Philanthropy and Youth Support in Victoria
June 2014
The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria
The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria
The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria (YACVic) is a vibrant, member based organisa-tion that represents and advocates for young people and the organisations that work with them. YACVic has worked for and with young Victorians and the services that support them for over 50 years.
Our vision is for a Victorian community in which all young people are valued as active participants, have their rights recognised and are treated fairly and with respect.
The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria IncLevel 2, 180 Flinders St, Melbourne VIC 3000Ph: (03) 9267 3799 Fax: (03) 9639 1622
www.yacvic.org.au
ContactJessie Mitchell, Manager, Policy & [email protected]
June 2014
3
Contents
Background…………………………………………………………………………………3
Policy context………………………………………………………………………….…...6
Method………………………………………………………………………………......….7
Findings………………………………………………………………………….….………8
How many grants? How much money?....................................................................8
Where does the funding come from?......................................................................10
Where do the grants go?.........................................................................................13
What were the very large grants for?......................................................................15
What were the very small grants for?......................................................................16
What about multiple grants?....................................................................................18
What sort of work gets funded?...............................................................................19
Which young people?...............................................................................................21
How easy is it to access philanthropic funding?.......................................................23
Future directions……………………………………………………………………………27
Recommendations………………………………………………...……………………….29
4
Background
The Australian community has a strong ethos of philanthropy, and many philanthropic
foundations offer grants rounds that provide financial support to initiatives assisting young
people. Philanthropic engagement with the youth sector is supported by the Victorian
Government, whose 2012 Youth Statement, Engage, Involve, Create, outlines the
government’s commitment to ‘driving new partnerships with business, philanthropy and
other organisations to support young Victorians.’1
The philanthropic sector is diverse and evolving. Philanthropy Australia, the not-for-profit
national peak body for philanthropy, defines philanthropy as the planned and structured
giving of money, time, information, goods and services, voice and influence to improve the
wellbeing of humanity and the community. They define the philanthropic sector as trusts,
foundations, organisations, families and individuals who engage in philanthropy.2 Alongside
traditional foundations and trusts established in wills, the past decade has seen a growth in
the number of individual and family foundations with living donors, community
organisations, community investment programs by corporates, and organisations that
promote workplace giving and volunteering. These are supported by a growing range of
service providers like Trustee Companies, family offices, asset management firms, private
banks and consultants.3 Philanthropic bodies have a particular presence in Victoria. As of
2011, according to the Office for the Community Sector, 80% of Australia’s philanthropic
trusts were based in Victoria.4
Philanthropy’s relationship to government is a complex one. Dr Rosalyn Black of Monash
University has observed that executives of Australian trusts and foundations tend to feel
that philanthropy works best as ‘a spearhead for innovation … [providing] a space in which
creative alliances can form to generate new solutions.’5 In a recent article about the
philanthropic and Indigenous sectors, Sue Smyllie, Wendy Scaife and Katie McDonald
observed that grant-makers tend to see governments as having core responsibilities for
areas like health and education, while their own organisations develop new, innovative
approaches, taking risks with untested projects and operating outside of political
commitments.6 As such, grant-makers are wary of governments of trying to shift core
responsibilities onto them. As the patron of the Scottish Community Foundation, Lord Smith
of Kelvin, observed recently, philanthropists are not keen on being ‘sucked into replacing
what government ought to be doing’.7 Some assume when a philanthropic initiative is
5
successful, it should then be taken up by government – but in practice, this does not always
happen.
Philanthropic bodies also have complex relationships to the charitable bodies which apply
for their funding. In a survey of charities which applied for their grants in 2012, the Lord
Mayor’s Charitable Foundation found that the top two general funding needs identified by
their applicants were ‘sustaining a current program’ (64%) and ‘general operating support’
(44%).8 In a constrained fiscal environment, where many community sector organisations
struggle to secure government funding, demand for philanthropic support for their core
functions may well rise accordingly. But this does not sit well with the innovative, time-
limited, ‘pump-priming’ focus of many philanthropic bodies, which rarely support the
projects they have funded beyond the original project term. In our survey of youth sector
representatives (outlined later), we asked them ‘Is anything stopping you from accessing
more philanthropic funding?’ The second most common response selected was ‘We don't
want new pilots or short-term projects; it's our long-term work that needs support.’
This briefing was designed to provide a state-wide perspective on:
The current contribution of financial support by philanthropic organisations to youth-
specific initiatives through an analysis of recent grants rounds
The level to which philanthropic organisations offering targeted grants to youth
initiatives are successfully subscribed by young people / youth services
Key characteristics of the access to philanthropic grants for youth initiatives, to
inform our understanding of the future role of philanthropy in this area. For example:
Is there capacity for stronger engagement? Do young people or youth services need
further support to access philanthropic opportunities? How does the scope of
philanthropic grants at present influence the development of programs and initiatives
for young people? Are there gaps, or opportunities for increased support?
“We have a number of projects which rely on grant funding … sustainability is the biggest
issue we face. Good ideas, great support but very hard to fund ongoing”. “We are often frustrated that grants are given to projects which are not strategic and are short term in nature”. “[Philanthropic] funds help projects to get off the ground but not always stay in flight”.
- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services
6
Policy context
The Victorian Government’s Youth Statement, Engage, Involve, Create, describes the
philanthropic sector as one of the key stakeholders with whom government wishes to work,
to support the aspirations of young Victorians. The Victorian Government undertakes to
engage with the philanthropic community to establish and nurture new partnerships, and to
support the growth of social enterprises.9 To this end, the Government created the Youth
Partner Network, which provides events, information and networking opportunities to bring
together the youth sector, business, government and philanthropy.10
In 2012 the Victorian Government’s Office for the Community Sector developed principles
to guide government collaboration with the philanthropic sector. These covered:
Engaging with each other early when a common interest is identified.
Building trust, communication, and understanding of each other’s capacities and
priorities.
Ensuring mutual agreement on values, goals, responsibilities and outcomes, and
agreed processes for selecting organisations and projects to support.
Ensuring the right people are at the table, in terms of seniority and consistency.
Appointing an identified staff member(s) to coordinate governance, communication
and actions within the collaboration.
Documenting and evaluating the collaboration – a process which must be supported
by appropriate resources.
Addressing sustainability issues early, including developing funding plans and exit
strategies where appropriate.11
In the future, such work may also be influenced by the changes to the service sector taking
place in response to Peter Shergold’s 2013 report Service Sector Reform. Shergold pointed
to problems that could develop between community sector organisations, government and
philanthropic bodies when CSOs, under pressure to ‘win business’, take on work that might
otherwise be seen as the government’s responsibility at below the actual cost of service
delivery. These CSOs may then seek to cross-subsidise their government funds with
philanthropic donations. In the short term, Shergold noted, this has advantages to
government in lowering delivery costs. However in the long term it can have detrimental
7
effects, such as preventing CSOs from investing adequately in workforce development and
infrastructure, encouraging them to reduce service standards, and making them less
appealing to philanthropic supporters.12
Shergold also noted that representatives from social enterprises who attended his focus
groups raised their own concerns about relationships with philanthropy and government.
