it is clear
that
government agencies are the major funders, all funding bodies should have
an
agreed forum and process, an application system which enables easy,
transparent applications and accurate review and accountability processes
(which are currently also feeble as a result of poor cross-funder
referencing). A lot of duplicated time and effort on the behalf of funders
and applicants alike could be achieved. Funders would have time to really
get to know their clients!

The NGO sector should be highlighting to funders the real costs of doing
business with them; I think NGO's should be encouraged to do this in the
application process.

Regards

Alison

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanessa Gray <email obscured>]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2007 14:29
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re: uploading onto TASKFORCE website



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



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 <email obscured>]



Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re: uploading onto TASKFORCE website

Date: 8/1/07 8:44 a.m.



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











Email: <email obscured> <email obscured>>



http://www.tararuareap.co.nz/



            <email obscured> <email obscured>>.



This email message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the

person(s) or entity(entities) to whom it is addressed. The information



contained in this e-mail communication may be CONFIDENTIAL. You should



only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on



or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so. If you



are not the intended recipient of this e-mail communication, please

immediately notify Tararua REAP by e-mail and then destroy any

electronic or paper copy of this message. Any views expressed in this



e-mail communication are those of the individual sender, except where



the sender specifically states them to be the views of Tararua REAP.

Tararua REAP does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity



of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is



free of errors, virus or interference.







Vanessa Gray wrote:

> 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!

>

> -----------------------------------------

> Full text of this topic:

> http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/5YUJBPfVjXnpvqP0j12Boq

>

> Info about Government Resourcing:

> http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing

>

> Info about Vanessa Gray:

> http://cst.org.nz/contacts/vanessagray

>

> To leave Government Resourcing, email

> <email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject

>

> Government Resourcing is powered by

> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net

>





-----------------------------------------

Full text of this topic:

http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/7lvCmFkDsKCr7fJhPbXO0R



Info about Government Resourcing:

http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing



Info about Peter Zapasnik:

http://cst.org.nz/contacts/Pete



To leave Government Resourcing, email

<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject



Government Resourcing is powered by

OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net





-----------------------------------------

Full text of this topic:

http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/4akpqqKInhsqVTIO3GxQv3



Info about Government Resourcing:

http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing



Info about Vanessa Gray:

http://cst.org.nz/contacts/vanessagray



To leave Government Resourcing, email

<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject



Government Resourcing is powered by

OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net


-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic:
http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/7ss7m1dYNBEkgAyGM8LL9I

Info about Government Resourcing:
http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing

Info about Alison Dyson:
http://cst.org.nz/contacts/mecoss

To leave Government Resourcing, email
<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject

Government Resourcing is powered by
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net


-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic:
http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/5TFbKXajkn0xgNjRrSZtPf

Info about Government Resourcing:
http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing

Info about Iris Pahau:
http://cst.org.nz/contacts/irispahau

To leave Government Resourcing, email
<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject

Government Resourcing is powered by
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net


-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic:
http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/3dgWDBg9EhHFfazXGDAVfk

Info about Government Resourcing:
http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing

Info about Alison Dyson:
http://cst.org.nz/contacts/mecoss

To leave Government Resourcing, email
<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject

Government Resourcing is powered by
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net

Iris

-----Original Message-----
From: Alison Dyson <email obscured>]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2007 5:49 p.m.
To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re: uploading onto TASKFORCE website

Hi All

Thanks for the ongoing conversation and interest in this discussion around
funding, which I believe is so critical to the outcomes we can achieve for
the community.

I am appalled when listening to the current government backed strategy to
'screen all women and older persons for abuse through the DHB's' because I
am so aware of the lack of funding and subsequently service provision in
this area alone. As ever, the key targets for this screening are women at
the 'high risk' end of the spectrum. Unfortunately while we continue to fund
and focus our attention on 'tertiary services' and women (who are primarily
the victims not the 'agents'); with these services provided by small
agencies who are under resourced; we will continue to slip backwards.
Funding and resources need to be allocated for men's services, out-reach
parenting programmes and a spectrum of other related services. Men, women
and children are in the cycle and families as a whole need to be targeted -
so who is looking at the appropriate resourcing for this? Have the agencies
that will be required to deal with the work load been consulted? Where are
the funding partners and are they aware of the structure of the services
that are currently in place nationally, do they hold a view of the whole
puzzle or do they hold just one piece of the puzzle? These questions are
pertinent to the Funding debate as they highlight the damage and poor
outcomes that are the consequence of 'patches' of funding provided by a
higgledy-piggledy funding stream. Already our local CYFS cannot cope with
the current number of Police referred cases; and there are insufficient
NGO's on the ground in our area for them to refer on to. Family Violence is
only one example of this yawning gap in funding communication and
application.

