Round two decisions - questions and answers
The Community Response Fund is a short-term fund established to address immediate cost and demand pressures the economic downturn is placing on community-based critical social services.
On this Page:
What is the Community Response Fund?
The Community Response Fund is a short-term fund established to address immediate cost and demand pressures the economic downturn is placing on community-based critical social services.
The Government is making up to $104 million available to the Fund over two years.
The Fund has two key components:
Financial Crisis Funding – for providers of critical social services who are experiencing severe financial difficulty and are unable to maintain the level of their services as a direct result of the impact of the economic downturn on their funding.
Demand Funding – for providers of critical social services who:
- are experiencing significant increased demand for their services from families, children, young people and older people as a direct result of the economic downturn; or
- take an innovative approach in meeting service demands with substantially new initiatives. Working in collaboration with other critical social service providers is encouraged.
The maximum amount of funding that will be awarded at any one time is $50,000, excluding GST, although there is facility for more to be granted in exceptional circumstances.
Applications to the Fund can be made at any time and will be considered by Regional Panels three times during the year. $40 million has been allocated in 2009/10 with funding distributed in three tranches.
In Round One $8,799,590 was distributed. In Round Two a further $10,865,829 was distributed bringing the total distributed to date to $19,646,000. A third round of applications is now underway.
How much money was available in Round Two?
The Government has made up to $40 million available in 2009/10 with $8.8 million distributed in the first round of funding.
Who were on the panels considering applications
Applications were assessed by regional panels comprising of government funder organisations, philanthropic organisations and community representatives. Local networks from within government and across the NGO and philanthropic sectors were used to identify people that could serve as community representatives. These people had a good knowledge of the local social services sector and no undisclosed vested interest in the organisations making the applications.
How were the applications evaluated?
The evaluation of applications to the Fund was conducted by Regional and National Panels comprising of key government, community, philanthropic, Māori and, where appropriate, Pacific and ethnic representatives.
The aim of the Panel process was to evaluate and moderate each application utilising panel members’ knowledge and the context in which they operate.
Panel scores were finalised through a process of robust debate and discussion. These reflected different knowledge and expertise brought to the process by panel members.
Panel members were expected to consider all the material in the application in its entirety when checking whether a particular criterion has been met. For example, information pertaining to a particular question may have been found in the answers to other questions, and needed to be considered.
Rating by criteria
The critical services and reason for application criteria are the key evaluation criteria that must be answered and evidenced throughout the application in order to progress the evaluation process.
If applications did not adequately address the key criteria- being a critical social services or the reason they were applying – then the evaluation of the application went no further.
Every application received by National Office was sent to the relevant panel for evaluation. No short listing process was undertaken to ensure regional recommendations were made in the regions where the applicants and their services were being delivered.
How many applications were received in Round Two of the Community Response Fund?
Three hundred and four applications were received in the second round with a total of $19,792,880 requested by the applicants.
How many applicants will receive a grant in Round Two?
184 applications out of the 304 applications received (61%) will receive a grant in Round Two.
The total amount to be granted is $10,865,829.
Unsuccessful applicants are able to apply for funding in round three providing they meet the Fund criteria.
What was the breakdown of applications approved for Demand Funding and Financial Crisis Funding?
- 64% of all funding recommended for approval is for increase demand for services
- 30% of all funding recommended for approval is in response to funding crises
- 6% of all funding recommended for approval are innovative responses to increased demand.
| Region | Increased demand | Financial crisis | Innovation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Northland | 78% | 6% | 16% |
| Northland | 78% | 6% | 16% |
| North Shore/West Auckland/Rodney | 63% | 37% | 0% |
| South Auckland/Central Auckland | 65% | 35% | 0% |
| Hamilton | 74% | 26% | 0% |
| Rotorua/Tauranga | 81% | 19% | 0% |
| Taranaki/Wanganui | 69% | 31% | 0% |
| Hawke's Bay/East Coast | 52% | 48% | 0% |
| Palmerston North/Manawatu | 68% | 32% | 0% |
| Wellington | 70% | 26% | 4% |
| Nelson/Marlborough/West Coast | 64% | 9% | 27% |
| Canterbury/Kaikoura | 65% | 35% | 0% |
| Otago/Southland | 77% | 0% | 23% |
| National | 54% | 34% | 12% |
| All grants | 64% | 30% | 6% |
What types of services applied for funding in Round Two?
Applications came from similar types of services to the first round. This included youth organisations, budgeting services, family support services, and family violence services. There were also a number of organisations that provided whole family support where one of their members has a disability.