Some suggested that public service agencies focused too much on how not-for-profit
resources could be used to subsidise the cost of government programs. Others complained
that when they took entrepreneurial actions, such as accessing new forms of philanthropy,
it made their relationships with government more complex and difficult.13 These issues will
presumably be considered by the new Community Sector Reform Council, announced by
the Minister for Community Services, Mental Health and Disability Services and Reform.
Method
Due to the philanthropic sector’s size, diversity, and varied approaches to giving and
reporting, we did not have the capacity to undertake a truly comprehensive scoping. This
would have meant looking at hundreds of organisations over several years, a task
complicated further by the fact that only a minority of trusts make the details of their giving
public. Instead, we have used the data that is publically available (mostly that of larger,
better-known foundations and trusts) to put together a general picture of recent
philanthropic support for initiatives to benefit Victorian young people.
To this end, we scoped the most recent reporting cycles of philanthropic bodies, based on
the list of members supplied by Philanthropy Australia, under the headings ‘Private Trusts
and Foundations’, ‘Businesses and Corporate Foundations’, ‘Community Foundations’,
‘Trustee Companies’, and ‘Government-Initiated & Statutory Bodies’. Here, we were looking
for grants designed to benefit young people in Victoria aged between 12 and 25 (with some
“It would also be good to review current options for State and Federal grants as well…in relation to the amount of funding available, which is limited, and the focus of funding.” “We have been looking to both corporate, philanthropic and government or sector organisations for funding to run additional projects and supplementary funding for continuing projects”.
- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services
8
flexibility, as some ‘youth’ grants target different age cohorts, such as 10-17 years). We did
not include private or family philanthropy, as these entities are much less likely to make
their details public, and are so numerous that it would be impractical to check them all.14
We took our information from published documents such as annual reports and reviews
from the last reporting round. In most instances, this meant the financial year 2012-13, but
some philanthropic bodies report on calendar years instead, and one gave their latest round
as 2011-12.
We also invited the youth sector to contribute their views through an online survey, which
had 46 responses. While this is a modest number, the questions were so specific that we
had not expected widespread uptake, and the qualitative responses received were so
detailed and thoughtful that they added considerably to our understanding of the field.
Findings
How many grants? How much money?
Given the diversity of philanthropic bodies, and their varied approaches to giving and
reporting, it is impossible to give a final figure for what they are contributing to the youth
sector. According to Philanthropy Australia, many donations, including to youth projects, are
never publically announced.15 However, from the available data, a broad picture does
emerge.
After surveying the members listed by Philanthropy Australia, we identified 43
philanthropic bodies or partnerships which, in their last reporting cycle, described
awarding grants to initiatives or organisations which were either youth-focused or had a
strong youth component, and which either focused on Victoria or had a national focus which
included working in Victoria.
These funding bodies represented 43 out of 188 trusts, foundations, trustee companies and
statutory bodies listed by Philanthropy Australia, meaning around a quarter of
philanthropic bodies allocated grants to benefit Victorian young people during their
last reporting round. These 43 philanthropic bodies ranged from very large national
foundations to small, locally-based funds.16 As not all philanthropic bodies list their
contributions publically, the real rate of contribution to youth projects may be higher.
9
The total number of grants shown to be allocated to initiatives with a strong youth
component, operating in Victoria or nationally with a Victorian component, was 338 grants
from 43 philanthropic bodies or partnerships to 234 recipients.
Not all of these philanthropic bodies specified the amounts they granted. In addition, grants
may be allocated for expenditure over different periods of time, so citing a dollar figure for
any one year is difficult. We identified 30 philanthropic bodies or partnerships which
specified the amounts they had allocated; this covered 252 out of the 338 grants delivered
to youth initiatives. Across these, $14,490,238 was allocated to initiatives with a strong
youth component, operating in Victoria or nationally with a Victorian component.
The amounts allocated to youth initiatives vary tremendously. In the above grants rounds,
the smallest grant listed was $500 for a donation to a school. The largest was over $3
million to develop the Youth Health Research Centre in partnership with Orygen, University
of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, to support young people with mental illness.
However, on the whole, most grants allocated to Victorian youth initiatives during the last
reporting round were relatively small. The most common funding bracket (encompassing
45% of grants allocated) was for grants between $5,001 and $20,000 (see following
graph). The rarest grants allocated were those between $50,000 and $100,000.
To some extent, this reflects what youth services are applying for. In our survey of youth
services, we asked them what sized grants they had applied for during the last twelve
months. The most common funding bracket selected (representing over a third of the grants
the respondents had applied for) was between $5,001 – 20,000. The next most common
bracket (representing around a quarter of applications) was between $0 – 5,000. Very few
respondents had applied for grants of over $100,000.
Thus, in most cases philanthropic grants to youth initiatives could not fund a whole
organisation or a large, long-term program, unless additional funds were accessed from
elsewhere. According to the Productivity Commission’s 2010 report Contribution of the Not-
for-Profit Sector, Australian not-for-profits in general tend to access only 0.4% of their
funding through donations from philanthropic trusts and foundations.17
10
Where does the funding come from?
Many philanthropic bodies fund initiatives to benefit young people, but there is no universal
approach to this. Focusing only on philanthropic bodies which deliver ‘youth grants streams’
would not give an accurate picture, for only a minority actually take this approach. Instead,
we have identified the following ways that philanthropic bodies engage in the youth space:
Focusing the entire philanthropic body on helping disadvantaged young Victorians.
Only the Newsboys Foundation seems to do this, defining youth as aged 11-18.
Prioritising vulnerable young people as a key group to help through grant-giving in
general. This approach is taken, for example, by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable
Foundation.
Funding youth initiatives through grants streams which have a broader focus, such
as community development, wellbeing, capacity-building, the arts, environment, or
rural communities.
25
15
57
113
42
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Over $100,000
$50,001 - $100,000
$20,001 - $50,000
$5,001 - $20,000
Up to $5,000
What sized grants were delivered by philanthropic bodies to Victorian youth initiatives in the last round?
(Based on scoping of reports by philanthropic bodies)
Number of grants to youthinitiatives - out of 252 grantswhere funding was identified
11
Funding youth initiatives through grants rounds which have a youth-related theme.
These grants rounds often roll ‘youth’ in with ‘children’, and / or with ‘education’. For
example:
o Some grant streams focus on children and young people at risk – see R.E.
Ross Trust and Gandel Philanthropy
o Some grant streams focus on Victorian children and young people – see Jack
Brockhoff Foundation and Equity Trustees
o Some streams work Australia-wide, focusing on vulnerable young people –
see Coca-Cola Australia Foundation
o Some streams work Australia-wide and focus on the under-18s – see St
George Foundation
o Some streams have an Australia-wide focus on rural young people – see the
Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal’s Heywire Youth Innovation
Grants
o Some have an Australia-wide focus on education – see Ian Potter Foundation,
Macquarie Group Foundations, Gandel Philanthropy, the Myer Foundation
and Sydney Myer Fund
o Some have an Australia-wide focus on education in rural communities – see
the REAPing Rewards grants program (supported by a coalition of
philanthropic bodies)
o Some Victorian streams focus on education for women and girls – see
Invergowrie Foundation
Different philanthropic bodies commit different proportions of their resources to youth
initiatives. The following graph shows the percentage of total grants and total funds
delivered by philanthropic bodies to Victorian youth initiatives in their last reporting round,
as a proportion of their total giving. The mean level of commitment to youth initiatives was
29% of overall funds and 24% of overall grants. However, the field was very diverse, with
levels of commitment ranging from 4% of 100%.
