Resources: Grantmaking in the wake of a disaster
Australia is in the midst of an unprecedented bushfire crisis, but how should grantmakers respond?
As of mid-January 2020, fires have burnt an estimated 18.6 million hectares of bushland. Thirty people have lost their lives and the fires have destroyed around 6000 buildings, including approximately 2700 homes. Native wildlife populations have also been severely affected, with fears that some endangered species will be driven to extinction.
In times of crisis, there is often a rush to get money out the door, but it’s also important for grantmakers to maximise the impact of their grants in these situations.
AIGM articles for grantmakers, how to use this resources page
The Australian Institute of Grants Management (AIGM) has compiled the following resources relating to grantmaking in the wake of a disaster in response to the 2020 bushfire emergency, including articles first published by AIGM in Grants Management Intelligence.
Please bookmark this site as a useful reference, as we continue to refine and expand these resources. Tap on the headlines to be directed to articles and resources.
Disaster Grantmaking Helpsheet (start here)
The AGIM has compiled this detailed and practical helpsheet as a step-by-step guide through some key questions (and answers) to help you to decide on the right disaster grantmaking approach for your organisation. We take you from whether your response grant should exist at all, measures of success, speed of delivery and timelines, structure, collaboration, focus, and decision-making processes.
Disaster grantmaking in a post-tsunami world
The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami challenged the sympathy of the world to an unprecedented degree. Sixteeen years on, Our Community executive director Kathy Richardson’s article still has great relevance for grantmakers responding to a large-scale disaster.
Grantmaking in the wake of a disaster
This article, by Our Community’s thinker-in-residence, Chris Bothwick was published in 2009 following the tragic Black Saturday bushfires. It contains many practical lessons for post-disaster grantmaking.
Quick response grants: The Queensland floods experience
Following a disaster, there is often an urgent need to get funds to recipients quickly. This major feature was published in 2017, partly in response to Cyclone Debbie in Queensland. It outlines best practices in deploying quick response grants.
Red tape safety or a race to the finish?
Chris Borthwick writes that a quick grants scheme can only ever be a supplement to your major efforts, providing a way to stay in touch with community needs, or at least community wants, and – yes – to provide a quick response. Here are some considerations.
Through Fire and Flood: Q&A with Natalie Egleton, FRRR CEO
In this 2016 interview, Natalie Egleton, CEO of the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, discusses disaster recovery grantmaking, helping communities affected by the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, and what her organisation has learned through working in communities hit by a natural disaster.
Immediate response and relief vs mitigation and risk reduction
These two articles, published in 2014 and 2016, explore the tension between funding immediate response and relief, as opposed to mitigation and prevention activities. The articles reference reports in the US and Australian contexts.
- Productivity Commission scathing of Australia’s natural disaster funding arrangements
- ‘Unsustainable’ – approach to US disaster-related philanthropy and grantmaking not working
Other grantmaking resources:
Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority 2010 government report (PDF)
The Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority’s presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration outlines a recognised disaster recovery framework for rebuilding and recovery.
Disaster Grantmaking: A practical Guide for Foundations and Corporations
A valuable resource published by the Council on Foundations for grantmakers responding to disasters.
Best Practices in Disaster Grantmaking: Lessons from the Gulf Coast
This 2008 Philanthropy New York report shares the experiences of donors who provided funding following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and offers a blueprint for future philanthropic intervention following such disasters.
Productivity Commission Natural Disaster Funding Report 2014
This inquiry examined “the efficacy of current national natural disaster funding arrangements, taking into account the priority of effective natural disaster mitigation and the reduction in the impact of disasters on communities”.
10 Years Beyond Bushfires
This longitudinal study by the Melbourne University School of Population and Global Health explores the long-term experience of those impacted by the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires.
Victorian Bushfire Recovery – 5 Year Report
This report outlines the progress of recovery actions five years after the Black Saturday bushfires.
Other resources
Bushfire response grants
The Funding Centre, another Our Community enterprise, is curating a list of grants that have been released in the wake of the 2020 Australian bushfires. Funders include government, corporate and philanthropic groups.
Help for donors
Our Community’s donations platform, GiveNow, is curating a listing of bushfire appeals and other initiatives set up to help individuals and communities affected by the fires.
Cover image credit: NSW Rural Fire Service
Latest Grants Management Intelligence, out now
Members, download your copy here now | Friends, join the AIGM or become a SmartyGrants user to get your copy
As we wind up an eventful year for grantmakers in Australia and New Zealand, we think it’s the perfect time to look ahead, with an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of AI-assisted grants and other ways to do better in the latest edition, Also inside:
- Conference preview: 2020 event to target grants profession
- SmartyGrants rewind: A decade of developments
- Capacity building: Fund’s $350,000 to help not-for-profits
- Audit criticism: Regional jobs grants below standard
- Philanthropic impact: Foundation fund targets big issues
- Personal impact: Inclusion the key to connecting
- Award winners: We profile social impact superstars
- DSS focus: Department chief reveals impact strategy
- Landmark address: Ex-PM urges fresh ‘customer’ focus
Don’t forget that you can tap into our knowledge base of past newsletters, grantmaking tools and resources by visiting www.aigm.com.au. Please note, SmartyGrants readers can become an AIGM member free, for all-areas access. Here’s how.