The evidence given by Vanessa of the Brain Injury Association seeking
funding through 98 applications over a 5 year period is testament in itself
of the inadequacy and damage of the current set-up. While it is clear that
government agencies are the major funders, all funding bodies should have an
agreed forum and process, an application system which enables easy,
transparent applications and accurate review and accountability processes
(which are currently also feeble as a result of poor cross-funder
referencing). A lot of duplicated time and effort on the behalf of funders
and applicants alike could be achieved. Funders would have time to really
get to know their clients!

The NGO sector should be highlighting to funders the real costs of doing
business with them; I think NGO's should be encouraged to do this in the
application process.

Regards

Alison

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanessa Gray <email obscured>]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2007 14:29
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re: uploading onto TASKFORCE website



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



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 <email obscured>]



Subject: Re: [Government Resourcing] Re: uploading onto TASKFORCE website

Date: 8/1/07 8:44 a.m.



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











Email: <email obscured> <email obscured>>



http://www.tararuareap.co.nz/



            <email obscured> <email obscured>>.



This email message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the

person(s) or entity(entities) to whom it is addressed. The information



contained in this e-mail communication may be CONFIDENTIAL. You should



only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on



or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so. If you



are not the intended recipient of this e-mail communication, please

immediately notify Tararua REAP by e-mail and then destroy any

electronic or paper copy of this message. Any views expressed in this



e-mail communication are those of the individual sender, except where



the sender specifically states them to be the views of Tararua REAP.

Tararua REAP does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity



of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is



free of errors, virus or interference.







Vanessa Gray wrote:

> 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!

>

> -----------------------------------------

> Full text of this topic:

> http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/5YUJBPfVjXnpvqP0j12Boq

>

> Info about Government Resourcing:

> http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing

>

> Info about Vanessa Gray:

> http://cst.org.nz/contacts/vanessagray

>

> To leave Government Resourcing, email

> <email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject

>

> Government Resourcing is powered by

> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net

>





-----------------------------------------

Full text of this topic:

http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/7lvCmFkDsKCr7fJhPbXO0R



Info about Government Resourcing:

http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing



Info about Peter Zapasnik:

http://cst.org.nz/contacts/Pete



To leave Government Resourcing, email

<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject



Government Resourcing is powered by

OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net





-----------------------------------------

Full text of this topic:

http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/4akpqqKInhsqVTIO3GxQv3



Info about Government Resourcing:

http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing



Info about Vanessa Gray:

http://cst.org.nz/contacts/vanessagray



To leave Government Resourcing, email

<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject



Government Resourcing is powered by

OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net


-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic:
http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/7ss7m1dYNBEkgAyGM8LL9I

Info about Government Resourcing:
http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing

Info about Alison Dyson:
http://cst.org.nz/contacts/mecoss

To leave Government Resourcing, email
<email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject

Government Resourcing is powered by
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net

Regards







Pete Zapasnik

Manager

Tararua REAP





Email: <email obscured> <email obscured>>

http://www.tararuareap.co.nz/

            <email obscured> <email obscured>>.

This email message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the
person(s) or entity(entities) to whom it is addressed. The information
contained in this e-mail communication may be CONFIDENTIAL. You should
only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on
or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so. If you
are not the intended recipient of this e-mail communication, please
immediately notify Tararua REAP by e-mail and then destroy any
electronic or paper copy of this message. Any views expressed in this
e-mail communication are those of the individual sender, except where
the sender specifically states them to be the views of Tararua REAP.
Tararua REAP does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity
of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is
free of errors, virus or interference.



Vanessa Gray wrote:
> 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!
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic:
> http://cst.org.nz/r/topic/5YUJBPfVjXnpvqP0j12Boq
>
> Info about Government Resourcing:
> http://cst.org.nz/groups/govtresourcing
>
> Info about Vanessa Gray:
> http://cst.org.nz/contacts/vanessagray
>
> To leave Government Resourcing, email
> <email obscured> with "unsubscribe" as the subject
>
> Government Resourcing is powered by
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>

Alice