“Often very little flexibility and tight criteria for philanthropic funds. We often look for funds to deal with emerging youth issues and projects which are not often specified in philanthropic grants”.
- Response to YACVic survey of 46 youth services
12
0 50 100 150
Commonwealth Bank Staff Community Fund
Border Trust Community Foundation Albury…
Geelong Community Foundation
Victorian Women's Trust
Colonial Foundation Limited
AMP Foundation
Helen Macpherson Smith Trust
Invergowrie Foundation
Gardiner Foundation
Seeds of Renewal (FRRR)
Give Where You Live
McEwan Foundation (Goulburn Valley)
Alfred Felton Bequest - small grants
STEPS Program (FRRR - Victorian bushfires)
William Buckland Foundation
Reichstein Foundation
Mirboo North & District Community Foundation
Inner North Community Foundation
Telematics Trust
Tomorrow: Today (Benalla)
Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation
Grants for Resilience & Wellness (FRRR)
ANZ Trustees
Victoria Law Foundation
Harold Mitchell Foundation
IOOF Foundation
MLC Community Foundation
Westpac Foundation
Telstra Foundation
St George Foundation
Macquarie Group Foundation
Newsboys Foundation
Ian Potter Foundation
RE Ross Trust
Heywire Youth Innovation (FRRR)
REAPing Rewards
Jack Brockhoff Foundation
Coca-Cola Australia Foundation
Equity Trustees - Children & Youth
Gandel Philanthropy
Sydney Myer Fund
Myer Foundation
%
What % of thisfoundation'sfunds went toVictorian youthinitiatives in thelast round(where known)?
What % of thisfoundation'sgrants went toVictorian youthinitiatives in thelast round(where known)?
13
There is no single, consistent ‘Victorian youth’ area of the philanthropic sector. Youth
services look to a wide variety of grants rounds for assistance, and can expect different
levels of interest from different funding bodies.
Where do the grants go?
Not all philanthropic bodies report on which Victorian communities will benefit from the
grants they allocate. However, we identified 208 grants (out of 338) where a location for
delivery was indicated during the last reporting round.
58% of the locations listed were in Melbourne. Of the grants allocated to rural or regional
projects, the largest number were in Barwon south-west, and then in north-eastern Victoria.
Most of the Barwon grants went to initiatives operating in or near Geelong; the second
highest number went to Warrnambool. In the north-east, most of the grants were allocated
fairly evenly between the regional cities of Wodonga, Wangaratta, Benalla and Shepparton.
Meanwhile, our survey of youth services found that 53% of the 62 grants received across all
the respondents went to organisations working in Melbourne. 39% went to organisations
working in rural or regional areas, and 8% to organisations working state-wide. While the
sample size was small, it’s interesting to see how closely it resembles the findings of our
wider scope of philanthropic reporting.
9
9
11
24
34
121
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Loddon Mallee
Grampians
Gippsland
Hume
Barwon south-west
Melbourne
Which Victorian locations received philanthropic grants, during the last funding round?
Based on scoping of reports by philanthropic bodies
Grants where the location fordelivery was identified - 208grants
14
Around three quarters of Victoria’s young people live in Melbourne,18 so it’s unsurprising
that the majority of philanthropic grants would be allocated there. In fact, regional and rural
applicants seem to be accessing quite a high percentage of grants relative to their
population levels. This reflects the enthusiasm of many philanthropic bodies for assisting
rural communities, believing that their money will go further there and have a clearer
impact.19 It is also suggestive of the higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage in rural /
regional areas (which, again, might command more philanthropic intervention), and their
relatively poor access to publically-funded services.
At the same time, charities and services must be ‘on the ground’ to apply for philanthropic
money in the first place, with sufficient resources to do so. In our scoping of philanthropic
reports from the last funding round, we found that most grants allocated outside of
Melbourne went to initiatives based in regional cities, where services tend to accumulate.
The smallest numbers of grants went to the Loddon Mallee and Grampians regions.
Numbers in Gippsland were also relatively low. (The low numbers in the Loddon Mallee and
Grampians were mirrored, on a small scale, in the responses to our youth sector survey.)
This is interesting given that these regions have relatively high levels of disadvantage. The
Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage ranks
Victoria’s 79 LGAs by disadvantage, where 1 indicates the highest levels of vulnerability.
Loddon Mallee contains LGAs ranked 2, 4, 12, and 13; Gippsland contains LGAs ranked 8,
15 and 26.20
Of the grants allocated to Melbourne, the largest number appeared to go to relatively ‘inner’
suburbs (a 20 minute drive or less from the CBD). The second highest number of grants
went to suburbs in Melbourne’s south-east – eg Frankston, Dandenong – although the
spread was relatively even. The smallest numbers of metropolitan grants where the location
was indicated went to communities in Melbourne’s east – eg Box Hill, Ringwood.
Our survey of youth sector representatives also showed that most grants delivered in
Melbourne went to organisations based in the inner suburbs.
In some ways it is surprising that youth projects in interface suburbs of Melbourne have
attracted so little philanthropic giving in recent months. Young people are especially
15
prominent in these suburbs; if 10-24 year olds represent 20% of Victoria’s overall
population, they represent 23% of the population in Hume, 22% in Casey and 21% in
Melton and the Yarra Ranges.21 According to the ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic
Disadvantage, Melbourne’s interface suburbs also show higher than average levels of
vulnerability. Hume ranks 16 out of 79, for example, while Greater Dandenong ranks 1.22
The lull in philanthropic funding to the interface may have occurred following the work done
between 2006-10 through the Melbourne Community Foundation’s MacroMelbourne
project. MacroMelbourne aimed to build and coordinate philanthropic and business support
for communities in Melbourne’s interface suburbs, and raised over $1M to support projects
in six growth areas during 2009-10.23 We might speculate that by 2012-13 some
philanthropic bodies wished to shift their attentions elsewhere.
In conversation with our members, we were also reminded that due to high levels of
disadvantage in some interface suburbs, and relatively scarce infrastructure, services may
feel under so much pressure to deliver core outputs that applying for short-term
philanthropic projects may not be a priority. In addition, some suburbs are so new that
services may not be certain what the population needs or wants yet – the demographic
details are still coming together, making funding applications hard to substantiate.
What were the very large grants for?
During the last philanthropic funding round, very large grants of over $100,000 were
allocated to Victorian programs and partnerships in the following areas:
Assisting very vulnerable young people, such as those in out-of-home care,
homelessness, or sex work – 5 grants
Supporting literacy and school engagement – 4 grants
Inspiring and mentoring young people in schools – 3 grants
“We have approximately 1000 visits per month from young people and we receive no general youth funding – over 50% of the work we do is unfunded.” “We need funds for staff to do/coordinate/oversee the work and funds for brokerage to support young people with study, computers, sports equipment etc. But mostly it’s staffing.”
- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services
16
Building or supporting youth social enterprises – 2 grants
One large grant was delivered to each of the following topic areas:
Building an online platform for youth service delivery
Coaching talented young musicians
A volunteering and social action program for young people, culminating in a year’s
volunteering overseas
Adapting a successful American program for addressing adolescent violence in the
home
Support for a grants program (inter-philanthropic donation)
Integrating government funding sources supporting education and employment for
vulnerable young people
Six of the grants of over $100,000 went to organisations based in the inner suburbs of
Melbourne. Five were allocated to rural or regional communities: Ballarat, Bendigo, Benalla,
the Yarra Valley and Churchill; another was to support a series of grants to rural Australian
communities. The locations for the other grants were not stated, but a number of the
recipient organisations work across multiple locations.
None of the recipients of very large grants were identified as based in Melbourne’s interface
suburbs.
What were the very small grants for?
Based on our scoping of the most recent funding rounds of philanthropic bodies, it appears
that very small grants – of $5,000 or less – were allocated to support youth initiatives in the
following areas:
Life skills for young people, such as healthy eating, parenting, studying, suicide
prevention, work readiness, and getting a drivers’ license – 7 grants
Income distribution or core support to an organisation – 6 grants
Purchase of equipment, such as theatre equipment, a mini-bus, baby mannikins for a
sexual education program, vocational equipment, sporting gear, and a trailer – 6
grants
17
Development of educational videos or websites – 3 grants
Training for young people in fashion, textiles, beauty and retail – 3 grants
Scholarships for individual students – 2 grants
Leadership or inspiration programs for young people – 2 grants
Arts- or adventure-based activities for young people – 2 grants
A fundraising pack of young social entrepreneurs – 1 grant
It is sometimes assumed that youth initiatives will use small grants to purchase equipment.
However, the above figures suggest this is not necessarily the case. Many of these grants
were used to support work which could be larger or long term.
The majority of recipients of very small grants (where locations were specified) were in rural
or regional communities: Ararat, Shepparton, Boolarra, Lake Bolac, Benalla, Robinvale,
Sale, Eastern Park, Kyabram, Sea Lake, and the Mallee and Upper Murray districts. Three
small grants went to organisations based in interface suburbs of Melbourne (Whittlesea,
Meadow Heights, Mornington Peninsula), and two went to organisations based in
Melbourne’s inner suburbs. Two grants went to organisations which work across several
metropolitan and rural locations, and two were for online platforms.
Our survey of youth sector representatives seemed to echo these findings. Altogether the
respondents had applied for 45 grants of $5,000 or less, and 71% of these applications
were made by organisations based in rural or regional Victoria.
Thus, different parts of Victoria do not fare equally when it comes to the size of
philanthropic grants accessed, or perhaps applied for. Very small grants are associated
with smaller rural communities, and to some extent with interface suburbs. Very large
grants are associated with inner suburbs and regional centres.
“The philanthropic grants that we have received have enabled us to source additional funds to keep some of our projects going into the future. … e.g. our Kitchen Garden project - once the garden beds were built we can keep the project going via our core funding”. “Philanthropic grants we've received have been very small, so they are used to supplement an existing program, for example, to run a camp for participants in our Aboriginal youth program.”
- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services
18
What about multiple grants?
Applying for philanthropic grants is not always a simple process of approaching and
working with one funding body. In our scoping of reporting by philanthropic bodies during
their last funding round, we found that of the 234 organisations which received philanthropic
funding to work with young people, 63 (or 27%) received more than one grant, from
different funding bodies.
As the amounts of funding delivered were not always stated, it is difficult to determine the
relationship between how many grants a youth initiative receives and how much funding
they have to work with overall. However, we can make a few suggestions.
In almost a third of cases (18 out of 63), when an organisation accessed more than one
grant, the grants would be within $20,000 of each other. For example, an organisation
might receive one grant worth $20,000 and another worth $30,000.
Accessing more than one grant does not necessarily mean that the successful organisation
will end up with an exceptionally high pool of funds overall. For example, one organisation
secured two grants to a total of approximately $20,000 overall. In contrast, another secured
two grants which added up to over $3 million.
0 10 20 30 40 50
7 grants received
6 grants received
5 grants received
4 grants received
3 grants received
2 grants received
How many grants were awarded per organisation in the last round?
Based on reports by philanthropic bodies
Number of organisationsawarded more than 1grant in the last round (63organisations overall)
19
Of the organisations that secured multiple grants, 19 were identified as operating in the
inner suburbs of Melbourne, 18 were in rural / regional communities, and 6 were in interface
suburbs. Others went to organisations working across multiple communities. Of the non-
metro recipients of multiple grants, most were based in regional centres. The smallest
community to receive more than one grant was Robinvale, which received three grants
adding up to a modest $35,470, plus a fourth which was unspecified but appeared modest
in its scope (supporting a school holiday program).
What sort of work gets funded?
Not all philanthropic bodies report in detail about the programs they are funding, and many
programs have a range of aims. However, based on our scoping of recent philanthropic
reporting, it appears:
By far the greatest number of grants went to projects supporting young people’s
engagement in education, training and employment.*
A significant number of grants went to programs to support young people who were
vulnerable to homelessness, poor health and / or violence.
A small but noteworthy number of grants went to arts projects, some focusing on
achievement and excellence by young artists, others aiming to boost young people’s
engagement and wellbeing through the arts.
Other prominent areas included camps and outdoor adventure programs, youth
social enterprises, engaging young people through sport, scholarships for young
people, and support for young people to access school supplies and extra-curricular
activities.
Relatively few grants focused on professional development for workers or building a
stronger, integrated sector. Funding was also scarce for projects which focused on policy
development or advocacy. The main exception was advocacy to support young people in
nursing homes; this attracted comparatively strong philanthropic funding in the last round.
Other areas which received very few grants concerned young volunteers, and young
people’s roles as civic participants and community leaders.
* In a conversation with Philanthropy Australia and Our Community, they confirmed that educational engagement has been a very popular area for philanthropic work for some time.
20
2
17
65
7
6
16
17
20
11
2
2
9
16
15
36
8
12
4
5
5
1
2
4
2
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
12
0 20 40 60 80
Homework clubs
Health and wellbeing education for young people
Engagement in education, training, employment
Leadership and self-esteem programs for girls
Breakfast clubs and other food provision
School supplies & extra curricular activities
Camps and outdoor adventure programs
Arts to support engagement / wellbeing
Arts - supporting ambitious young artists
Purchase arts equipment
Supporting young environmental advocates
Advocacy around young people in nursing homes
Social enterprises
Online tools & platforms to support young people
Support for very vulnerable young people
Films & resources about rights & wellbeing
Sports-based wellbeing and life-skills programs
Purchase sporting equipment
Professional development / growing the sector
Media training for young people
Supporting young people suing Victoria Police
Supporting young volunteers
Young mothers' support groups
Training young people as trainers / presenters
Mental health research and treatment
Connecting young people to culture and country
Youth inspiration programs
Support for young people living with chronic illness
Young entrepenuers program
Youth first aid programs
Hobby farm for young people
Scholarships / bursaries
What were the grants used for? (Topic areas) Based on reports by philanthropic bodies
Number ofgrantsdelivered - outof 308 grantswhere a topicwas given
21
Which young people?