The editor, Matthew Schulz
P.S. Want specific information? Search the site. Plus join the AIGM for exclusives, back issues and discounts.
The quarterly publication is just one of the benefits of membership of the Australian Institute of Grants Management. Learn more about Grants Management Intelligence and become a member here.
Grant partnerships will avoid the pain
Port Phillip Community Group executive officer Karen Sait has sat on both sides of the table when it comes to grants, so she understands what it takes for funders to make things easier for recipients.
The simple answer? Good partnerships.
In practice, it can be complicated, but achieving better partnerships can reap extensive rewards for both parties.
As a councillor for four years with the Port Phillip Council – based in Melbourne’s lively beachside suburb of St Kilda – Ms Sait has seen a diverse range of grant programs in action.
She’s also been involved in approving grants while working in senior management roles with Victoria’s Transport Accident Commission and inner-city health services.
It’s a broad perspective for a community group executive officer whose organisation is reliant on grants, and who is grappling with the smallest budget she’s ever had.
Ms Sait spoke at the Grantmaking in Australian conference alongside grantees from McAuley Community Services for Women and the North Melbourne Football Club’s community engagement program.
She told delegates she acknowledges there are challenges for funders and grantseekers when it comes to dealing with grants processes.
After the panel session, she told Grants Management Intelligence that the panel members – who represented community, anti-violence, housing security and sports outreach organisations – had common goals and challenges. Each organisation was seeking to grow, dealing with complexity in the services they were delivering, and relying on grants to get that business done.
While she understands that grantmakers are expected to get the best value for money they can, and be accountable for their programs, grantseekers are under pressure to deliver services and “make a difference”, she says.
“It’s about how to make that marriage work.”
DOWNLOAD NOW: Taste of the latest edition, plus a download link for members
This is a shortened version of an article that appears in Grants Management Intelligence. To view the full article click here (members-only).
Not evaluating your grants? It’ll cost you
The Ian Potter Foundation is building a strong reputation for its laser-like focus on evaluation and its benefits, and leading the charge is Dr Squirrel Main, a keynote speaker at the 2019 Grants in Australia conference.
The Ian Potter Foundation is one of Australia’s biggest philanthropic organisations. It distributed 193 grants worth nearly $23 million in the 2016-2017 financial year, and has given away $273 million since its inception in 1964.
The Melbourne-based organisation’s grants span arts, the environment, science, medical research, education, community wellbeing, health, disability, knowledge and learning.
When conference organisers asked Dr Main – the foundation’s research and evaluation manager – to speak on the topic ‘False economy: The costs of not funding evaluation’, she responded with her trademark enthusiasm. And her first research move? Google, of course.
Evaluation really gives you more leverage
Dr Main soon discovered that nobody else, apparently, had ever attempted to put a dollar figure on the cost of failing to evaluate a grants program, so she dug into the organisation’s own extensive database to see whether it could provide an answer.
The Foundation records the amount of “leverage” that its grants funding attracts – that is, additional investments from other sources. Leverage is known as the “currency of philanthropy” for good reason.
When Dr Main looked at all the programs that hadn’t been evaluated, at least not formally, she found that the median leverage value of the Foundation’s grants was only 47 cents per dollar invested.
Median leverage value was even lower for programs that had poor outcomes, and even higher for programs with strong outcomes.
Dr Main said that looking beyond leverage value, the benefits of evaluation increased exponentially over time: good evaluations led to better future investment decisions, as well a greater ability to improve, adjust or defund programs that were not working.
Other measures also demonstrated the benefits of evaluation, Dr Main told delegates. On average, program manager ratings were better for evaluated programs, she said, as were long-term outcomes.
Dr Main’s top suggestions for grantmakers
- Actually evaluate. You really don’t know which of your programs are poor. Evaluations will tell you. And if you’re getting answers you already know, get a new evaluator.
- Read the evaluations. Don’t just skim the executive summaries; read the details and see whether the program is really doing what it says it is.
- Don’t skimp on the budget. Allow at least 10 per cent of the program cost for evaluation, and account for staff time for data collection, and travel costs. Don’t expect fundees to do everything out-of-hours and still expect quality results.
- Build on the evaluations. Allow time for reflection and sharing best practice.
MORE INFORMATION:
Ian Potter focus: Why good grants need a kernel of truth
About the top image: The varied sitella is among the birds monitored on the Threatened Australian Bird Index in a data project to assess the conservation status of native species. Birdlife Australia won a $121,000 environment grant from the Ian Potter Foundation to build a stronger picture for evaluation. Picture: Andrew Silcocks/Birdlife Australia
