Re:Sustainable Funding & Accountability - who's responsibility iis it?
Summary
- There are 2 posts — by 2 authors — in this topic.
-
Posts with files From File Date Vanessa Gray 2007 Aug 02 09:44 NZST - Latest post made by Vanessa Gray at 2007 Aug 02 09:44 NZST
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
I agree wholeheartedly with Alison regarding this week's announcement to pump millions into asking questions of women attending hospital, I was shocked and my immediate thought was - then what happens? It appears ill thought out to start asking questions to which there is no co-hesive, stable practical response available in the community, we constantly struggle to provide support and service on very serious issues for our clients, taking referrals from GPs, Hospitals, ACC, and Prisons yet ony 10% of our income is provided under a Government contract. We remain in competition with other community groups and causes to achieve the other 90% and stay viable. 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: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
The following file was added to this topic:
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.