It can be difficult to state definitively which groups of young people will benefit from
philanthropic grants, as reporting is inconsistent. However, from the information provided, a
general picture does emerge (see the following graph).
A slight majority of grants went to initiatives aimed at young people who were vulnerable
and disadvantaged in a general sense. In practice, this must include young people in a
variety of circumstances. The second largest number of grants went to initiatives with a
more generalist focus, intended to benefit all young people or many different groups. The
third and fourth most popular categories were grants to benefit young people with
disabilities, and refugee or culturally diverse young people.
There were some groups of young people who appeared to attract relatively little
philanthropic funding, despite demonstrated levels of vulnerability. These included young
carers and same-sex attracted and gender-diverse young people. Given the prominence of
youth mental health as concern in Australia, it is also curious that relatively few grants went
to this area – although youth mental health did attract a couple of very large single grants.
Indigenous initiatives did not attract as many grants as might be expected either, given that
Aboriginal communities tend to have relatively young populations and high levels of
disadvantage. Most philanthropic grants to Indigenous initiatives focused on education,
skills and employment. While these are very important, we might speculate why programs
focused on health, culture and community did not attract more support.
Very few grants were targeted at young people as advocates or activists, either. Young
people who wish to engage in public or political debate, to influence change in their
communities, do not seem to access much philanthropic support. As many grants require
not only tax concession charity status but also deductable gift recipient status, they might
not be eligible. This shows the importance of grants such as the Engage! grants, funded by
the Victorian government to involve young people in community decision-making.
Our survey of youth service providers found that nearly half the respondents had also
applied for Victorian government grants in the last 12 months, most prominently the HEY
grants (for sexually- and gender-diverse young people), FReeZA and Engage!
22
5
16
4
13
3
21
13
16
70
13
33
4
3
10
4
2
1
1
75
13
0 20 40 60 80
Young advocates / volunteers
Indigenous young people
Young parents
Young women (specific)
Young men (specific)
Refugee / CALD young people
Homeless young people
Young people with poor mentalhealth
Young people in general
Young people in the justice system
Young people with a disability
Young entrepenuers
Young people with serious illness
Talented students in financial need
Young people in out-of-home care
Violent young people
Young carers
GLBTIQ young people
General vulnerability / disadvantage
Young artists
Number of grants
When grants were delivered for youth initiatives, which cohorts of young people were they aimed at?
Based on reports by philanthropic bodies
Number of grantsdelivered, out of 320grants where thetarget cohort ofyoung people wasindicated
23
How easy is it to access philanthropic funding?
Competition for philanthropic grants can be intense. In their 2012-13 annual reports, these
philanthropic bodies reflected on the amount of applications they had received, and the
amount that were actually funded:
R.E. Ross Trust – 49% success rate
Helen Macpherson Smith Trust – 32% success rate
Foundation for Regional and Rural Renewal – 34% success rate
Telematics Trust – 20% success rate
Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust – 17% success rate
Victoria Law Foundation – 33% success rate for general grants, 57% success rate
for small grants
Ian Potter Foundation – 25% success rate.24
In our survey of youth sector representatives, we compared the number of applications for
grants submitted with the number of successes reported and found a success rate of
around 31%. While based on a small sample, this resembles the above figures recorded by
philanthropic bodies.
In our survey of youth sector representatives, we also found that those who had Deductible
Gift Recipient (DGR) status were more likely to apply for philanthropic grants than those
who did not, or who were unsure of their status. Those with DGR status were also more
likely to successfully receive grants than those who did not, or who were unsure.
When we spoke with Philanthropy Australia and Our Community, they did not feel that
youth programs would necessarily have a lower success rate in accessing philanthropic
“Takes time to build relationship and going back more than once shows you really need/want it and believe in the project. As our programs are recreationally focussed, sometimes more high needs projects are prioritized so it just depends each time who we are up against.” “…very competitive and there is a view implied or otherwise that once you have had your 'turn' you cannot apply again for some time”.
- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services
24
funding than programs with working with different cohorts (although data is so limited it is
hard to be sure). However, they emphasised that youth services seeking funding would
nonetheless face challenges of high demand for philanthropic support, and sometimes a
disconnect between the aims of the youth service and what philanthropic bodies wish to
fund – for example pilot projects versus core organisational costs.
Thus, organisations seeking funding for youth programs must submit applications
(sometimes quite detailed) in the knowledge that it is unlikely that they will succeed. For
many, this means a loss of productivity, especially for smaller providers applying for multiple
grants. For some, the benefit of applying for smaller grants, in particular, can seem dubious
given the time and resources required.
Applicants for philanthropic funding have varying levels of capacity to begin with. In the
survey conducted by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation of their 2012 grant applicants,
applicants were asked to nominate their top capacity-building needs. These were
‘fundraising’ (52%), ‘staff development’ (37%), ‘program development’ (36%) and
‘partnership development’ (32%).25 These are areas which are not typically funded through
philanthropic grants, but where support from government and peak bodies is needed.
When we surveyed youth sector representatives, we asked them ‘In your organisation, is
grant-seeking a designated part of someone’s job?’ The most common response (in 49% of
cases) was ‘No, we apply for grants on top of our regular work’. This was followed by ‘Yes,
some of our team have grant-seeking as part of their position descriptions. They also do
other things’ (23%), then ‘Our CEO is responsible for grant applications’ (13%). Only 8%
ticked ‘Yes, we have a designated grants officer’, and 8% ticked ‘No, that's why we rarely
apply for grants!’ When we asked respondents ‘Is anything stopping you from accessing
more philanthropic funding?’, by the most common response was ‘It takes too much time
and resources to apply.’ See the following chart for details.
“Seeking funding takes time away from delivering the programs we are currently contracted to deliver. Whilst we would love to see more funding and pursue some of the terrific ideas we see developing locally, we are fully committed to our current programs. Unfortunately the core funding for our organisation is currently in jeopardy and we risk losing the programs built over the past ten years”.
- Response to YACVic survey of 46 youth services
25
1
22
5
20
10
10
13
11
0
5
3
1
0
0 10 20 30
We have sufficient funds already; wedon't need more
It takes too much time and resourcesto apply
Philanthropic bodies don't like to fundthe kind of projects we work on
We don't want new pilots or short-term projects; it's our long-term work
that needs support
Application and reporting processesare too complex
Our organisation is not eligible for alot of grants
The amounts of funding available aretoo small; it's not worth the effort
We aren't sure which philanthropicsare best to approach
We need help to apply for grants
The chances of success are too slim;it's not worth the effort
It's easier to access funding throughgovernment grant rounds
It's easier to leverage businesssponsorship
We have philosophical objections toseeking grants - our work should be
tax-payer funded
Number of responses
Is anything stopping youth services from accessing more philanthropic funding?