The majority of successful applicants provide services across more than one critical service and, therefore, ticked more than one category in their application.
| Service type | Grants |
|---|---|
| Family violence | $ 1,981,916.00 |
| Sexual violence | $ 189,000.00 |
| Families under stress | $ 4,033,802.00 |
| Early intervention for vulnerable and at-risk children and families | $ 1,612,907.00 |
| Child abuse and neglect | $ 770,000.00 |
| Budget and financial advice | $ 890,456.00 |
| Vulnerable and at-risk young people | $ 1,162,908.00 |
| Vulnerable and at-risk older peoplee | $ 224,840.00 |
How many successful applicants identified themselves as Māori, Pacific or ethnic critical social services providers?
- 15% of applicants identified as Maori providers were successful
- 5% of applicants identified as Pacific providers were successful
- 4% of applicants identified as ethnic providers were successful.
What were the reasons given by organisations for an increase in demand for services?
The main reason given for increased demand for services was an increase in the number of referrals for services; however oganisations also reported an increase in the intensity and complexity of the issues they are dealing with including:
- increased family stress around job uncertainty and family violence, and
- increased demand and complexity of financial planning and budgeting advice.
What were the reasons given by organisations for financial difficulties?
The main reason given for organisations in financial crisis was a reduction in income, either from investments or from philanthropic or other community organisations.
What does an innovative response mean?
Providers who are applying for funding under the increased demand component of the Community Response Fund are encouraged to submit proposals that are innovative, that is show a new way of working to better meet increased demand. This may mean working collaboratively with other services, sharing resources, or improving systems to better meet demand within resources available.
Were there any innovative responses submitted by applicants in Round Two?
Yes. Six percent of all funding recommended for approval were innovative responses to increased demand.
What were the main reasons organisations were declined a grant?
Thirty nine per cent of all applications for round two were declined. This is a result of applications that:
- were out of scope, for example, those from health-based services without a family support component looking to replace funding lost from other government agencies (eg DHBs)
- may have been in scope but provided insufficient evidence to make a successful case for funding
- applications which were still unable to articulate a direct link between the economic downturn and the impact on their service.
Although the criteria for the Fund was strictly applied, the panels were as flexible as possible, taking into account that organisations had limited time to complete their applications.
What was the regional breakdown of funding?
| Region | Funding granted | Percentage of total |
|---|---|---|
| Northland | $ 297,000.00 | 2.7% |
| North Shore/West Auckland/Rodney | $ 792,920.00 | 7.3% |
| South Auckland/Central Auckland | $1,369580.00 | 12.6% |
| Hamilton | $ 780,629.00 | 7.2% |
| Rotorua/Tauranga | $ 564,180.00 | 5.2% |
| Taranaki/Wanganui | $ 224,300.00 | 2.1% |
| Hawke's Bay/East Coast | $ 447,004.00 | 4.1% |
| Palmerston North/Manawatu | $ 503,720.00 | 4.6% |
| Wellington | $ 987,600.00 | 9.1% |
| Nelson/Marlborough/West Coast | $ 287,304.00 | 2.6% |
| Canterbury/Kaikoura | $ 595,438.00 | 5.5% |
| Otago/Southland | $ 410,000.00 | 3.8% |
| National | $3,606,154.00 | 33.2% |
| Totals | $10,865,829.00 | 100% |
What region had the most applications approved in Round Two?
The highest number of applications was received in Central/South Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, North Shore/West Auckland/ Rodney and Rotorua/Tauranga. These regions were also in the top five for the total amount granted.
Did any national organisations apply?
Nationally contracted organisations which currently operate within a single national contract and whose finances are managed nationally were able to submit a consolidated application to the Community Response Fund.
Nineteen national organisations applied for funding with ten receiving funding. The ten successful applicants were:
- Presbyterian Support Northern
- NZ Federation of Family Budgeting Services
- Refugee Services New Zealand
- The Open Home Foundation of New Zealand
- OUTLine New Zealand
- Parent to Parent New Zealand
- The Salvation Army
- Brainwave Trust
- Parents Centre New Zealand Inc
- National Collective of Women's Refuges
Did any applicant get more than $50,000? Who were they and what for?
Five organisations received more than $50,000. There were two from the South/Central Auckland area; O le laftiaga Trust and Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust. There were three from the Otago/Southland region; Presbyterian Support Southland, Family Works Otago and the Otago Youth Wellness Trust.
A number of national organisations received over $50,000 in funding; however, their applications included a number of local branches.
What was the average amount of funding granted?
The average amount of funding granted to organisations, excluding national applications, was approximately $60,000.
Will you consider applications that were declined in the next round of funding?
Organisations that were declined in the second round of funding are encouraged to reapply provided they can meet the criteria and provide relevant evidence.
Briefings will be held in selected regions in January to help organisations better understand the criteria and what evidence they need to provide to meet them.