(Based on survey responses from 34 services)
'Is anythingstopping you fromaccessing morephilanthropicfunding?' - Weposed 13 possibleanswers to thisquestion, andrespondents couldselect as many asthey liked. 34services answeredthe question.
26
0
16
4
15
11
24
17
12
14
0 10 20 30
No, we don't want to accessmore philanthropic funding
More help to identify grantsrounds
More help to write applications
Clearer information about whatphilanthropic bodies want and
how they work
Simpler reporting processes
More education ofphilanthropic bodies about the
key issues affecting youngpeople
Increased staffing capacity atmy organisation, to apply for
grants
Better communication betweenphilanthropic bodies and
government
A change in what kind ofprojects philanthropics are
willing to fund
Number of responses
Would any of these factors make it easier to successfully leverage philanthropic funding?
(Based on survey responses from 36 services)
Would any of thesefactors make it easier foryou to successfullyleverage philanthropicfunding?' - We posed 9possible answers to thisquestion, andrespondents could selectas many as they liked. 36services answered thequestion.
27
One of the biggest challenges faced by community organisations when accessing
philanthropic grants is what to do when the funding runs out. Comments from youth service
providers who answered our survey hint at the complexities and frustrations of trying to
access multiple sources of funding and plan the future of projects which have no recurrent
resourcing. For example:
- “We continue to seek further funding from philanthropic bodies and the government.
We do have to end some programs when funding runs out.”
- “Yes [we have plans to continue our work] - all grant funding is applied for with an
expectation that it can be made sustainable into the future”.
- “Resources in our core budget have been directed toward continuing a program
initiated with philanthropic grant funding.”
- “We commenced projects as pilots. if we did not receive further funding to cobble
them together to extend programs we either terminated them at the end of the pilot
or if possible we integrated aspects of the pilot into other areas of work. Continuity
and local credibility of service delivery is compromised when pilots which prove to be
effective cannot be continued. [H]aving to cobble together bits and pieces of funding
to meet clearly evident needs results in onerous tasks for already very busy staff
who are working to achieve clear outputs.”
- “Some projects/activities have been supported by philanthropic funding for long
enough (a couple of years) to become sustainable within the community. Some
projects/activities cease. Our biggest concern currently is that the philanthropic
funding for our positions (staff) and entire programs has been greatly reduced and
unless we find an alternative we may need to start closing down some of our
services.
Future directions
In conversation with Philanthropy Australia, they emphasised the importance of strong
communication between government, community organisations and the philanthropic
sector; conversations which go beyond ‘What can we get philanthropy to pay for?’ and
28
engage all players in strategic planning, preferably through a collective impact approach.
They stressed the useful role that could be played by YACVic and the Victorian
Government Office for Youth, in collaboration with Philanthropy Australia, in facilitating
conversations about how to coordinate philanthropic giving, and providing the content,
evidence base and strategic lead to support stronger outcomes in the youth space.
An emphasis on the importance of partnership and the need for coordinated approaches to
seeking and distributing philanthropic funding also came across strongly in the responses to
our survey from Victorian youth services. So did the need for better communication with the
philanthropic sector about young people’s issues and what the youth sector needs, and
better information for youth services about viable grants rounds and what philanthropic
funders are really looking for, as well as better communication between philanthropic
bodies and government. Comments included:
- “Building & supporting partnerships with stakeholders in our large rural region is crucial
to the continued work of our organisation to address service gaps & barriers to rural
youth. Reducing competition for funds & avoiding duplication via an integrated
approach based on evidence & youth participation is the approach being adopted by
our organisation in partnerships with regional stakeholders and rural youth.”
- “Would love to have more communication and less 'one size fits all' approach to the
whole funding situation.”
- “Funding bodies often talk to addressing the social issues of family violence, food
security, homelessness etc which are wicked problems. A joined up philanthropic effort
to tackle these rather than isolated pockets of money that fizzle out after 2 years is
required if we are going to make any significant changes”.
- “We are often frustrated that grants are given to projects which are not strategic and are
short term in nature. [F]unding partnership approaches would be a good idea which
[should] fit into regional strategy not ad hoc giving”.
- “The issue which our organisation has had with Philanthropists, is that they don't take
into account programs that follow an evidence base. They are looking for 'sexy' (as they
put it), innovative, cutting edge programs. Because most philanthropist are from a
29
business background, they're criteria is based on business … They are very unlikely to
fund a program which has 'copied' another.”
- “A more co-ordinated approach to the system of philanthropic funding would definitely
be beneficial to the youth sector.”
In conversation with Our Community, they also stressed the need for funders and
applicants to have better access to, and make better use of, clear coordinated data.
Recommendations to government
1. When promoting Victorian Government youth grants, ensure that promotional
material indicates the approximate chances of an applicant’s success, for example
by quoting the applicant success rate in the previous round. Through the Youth
Partner Network and other forums with the philanthropic sector, advocate that
philanthropic bodies do likewise.
2. In collaboration with Philanthropy Australia, the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria and
other stakeholders such as the Australian Communities Foundation, bring together
philanthropic bodies and youth services in forums to identify key youth issues, the
priorities of philanthropic bodies and youth services, and how to identify and use a
strong evidence base. It might be advantageous to run these sessions in interface
suburbs, in light of their relatively poor access to philanthropic support.
3. Support the development of ethical systems for gathering and sharing data
concerning philanthropic investment, including needs analysis, identifying priority
areas, and forming effective partnerships. An example of this work is currently being
undertaken in western Sydney by Our Community, through their SmartyGrants online
grants management program.
4. Review the levels of funding for grants rounds delivered by the Victorian Government
to enhance young people’s community leadership and civic participation, such as
Engage! and the Youth Inclusion Grants, to ensure they have kept pace with
community growth and levels of demand. This is partly in recognition of the fact that
similar work is not usually funded by the philanthropic sector.
30
References
Alfred Felton Bequest, Report for the Year ended 30 June 2013,
http://www.anz.com.au/resources/4/e/4e66db0049aa446d804ca7c3936870f6/Felton2013A
nnualReport.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
AMP Foundation, 2013 Community Report,
https://www.amp.com.au/wps/portal/au/AMPAUMiniSite3C?vigurl=%2Fvgn-ext-
templating%2Fv%2Findex.jsp%3Fvgnextoid%3Dd9a4a17c612f1210VgnVCM10000083d20
d0aRCRD
ANZ Seeds of Renewal program, ‘Grants to sprout community projects,’
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/news/SeedsofRenewalgrants2013.php
ANZ Trustees, ‘Recent Grants’ January 2013 – December 2013 (grants delivered from ANZ
Trustees and ANZ Staff Foundation, http://www.anz.com.au/personal/private-bank-
trustees/trustees/granting/recent-grants/
Aussie Farmers Foundation, ‘2013 Granting Organisations,’
http://www.aussiefarmersfoundation.org.au/news/2013grants.php
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of
Enumeration Profiles’, for Victoria, Greater Melbourne, Melton, Casey, Yarra Ranges,
Hume http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/communityprofiles
Australian Communities Foundation, ‘MacroMelbourne,’ 2011,
http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/grantmaking/macromelbourne
Commonwealth Bank, ‘Community Grants 2013,’ https://www.commbank.com.au/about-
us/in-the-community/employee-giving/staff-community-fund/2013-recipients.html
Bass Coast Community Foundation, ‘Community Grants Program 2013’,
http://bccf.org.au/grants-and-scholarships/community-grants-program/
31
Rosalyn Black, ‘Classroom coalition: philanthropy and school education,’ Australian
Philanthropy, issue 7
http://philanthropywiki.org.au/upload/c/cc/AustralianPhilanthropy_Issue70_RosalynBlack.pd
f
Border Trust: The Community Foundation for the Albury Wodonga Region, ‘Summary of
Grant-Making 2005 to 2013,’
http://www.bordertrust.org.au/images/MASTER_SUMMARY_OF_ALL_GRANTS_2005_201
3.pdf
Coca-Cola Australia Foundation, ‘Who we’ve helped: grant recipients 2013,’
http://www.coca-colajourney.com.au/coca-cola-australia-foundation/who-weve-helped
Colonial Foundation Limited, Annual Report 2012,
http://www.colonialfoundation.org.au/assets/166/Files/Colonial%20Foundation%20Limited
%20Annual%20Report%202011-2012.pdf
Commonwealth Bank Staff Community Fund, ‘Community Grants: Victoria,’
https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/in-the-community/employee-giving/staff-
community-fund/2013-recipients.html
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD), Adolescent
Community Profiles 2010, Melbourne, 2011 – Gippsland, Eastern Metro, Loddon Mallee,
Northern Metro, Southern Metro, Western Metro
Equity Trustees, ‘Children and Youth Trusts: 2013 Grant Recipients’,
http://www.eqt.com.au/media/184418/children_and_youth_grant_recipients.pdf
Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, 2013 Annual Review,
http://annualreview.frrr.org.au/2013/year-review/chairmans-report/
FRRR ABC Heywire Youth Innovation Grants, inaugural recipients list,
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/news/Heywire_Innovation_Grant_Recipients_2013.php
32
Gandel Philanthropy, Annual Review 2012-13, http://gandelphilanthropy.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2013/03/Annual-Review-2012-13.pdf
Gardiner Foundation, ‘Working in Dairy Communities,’ outcomes for 2013 round,
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/gardiner_grants.php
Geelong Community Foundation, ‘Grants Awarded in 2013’,
http://geelongfoundation.org/?page_id=997
Give Where You Live: Building a Better Geelong, ‘How We Make A Difference,’
https://givewhereyoulive.com.au/how-we-make-a-difference/
Grants for Resilience & Wellness, list of projects funded in round 3,
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/grants_for_resilience__wellness.php
Harold Mitchell Foundation, ‘News’, http://haroldmitchellfoundation.com.au/#!/news/
Jenny Harrow and Tobias Jung, ‘Philanthropy is Dead; Long Live Philanthropy?’ Public
Management Review, vol. 13 Issue 8, 2011
Helen Macpherson Smith Trust, Annual Report 2013, http://hmstrust.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/HMSTrust-Annual-Report-2013.pdf
Ian Potter Foundation, Annual Grants Report 2012-13,
http://www.potterfdnreport2013.org.au/
Inner North Community Foundation, Year in Review: 2011-12,
http://www.innernorthfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/Inner%20North%20Community%2
0Foundation%20Year%20in%20Review%202011%20-%202012.pdf
Invergowrie Foundation, ‘Chairman’s Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2013,’
http://www.invergowrie.org.au/report.html
IOOF Foundation, ‘Recent Grants FY 2013,’
http://www.ioof.com.au/iooffoundation/our_stories/recent_grants
33
Jack Brockhoff Foundation, ‘Grant Statistics: 2013 Grants Program,’
http://www.jackbrockhoff.org.au/recent-grants/grant-statistics/
Mark Kramer, Marcie Parkhurt, Lalitha Vaidyanathan, ‘Breakthroughs in Shared
Measurement and Social Impact’, FSG Social Impact Advisors, 2009
Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Grantee Perception Survey 2013,’
http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/grantee-perception-survey-2013
Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Helpful Hints for Grant Seekers’,
http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/helpful-hints-for-grantseekers
Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Past Grants Recipients: 2013 Grants Program’,
http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/past-grant-recipients
Macquarie Group Foundation, Annual Review 2012
http://static.macquarie.com/dafiles/Internet/mgl/shared/au-com/about/foundation/mgf-
news/annual-reports/docs/2012_macquarie_foundation_annual_report.pdf?v=1
Melbourne Community Foundation, ‘The MacroMelbourne Initiative 2010: Building Strong
Communities on the Urban Fringes of Melbourne,’ 2010,
http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/assets/MCF_project_update_brochure.pdf
McEwen Foundation Grants Program, ‘Grants for the Goulburn Valley District, Victoria,’
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/mcewen.php
Mirboo North and District Community Foundation, Annual Report 2013,
http://www.mirboodistrictfoundation.org.au/news/8-news/33-annual-reports
MLC Community Foundation, ‘Grant Recipients: Our Partners, 2013 and 2014 Social
Impact Grant Recipients,’
http://www.mlc.com.au/mlc/im_considering_mlc/personal/footer_tools/about_mlc/community
/mlc_community_foundation/grant_recipients__our_partners
34
Myer Foundation and Sydney Myer Fund, Annual Report 2012-13,
http://www.myerfoundation.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/00545.pdf
Newsboys Foundation, Annual Report 2012, http://newsboysfoundation.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/NFAR_2012_web.pdf
Origin Foundation, 2012 Annual Review,
http://www.originfoundation.com.au/sites/default/files/2012_OF_Annual_Review.pdf
Philanthropy Australia, Annual Report 2012 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-
us/annual-reports/
Philanthropy Australia, ‘A more giving Australia’: Philanthropy Australia’s Strategic Plan
2012-2014, 2012, p.8 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-us/strategic-plan/
Philanthropy Australia, ‘Who Are Our Members?’, http://www.philanthropy.org.au/join/who-
are-our-members/ (Accessed Feb 2014)
Productivity Commission, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Melbourne, 2010
R E Ross Trust, Annual Report 2012-2013, http://www.rosstrust.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/Ross-Trust-AR-2013_web-FINAL.pdf
Reichstein Foundation, Annual Report 2009-12, http://www.reichstein.org.au/
Rural Education Australia Program – REAPing Rewards, ‘Funded Projects: Round 2,’
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/rural_education_australia_program_-_reaping_rewards.php
Peter Shergold, Service Sector Reform: A roadmap for community and human services
reform: final report, Melbourne, July 2013
Small Grants for Rural Communities, ‘Successful Projects: Round 24,’
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/small_grants_for_small_communities.php
35
Sue Smyllie, Wendy Scaife and Katie McDonald, ‘That’s what governments do: Exploring
fundamental barriers to public–philanthropic interaction: The example of indigenous well-
being,’ Public Management Review, vol. 13 issue 8, 2011
Skills, Training, Engagement & Practical Support (STEPS),
http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/STEPS.php
St George Foundation, ‘Who We’ve Supported (2013),’
http://promos.stgeorge.com.au/stgeorgefoundation/supported.asp
Telematics Trust, A Year in Review 2013, http://www.telematics.org.au/
Telstra Foundation, ‘Everyone Connected Grants Program, September 2012,’
http://www.kidsfund.telstrafoundation.com/dir148/tfweb.nsf/FilesToLinkToLookup/everyonec
onnectedgrantrecipients/$FILE/Everyone%20Connected%20Grant%20recipients.pdf
Tomorrow Today: A Foundation for Rural Community Development, Annual Report
2012/2013,
http://www.tomorrowtoday.com.au/articles/401/pdf/Annual%20Report%202013.pdf
Victorian Government, Engage, Involve, Create: Youth Statement, Melbourne 2012
Victorian Government, ‘Youth Partner Network’,
http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/Government+Info+%26+Assistance/Youth+Partner+Net
work/
Victorian Government Office for the Community Sector, Guiding Principles for Collaboration
between Government and Philanthropy: Working together for a strong community sector,
2012, http://www.scanlonfoundation.org.au/docs/Guiding_Principles_Brochure_Jul_12.pdf
Victoria Law Foundation, Annual Report 2012-13,
http://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/images/stories/files/Annual%20Report%202012-
13%20FINAL%20web.pdf
Victorian Women’s Trust, ‘Recent Grants 2013-14’, http://vwt.org.au/vwbt/recent-grants/
36
Lynne Wannan AM, ‘Building Relationships between philanthropy and Government – the
Victorian Office of the Community Sector,’ Philanthropy Australia Melbourne Seminar:
‘Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Philanthropy,’ 22 September 2011
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDwQFjA
E&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhs.vic.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpowerpoint_doc%2
F0019%2F770014%2FBuilding-relationships-between-philanthropy-and-government-22-
Sept-Presentation-to-
PA.ppt&ei=mhMpU_X6EMXykAWx5oEY&usg=AFQjCNEMBU9eSQ4s1RBZoOsSD7XzHW
JH_w&sig2=1N3Lu8rP-dDkaH1jmpE1Rg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.dGI
Westpac Foundation, ‘Grant Recipients in 2013,’ http://www.westpac.com.au/about-
westpac/westpac-foundation/grants/grant-recipients-2013/
William Buckland Foundation, Annual Report 2013,
http://www.anz.com.au/resources/8/0/80b1e4804de2804da513e52860a727f7/20140114_B
ucklandAnnualReport.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
1 Victorian Government, Engage, Involve, Create: Youth Statement, Melbourne 2012, p.2
2 Philanthropy Australia, Annual Report 2012, p.4 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-us/annual-reports/
3 Philanthropy Australia, ‘A more giving Australia’: Philanthropy Australia’s Strategic Plan 2012-2014, 2012,
p.8 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-us/strategic-plan/ 4 Lynne Wannan AM, ‘Building Relationships between philanthropy and Government – the Victorian Office of
the Community Sector,’ Philanthropy Australia Melbourne Seminar: ‘Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Philanthropy,’ 22 September 2011 http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhs.vic.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpowerpoint_doc%2F0019%2F770014%2FBuilding-relationships-between-philanthropy-and-government-22-Sept-Presentation-to-PA.ppt&ei=mhMpU_X6EMXykAWx5oEY&usg=AFQjCNEMBU9eSQ4s1RBZoOsSD7XzHWJH_w&sig2=1N3Lu8rP-dDkaH1jmpE1Rg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.dGI 5 Rosalyn Black, ‘Classroom coalition: philanthropy and school education,’ Australian Philanthropy, issue 7,
pp.3-4 6 Sue Smyllie, Wendy Scaife and Katie McDonald, ‘That’s what governments do: Exploring fundamental
barriers to public–philanthropic interaction: The example of indigenous well-being,’ Public Management Review, vol. 13 issue 8 2011, pp.1141-45 7 Jenny Harrow and Tobias Jung, ‘Philanthropy is Dead; Long Live Philanthropy?’ Public Management Review
Vol. 13 Issue 8 2011, p.1049 8 Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Grantee Perception Survey 2013,’ http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-
grants-program-2/grantee-perception-survey-2013 9 Victorian Government, Engage, Involve, Create, pp.19-20
10 Victorian Government, ‘Youth Partner Network’,
http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/Government+Info+%26+Assistance/Youth+Partner+Network/ 11
Victorian Government Office for the Community Sector, Guiding Principles for Collaboration between Government and Philanthropy: Working together for a strong community sector, 2012, http://www.scanlonfoundation.org.au/docs/Guiding_Principles_Brochure_Jul_12.pdf 12
Peter Shergold, Service Sector Reform: A roadmap for community and human services reform: final report, Melbourne, July 2013, p.27
37
13
Peter Shergold, Service Sector Reform: A roadmap for community and human services reform: final report, Melbourne, July 2013, p.36 14
Philanthropy Australia, ‘Who Are Our Members?’, http://www.philanthropy.org.au/join/who-are-our-members/ (Accessed Feb 2014) 15
Conversation with Philanthropy Australia 16
Philanthropy Australia, ‘Who Are Our Members?’, http://www.philanthropy.org.au/join/who-are-our-members/ (Accessed Feb 2014) 17
Productivity Commission, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Melbourne, 2010, p.72 18
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) , ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of Enumeration Profile: Victoria’, http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/2?opendocument&navpos=220 ; ABS, ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of Enumeration Profile: Greater Melbourne,’ http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/2GMEL?opendocument&navpos=230 19
Conversation with Philanthropy Australia 20
Victorian Government Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD), Adolescent Community Profiles 2010: Gippsland, Melbourne, 2011, p.3; DEECD, Adolescent Community Profiles 2010: Loddon Mallee, Melbourne, 2011, p.3 21
ABS, ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of Enumeration Profiles’: Melton, Casey, Yarra Ranges, Hume’ 22
DEECD, Adolescent Community Profiles 2010: Eastern Metro, Northern Metro, Southern Metro, Western Metro 23
Australian Communities Foundation, ‘MacroMelbourne,’ 2011, http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/grantmaking/macromelbourne; Melbourne Community Foundation, ‘The MacroMelbourne Initiative 2010: Building Strong Communities on the Urban Fringes of Melbourne,’ 2010, http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/assets/MCF_project_update_brochure.pdf 24
Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, 2013 Annual Review, http://annualreview.frrr.org.au/2013/year-review/chairmans-report/ ; Helen Macpherson Smith Trust, Annual Report, 2013, p.5; Ian Potter Foundation, Annual Grants Report 2012-13, http://www.potterfdnreport2013.org.au/ ; Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Helpful Hints for Grant Seekers’, http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/helpful-hints-for-grantseekers and ‘Past Grants Recipients: 2013 Grants Program’, http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/past-grant-recipients; RE Ross – find reference online ; Telematics Trust, A Year in Review 2013, p.3; Victoria Law Foundation, Annual Report 2012-13, p.23 http://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/images/stories/files/Annual%20Report%202012-13%20FINAL%20web.pdf 25
Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Grantee Perception Survey 2013,’ http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/grantee-perception-survey-2013